trying to get insurance/healthcare for the 40 million she quotes instead of all of America being insured by the federal government and ending the ability for malpractice suits? Does it really make sense to cover those that are covered or those that are not covered? does it really matter how much you must pay for the "free" healthcare (where did you think the money would come from? Is this not another way to ushering in lower wages for all Americans since it will be "free"?
2007-10-05 18:02:48 · 6 answers · asked by spin3305 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I believe the health care is not free, but to be made affordable.
If 200 million people pay for health care, the system will subsidize itself.
If the health care program cost is $100 a month, that is $20 billion a year.
If each person goes to the doctor once a year, and makes the $10.00 co-payment, that is $2 billion dollars a year.
Do the math...
2007-10-05 18:18:27 · answer #1 · answered by MenifeeManiac 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question is all over the place, I'm not exactly sure where to start with an answer.
Do I think we should have universal healthcare? Absolutely -- there are people who are unable to see a physician, and when they manage that, are unable to afford the prescriptions written for them. That's an issue -- when somebody dies of something like asthma -- which is readily treatable . . . there's an issue in our health-care delivery system. I don't know if it should be universal healthcare (where EVERYBODY is covered) or if it should be some sort of a government subsidized insurance plan (for people who just don't have insurance).
Should we get rid of malpractice suits? Well, as a paralegal and health-care provider both -- I don't think that it's a good idea to completely eliminate medical malpractice suits -- to do so would, essentially, remove physicians and other health-care providers entirely from liability . . . which means that people could get medical care, but that the care they received would, most of the time, be sub par.
Any action by the government is, essentially, a way to lower wages. War, alike medical care, costs money -- regardless of which direction we move, we're spending money we don't have. We might as well do it to help people . . . the issue, then, is for the democrats and republicans to debate -- which helps people more, providing healthcare, or war.
2007-10-05 18:13:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
because he still sleping with bill ? so he ALWAYS tell her just sell universal healthcare bulls hit just LIKE when he was president always bulls hit about healthcare and after they get it to wh and forget it.. americans dumb sucker and they both know it.
It's possible that she could even nominate him to a post on the Supreme Court if a vacancy should become available.
she just for illegal alien ,india mexico BUT american.
she should be just stay home and take care own house make sure bill dont go to sin city.
she need all illegal more breeder giving birth free money and give 5 thousand so when they grow up can vote for her dog.
2007-10-05 18:15:11 · answer #3 · answered by Beaner is Breeder 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Silly rabbit. If health care is free for people that don't buy it, how long do you think it will take for those that pay for it to figure out that if they don't pay for it, it will be free?
2007-10-05 18:08:32 · answer #4 · answered by kimmyisahotbabe 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nothing is free.Funny thing is Bush is called a war monger but Hillary will start a civil war.
2007-10-05 18:06:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
its a totally idiotic concept. its a race toward socialism that no one can afford. the same old liberal diatribe. tax and spend, and WORKING conservatives always pay for it.
2007-10-05 18:49:48 · answer #6 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋