At least one candidate implies our tax money can cover everyone for health care.
1) If one cannot afford health care out of pocket, how are we to afford it with our government guaranteeing profits regardless of outcome (health care that ends with miserable results still get paid the same as those with good results), and paying added fees for monitoring and administering the programs?
2) If employers are required to provide health care (while politicians repay support in the form of legislation guaranteeing high profit and strict eligibility that results in many people not able to access health care) and maintain standards that are not imposed on competitor nations, how does this promote employment in the USA and if jobs are lost, who will pay the taxes to support the national program?
3) If it is possible for a national health plan to cover all, will senators and our President then receive the same benefits as those paying taxes to support it (like it was prior to 1992?)
2007-11-25
09:53:20
·
7 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Elections
Bone: Also health care is the only industry that is guarenteed payment regardless of the results! Just because other nations have health care of some sort does not make government intervention the only solution.
Currently our taxes pays for research to discover what average tax payers will never benefit from because the cost is too high and payment is based on what insurance companies is willing to pay, not based on supply and demand. Maybe any gov. supported research should result in free use until an equal amount of cost has been recovered by tax payers.
2007-11-25
13:36:03 ·
update #1