Why should I have to pay for the health care of others?

Question

I was born into this world with nothing, just like every other American. My family wasn't rich. We were poor. I made something of myself (middle class hero). Why should I have to pay for those who didn't?

I don't want to deny anything from anybody. I would give to a charity that will help those who can't afford health costs. I just don't want to be forced. Some months I can't afford all the taxes. My theory is that people want to choose where their money goes and they will do the right thing when left to their own decisions.

Answer 1

You shouldn't have to.

Answer 2

You should not. There is no need to either. High health care costs are a function of governmental interference and the domination of health care by big insurance companies who get too many breaks.

You can be seen and treated for under $100 at walk-in clinics places like Wal-mart for a host of things including upper respiratory infections.

You can see docs at reasonable prices for more serious issues--one such private group--http://www.simplecare.com/

LASIK prices dropped over the decade.

An uninsured patient who had to choose between either a "tummy tuck" or an uncomplicated appendectomy with no peritonitis would pay about 1/3 for the plastic surgery of what he'd be billed for the medically necessary appendectomy OWING to the interference of the government and the passing on of costs to the uninsured so the insurance companies can get deep discounts and pay their CEOs millions.

Answer 3

If there is a natural disaster in your community why should I pay for the federal relief? After all, you chose to live there. Why should I get stuck with the bill because you made a bad decision?

You make sound like people who don't have health insurance don't work. Most do but wither can't afford it or have been denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

Answer 4

Actually I don't know many people who pay for their health care directly. Most people have health insurance. And we need health insurance because even the treatment for a heart attack could drive a middle class person into bankruptcy. And many years I do not get sick but pay insurance, so I guess I am trading the risk for paying for the health care of others. The point being that there are no proposals for nationalized health care not from any of the Democratic Party candidates. The proposals are for universal health insurance.

Answer 5

I just answered this question moments ago. Be right back with my answer. It was about universal health care coverage.
There are hospitals where people can go and cannot be refused service regardless of their ability to pay. Under the current system there is no way for these hospitals to re-coup their financial losses-yet they are required by law to accept any one and everyone. Consequently the working poor and the unemployed poor cannot afford preventative health care services and end up at the hospital when they have become severely ill. If they could have preventive health care services their health care costs overall would be far less expensive then the care received after they have become severely ill and hospitalized.
I think that if the government-by law-requires hospitals to accept patients who cannot pay the bill then the government should be responsible for helping to pay for that expense. Other wise it is like the hospitals are required to work without pay-sort of like being "slaves" for the services provided. Locally emergency rooms are becoming a rarity-entire hospitals are going bankrupt-and that means less service for everyone-including those who have Health Insurance Policies. It is a lose/lose situation for everyone. Can it be corrected? Well the negative concept of "Socialized Medicine" faces major opposition. But don't we have "Socialized Education" in the form of a public school systems? And "Socialized Military Defense"? And a "Socialized Government" supported by our tax dollars? Think about it.
Here is a scenario:
You have adequete health care coverage which you pay for. You have a stroke-a heart attack-a car accident and must be transported to the emergancy room for your life to be saved. But the nearest hospital emergancy room is miles away. You die enroute to that hospital. Guess what? You just paid for all the uninsured persons-WITH YOUR LIFE.
And I got the first thumbs down while I was retrieving my answer before I posted it. Guess someone already knew what I was about to say? Maybe they are mind readers?
For smug policy holders-The 17 year old who had coverage dies waiting for a transplant because the insurance company failed to approve it for so long-approving it at last when she was on her death bed on the same day she died. That is in the news TODAY.

Answer 6

While it is compassionate to help others with health care, It is not compassionate to force this help. It is important to note that the intent of"Universal Health Care" has nothing to do with health care..........it is all about control.
Remember if you live in the U.S. and can not afford health care, it is only because of poor choices you have made. Poverty in the U.S. is a behavioral problem, not an economic or social issue.
Lets say there is a person in my neighborhood who is sick and is unable to pay for their care. I go house to house and ask people to donate whatever they can afford to help this person out.I also make it clear that all of the money I collect will be sent to this person.
That would be considered compassionate, would it not?

Now same scene, but instead of asking, I put a gun to everyone's head and demand 10% of their income to help this person out. At the same time, I tell them that 60% of this money will be wasted due to fraud and other charges, 25% I will keep to pay for my time, and the other 15% will not only go to the one sick person, but to anyone I deem as needing it.
Would this be compassionate........not a chance, in fact I would go to jail. This is exactly what the government does.

Do not use the threat of the power of the force of government to take my money and give to someone else that has made a choice not to be productive!

Answer 7

That is up to you and the US electorate. If you are happy to work to make your country a better place, change your healthcare (or non-care) system. If you do not want to improve your country, keep the system you have got.

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

Answer 8

No one should have to pay for the health care of others. Unfortionatly, our government has been meddeling in things it has no business in, and caused price fixing. The price of helath care is directly related to government involvement. When I was a kid, anyone could afford to go to the doctor, and if you needed surgery, you could get it, you might have to pay for it for a few months, but you could get it done, and not lose your house.
Now if you want to see a doctor, it costs 160.00 just to get a prescription renewed, and if you want to see a specialist, it can easily set you back 1000.00 for one appointment.
The reason for all of this is that standard of care, which is mandated by the government, and enforced by the courts, requires the doctors to protect themselves by ordering all the latest and greatest tests, because if they miss something, they will likely get sued, and lose everything. This standard of care requires many gadgets and very expensive equipment. They must provide this standard of care for everyone, without regard to their ability to pay, and someone has to pay for it, so everyone's rates go up.
Government programs pay only a small fraction of what is billed, but it taxes the providers on what is billed, so the hospitals and providers pad their bills. The same is true of insurance companies. I was billed for a proceedure and hospital stay at 56,000.00. The insurance company settled for 14,000.00, as full payment. Had I been paying myself, I would have been expected to pay the entire amount, or lose my house.
As you might expect, the management of all the bureaucracy which now surrounds everything in medicine also costs money, and getting the paperwork right is a major undertaking, much like the IRS forms we fill out every year. All government paperwork is cumbersome and unnecessarily complicated, but it is considered necessary in order to protect the provider from all the lawyers who like as not will be second guessing everything they do.
Many of these middle class heros are lawyers, some are doctors, some are nurses, some are insurance salesmen, and we are all cought up in this really unfriendly game of gotcha, which feeds on itself, because we are all trying to make a living, dealing with a climate of fear which is aided and augmented by the government, and their regulation of medicine, and everything else.
Since our big invasive government invented all of this, they are the only one's equipped to pay for it, and that means us, the taxpayer.

Answer 9

good thing you don't live in canada! i'm not sure what your welfare system is like over there, but i know people who live on the system and live much more comfortable lives than my husband and i... and our taxes pay for it, along with mother's allowance and disability pensions... all of the money for people who need assistance is from the government (with the exception of employer paid benefits). i love my fellow canadians, and i don't mind helping out when it's needed... key words being "WHEN IT'S NEEDED". in this country, though, more people abuse the system which causes more strain on the taxpayers... so sure, we pay for other people's medical expenses, but we also pay for their living expenses. i can't imagine things getting any better OR worse...

Answer 10

Why should you pay for an FAA, or a Coast Guard, or highways, or police and fire protection of others ?
I presume you are a Republican.
Why should you pay for a public water system for others, or museums, parks, and education for others. There is some basis for your question, but having an overall society that provides some basic level of support for the poorest even benefits you, too. If you had a time machine, perhaps you would be happier in a earlier century.

Answer 11

Maybe this wouldn't be a problem for a rich country like ours if we wouldn't have to pay for illegals health care and if our tax dollars wouldn't go to pay for the "pork" in every bill the congress passes. We are buying votes and giving to illegals instead of taking care of our own.