English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If Democrats promised us Free Health Care then why not Free Everything????

2007-12-21 04:10:47 · 21 answers · asked by Samm 6 in Politics & Government Politics

Everybody gets a 6 figures salary!! That should solve the Proverty! right?

2007-12-21 04:11:33 · update #1

Doctors work hard to be Doctors and it costs money too.

2007-12-21 04:17:54 · update #2

21 answers

its a great idea. It's also the hillary clinton plan.

Everything for everyone!!

And no one has to pay for it!! (Don't ask how this stuff is going to magically appear without anyone working, I'm sure Hillary will work it out. She's a genius ya know).

Why not? CEO's get all kinds of free stuff, and they don't work, right?? What do you mean "most CEOs work 80 weeks?". That isn't what the movies show!!

2007-12-21 04:14:08 · answer #1 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 5 2

There is no free health care anywhere in the world. Taxes are high, rationing is the norm, and most of them have also private health insurance (80% of France) or use a lot of private options (Canada as one example).

Attempts at government health care in the US are all failures:

IHS about half what the others get--and it shows--Indian health is among the worst in the nation.

Medicare does NOT work on so many levels. Doctors are leaving--low and slow pay AND every time there is a "budget crisis" the government wants to reduce what DOCTORS get to make it "work." Premium FACTS: 1998: $43.80, 2008: $96.40--up more than 100% AND in many cases, benefits DECREASED, such as for those on Medicare HMOs who saw the drug coverage DROP to conform to the moronic "donut hole" coverage of the feds AND instead of a low co-pay on more expensive things the 20% that you'd pay on straight Medicare is owed. For those who keep standard Medicare, anyone ill will likely have "medigap" to deal with the 20% NOT covered by Medicare.

Medicaid pays even worse than Medicare.

VA, for people who EARNED it, is RATIONED. Each year a "means test" is required to see if you can have access and to what and how much YOUR co-pays will be IF you can access the system.

Etc.

When the free market is allowed to work, care is available and affordable:

LASIK prices dropped over the decade

plastic surgery, even MAJOR surgery, like a tummy tuck is cheaper than an appendectomy

http://www.simplecare.com/

http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/0217er17.html
How a DOCTOR OWNED and DOCTOR RUN hospital provides real care

The government interferes. The handful of insurers rip-people off (Linda Peeno, MD testimony, Jamie Cort's book HMOs: Making a Killing).

A real proposal in a book published a few months ago is here (read the PDF) and it includes funding--no new taxes for people, no requirement for employers to do anything--
http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.html

Catastrophic coverage so no more bankruptcies over medical bills. Still offers just a co-pay for a physical and a follow-up per year. IF needed, one ER visit with co-pay also. NO "donut hole" med coverage. No stupid caps on NEEDED treatments. Affordable premiums (sliding-fee scale--to the taxpayer's advantage). Other ideas on increasing number of doctors and nurses, etc. are in the larger chapter.

2007-12-22 12:41:12 · answer #2 · answered by heyteach 6 · 0 1

I'm all for a very simple system where no is denied basic (and I mean very basic) food, shelter, transportation, and health services. We could just give "basic" away to anyone who asked and still come out ahead. It's not the food and shelter that are expensive, it's the cost of administering the system that drains Our Treasury (our tax dollars). Making sure no one is "cheating" and everyone "meets all the requirements" to GET the stuff, costs more that it would cost to just give it away.

I simply do not believe that more than a few people would choose to live at "basic" level if there were opportunities to live better; most people would CHOOSE to work rather than live in a tiny cubicle and stand in soup lines twice a day.

Health care for the poor is ultimately at public expense anyhow, via ER visits and public health costs. It would be much more cost effective to invest these public health care dollars into preventive care and health maintenance than to wait for an ER situation to develop. Even after getting ER care, a homeless person can't care for that infected foot wound after release from hospital. He has no where clean to wash that foot and apply a clean dressing, much less a place to soak it in warm water twice a day or to stay off it for a few weeks.

Back to your question, you are leaving out the qualifier "basic necessity". It's not about guarantees of splendor and opulance, only of what is needed to survive and not be a burden on society. Most of us who support universal access to health care think of it as a necessity, like food or shelter, not a luxury like HDTV.

2007-12-21 12:38:20 · answer #3 · answered by kill_yr_television 7 · 0 1

You are making twomistakes--and they are the same mistakes every other conservative is making. And--if the conservatives keep this up, their actions are going to lead directly to socialized medicine.

The first mistake is claiming the Democrats are promising "free health care"--andthat is not correct. That mistake is minor, though--jsut political rhetoric.

The second is far more serious. We do have a crisis inhealth care in this country--and we need ideas from BOTh conservative and liberal perspectives to work out viable solutions. Take a look back in history at the GI Bill (to name only one exampe) of the spectacular successes we've had a s a country when liberals and conservatives work together.

But that is not happening. The Democrats are putting some policy proposals on the table. Soe are good--others, quitefrankly, suck. What is NOT happening is conservatives putting forward any alternative policy proposals. IDeas--not political slogans or ideological rants--which is all that we are hearing from the right (and, no offense, but your post is a good example).

So--when it comes time to ccraft legislation, lawmakers are going to have ideas from only the liberal end of the spectrum--and so thos will be the only ideas that get put into practice. That'snot good for the policy, and its not good for the country. But if that happens--it will be the conservatives who are to blame for not stepping up to the plate and doing their part.

2007-12-21 12:24:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

You really need to look at what US healthcare results in.

I live in the UK and work in the NHS (our universal health care system). It has problems, but not as many as the US healthcare system has. Despite spending much more per head of population than other developed countries, the US has worse health outcomes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care#Economics Life expectancy and infant mortality figures in the US are higher than in other developed countries, despite more money being spent (and wasted) in the USA.

In the UK there are waiting lists for routine problems. Problems that can not wait are treated as emergencies. Also, in the UK, people can also have private health care.

I can understand Americans being proud of living in the richest and most powerful country in the world. What I can not understand is why Amercians settle for an expensive healthcare system where babies die that would have a better chance of life if born in another developed country.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2167865,00.html

2007-12-23 17:00:29 · answer #5 · answered by The Patriot 7 · 1 1

I recognize there a problem with the price of health care but the bigger problem is the people that rather go buy that new car, HDTV, new pair of nikes, INSTEAD of paying for their own health insurance.

2007-12-21 12:26:12 · answer #6 · answered by Crash1121 2 · 4 0

To someone said our taxes pay for the war so why not our health care? Why do we have to pay for any wars at all? Why not just remove our involvement overseas? Why must we have taxes for health care? Why must my taxes pay for your health? What about money for preventive diseases? What if you're an obese person who doesn't take care of him or herself, does it seem fair that I pay for you?

2007-12-21 12:35:32 · answer #7 · answered by Austrian Theorist 4 · 1 1

Because "Free Health Care? then why not Free Housing? Free HDTV? Free Car? Free Everything" isn't necessary. Health care is.

2007-12-21 12:17:01 · answer #8 · answered by katydid 7 · 2 6

Free everything? I assume you're being sarcastic. There is only one thing that's truly free and that is salvation through the blood of Christ Jesus.

2007-12-21 13:33:04 · answer #9 · answered by mikey 6 · 0 2

I think the food is more of a necesity than health care. I WANT UNIVERSAL FOOD! Everyone should have free food!

2007-12-21 12:20:46 · answer #10 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 4 1

fedest.com, questions and answers