would you favor a national plan that only covers catastrophic illness and leaves coverage of every day sniffles to the private health plans?
2007-11-27 00:14:06 · 8 answers · asked by Overt Operative 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That's the problem right there............it's taking care of the little things before they become catastrophic. People with no healthcare wait till it becomes a major illness before they get help.
2007-11-27 00:19:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
Too many loopholes. Almost anything can be placed under the "catastrophic" category. Especially when leeches get lawyers involved. It is not the government's job. There is no "freedom from illness" line in the Constitution.
2007-11-27 00:25:42 · answer #2 · answered by hottiecj *~♥~*~♥~* 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
That would be acceptable to me, providing every bump and bruise is not considered 'catastrophic'. Government programs seem to suffer from massive 'mission creep'. I imagine they would soon start to redefine what 'catastrophic' means.
.
2007-11-27 01:45:47 · answer #3 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is not, in any way, the government's job to provide you with health insurance or health care services. The government's job is to govern (make and enforce laws).
Leave it all to the private sector.
2007-11-27 00:25:01 · answer #4 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No
The very concept of socialist medicine, in any form whatsoever, is repulsive and anathema to the Ideals upon which this great Nation was founded
2007-11-27 00:28:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Best idea I've heard yet, you get a star.
2007-11-27 00:16:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 7⤋
That would be best, yes.
2007-11-27 00:17:42 · answer #7 · answered by Bob Thompson 7 · 1⤊ 7⤋
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great idea.
2007-11-27 00:17:30 · answer #8 · answered by Duminos 2 · 1⤊ 7⤋