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

9 answers

They should not have to. it is sad and I know from experience!!!!This question rings of pure truth.

2007-08-28 07:59:54 · answer #1 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 2 0

Health care in the U.S. is a business. The only concern is profit. It is a system designed to extract money from the average citizen and transfer it to the pharmaceutical companies. It's not set up to help people.
Now for those among us like pfo, social Darwinists who worked hard & attended the right schools, did all their homework on time, scored good grades, graduated from college and earned a high paying career all on their own initiative, bravo! Well done. Now you can afford to visit the doc. Why should you care about anyone else? They all had the same opportunities and failed to achieve. Let them fend for themselves. The impoverished are just a bunch of loosers who get what they deserve, right ? Why should anyone that's financialy secure help someone thats less fortunate ? That would be counter productive, right? Compasion and charity are for the weak & only the strong prevail, right? Survival of the richest. Whoever dies with the most money wins.

2007-08-29 14:59:51 · answer #2 · answered by SKYDOG 3 · 1 0

We shouldn't, however what are the options. I would enjoy a National from Canada or the likes of even France to join in on this topic of reform of healthcare with in the US. United Healthcare, or the likes of "free healthcare" is a dangerous subject to broach in the US at this point in time. Regulations in general on insurance have to be touched before installing a system of free to help out every person. Healthcare in the US is concidered a luxary, a working one. What they are trying to install more so is a working program to allow anyone with a job to obtain health care, hence the term "benefits". For children under the age of 18 there are programs that do provide free health care, for students there are systems that help pay and devise a discounted healthcare plan for them, with hoping that after graduation an employer will invest time and money into the system and help you as well, after retirement there are programs for those of senior status. Bases covered? Of course not-thats the social majority ruling. There are programs for those that are not in work, and based by state-no country mind you-you could be elidgable for any one of those programs. In order to so do-get in contact with your state representatives-and obtain a list. Instead of trying to hit a broad head, narrow your criteria down to statewide when it comes to seeing the "system as a failure"-after all it is where your nations start.

2007-08-28 15:05:07 · answer #3 · answered by Mohawk Mafioso 2 · 0 0

We all have to choose among scarce resources, and among the various ways in which we will create wealth, to enable ourselves to consume.

Far fewer "Americans" are choosing between health care and poverty than was the case a generation ago.

At least, if you define "Americans" as people born here.

And since we do not set economic policy in those countries from which so many poor people come here, it is not fair to define "Americans" otherwise.

The Census Bureau defines "Americans" to mean people living within our borders.

But about 20 million of those people are illegally here, cannot obtain health insurance solely for that reason, and most of them are also poor - or were when they came here.

And consider that there is just as much legal immigration from impoverished countries as there is illegal immigration.

And consider that the definition of "poverty" has changed a great deal over time and is different from the definition in other countries. Today's typical poor American owns his home, has cable tv, a cellphone, a PC..........

Life is good.

2007-08-28 14:54:05 · answer #4 · answered by truthisback 3 · 0 3

What suburb did Pfo crawl out of??

We have to choose because the CEO of Aetna needs to make a billion dollars this year. It's funny, my premiums keep going up, while my coverage gets worse, it covers less and less every year. No one should have to choose between paying the mortgage/rent or medication. This is the American Dream???

2007-08-28 15:48:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

The choice is not black and white! Education is FREE, if you take advantage of that and get a good job, then poverty is out of the picture. Then you can afford health care. If you made bad decisions in life, then you reap what you sow.

Are you implying that universal health care would prevent or solve poverty? Wrong, it might increase it to due to increased taxes for the costs of such a massive program.

2007-08-28 14:51:30 · answer #6 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1 4

Education is not FREE?!?!

Basic education is free, but catch this, it is illegal to ask for equal funding for schools. SO that if you live in a rich county you get many resources and if you live in a poor neighborhood you get no resources. (even third world countries have free higher education!!!)

Now, to answer the question:

There is a war on the poor and the government is run by the rich. The government wants to tax you in order to give welfare to corporations and pay for war. If poor people start living longer and becoming educated, how are the rich going to keep their monopoly over government?

2007-08-28 14:57:49 · answer #7 · answered by Washington Irving 3 · 2 1

usually because they goofed off in school did not get a good education, then a good career, and now they work at McDonald's expecting the world to make up for their laziness.

2007-08-28 15:04:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Washington Irving is right! *sm*

2007-08-28 15:04:07 · answer #9 · answered by LadyZania 7 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers