2007-11-21 12:26:55 · 9 answers · asked by WJ 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I don't. Can you tell us that insurance does not need reformed though? We are being raped by insurance companies and it's legal.
2007-11-21 12:30:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because one was the work of the Bush Administration and the other will be the work of the new (Democratic) president!
Kidding . . . . well, sort of.
Yes. govt programs of all types have a tendency to be more expensive than forecast, but the healthcare situation in this country is an absolute mess. I agree with the first poster: insurance companies are taking their cut, most often trying to make that cut as large as possible by onerous rules, paperwork and outright denial to pay that sick people and doctors have to wade through. And over 15% of the population doesn't have health insurance at all. You should look at the photo essay in the last New York Times Sunday Magazine. There's got to be a better way to do provide healthcare to Americans than is being done now.
2007-11-21 20:38:36 · answer #2 · answered by TaDa 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, I thought it was the other way round; you cons swearing up and down that Bush was doing such a bang-up job in Iraq, but how could a government that was running such a great war NOT handle national health care?
FYI, the cost of taking care of the uninsured is already underwritten by you and I in the form of higher health care costs and higher premiums.
Do you actually think that hospitals, doctors, etc. just write off all that cost?
You're already paying for it.
2007-11-22 06:54:03 · answer #3 · answered by John Doe 1st 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no way you can back that up! That's a joke! health care for EVERYBODY (lol)! Bill tried that and I have a secret for you, it didn't work. The war is the most important thing right now. They caused a major catastrophe(9/11) and now they have to pay the price. Not only that, but Iraq would be helpless without us. But I still can't get over that you think health care will actually work.
2007-11-21 21:13:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Health care in general needs to be addressed. And no I do not believe that anything the Government touchs will ever be on budget....Its just not the nature of the beast. ( Oh and there is no such thing as a simple war!)
2007-11-21 21:16:45 · answer #5 · answered by wbaker777 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
simple war in Iraq? maybe that's the problem all along? consevatives keep calling it "simple" when everytime they turn around, it seems to be anything but?
but war and a state plan are two different animals... if you want to talk about schools or the post office, that would be much more of an apples to apples comparison...
war is far more unpredictable than medicine... on average...
2007-11-21 21:00:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The govt. didn't underestimate the cost of the war. We were only supposed to be there for less than a year. The Bush Admin. was lying through its teeth.
2007-11-21 20:32:26 · answer #7 · answered by CaesarLives 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
the point is moot...the real argument is the liberal attempt to buy votes with it. the idea that somehow we need to supply families making up to eighty thou a year and the northbound end of a southbound horse have a lot in common. again, the bugetary concern clearly misses the main idea.
2007-11-21 20:36:21 · answer #8 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't, regardless change is desperately needed. Healthcare costs are draining US companies and families.
2007-11-21 20:32:05 · answer #9 · answered by beren 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋