English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

39 answers

Nope... its ALL corporate greed... Every essential need should just be handed out to anyone who is in the country at the time. All grocery stores should just give the products right off the shelf.. those greedy stores... with holding food from hungry people... that goes for the restaurants too. Clothing stores should give it all away along with electricity and heating oil. Housing as well come to think of it. Can you argue that these things are not just as much if not more essential than health care? It should just all be given away according to your reasoning. I'll post the question to see what others think.

2007-08-16 18:13:56 · answer #1 · answered by Mr. Perfect 5 · 7 6

greed _and_ ignorance. just to respond to a few of the banalities being bandied:
1/ if everyone just operated on greed, we WOULD have UHC. the costs of not providing it are enormous. the dollar costs and the social costs. of not providing the lazy do-nothing with it: sure, it sucks, but it sucks worse that ER visits are the norm for those folks, and that they are more unhealthy due to lack of care, so the dollar costs are very high. the VT shooter needed mental health coverage. he had been committed, but only stayed a short time due to lack of coverage; the social cost is high. just like not providing drug programs to addicts; if you take away the reason the junky mugs granny, granny doesn't get mugged. the only ones profiting by this ignorance are those mega-medical corporations and the AMA. they are strong lobbies, and have their people in place spouting the "evils" of health coverage. likewise, the profits are kept high for illegal drugs by the economics of the black market, so the last ones who really want to end the war on drugs are the kingpins and the law enforcement/incarceration industry. but the average person thinks giving a junky a fix is really dumb, and there is a ton of propaganda out there reinforcing that view.
2/ universal health care is NOT worse than what we have. in addition to being able to pay for it cheaper if it's done right (we already pay for it, we just don't receive it,) the health care is BETTER. argue this all you want with half-truths. if you talk to folks from canada, france, sweden, etc, you will learn that if you have a life-threatening illness, you do NOT wait a year and die. that is the most ridiculous

2007-08-16 19:04:27 · answer #2 · answered by spore 3 · 2 0

Corporate greed and a gullible public that swallows conservative talking points are the two main reasons that America does not have universal health care. Making the U.S. a single-payer system would automatically cut about one-third in operating costs due to the overhead and profit charged by insurance companies. Having government fund health care would not change the way health care is practiced; instead of collecting money from patients or from an insurance company, physicians would be collecting money from the government. Too many Americans are frightened by the words "socialism" or "socialized health care" without having a clue how universal health care works.

Here is a good link:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#socialized

2007-08-16 19:33:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5 1

Yes, because corporate greed has got every anti universal health care advocate firmly where they want them, believing in universal one size fits all individual responsibility while ignoring that people are individuals that have different values, different ways of dealing with things and different amounts of money that people make.

That is why the anti universal health care nut is just plain stupid and would rather die for the fat cat then give an inch to someone in need.

They'll even continue to believe their own crap even when faced with a bankruptcy because their insurance ran out.

That is why this country will never have anything close to universal health care that the rest of the world that can afford it has.

Peace

Jim

.

2007-08-16 18:26:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

a million. I even have on no account heard of every person.... every person submitting financial disaster entirely because of the fact of scientific expenditures.... ever.... please teach me a case of this going on. 2. you're good by employing regulation they're dealt with, in maximum centers the fees are positioned on the folk who've coverage. In different centers the fees are positioned to the taxpayers. that is what makes it high priced. If we are procuring wellness guard each and every man or woman does no longer or no longer that is extra high priced? 3. the load of wellness care has been positioned on employers because of the fact human beings refuse to realize wellness care is their accountability and that they could get coverage whether their company does no longer grant it- inner maximum policies artwork very properly. i do no longer think of u . s . a . could have primary wellness care coverage.

2016-10-10 09:57:38 · answer #5 · answered by federica 4 · 0 0

No, greed is basically what it's about. The government mismanages our money and doesn't provide one. It is true Europeans are taxed on 40 to 50 percent of what their gross salaries are. Most countries that have it do not enjoy single family homes and such. We have pretty good lifestyle and pay about roughly 30 percent. If we are going to have health care , our taxes will probably be raised. They would not need to raise as much if they would manage the money they are already given, cut out the corruptness. But you know how that goes !

2007-08-16 18:14:29 · answer #6 · answered by Mildred S 6 · 4 2

The Fed's can't properly administer Medicare, how can they take on Universal Health Coverage?

2007-08-16 23:05:56 · answer #7 · answered by jimmymae2000 7 · 0 1

With the money you are spending on high speed internet access you could buy some insurance. Aside from that the constitution states very clearly what Congress is supposed to do and health care is not on the list.

Artical 1 Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The 10th ammendment states that anything not listed here is up th the states to provide or to the people to provide for themselves.

Does this answer your question?

2007-08-16 18:43:00 · answer #8 · answered by cashcobra_99 5 · 1 2

For several reasons:
A. Our good socialist neighbor to the north(Canada) has tried this. And guess what? It has failed. Most Canadians come to the U.S. to get medical procedures done because of the tremendous amount of time they have to wait, and in most cases, most can't wait a year to get an imminent surgery.

B. Quality would go down-With everyone getting healthcare, lines would be draconian, and you would be waiting months to get a possibly life-saving surgery which you need immediatley. Not only that, the way and the overall quality of the medical field would dissolve. Our system is excellent because it is funded by AMERICANS, not our government.

C. Wouldn't be fair-Everyone would get health care. Then people could do whatever they want. And also, reckless people or winos or whoever would take advantage of the system and vast amounts of money would go down the drain. With our system, it teaches people to be RESPONSIBLE.

BTW, taxes would skyrocket for average Americans as we would have to pick up the tab for other people. That would be unfair as well. And bog us down even more in debt.

There.

2007-08-16 18:22:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 5

There is one other reason. Those who are able to afford better insurance have the satisfaction of knowing that, even though they pay more and get less, they won't be contributing to a system that allows EVERYONE access to complete medical care. They have the satisfaction of knowing that those who can't afford coverage, will suffer and/or die.

And that's exactly what many of the "have's" want.

America... a great country? Well, in some respects, it barely makes it to the level of "a perverse country". And some people are so emotionally/spiritually sick that no matter how much insurance they have, they're never going to get any better.

2007-08-16 18:45:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6 5

fedest.com, questions and answers