No, because they are too spinless to tackle that. No one really has a plan, just stupid campaign rhetoric, and I agree with Carson, they don't speak English. (oooooooow)
2007-12-21 03:23:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
The problem is they assume the 40 Mil + people are uninsured for the same reason.
Most people who could be insured with things like Medicare and Schip Don't apply. And they are a major part of that number. The government could take policies to aggressively get people who already qualify for care coverage and some where around 1/3rd of the people in that figure would get taken care of.
The "Young Invincibles" are another major part of the population. They spend more on luxuries (eating out, Booze, going to movies) then 4X what the cheapest health insurance would cost for them. Your not going to push them into making responsible choices.
they are between 25 and 30% of the population right there
when you subtract out illegals and the homeless your left with 8 million people
so thats 5 seperate problems. Why not apply 5 solutions?
2007-12-21 04:08:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by Larry B 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Longer than you are waiting now.
The idea of changing your healthcare system is to make the health of the US population better. And yes, along the way, some people will lose out, most will get better.
You in the US pay more for healthcare than any other country in the world. And your system fails many Americans. The USA has lower average life expectancy and worse infant mortality figures than any country in western Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care#Economics And all the countries in western Europe pay less than you do.
I live in the UK, and work in the NHS, the socialised medical system we have here. Yes, there are waits for routine problems. Emergencies get treated as emergencies. The difference is that when you are treated you do not end up bankrupt, orhaving to pray that your insurance policy will pay out. When you retire in the UK, healthcare costs get cheaper, whereas from what I understand, you still need insurance to get good care in the USA, insurance when you have retired. (Like that is going to be cheap.)
In the UK, you can get private healthcare, and some employers offer this as well to some employees. And we have better figures for infant mortality and life expectancy.
You live in the richest and most powerful country in the world. If you are proud to know that babies die in the USA that would have a better chance of living in Western Europe, then fine. I would not be happy with that.
2007-12-23 07:48:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by The Patriot 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I happen to have been one of those uninsured for 15 years, only because I couldn't afford it. I paid my way and only once, when they put me into the hospital for a possible heart attack,did the hospital forgive me bill.And I did pay for the doctor.I do think the entire problem needs to start with the Dept. of Human Services. They need to get more people off the welfare line and into the workforce. Fraud is everywhere but as long as people can get by with it they will. But everywhere the agency's are understaffed. It would be a whole lot cheaper to add more staff than it is to hand out unearned welfare checks.We don't need universal health care. The solutions are in alot of different programs.
2007-12-21 09:33:58
·
answer #4
·
answered by Di LV E 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Fair question. I would expect the system to go through a bit of an adjustment, but supply does tend to rise to meet demand.
A whole lot of uninsured people do go to doctors. They wind up using emergency facilities for a large amount of services that are not, in fact, emergency matters. They also wind up getting a lot of conditions treated after they become emergencies although they could have been treated more easily and efficiently earlier if the patients had been able to afford it. So there would almost certainly be gains in efficiency as well as increases in demand for services.
Frankly, one of the reasons health care in the U.S. is so expensive is that a great deal of overhead, considered as part of health care costs, is actually in the paperwork concerned with insurance, and is as much about avoiding paying as otherwise. A system that eliminated that overhead would be a great improvement.
From my dealings with them, I suspect that would reduce delays. (I recently had an appointment delayed an extra month solely because my insurer balked and insisted I jump through some extra hoops.)
2007-12-21 03:45:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by Samwise 7
·
4⤊
1⤋
a law is a bill that has gone into affect. name one that he has sponsore, or even just added his name to as a co sponsor that is now a law. = 0 America at an all time high voted in a democratic congress in 2006 and has fallen apart since then. Obama is in the place that awarded Kadafii the head terrorist who is the leader of his country. He gives all terrorists groups the right to train in his country for the destruction of non Muslim countries. Because of the war in Iraq and Afganistan/Pakistan that is the focus of most of the terrorsts groups training there, but when we leave iraq if not able to stop the terrorsts to be taken over by the terrorists to get the oil money to support their cause= 9/11 will be kindergarden terrorism, compared to what will be coming. he Obama will tell one group one thing and the next the very opposite, and a liberal press refuses to cover it in a way that would show this, while conservitive talk shows pin the tail on the donkey, he has more skeletins in his closet than a grave yard, but dont confuse the public with facts the answer=if you just state why do peeps even think of voting for a socialist like Obama....myrids/many answers. From the blacks who block vote "Black is right" to those that feel they will get free health care (paid for by all tax payers) to those that feel like the mother ostrich when its babies are being eaten =hiding USA face in the sand will make the terrorists go away (forgetting 9/ll) ultimately there are bigger issues than Obama being labled the ultra liberal for socialism. he is a politician who has hired top advisors to get elected, he will basically say anything to any group for their votes he like mr clinton has been caught in lies that number into the hundreds. Yet Mr Clinton taught america if you smile and say even if i smoked Mary Jane dope i never inhaled, nor did monica. And disgraced America tot he entire world. there is hope for America and i was inspired from the strangest answer to a queston on Yahoo=first relax ok, lol lighten up and humor life, your cool help for you too salvation is free Revelation 3:19&20 where Jesus says I love you and ask you to repent of sin, even one lie, and ask me into your heart's door to be your friend." I prayed, "Help me Jesus, i am sorry for my sins, come into my heart and be my friend, amen Politically and spiritually worked for me, happy day to you, keep lookin up and you will never be let down, David
2016-05-25 07:32:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The majority of uninsured are illegals and young working people that opt out of their company plans, becasue they dont think they will get sick. Universal care would require these people to get insured. It doesnt my 20somethingyearold friends will go to the doctor more, just pay a premium.
2007-12-21 03:39:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by Patrick H 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
I have insurance and I dont see the doctor unless its an emergency or I am really, really sick either. and yes waits times are longer in Canada and the UK especially for certain surgeries
2007-12-21 03:25:52
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
At least they wouldn't be clogging up the ER when I am waiting with my wife or kid who actually has a real emergency.
I'd rather give an extra week for my usual checkup/tests than have to wait an extra hour because they are using the ER as a free clinic.
2007-12-21 03:44:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by James S 2
·
2⤊
2⤋
OC and Carson you are right on target. Universal Health Care would be a total disaster for the US. Especially if it is "Unmanaged" by the Dems. Good grief!! All of our medical professionals would become as proficient as our Department of Motor Vehicle "Professionals".
2007-12-21 03:35:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋