can the health care debate really be simplified down to this:?

Question

liberals: believe everyone should have health care in america. if people are currently ok with the health care they receive, that's fine too, they can continue using that health care system. but a government funded system should be in place for the poor

conservatives (most): are against universal health care because that would result in higher taxes that they don't want to pay. (even though many of them are Christian, and their religion advocates giving to the poor).

if not, explain why

you guys DID read the part about how "you can continue using your current system if you're satisfied with it", right?

by the way, if "what's mine is mine" people wouldn't be paying any taxes, now would they?

Answer 1

hmmm...good point.

Answer 2

For a few of the previous posters, the cancer suffer was sent to the states because the treatment had not been approved in Canada. Canada has longer mandatory testing periods for many drugs which means there is a delay. However while America was pulling Vioxx of the shelf for causing heart failure Canada was unaffected as it was not approved.

Canada does from time to time send patients to the states. A RURAL BC town is not going to have the greatest medical equipment and in sensitive cases the patient is airlifted to the nearest hospital regardless to expedite treatment. Canada pays for this. It isn't a matter of availability for care, it is mostly to look out for the best interest of the patient, and sometimes that mean seeking for immediate care at an American hospital.

Everybody should have access to affordable heath care. it is an abomination that one of the self proclaimed wealthiest nations in the world also has one of the highest infant mortality rates for an industrialized nation, as well as a diminishing life expectancy

there has been no proposed fully subsidized system, like almost all of Europe, Canada and CUBA have fort he USA. Rather it has been pur forth that the option to opt into affordable state run heath coverage should be available to all Americans. What is the harm in an opt in not for profit heath system? If you are pleased with your current care maintain it, however after you have your first heart attack and your premiums increase to the point where you can longer afford to continue carrying your own personal insurance, there will be a state run system in place to offer you another option. This isn't abut handing everybody a free pass. Health is a basic Human right. Heath is one of the most precious things we can have, and why somebody would so adamantly oppose a proposition that would provide others with the gift of heath is beyond me..

Answer 3

can we are saying the object is bias from the 1st sentence: "It became a watershed 2nd contained in the wellbeing care conflict" entire opinion piece, did no longer examine something extra after that. the author would desire to artwork for his marketing campaign no longer yahoo. This bill will pass because of the fact it extremely is going to learn the scientific wellbeing coverage industry. think of roughly it. They require, by using congressional regulation, that all of us contained in the US has wellbeing care coverage. shall we only take Obama's estimate (assuming for arguments sake there are not any illegals in that entire) that 40 5 hundreds of thousands individuals have not got coverage. i will subtract approximately 10 million assuming they qualify for medicare/medicaide. Now meaning, regardless of in the event that they paid a greenback a three hundred and sixty 5 days, that would desire to be 35 million extra beneficial moolah to the wellbeing industry. Now take that quantity and say all of us will pay 2 hundred money a three hundred and sixty 5 days. Thats a whoping 7 billion money. Thats alot of chump substitute to play with. CEO's would desire to be licking their chomps for the income they're going to make.

Answer 4

Our country already pays for medical care for the poor. Hospitals are not allowed to deny medical care to anyone; therefore, someone who is poor and in need will still get treated.

Conservatives believe in individual responsibility: “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.”

Liberals, on the other hand, believe that we should give everything to anyone who asks. In other words, you don't have to work because the rest of us will take care of you. Liberals are equal to the creation of laziness and irresponsibility.

Answer 5

No it cannot.
Liberals feel that government should take total control of your life. Even at the expense of your health care. Ask the folks in GB why they leave the country in droves to be treated for illnesses, or why Canada has to send their neonatal care patients to the US.
Conservatives believe people should take more responsibility for themselves and their breeding habits. Conservatives want to keep the good health care we get today.

Answer 6

no no no no no

The conservative position has little to do with people NOT wanting to pay higher taxes . . . it has more to do with a belief in smaller government and that health care is much better and will be of a higher quality if you keep government out of it. Geesh! You're description shows an incredible ignorance of opposing positions.

(That would be like a conservative saying that liberals are pro-choice because they hate babies. Thinking minds know that is not true) Unfortunately this type of stupidity is all too pervasive in our society.

Answer 7

Here is what the liberals want;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_LutWBunb4
The Christian churchs are the conservatives own worst emeny, they protect the human rights of pedaflies, terrorists and illegals. Sort of like the liberals; throwing good money at the BAD!

3 thumbs down? come on, that is the best 1.11 second truthful explanation in existence.

Answer 8

The #1 liberal error... just because giving to the poor is a good thing... That *DOES NOT* mean that you have the right to take my money at the point of a gun..... and then bestow in upon whomever *you* deem worthy..... usually as a reward for voting for you and yours.

Answer 9

Wrong.

Ever seen Canada's health care system? They send their sickest patients to America for treatment. Canada doesn't have the best and newest medical technologies or medicines because there are no financial incentives for them to buy it.

In America, we have preventive care. HMO's learned a long time ago it is cheaper to buy the latest million dollar scanners than to deal with diseases after they have progressed. That is the difference between capitalism and socialism.

Canadian cancer survivor: "There’s no question that going to the United States saved my life"
Colorectal Cancer Association of Canada - CCAC
http://www.ccac-accc.ca/news.php?id=53

Canadian government:
"Four years ago when Suzanne Aucoin was diagnosed with colorectal cancer, she had to travel every week to the United States to buy life-saving cancer drugs " Medical Tourism Boosted by Long Wait Times - Embassy - Newspaper
http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/march/28/tourism/

Answer 10

no

liberals view = everyone should have access to health care regardless of income, by subsidizing people who cannot afford health insurance.
access to health care promote less risk of outbreak, and less health care costs for the rest of us, because providers will not have to pass losses onto the rest of us who can pay, that are caused by people who can't. We already pay the bills of people who cannot pay in the form of higher medical expenses. Time to reverse this situation. May cause a small increase in taxes, but you will reap the benefits in lower health care costs, just like we pay taxes to subsidize farmers, but reap the benefits of affordable food. No lib/dem proposal has suggested socializing medicine as we see in Canada or Europe. those who say such nonsense are only attempting to mislead voters, or have been misled themselves.

Conservative view = whats mine is mine, no one else's if i have to risk higher rate of infection and higher health care costs due to millions without health care to avoid what my radio tells me is socialized medicine, then so be it!

anyone who does not realize the awful things that are coming as antibiotics become useless, and multi-antibiotic resistant forms of many old diseases appear, should not be considered intelligent enough to vote.

Answer 11

There is nothing simple about a disastrous medical field.