This is America. If you have money, no one is going to force you to give up your choices of insurance and doctors. It's just to help those that have nothing be able to get some care so that they don't end up at the ER every time they need help, which ends up costing taxpayers much more in the end.
Isn't prevention cheaper than cures? Or do you have absolutely no sympathy for the poor who can't afford medical care?
2007-12-22 05:48:11 · 9 answers · asked by topink 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Health Care is not an issue for just the poor.
The most common reason for personal bankruptcy in the US is sickness.
2007-12-22 07:29:33 · answer #1 · answered by Citizen1984 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That's what they tell us now. Here's a FACT: the recent SCHIP proved they lie.
The EXPANSION of the program was to cover children of people WHO ALREADY HAD THEM PRIVATELY INSURED in about 85% of cases--as well as many an adult up to 25.
This proposal that was rejected requires robbing the working poor to subsidize those making $80K a year to do something that was already done better--the parents selected the policy they wanted for their children.
BTW, I never made much money, NEVER had a health insurance policy through an employer (had a few small ones as a student), and am and have been chronically ill for a long time. I have significant med bills which required me to work extra whenever possible and have NO frills. What is a vacation? Never owned a cell phone. No idea what Starbucks anything tastes like--can't afford those things.
If you want a plan that WORKS without abusing the working poor, we need CATASTROPHIC HEALTH CARE COVERAGE and a FREE MARKET.
Why is a tummy tuck--totally elective--probably about one-third the cost of an appendectomy?
The tummy tuck is largely done under a free market; the appendectomy is presumed to be for the insured--so the uninsured are billed far more than the insured so those profits can flow to the insurance company. (And yes, hospitals are AGGRESSIVE with collections and if they don't get it out of the person, the taxpayer pays so we can all subsidize the large insurers and their discount prices.)
The system needs to be fixed, but turning to one of the two that made it break (government) is illogical. (Big insurance is the other element that ruined health care. Take them out and things are reasonably priced.
http://www.simplecare.com/
as one example.)
Want a plan that would eliminate bankruptcies from medical bills? Be available to all at an affordable price? Include one physical with follow up every year? And an ER visit IF NEEDED? Then read the PDF and see the basics, including funding:
http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.html
(And I mean open the PDF, not the short info on the page.)
Fail to do that and we'll see more of THIS:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2007/db20071120_397008.htm
2007-12-22 06:30:19 · answer #2 · answered by heyteach 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
In the UK we have both the National Health Service and Private Medicine.
Everyone is covered by the NHS but if you have the money you can choose to take out insurance or pay private fees.
You don't "pay twice" for your healthcare if you do so, because you do not have a specific amount of your taxes taken for Healthcare - you just pay taxes and the Government uses the money as it sees fit. If they abolished the NHS I'm sure they'd find something else the spend the money on so taxes would not necessarily come down.
2007-12-22 06:27:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let me tell you my experiences in the UK. I work in the NHS, our universal healthcare system. Yes it has problems, but it is better than the healthcare system you have in the USA.
Despite spending loads on healthcare, the USA has the worst figures among western democracies for infant mortality and life expectancy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care#Economics The worst, and you pay more for it. In the UK, we have the option of having private medicine.
If you are proud to live in the richest and most powerful country that is fine, but are you also proud to live in a country where babies die that would have had a better chance of living if they have been born abroad?
2007-12-23 07:58:29 · answer #4 · answered by The Patriot 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
ER expenses are still cheap compared to long term treatments and complicated surgeries. Universal health care would cause taxes to rise, there is no doubt about it. Keeping your fellow citizens healthy and alive seems like a good cause though...
2007-12-22 06:04:05 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The ones that are truly poor in this country already get their health care paid for.
Shrillary's plan is socialized medicine, and Edwards plan is draconian at best, to the point that if you went to a Dr and DIDN'T have his health coverage, you would be forced to pay for it, even garnishing your wages.
Keep the government out of the health care business.
2007-12-22 06:02:09 · answer #6 · answered by Mark A 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
What part of Medicaid do you not understand... or the county hospitals or the free clinics? The poor have no problem whatsoever getting free care. Just call 911 and they are there.
2007-12-22 06:02:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
You just described in relative detail the system we already have. There's this thing called medicaid. It's been around for years. There's another thing called free clinics, also been around for years.
2007-12-22 05:59:38 · answer #8 · answered by DOOM 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You are sadly misinformed. I work in healthcare. The poor have WAY better coverage than I do via medicaid. It pisses me off everyday.
2007-12-22 08:56:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋