The questions are always about who has a better plan. Dems or Repub's. What I'm asking here, is do you think it is the government's place to provide/pay for people's health care? Why? or Why not?
2007-09-23 12:03:42 · 10 answers · asked by John r 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The Constitution says nothing about it. So no, it's not the government's responsibility. The gov't does many things that aren't its responsibility...and it screws them up majorly.
2007-09-23 12:27:55 · answer #1 · answered by monkiby 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, the more the government is involved in, the less efficient it is. The less the government tries to control, and especially run, the more efficiently the economy and society in general works. My favorite quote regarding this is "if you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see how much it costs when it is free!" If anyone who thinks government run health care is a good idea actually looked at how it is run in countries that have nationalized healthcare, they would realize what a mistake it would be to allow the government to take over health care.
2007-09-23 19:17:42 · answer #2 · answered by theseeker4 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Like hundreds of other things -- health care is something that only works if it is group funded -- that's the way insurance companies have always worked.
So, you have three options -- a for-profit insurance company, who is going to make health care decisions based on whether the treatment cuts into its profit margin -- a non-profit insurance company, which is at least going to be a little less draconian -- or a govt-run insurance company, that suffers the same problems as an other bureaucracy.
It's not a matter of it being some absolute right or wrong -- it's a service that could be run by the govt, and paid by taxes, or it could be run privately, with people paying the same money to private companies.
What I oppose -- regardless of who runs it -- is making it mandatory to participate. I don't care who runs it as long as I have the option to refuse to pay, refuse to get service, and go somewhere else.
2007-09-23 19:13:26 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. For several reasons. I will list three.
1. There is nothing that is run by the government that is efficient. The costs for this would be like a runaway locomotive.
2. No country on the planet with socialized medicine has a system where the health care is quality or speedy. You wait forever to see over worked, under paid, and under qualified doctors because when health care is freely accessable (even though you are paying INSANE taxes) people go in for a scratch or a sniffle, clogging up the system)
3. Why should I be required to pay for the health care of a junkie, or someone who is lazy and lives off of the govt. nipple, or just works the minimum to get by? And why should the quality of my health care suffer due to the reason above in number 2?
Canada, as an example, has socialized health care. Their taxes are burying them, their doctors are VERY overworked and underpaid, I waited with a friend for almost 8 hours for her to take her son who would have dehydrated if I had not forced him to drink during that time, and he was throwing up and crapping the entire time. Wealthy people in Canada often come the the US for health care because they can afford it. I spend a LOT of time in Canada, and in my experience about 90-95% of them say that their health care system is pathetic, and DEFINATELY not what it was promised to be.
2007-09-23 19:13:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
I do not think it is the responsibility of our Government to provide health care. Any Government has one responsibility, and that is to protect it's citizens. The Government can not, in any way, provide a complete health care program without a major tax increase in order to fund the program. Case in point is Canada's health care program. Although, I think the Government can intervene on matters such as the cost of necessary drugs and the rates charged for medical procedures, in order to alleviate the high costs.
2007-09-23 19:25:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Remember health care would be run by the same people that gave us the backlog of Passports. Health care is too important to let a bunch of boobs from the government handle it. What the proponents are not telling you is that healthcare will be rationed. You may just not qualify if you are too old, too sick, too fat, smoke, drink, not exercise, etc. There is lots they aren't telling us. Also it is a mess in Canada and there are only 30 million people. There are 300 million people in the U.S. What do you think will happen? Only the rich will have access to ANY healthcare because the best doctors and clinics will be private like they are in England.
2007-09-23 19:08:33 · answer #6 · answered by Julie H 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
If people had a living wage and their wages were not taxed excessively in many, many ways then they could afford healthcare.
The government cannot do anything right or should I say won't.
2007-09-23 19:12:05 · answer #7 · answered by Twilight 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think it is a legitimate role for government. Better them than to have it run by a corporation that makes money by denying you coverage which you paid for.
2007-09-23 19:47:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
of course , but in the USA health is a multi millions dollar business every year i hope Mrs Clinton send health providers to hell. next year.
PS Mrs Clinton will be next president .
2007-09-23 19:19:25 · answer #9 · answered by kk kkkkk 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Simply put, look at welfare, social security, and our public education system. Nough said
2007-09-23 19:10:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋