In the words of the inimitable Chris Rock, "There's no money in the cure, the real money is in the come-back! [...] They don't want to cure anybody, they want to do just enough to get you by..." Paraphrased for the mentally challenged, this means that politicians have no interest in providing real cures or preventive measures to control disease, their financers reap their profits from people who come in for repetitive procedures and over-priced medications.
Yes, it would be much cheaper to provide health-care that focused on preventative measures, but that would cause a lot of drug and medical practices to lose a lot of profits. Health care is big business, and the people who made it that way have no interest in allowing someone to kill the cash cow.
The more people get sick, the higher the cost of health care due to "shortages" of medical professinals, the higher the profits made by health insurance organizations.
I see the point you're trying to make, but providing universal health care isn't the solution, changing the way we approach health care is what's really needed, in addition to providing universal health care.
2007-10-17 04:31:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Health Care
2007-10-17 04:14:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by courage 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
Education about how to prevent disease is a lot cheaper than pharmaceutical research, doctor visits, missed work/school, etc.
Would I rather wash my hands regularly, or take a week off work because my head feels like it's going to explode?
Is it cheaper for my mom to get enough rest EVERY night, or for her to suffer ANOTHER sinus infection?
Is it better to buy (and use) a toothbrush, toothpaste, and floss, or to pay hundredes (if not thousands) of dollars for dental repair?
Is it more effective to teach the people how AIDS is spread, or to accept that the whole nation is dieing of AIDS (I don't remember the nation in Africa, but their President refuses to allow AIDS education.)
Um, I'll pick prevention... you?
2007-10-17 04:20:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by Yoda's Duck 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
Providing proper health care, particularly preventative medicine will save the nation millions in terms of both lost income revenue and preventing diseases that would otherwise result in a person having to go on SSI.
2007-10-17 04:11:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
2⤋
The question should be framed "Which makes more money for the politician?" The answer would be allowing people to spread disease.
2007-10-17 04:14:17
·
answer #5
·
answered by Zardoz 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
The biggest problem caused by immigrants from Latin America is not the spread of disease; it's the proliferation of narcotics and the violence and gang activity that comes with it.
2007-10-17 04:11:14
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
seeing how the cost of health care is unaffordable to all but the insured . . . spreading disease is cheaper . . .
2007-10-17 04:17:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by Rainy 5
·
1⤊
3⤋
This is a false paradigm
People can provide their own health care without the government getting involved
2007-10-17 04:16:37
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋
Health Care, but all the wealthy Con's don't care about you, so they'll say, "Pay for your own dam self!". All the hillbill con's don't care about their health, so they'll just want to say some money on their car insurance.
2007-10-17 04:41:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by HERE WE GO BROWNIES, BEAT PIT!! 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
surly the very best health care possible is a right of the population to expect!. poor health care just causes more suffering to those who are least able to look after themselves.
2007-10-17 04:14:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by robert x 7
·
2⤊
2⤋