English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I can't see that we'd be paying for every tom dick and harry's boob job and "optional" or "experimental" therapies.

Or would the wealthy just opt out, cover themselves, and again we have a have and have not health coverage? The wealthy get the good docs because they can pay out of pocket and the not wealthy get the docs willing to take state sponsored insurance?

2007-10-19 05:16:41 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

I've also had Kaiser insurance at one point. It's fine if you're healthy or need just general care. But if you have something you need addressed by someone outside of their care it's like pulling teeth. Mental health. Surgical procedures they don't deem as "necessary" - I think being able to hear out of one ear is kind of necessary, but they didn't. I ended up dropping them and picking up a different insurance that I paid for out of my pocket.

And look at the military. The government pays for their insurance. That's a GREAT system. Go have a word with all the vets coming back from Iraq with PTSD who can't get mental health services.

2007-10-19 05:30:42 · update #1

10 answers

We need a single payer system. Single payer means just that. Single payer and nothing else. It is NOT socialized medicine. It is NOT government-dictated healthcare. It is NOT having all providers work for the government. It is simply a ONE PAYER SYSTEM that is uncomplicated and will bring forth efficiency in healthcare. Single payer means that individuals will actually have more freedom to choose providers and hospitals and providers and hospitals can spend more money on healthcare services instead of bookkeeping. This will build healthy competition in quality assurance in that all providers will be equals unlike now where the multi payer system makes the patients a captive audience. Ironically, these single or one payer plans support the very concept of a return to a pure patient/doctor relationship that conservatives rave about frequently.

2007-10-19 05:25:35 · answer #1 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 1 0

You obviously don't have a clue. You already are paying for everybody else's health care by buying health insurance. Your premiums are set by the insurer's payouts and other insurance companies' payouts, which are used to estimate the next year's premiums, plus, since they are now all for-profit entities, a hefty addition for a profit and for inflated salaries and "golden parachutes." The only way to avoid paying for other people's health care is to be strictly self-pay. Where do you think the insurance companies get the money to pay your health care bills above the amounts you put in?

Universal health care makes the government the only health care insurer. It doesn't hire the doctors, so it's not an HMO. That's actually the cheapest way to insure health care because the risk is spread out over everyone, instead of allowing private insurers to "cherry-pick," leaving only the sickest for the rest of us to pay for.

2007-10-19 05:28:37 · answer #2 · answered by thylawyer 7 · 1 1

I used to be a member of Kaiser, a HMO

They had their own hospitals and doctors

I'd go to Kaiser, pay my $10 see a doctor and that was it.
No paper work, no nothing. That $10 paid for all subsequent visits relating to the same illness.

Meds, flat rate, $6

No insurance forms, no slow pay that could quite possibly screw up my credit rating, no nothing...........period.

Hillary wants to use the director of Kaiser to help her build universal health care.

Seems good to me.

=============
Just think, if we have universal health care, we just may think twice in building nations and screwing around with the world, instead of ignoring our people

According to a 2005 congressional study, 36% of arms exports come from the USA. Some independent studies put that at 60%. That is a huge mouth to feed.
=============

Peace

Jim

.

2007-10-19 05:25:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Wouldnt have to be an HMO..as a matter of fact most think the governement should simply subsidize insurance premiums depending on income...it would then be left up to the individual to pick plan that gives them the biggest bang for the buck...

2007-10-19 05:22:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I dont, the explanation our healthcare is so costly now's by way of deadbeats who wont pay their charges and stupid lawsuits thatcontinual insurance fee sky severe. I paintings in the scientific container and that i see it common. in the event that they opt to repair the subject end giving out hundreds of thousands of greenbacks in lawsuits that are petty to start with and get human beings off the dole that dont ought to be. The abuse if Medicaid or regardless of you call it on your state is destructive. I dont think of absolutely everyone desires to bypass to the ER because of the fact they have a runny nostril or their sunburn itches. I even have seen the two a sort of come via on extra desirable than one occasion. I even have spoken to quite a few Canadians, maximum of them dont like the way their healthcare gadget is administered. And Holly, thank you for the hyperlink on the tax numbers out of your submit. What they didnt put in there and in the event that they did I neglected it, replaced into how lots those tax will improve on the wealthier human beings might harm jobs for the rest human beings. in addition they disregarded to indicate that obama desires to improve capital features alot. that may not appear as if it hurts alot of persons yet i will provide an occasion. My relatives owns a farm...wasroughly one thousand acres, bout 0.5 that now, my persons are via no potential wealthy. They ensue to possess alot of floor in some peoples eyes, yet once you're taking the overhead it takes to function a farm they make 30,000 a 300 and sixty 5 days in the event that they're fortunate. in the event that they opt to sell that floor the government receives extra desirable than 0.5. Im no longer even gonna get all started on the dying tax. That factor is arbitrary and corrupt and could be achieved away with thoroughly.

2016-10-04 04:05:58 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I think that the people pushing for national healthcare should talk to the average Ontario Canadian on the street. Months long waits for regular appointments. Substandard care. The ones who can afford it prefer to come to the US for health care.

2007-10-19 05:23:01 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Yeah pretty much. I'm more worried how much our taxes are going to rise after the Dems. get control of the White House along with congress. We may be in a lot of trouble soon to pay for the "Socialistic" medicine.

2007-10-19 05:22:56 · answer #7 · answered by wtpd601 2 · 0 1

All I want is the same free healthcare our President and Congress receive.

2007-10-19 05:28:03 · answer #8 · answered by gone 7 · 1 0

Yes and anyone who thinks differently has been bamboozled.

2007-10-19 05:23:36 · answer #9 · answered by Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID 6 · 1 0

Let the poor to die if they cannot afford it? Ah capitalism at it's finest.

2007-10-19 05:21:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers