Why so they can multiply even more to make the health care system worthless for us people that have jobs?
2007-12-18 02:05:33 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Economics
Get rich quick schemes in the capitalist business world, (buyouts, IPOs, conglomerates, acquisitions, mergers, and the stock market), do not actually work. Remaining solvent does not actually exist within false economics capitalism.
Profit existing in the capitalist business world, or millionaires existing within capitalism, is pathological deception committed by the 21 organizations spying on the population with plain clothes agents, (with covert fake names and fake backgrounds).
Actual economics is the persons paying the monthly business loan payments of companies voting at work in order to control the property they are paying for.
Capitalism is the psychology of imaginary parents, false economics, and the criminal deception of employees that are paying the bills (including the stocks and bonds, or shares) of companies.
Anti-democracy republicanism is the psychology of imaginary parents, and false government.
2007-12-18 04:51:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
As correctly pointed out by a previous answer, there are poor people that have government provided health insurance while working people above the poverty line do not have health insurance.
There are health care systems in the world that provide universal or near universal coverage to all citizens (not just the poor). To the best of my knowledge they are getting along pretty well and the poor are not mulitplying like rabbits, ruining things for the non-poor (just so you know, there are poor people that have jobs too).
Think about this. You have a poor person with no insurance that gets sick. Since he has no insurance he decides not to see anyone about. Things get worse, in fact so worse he needs to go to the ER. He is now hospitalized for a week. For arguement's sake let's say all of this could have been avoided if the person had gone in to a doctor earlier. Now the bill is $30,000 and the person files for bankruptcy. The costs to the hospital have already taken place and now the hospital has to eat the $30,000.
The fact of the matter is (and I think lots of people will agree with me on this) that everyone regardless of the economic status has the rights to certain basic freedoms. My opinion (and one shared by all of the industrialized countries other than the US, this is where you obviously disagree with me) is that one of these freedoms is the right to a basic level of healthcare.
2007-12-18 16:00:27 · answer #2 · answered by Jim 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The truly poor already qualify for government provided health care. The movement for national health care is more intended to help "working americans" who make too much to be considered in poverty, but still struggle to make ends meet and pay for expensive commercial health insurance. I.E. they have jobs.
2007-12-18 12:30:32 · answer #3 · answered by Steve A 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A certain level of health care availability for everyone is a great idea. I don't want to ride the train next to sick people or have my kids in school with sick kids. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure -- and is less costly to society.
2007-12-18 17:59:47 · answer #4 · answered by JP 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are unclear on the concept. "Universal" means for everyone, not just for the poor.
As to poor people supposedly multiplying if they had healthcare, consider that they may actually stop multiplying once they have the same level of access to contraception and abortion as middle class does. Japan, Italy, and Germany, all of which have universal healthcare, actually have negative population growth rates...
2007-12-18 16:47:09 · answer #5 · answered by NC 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
okay i have a differnt veiw on things. i am a mother of four children and yes i am fixed so i cant populate the world with poor people. anyways my husband is out of work due to a head injury. and in cases like this we can not pay for health insurance. and we do pay our own way.
2007-12-18 10:52:15 · answer #6 · answered by Liz27 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think before achieving that, we must first have a "UNIVERSAL PEACE CARE FOR WARRING NATIONS" war kills more than health of poor people, and spends a lot more than providing double health care for all poor people.
2007-12-18 10:26:16 · answer #7 · answered by mardideles 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I think healthcare is something everyone deserves, regardless of your opinion of them.
Do you really think allowing people to die from lack of healthcare is a plan to improve the world?
2007-12-18 13:28:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree! If you just give them stuff there is no motivation.Get a job welfare moochers!!!
2007-12-18 10:10:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋