Who can people turn to when their own efforts & / or their employers offer nothing in the way of health care? In the United States of America the Government is Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the fabled mines of El Dorado - - - something to hope for, to cling to, a hope/ Yes the Government will 'foul tthings up but not out of incompetence but due to criminal greed for sadly enough in America all Government Programs since the time of the founding fathers have been viewed as cash cows for those able to con the electorate into voting for them.
That said, there should be and could be 'universal' health care and should be and could be without raising taxes on anyone....
What most everyone fails to realize is how much money is wasted due to corruption greed incompetence and sheer stupidity Once upon a time it was a 'given' that of every tax dollar gathered from ten to fifteen cents would be 'wasted.' Now that figure is thirty three to forty cents and growing... In Iraq alone over ten BILLION dollars or more has simply been lost. Not stolen or misplaced simply erased,,,,,,,,
The Government does do one thing well, they have conned Americans into believing that waste and inefficiancy are normal. When the 'Walter Reed' Scandal broke a while back, no one, ABSOLUTELY no one, said anything about spending money wisely but EVERYONE agreed that more money needed to be spent, taxes raised, etc. For a nation founded as a rebellion against taxation America has become a nation addicted to taxation.
Peace..........///--------O .!. O ---------- \\\ .............................o
2007-10-18 00:12:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by JVHawai'i 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
Our medical care system is already fouled up, and insurance companies are not only cluttered with red tape but have incentives to deny coverage.The government already pays half of the medical bills in the country through Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans health care. There are 40 million people without health insurance who are using availability of government programs as catastrophic coverage, because most of them can not pay if they develope serious health problems. Tax payers are already paying for all this but left to deal with insurance companies when they need care. No one is suggestion that the government run the system , just that the people that work hard and are responsible should be have the same benefits as the old and the poor.
2007-10-18 01:33:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by meg 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Raise taxes, definatly
Red tap, without a doubt. Although it proabably be closer to fly paper without the conveinience of escape.
And that is not the scariest part which Justagra hit on while arguing for it and I Quote:
"But, having less layers of management to go through plus the fact that there is less confusion with a one payer system and there is no need to add profit layers should, with a minimum of competency, lead to lower costs all around. This time though lets do what has to be done to ensure that we can negotiate the best prices, not the snow job we got on the drug bill."
The government always has more management than it needs. Not to long ago there was 10 support personnel for every pair of combat troops in the Army.
Lower profits results in less competency. period. Those hard working talented people who become physicians are not likely going to put their hard work in for a measly $90K a year salary with a mediocre retirement package.....they can become lawers or architects and make some real money for their efforts.
A MINIMUM LEVEL OF COMPETENCY.....Dear god we are doing no child left behind to our doctors. I have a GED. Passing that with the equivelent of about a 3.2 GPA didnt cover 15% of what they attempted to teach me in high school. That being said the government is not going to set the bar very high to get doctors after the true talent drops the proffesion or goes 100% private(almost mercenary) medicine.
And the last portion about negotiating a true savings. That will never happen, yes they will get their drugs from the lowest bidder just like they do with other contracts. And due to the long duration of the contract teh phamacuetical will turn around and rape the government for an additional 30% profit and make claims about unexpected expenditures or other BS.
That is why I don't like the concept of universal health care. In general it is Universally BAD healthcare.
{stepping off the soapbox}
2007-10-18 00:42:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by cutiessailor 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
If that's the way you feel about the government why support its leadership?
There was a time we did handle things quite well, yet now it seems that everything that the Feds touch we are supposed to think doesn't work, but we re elect them, we let them take us to war, and we berate anyone who says Bush isn't wonderful.
There is something very wrong there.
For the record, it may lead to a redistribution of taxes. But, having less layers of management to go through plus the fact that there is less confusion with a one payer system and there is no need to add profit layers should, with a minimum of competency, lead to lower costs all around. This time though lets do what has to be done to ensure that we can negotiate the best prices, not the snow job we got on the drug bill.
For heavens sake, lets elect more competent leadership, its pathetic what we have come to accept.
The three thumbs down illustrate my point, its more important to support poor political management because of party than to work for a more efficient solution.
2007-10-18 00:04:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by justa 7
·
1⤊
4⤋
Take the earnings out of it alongside with merchandising and marketing. We in simple terms choose preventative and medically mandatory scientific care. the rest human beings will pay for themselves in the event that they choose it. United well being is charged in ny for overcharging shoppers for a dozen years or extra. Our cutting-edge gadget isn't sustainable. it is not even some thing that consists of over. human beings exchange jobs. human beings get laid off. Why could they have the further difficulty approximately well being care? we grant stupid well being care because of the fact we've not got the emphasis on preventative care. people who've it like myself take it with none attention. i do no longer because of the fact i've got met people who weren't so fortunate and had ignorant mothers and dads that did no longer do what they ought to have achieved. the expenses could be larger in the fast term in spite of the indisputable fact that that's going to be extra effective in the long term. lower back, the government shouldn't could pay for optionally available strategies. in simple terms concentration on prevention and medically mandatory. do away with quite a number of the place of work work. do away with merchandising and marketing and merchandising. do away with the earnings on the well being care so a techniques as what's mandatory is going. to maintain it the comparable isn't an decision. How lots fraud happens generic in the earnings and not for earnings worlds? it sort of seems such as you hear extra approximately fraud of all stages in the earnings sector.
2016-10-04 02:01:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Government cannot do anything well and to let them any where near our medical care is irresponsible at best. Most Americans don't know the real facts and the press is only showing their side.
2007-10-17 23:57:25
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Name one time where the government gets involved in caring for you that didn't result in higher taxes, more red tape, wasteful spending, inadequate service, misappropriation of funds. NAME ONE.
2007-10-18 00:01:11
·
answer #7
·
answered by Wayne G 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
Yes. I can't think of a better way to begin an all-out Depression myself.
2007-10-18 00:19:18
·
answer #8
·
answered by Chiksita 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Hey Rick ever hear of Medicare, works great ask your Grandma, choice, low overhead (less than 1%) and if you think you're not already paying a hidden tax for healthcare for the uninsured you're not thinking very well
2007-10-18 00:15:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
of course...how else would we pay for it? With more bureaucracy comes more red tape...
2007-10-17 23:59:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by dras0605 2
·
2⤊
2⤋