Ok, so w/ the Universal Healthcare plan all it does is create a country whose citizens are dependent on the government. Which in my eyes is not a good idea...I mean shouldnt New Orleans have been a prime example of this. 1/2 those citizens there were dependent on the government and we all saw were that got them. Then on top of that Soc. Sec. is a gov. run organization thats about to go bankrupt and yet we want politicians to run our healthcare system....sounds a bit out there. I say a simple little reform for the insurance co. should help out our current system. But I just dont understand why the Left is pushing this Universal crap so hard!
2007-09-17 05:01:15 · 21 answers · asked by tll 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I believe in Handups NOT handouts...
isnt the police a local thing....
military is voluntary......
2007-09-17 05:13:47 · update #1
oh and i live in a rural area and live on a well...so i dont pay the city for my water...i burn my trash...oops now the environmental crazies will be after me, but its too expensive to have someone drive all the way to my house for them to pick it up.....
2007-09-17 05:16:11 · update #2
HELLO...I KNOW OUR CURRENT SYSTEM ISNT THE BEST...THATS WHY I SAY WE REFORM IT....BUT NOT MAKE IT UNIVERSAL....
2007-09-17 05:17:54 · update #3
Yes, we all have a right to healthcare, but we have the freedom to choose which way we want to get that healthcare....i want to pay for my family and me....and for you to pay for your own...
2007-09-17 05:31:36 · update #4
The left wants us dominated and dependent.
They want us easier to control.
Proof:
-gun control to take away our means to defend ourselves
-estate taxes to stop people from becoming wealthy and educated
-high taxes to keep us in bondage
-"fairness doctrine" to allow their stations that lose money to compete
2007-09-17 05:08:05 · answer #1 · answered by infobrokernate 6 · 4⤊ 5⤋
Someday you may come down with cancer, lose your home and job, and wish the government did more for you. I see this everyday at work. The "me only" attitude will get you nowhere sweetie. Europeans are happy to pay more in taxes so that everyone benefits. So how come the "good christian" people of America have the selfish "my family only" attitude. I'd pay more tax if the government would actually take care of the sick. I'd pay more so that if someday you came down with cancer your family wouldn't have to worry about medical bills and mortgage bills. I guess you wouldn't do the same for me. I work hard everyday to make a difference in my patient's lives and believe we all deserve free access to health care. There are plenty of european healthcare models to look at, not all of which are completely universal and still provide the freedom of choice we have here. If you believe our system gives you a choice that is. When your HMO tells you that you only have 5 local doctors to choose from I wouldn't call that much of a choice.
Those people in New Orleans were dependent on the government because of the sad state our nation is in. A decent education is often unaffordable and kids come out of school with so much debt they can't live on their own for many years. The increase in wages has not come close to matching the increase in price of homes, food, gas, electricity, childcare, and education. The American dream is not possible for many people.
Is taxing Bill gates an extra few million each year going to hurt him? How come CEO's are making record profits and bonuses while the hard working middle class have more stagnant wages. I guess the wealthy deserve yachts more than the middle class and poor deserve decent healthcare.
Simple reform to insurance companies would not even touch the problem. How about legal reform to cut down on all the medical lawsuits? How about caps on pharmaceutical companies? How about giving education more funding? Giving interest free student loans and placing caps on what you pay for university? Subsidized childcare? How can Americans get ahead when there is little opportunity to do so?
2007-09-17 07:04:46 · answer #2 · answered by lenurse 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The way the system is right now, doctors and specialists and especially drug companies get rich on your misery. No one is looking for cures since the rich Rx companies only want you treating your symptoms. If all the medical specialists already had a fixed income to draw, they wouldn't need so many patients funnelling into the office to pick up aspirin and band-aids.
New Orleans is a prime example only of how FEMA is useless. Medically speaking, it was a disaster because it WAS a disaster. You can't blame the government for all those hurt and homeless people suddenly needing care.
As for Social Security, the current Congress should be put on there for retirement purposes so we can see how to fix the other budget problems.
2007-09-17 06:42:47 · answer #3 · answered by Your Uncle Dodge! 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
What's funny about your question is the framing of it and it's subject matter. The TRUTH is that Conservatives, as much as they rail against it, are just as much, if not MORE dependent on government than any liberal has ever been. The Republicans, Conservatives and Right have been using government to funnel money upward and concentrate more money in fewer hands. Just look at how, for example, the government can control unemployment by having the Fed lower and raise interest rates. Why are doctors and lawyers so few and paid so much? Because if everyone could afford to go to school to be a doctor or a lawyer, they wouldn't make as much! Conservatives are so entirely dependent on the government to deregulate environmental protections, to inhibit workers ability to unionize and for so much else! Please read "The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer"
2007-09-17 05:27:59 · answer #4 · answered by It's Your World, Change It 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Because no one should die because they can't get help.
Without a health care option for the poor/middle class, who do you think is currently paying for their health care now? Guess what, you are! The reason your insurance premiums are so high now is because the hospitals have to over charge to cover the money they lose when someone without insurance goes to the hospital. For that matter, the uninsured are going to the ER for simple things like an earache, which should be treated in a physician's office. But because of the lack of insurance, they can't pay the $50 (most doctor's will lower their office visit if you have no insurance) for the office visit, so they go to the hospital and rack up a bill in which we pay for. You are already paying for them. What you need to know is that with a program, the health insurance now controls the price paid, and you'll end up paying less in the long run.
2007-09-17 05:12:04 · answer #5 · answered by Lisa M 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
i completely agree, this is no longer a similar u . s . i'm used to and this is fairly unhappy. subject is, youngsters now days have not any thought what it advance into like 40-50 years in the past, gasoline advance into .19 cents a gal, cigarettes have been .25 cents a %. and you will get each and all of the grocery's you elect for the week for $20.00. in spite of if, i refuse to offer up on united states of america, i understand issues substitute however the alterations we've seen at the instant are going to be devastating interior the very close to destiny. we purely can't have the money for all this uncontrolled spending. all and sundry is going to could stand on their very own 2 ft and not matter on uncle sam for his or her nutrients, welfare tests, wellness care and unfastened cellular telephones. i've got self assurance in non everlasting counsel yet plenty all and sundry is totally based on the government for each thing, that has to offer up.
2016-10-04 21:31:34 · answer #6 · answered by cris 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't support Hillary's plan--period.
but--here's the reality: our health care system is not working. And so far, conservatives have yet to make a single real proposal for reforming the system. Slogans and ideological rants are not ideas for fixing something that is broken.
Get this straight: if people have a choice between getting medical care for their kids and conservative ideology--they are going to opt for taking care of their kids. Every time.
So--if the conservatives don't want to see some plan like Hillary's put into effect--they had damn well start coming up with some realistic alternatives. Not ideology. Not spin. Not political slogans. Real ideas.
If they don't--plan on having socialized medicine.
2007-09-17 05:14:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Social Security is not about to go bankrupt. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. I don't agree with socialized health care, but it is not the insurance companies fault. It is the doctors and hospitals charging outrageous prices. The doctors deserve to make a lot of money but hospitals do not. And 85 dollars for an office visit is terrible. We need to take capitalism out of hospitals and pharmaceuticals and then maybe insurance will be affordable. I would rather the government run the oil companies than health care. And the left is not made up of people already dependent on the government. It is made up of people that care about the sick kids and the elderly.
2007-09-17 05:19:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Have you ever read "The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer" by Dean Baker (PhD Economics)?
Read it and you will finally see that what liberals want is for government to serve the PEOPLE rather than those who need it least (the rich).
2007-09-17 05:33:14 · answer #9 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
So the electorate has to vote for them, the providers of government largesse, to eat.
The problem with that is that it's economically unsustainable. For the welfare state to work, you have to have most of the population financially IN-dependent of government and only a small client base. But many of those financially independent folks will resent the welfare state, and you can't use dependency to obtain enough votes to win an election.
A growing proportion of this country is becoming financially independent of government - - - we "live paycheck to paycheck" but all that means is we spend what we make, it doesn't mean we make only enough to cover what we need to spend on our necessities.....
That scares Democrats, and most of them have tried and failed to oppose the policies that have enabled this to happen - i.e., the tax cuts since 1981, free trade, de-regulation.
You can't put that cat back in the bag with respect to the existing voter base.
And that's why Teddy K is so hot and heavy to grant citizenship to the new dependent class, the illegal immigrants, whose numbers dramatically affect the poverty numbers. It's too late to make the people who grew up here poor again so he wants to take the new poor, the people who were poor when they got here, voters, get a majority, raise the tax rates back up and keep those people poor thus dependent on government largesse thus Democrats.
But that takes time and right now even THEY are moving up.
2007-09-17 05:06:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Why does the right assume that the private sector is more honest and efficient than the public service sector? The evidence proves otherwise. You will never convince me that taking services out of the hands of a government, that is supposed to be answerable to the people, and putting them into the hands of profit driven corporations, who don't answer to anyone, not even their stock holders, is good for we the people.
The evidence is coming in more and more. And the evidence is proving that privatization is costly and ultimately exclusionary.
2007-09-17 05:11:10 · answer #11 · answered by LittleLamb 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋