I'm asking this question, because a conservative poster accused the Democratic politicians of pandering to the "lazy, irresponsible, and illegal" by promising them free healthcare. I happen to know that there are MANY Americans who work hard, pay their taxes, and have no insurance, because they can't afford it. (In fact, I'm one of them!) Not only that, but having insurance doesn't even guarantee that a person will have access to proper medical care. I know that some here will try to discredit me for mentioning this movie, but I remember seeing a woman in the movie "Sicko" whose husband died, because he wasn't able to get a life-saving bone marrow transplant, as their insurance company deemed the surgery "experimental". Some may ask what "right" we have to medical care, but I'm assuming that (hopefully) everyone here would agree that everyone has the right to LIVE, and sometimes you have to have proper medical care just to do that!
2007-09-06 04:54:01 · 14 answers · asked by tangerine 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
In Australia, we have a govt/taxpayer funded public health system called Medicare. Yes, it is called a right to LIVE, and that's what our taxes are supposed to be for - i.e. for the public good and maintaining a civilised society.
Our current government wants us to be like USA and is eroding our public health system by subsidising private insurance premiums and starving the public health system. We are punished through our tax system if we don't have private health insurance, even if we don't use Medicare. I am happy to pay more taxes to provide Medicare so it's there when I need it and for others.
The whole point of paying taxes on a progressive basis is to fund the government to provide public goods like health and education. If a government doesn't fund these things, then your society is "up sh*t creek", as we say here.
Those who are well off from the opportunities given to them in their civilised society who have a problem with paying taxes should not expect to enjoy living in a civilised society and deserve to have their houses robbed.
Edit
------
Sorry, to answer your question: I am not lazy or irresponsible because I don't have insurance. I earn a good living but choose to be punished with more taxes to insist that our government not be lazy and irresponsible with our public health system.
2007-09-06 05:07:47 · answer #1 · answered by Camperdown T 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have always had medical insurance... always. I was healthy and I paid my premiums religiously and had jobs where that was as much as a priority as my salary.
Then (after 10 years of perfect health and rarely going to the doctor and never going to the hospital) I became very sick with a rare disorder which dissected my aorta. I had to have emergency surgery and had many complications from it that left me in the hospital for 8 weeks. My bill was over a million dollars... thank God I had medical insurance.
One week after leaving the hospital my group insurance cancelled the entire group. This affected over 70 people. Their reason was because they did not want to continue insuring a sick person... the implication was that they only wanted to insure healthy people. I immediately resigned from my position so the company could scramble for a new policy... I was very esteblished with the owners so I trusted them (and I still do) and took a contract position with the firm. I went a month without insurance during a period of very expensive physical rehab... I scrambled to get a personal piss-poor insurance policy to cover my medications. I eventually changed jobs for substantially less money for a large corporation that had geat medical insurance.
No, not all of uninsured people are lazy. And no we should not just continue allowing the insurance companies dictate our medical system. I am not saying that universal healthcare is the way to go (but it should certainly be looked into) but we should force our legislators to reform this system.
This type of business should put care before money.
2007-09-06 05:08:25 · answer #2 · answered by cattledog 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
47 million do not have health insurance.
I do not know how many there on welfare, which is "lazy, irresponsible, and illegal" group they seem to be talking about. But as of 2000, there were about 6 million. BUT, they qualify for medicaid in most instances.
Take a look at these answers.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhEsiIud1ke2wsqKgqBagxPty6IX?qid=20070730095701AAP2CTW&show=7#profile-info-uEM1p5b2aa
It's not the first time someone has suggested, well, that maybe it would be better if those who are uninsured as just better off dead.
2007-09-06 05:14:42 · answer #3 · answered by angelpuppyeyes 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You have made a really good point-that there already are people who are irresponsible and who have nothing to lose-and we are all paying for it. This reform will help the middle class, hard working tax paying citizens from being denied insurance, and going bankrupt due to health care costs. Visits to the ER should greatly decrease, because the more people insured, the more they will go the dr first for simple and easily treatable conditions-which by the way, cost a tenth as much as ending up in the ER. EDIT: The idiot "Obama lie" guy-since you choose not to pay for insurance, we (the taxpayers) are going to have to pay for your *** when you get into an accident or get really ill and have to go to the hospital.
2016-05-22 16:48:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If those qualities were made requirements for the program you would see resistance melt away. Why DON'T they make those qualities requirments for the program? I'd be all for it. Taking on responsibility to PAY FOR some foreigner's right to live (beyond emergency care to stabalize) when they are here illegally, however, is not our job while we have so many of our own not knowing how they will cover their own medical needs over the course of their lives.
2007-09-06 05:02:21 · answer #5 · answered by DAR 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As long as there's a profit motive associated with health insurance, there will be strong incentive for companies to deny services to many people in order to boost their bottom line. If we had national health insurance, this motive would be reduced, thus saving money for all Americans. When conservatives praise the private sector for keeping costs down, they mean cutting corners for themselves while charging consumers as much as possible.
2007-09-06 05:08:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, of course not. This is an old GOP tactic first used by Ronald Reagan in his attempt to appeal as a populist. Fact is, according to the labor department, some 48 million Americans do not carry any health insurance, and, the majority of the adults in this number are employed gainfully.
2007-09-06 04:58:19 · answer #7 · answered by alphabetsoup2 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
We work, pay our taxes and only our children are covered on our healthcare. We deemed it cheaper to pay for low cost clinics and medicine with a yearly discount medical plan type of thing than to pay through my husband work for medical coverage. Even with them covering much of the premium, with the pre-existing condition we both have, nothing we need the doctor for would be covered.
2007-09-06 04:58:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
As I understand it, 40% of jobs in this country do not offer health insurance.
Plus, standard insurance premiums for a family are currently running at over $10,000 per year.
So clearly, there are many uninsured full-time workers
2007-09-06 04:58:08 · answer #9 · answered by Steve 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I see your problem, but national health care isn't the answer! More competition in the insurance field is.
And by no means is it going to be free! Your not paying for health care now, but you will be if it passes.
2007-09-06 04:59:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋