Universal health care? 47 million not covered? Mandatory to have insurance?

Question

As of today 47 million are uncovered. Most of those don't care to be or don't want to be.
Medicare. It is for the children. Does not cover transplant.
Hilary care. Every citizen by law will be forced to buy insurance.

If you are worried about a phone call being listened in on what are you going to do about electronic medical files that the government has access to for every citizens. What could the unethical do with that?

Of that 47 million the large majority are 18 to 24 and very healthy. They don't need insurance and don't buy it.

Answer 1

I'm not sure what your question is.

But to to my best. The private sector is the only viable option for health coverage. If the government would get their slimy hands off of it, it could be run quite well.
Anything the government "micro manages" usually falls apart. Look at our education and immigration laws.

What many don't realize is that Hillary is in the hip pockets of the HMO's. She loved HMO's and they are the suckiest kind of coverage.

What the politico's won't tell you is approximately half of that 47 million are illegals.

Another quarter of those don't care for coverage or always have thought the government should pay for it.

http://www.onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/deadmeat.html

http://www.freemarketcure.com/uninsuredinamerica.php

Answer 2

Mandatory insurance? Sounds like some of the big money corporations that are sponsoring Hillary healthcare is trying to shift the burden from their companies to the tax payer. I think that the 47 million (or whatever that number really is) that are not covered by healthcare could be solved by using doctors that owe students loans to work in clinics for part of their loans being paid back. This could help three fold. One, it will get these doctors to pay off the money owed in student loans faster. Two, it would give cheap clinics for those that can least afford the cost of healthcare. Three, it would cut the burden down of these people just going to an emergency room where the cost is shifted to those with insurance and that can afford doctor visits.

Answer 3

They care, they want to be, but costs are prohibitive, now that businesses are dropping health care from their list of benefits, and unions are no longer a source of middle class coverage either. Medicaid is for poor children, Medicare is for the elderly. Nothing is for the middle class who has no insurance but eventual bankruptcy.
Perhaps you don't understand that in insurance, the larger the pool the less expensive it will be. If everyone is insured, then the price of insurance will go down, as it does now in a group insurance v. individual insurance situation.
Hospitals and doctors do not simply absorb the costs of treating the uninsured, they charge more to them because the insurance companies work out their own deals with doctors and hospital.
The vast majority of bankruptcies in this country are caused by medical bills.
Hillarys plan calls for three ways for health insurance to be available, including subsidies for premiums for the middle class.
I don't think it goes far enough, but it will provide for the chronically ill that insurance companies no longer want as clients. Its very expensive and hard to find when you have had a bout with cancer, or smoke, or are obese, or have high blood pressure, or are anything but a young healthy, accident free adolescent.
They cherry pick, and sick kids are reduced to having cans put up in the 7-11 so they can have treatments for a recurring cancer.
In this country? And you are worried about being forced to buy insurance? You should be worried about being able to buy insurance.

Answer 4

As a 39 year old mother of 2 who does not have health insurance, ( my kids have CHIP) I stay home with them, my husband makes 60,000 a year and I am willing to pay for my insurance, but I have been turned down because I take an anti depressant. (My husbands job doesn't offer insurance) I am otherwise pretty healthy. If I did get accepted for insurance it would cost over 600.00 a month for a basic policy for my husband and I. So now I have no insurance and am not able to get insurance and I make too much money for the government insurance, now what do I do? I don't think an insurance company should be able to turn down someone willing to pay for a policy, especially when the reason is because of an antidepressant for alittle anxiety. GO HILLARY!!!! I WILL BE VOTING FOR YOU.

Answer 5

This is the kind of fear/hate thing that the NY Post FOX5 thrives on. If they had their way, we would be # 50 instead of # 40 in health care. The whole tab should be picked up by the rich who hire illegals to raise, drive, feed their dummy draft dodger offspring. Who does their landscaping, picks their food, manicures their 30,000 golf courses, and live 3 families to an apt. Anybody who has even driven a cab or made deliveries, has experienced the generosity of the rich.

Answer 6

Medical insurance is like a parachute or a pistol. If you need one and don't have one you may never need another one. National security is more than B-1 bombers and $250,000 a piece newly minted infantrymen.....it's more than having a Homeland Security Gestapo listening to your phone calls, opening your mail and checking out your underwear drawer without a warrant. Good health is also a national security issue. If people are willing to borrow billions of dollars every single day for our bloated military and are happy to pay the interest on these loans, then a few bucks a month for health insurance shouldn't be that big a deal. And of course the 'government' is going to have to do it....if the private sector could or would do it we wouldn't be having this conversation. One big insurance single payer company...one low premium per person...everyone is covered....toss in a few bucks for deductables and co-pays....get a bunch of right wing green eyeshade guys to watch the till and let's get on with this!

Answer 7

no insurance is better than having a policy that forces you to see a limited number of doctors, with limited care. there are still some medical professionals that allow payment plans. The shift to the HMO over the last fifteen years, has caused some to seek medical attention with drs they do not like nor would choose if they had other options. A forced government policy is not an aspect of Universiality--it is simply forced, who wants to be forced to see a dr they do not like simply because of limted coverage.

Universial care by defnition would be a choice to see any practicing Dr, without the limiting constrains of the government, a choice to see them when one chooses, and freedom to seek specialists when an individual decides without the management of a Dr whom one may not exactly have a very good working relationship with. HMO's are way too constricting.

What new changes would be involved with medical malpractice suits; or would the most recent changes in re to malpractice remain in force.

Answer 8

How would you go about getting money from the poor if you wanted to .

Thats right force them to pay for at least part of the care they will need . At the same time they can work 40 hrs a week and contribute to maintaining the billion dollar corporations profit structure that rewards investors handsomely while looting workers pockets . The people who actually do the work that makes it possible to make anything .

Answer 9

Well a lot of them want to be - just like they want to be citizens......

Folks, the Census Bureau takes POPULATION surveys.

When they say "Americans" they mean people within our borders.

That 47 million figure includes the 20 million illegals, their children, and many poor legal immigrants.

And THAT'S why it's jumped so high in the last 10 years.

The Lefties give you the totals, they don't tell you what's driving them.

Answer 10

My question is how are they going to enforce this law?
Whats next.....the insurance police?