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

No..It's not socialism, it's just insurance against masssive medical bills. Exactly why won't it work? Is it because insurance doesn't work? It's a simple concept. Insurance pools have been around for centuries. The larger the pool, the less per each insured. A publicly owned non-profit corporation could easily cover everyone. Private insurance companies don't insure everyone. Seperate the INSURANCE from the CARE question. Would you rather have quality coverage at a low price or no coverage at any price if the CARE situation remained exactly the same as it is now...37th in the world?

2007-08-20 17:21:41 · 20 answers · asked by Noah H 7 in Politics & Government Politics

20 answers

You are perhaps the most uninformed individual in the United States. Universal Health Care is socialism. You can call it whatever you want, but the simple fact is that it is socialism. You want it, pay for it. Give me the option of opting out of it and paying my own way.

2007-08-20 17:32:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 5

You certainly got a few of the usual responses from those opposed to a universal health scheme and I can only say that your health insurance providers have done a wonderfull job in brainwashing so many of your people. How can you possibly have a system that spends a fortune promoting itself and paying lawyers to protect it from any claim it can get out of as opposed to a scheme that does not need to waste money on either and does not have to make huge profits to shareholders and enormous bonuses to C.E.O's.
A properly run universal system would win easily but it has to have a government that wants it to work but sadly that not where they get a lot of their campaign funds.
BTW it is a form of socialism but that is no more a dirty word than greedy capitalism. Yep and 37th is really good going for the wealthiest and strongest nation on earth. Not to mention the fact that you don't have such a good life expectancy.

2007-08-20 18:16:45 · answer #2 · answered by Ted T 5 · 2 0

You obviously dont know what you are talking about. First of all I never had a problem affording insurance my whole adult life. Sure it costs me more than a few years ago but that is life in the big city. Socilized medicine will put us in the same ranks as Canada where you need to wait 5 weeks before you can see a doctor if you are not bleeding to death. Also the way a program like this works is some people will have to contribute more than others for the same crappy care. And what would be the incentive for doctors to go into specialized medicine. It is a horrible idea just like social security was and now we are stuck with that crappy program.

2007-08-20 17:52:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Ummm....the dictionary told me that.

so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm): Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods or services is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Now, for universal healthcare the government will have to collect money for the care (taxation) and then control who gets to see whom for what when. And if people don't have to "pay" to see a doctor suddenly we'll have people lined up to get CAT scans because they have a headache. Which means that the natural market force of demand is suddenly through the roof without any way to control it. Supply is limited, but who cares? You can wait in line, after all it's "free"! Oh, except for the people who have to support all those who want to go to the emergency room when they get a paper cut. You can call it whatever you want, but socialized medicine is socialist. You're taking money from me (via the government) and using it to support someone else. If you truly think a publicly owned non-profit corporation could easily insure everyone than by all means, start it up. Just don't ask for a government handout when you're bankrupt.

2007-08-20 18:22:21 · answer #4 · answered by Bigsky_52 6 · 3 1

we've asked that a duplicate of the suitable bill be placed online, yet i think there is the phobia that in keeping with threat we ought to certainly study it. The 1008 website bill hit the table of the domicile clerk on June twenty 6th, presently earlier it became to acquire a floor vote. The bill-Waxman-Markey were notably replaced in committee the nighttime earlier, with a 300 website exchange added. Later interior the day because of fact the communicate more desirable, no longer even the clerk had the great amended reproduction. no person in Congress could have probable study it. Now here we pass back with additions being put in and others deleted, we nonetheless have not got an entire bill, however the Senate is to speed and vote on it. Makes one ask your self how we are able to enable a clumsy government be on top of problems with something, out on my own our very lives, with well being care. i might re-evaluate my place if I have been you and not be to speedy to hurry to judgment. I for one fee my freedom and am adversarial to government run well being care of any sort. mom is on Medicare and that's proscribed additionally my buddy. the cost is extra suitable than financial, have confidence me! ~

2016-10-08 22:47:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The rich can afford health care and the illegals and poor get free health care provided for them by the Government.
The only class of people who cannot afford coverage are the middle class and that's because they pay high taxes so the poor along with the illegals can get health coverage for free.
Now with Universal Health Care are the middle class going to be expected to pay even more in taxes so everybody else can get a free ride?
Because after all someone has to pay for it and if the rich escape paying high taxes and the poor pay very little and the illegals don't pay any then whose going to pay for it?
Do you really think the middle class can afford to pay enough in taxes to allow everyone free health coverage?
As far as I'm concerned they already get enough free handouts why do they deserve more?
Why should I be responsible for everyone else when no one could care less about me?
If I asked the Government for ANYTHING do you think they would help me if I needed it?
Absolutely not.
Why such a sense of entitlement?
If people want something then let them go out and work for it.
It's a free Country,we are free to either prosper or free to fail.
It's up to each and every one of us to decide what we want for our lives and not up to a certain class of people to take care of everybody else.

2007-08-20 17:51:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Get rich quick schemes in the capitalist business world, (buyouts, IPOs, conglomerates, acquisitions, mergers, and the stock market), do not actually work. Remaining solvent does not actually exist within false economics capitalism.

Profit existing in the capitalist business world, or millionaires existing within capitalism, is pathological deception committed by the 21 organizations spying on the public with plain clothes agents, (with covert fake names and fake backgrounds).

Actual economics involves the persons paying the monthly business loan payments of companies voting at work in order to control the property they are paying for.

Capitalism is the psychology of imaginary parents, false economics, and the criminal deception of employees that are paying the bills (including the stocks and bonds, or shares) of companies.

2007-08-24 07:00:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Compare health insurance, 2insure4less:
http://compactsource.info/rdnet/2insure4less/1

2007-08-22 10:23:02 · answer #8 · answered by tranprez 1 · 0 0

IN response to previous answers--being able to get some form of health coverage is better than none at all! Making sure our children can get their flu shots is important!

37th in the world. Pathetic.

2007-08-20 17:49:10 · answer #9 · answered by Giliathriel 4 · 2 1

I liked your answer to your own question. The level of discussion is often pathetic, but it helps to see something that makes sense.

I have a strategy that (1) gets our guys out of combat (but not out of Iraq) as soon as physically possible, (2) needs no withdrawal timetable, and (3) needs only a simple majority of the House.

If you are interested, send me your e-mail address. Thanks.

2007-08-22 22:31:11 · answer #10 · answered by marvinsussman@sbcglobal.net 6 · 0 0

Curious. I wonder how such a question exists when the definition of socialism is so clearly stated in the dictionary.

2007-08-20 17:41:28 · answer #11 · answered by Slug 3 · 5 0

fedest.com, questions and answers