president 2008 health care michael moore
2007-12-23 07:59:33 · 12 answers · asked by frank c 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Dennis Kucinich
2007-12-23 08:02:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Finally! The issue has always been HEALTH INSURANCE. Unfortunately people usually say HEALTH CARE. A national system of HEALTH CARE would certainly be a bad idea, and I have no particular problem with the arguments against it. HEALTH INSURANCE is a totally different critter. INSURANCE has been around since traders figured out that if they put 10% of their goods on ten different ships chance are that at least enough of their cargo would get through to make a profit. Most forms of insurance still turns a profit...no problem there. But HEALTH INSURANCE is a totally different thing. Before modern medicine there really was no treatment for most physical problems. Today, there's many treatments....expensive, true, but they do exist. Health insurance companies long ago figured out that they need only insure those that are young, healthy and unlikely to hurt themselves to turn a good profit. Insuring anyone else was, from a business standpoint, foolish. Enter universal HEALTH INSURANCE.....a public corporation that would replace Medicare, Medicade and all the other 'public' health insurance venues. Venues that we already pay for. Everyone would pay, but everyone would pay less as doctors and hospitals would no longer have to pad bills to cover the expenses incured treating the uninsured. Any of the democrats see this clearly...none of the Republicans do. At this point I see Obama as the best choice....given Obama and a congress of like minded representitives we have an odds on chance of finally getting the UNIVERSAL HEALTH INSURANCE that wage-earning Americans deserve. No Kiddin'!
2007-12-23 16:18:45 · answer #2 · answered by Noah H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well something needs to be done to cover the uninsured. It is a hard issue, becuase the people without insurance should be paying into the pot. They are the ones using it most. But it would be stepping on our freedom of choice to make people pay for health insurance. If you want national healthcare, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney are both strong in the area. I think we need to keep the insurance companies private, but set up tax penalties for those who choose not to buy health insurance. Somehow it needs to be paid for by them, to some degree, to aleviate some of the financial strain.
Jared Balis
http://www.utahinsurance.org
http://www.myinsurancequotes.net
2007-12-24 13:18:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have state insurance in Florida......The rates are through the roof.....if you think $4000 a year is okay for a regular 3 bedroom home then I don't know what to tell you. You will never ever have lower rates until you have competition. The Government will remove the competition and you can bet your sweet patootie they will have their hands way deep in the pockets of this program.
National insurance plan = American will lose.
2007-12-23 16:09:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hillary
2007-12-23 16:27:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
John Edwards.
2007-12-23 16:22:23 · answer #6 · answered by barbwire 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anyone that has a plan that includes insurance companies is looking for a quick fix instead of a real solution.
Hillary was lobbyed off
2007-12-23 16:05:26 · answer #7 · answered by Edge Caliber 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Eating proplerly, enough exercise, and a clear mind is the best candidate for national health.
2007-12-23 16:03:31 · answer #8 · answered by Pancakes 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Here is a link with some info:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/18051.html
2007-12-23 16:13:16 · answer #9 · answered by dollysj 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whoever is against a national health insurance plan.
2007-12-23 16:02:32 · answer #10 · answered by madd texan 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋