47 million American's go to bed every night without health insurance while the health insurance industry is making billions of $ in profits. We spend almost 2x as much as any other industrialized nation for our health coverage (the majority of these costs go to administration not treatment) and we rank 37th in the world in overall health. By ending the inefficency of the current system we could cover every American for the same $ were spending now. We are the only country in the world where people go bankrupt because of health costs.
2007-10-18 23:31:46 · 6 answers · asked by Stephen T 1 in Business & Finance ➔ Insurance
8.47 out of 10 people have health insurance. (note U.S. Census Bureau citation below, March 2007.)
20% of the uninsured are not legal citizens, over 9.2 million. (note second source.)
1/3 of the remaining legal resident uninsured are 18-24.
The reality is that the vast majority of legal citizens have health insurance. Numbers and percentages can be thrown about to strengthen any argument, in my case to show that things are not nearly as bad as one would read or hear.
Are there problems, of course. What's being done about it, plenty.
Blue Cross of Arizona now allows policyholders to keep dependent children on their plan up to the age of 30, and they do not need to be a full-time student. (Helps solve the 30% uninsured problem.) As for uninsured children, Blue Cross sells very inexpensive child-only plans, and even throws in immunizations for free. Regarding small employers, they have recently offered a small group plan that removes expensive state mandated benefits, (mandate lite,) allowing for lower premiums, yet still providing excellent coverage.
If we were to believe the news of late, nearly every child in America is uninsured. Obviously this is not true. In Arizona, 58% of those enrolled in SCHIP are adults. (note 3rd source.)
2007-10-19 05:07:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
People complain about how expensive health insurance is, but I can assure you it will look like a real bargain when the government starts taking 50% (or more) of your income in taxes to pay for the pathetic level of care we can all be assured if we put the government in charge of it.
You say that we can insure everyone for the same amount we're paying now for health care. You're smoking your own delusions. Tell me -- could you live on 30-50% of your current income? Because if the answer is no, I can assure you that you do NOT want the government taking over health care. If you choose not to pay for health insurance now, you'll simply be given no choice in the matter if the government takes it over and you can bet your last dollar they'll take it from EVERYONE, including the people who say they can't afford health insurance now.
Look, we all make choices. I'm a diabetic and I can't go without health insurance. It's so important to me that, when I had to make some hard choices, I was literally homeless (and living at the YWCA) so that I could afford to pay for my health insurance. I'm sure that seems like an insane choice to a lot of people, but I don't have ANYTHING if I don't have my health. Then I couldn't even work, or function.
2007-10-19 15:38:57 · answer #2 · answered by ISOintelligentlife 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am scared of big government and I don't like government taking over my healthcare. As long as my employers will still offer insurance and I have my own choice to pick my heathcare or depend on the government (and it's a choice) then that;'s fine but I see businesses saying well now you can be covered by the government. Who wants to have to wait on government approval for cancer treatment or a heart transplant? If the spending will NOT go up and more taxes will not be taken out of my check then go for it. I just cringe with the thought of the government taking control over my health and body. I am mostly against it.
2007-10-19 09:22:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely.
2007-10-19 06:41:46 · answer #4 · answered by jingles 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. The gov't would screw it up like it has Social Security. It takes competition out. Do that and everything goes to hell. Laissez faire all the way for me.
2007-10-19 16:50:51 · answer #5 · answered by Mark S 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would support it if the way care is administered stays the same. Meaning, no yearlong wait for "emergency surgery" or things like that.
2007-10-19 17:46:28 · answer #6 · answered by zippythejessi 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋