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

2007-12-30 15:56:20 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

28 answers

When society discovered antibiotics, and made the mistake of thinking they were a cure-all, for any illness, because it made the stockbrokers of pharmacy corporations happy, leading to the eventual evolution of multi-antibiotic resistant pathogens, I believe it became a RIGHT!

2007-12-30 16:30:53 · answer #1 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 3 0

Civilized societies protect the weakest. It has some rights only the privileged use. Experimental treatments are reserved the privileged. Without the double speak health care is a responsibility of society.

2007-12-31 00:05:01 · answer #2 · answered by Pablo 6 · 6 0

it is a privilege, not a right.
The part of the constitution that say "life, liberty, and property" does not give you the right to health care.
It means that the government cannot kill you and will avenge you if you are killed.
No one has the right to use the government to forcibly pay against my choice (liberty), money (property) that i have earned by spending time (life) at work. To sustain another's life.
Now before you say I'm heartless, it is the people that think that we need the government to pay for heath care. (medicare, Medicaid, chip, etc.)
Since the doctors can bill the government for a higher amount and since the government will just pay the bill the insurance companies have to raise rates to pay the higher amount also. Leading to more people leaning on the government since they can't afford regular insurance.
While it may hurt for a time, we need to get rid of the government programs and go back to regular insurance.
Any government program that uses tax money to support a system, that lobbyist think is broken, it is stealing.
People should be charitable to those in need, not be forced to help.

2007-12-31 01:00:13 · answer #3 · answered by Mr Teal 137 4 · 0 2

if like all the other posters answered Helathcare is an earned privelage, then how would an 8 year old child earn this privleage if he or she were to become ill, or god forbid be hit by a drunk driver or a car while riding their bike? They haven't earned it so we should turn them away and let them die?
Wow, those health care and pharmaceutical companies own you people.
I pay medicare tax, my healthcare premium from every check, a deductable and have maximum allowable charge per year for my family. So how is that different froma tax? I would rather pay that to my government and allow everyone to have health care, then pay it to a corporation who makes immoral decisions such as "Can I make money off of trying to save this childs life, or should I let him die?"
I sometimes wonder how America ever got the reputation for caring about others, certainly not from most of you.

hey pdooma: do you give the cops money when they come to your house or investigate a crime? If your neigbors house catches on fire do they have to run out and pay a co-pay before they put the fire out? No its a provided service. But you have to pay a doctor to keep someone from dying. crazy.
Edit: Roadkill-The above applies to you as well, so what if I don't want my tax money to go to the police or fire department, I only want to pay if someone breaks into my house or my house is on fire, how about that! That follows your view, What do you think?

2007-12-31 00:11:01 · answer #4 · answered by Myles D 6 · 5 1

If you can do something to help someone in need then you should do it. You should not feel that that person owes you something. You can have private healthcare as well as public healthcare. That way people who have a lot of money to spend on health care can get access to better facilities, maybe not have to wait in line quite as long. Then on the other hand there are public facilities for people that are unable to afford it, or are willing to take the risk because they are in relatively good health.

2007-12-31 00:05:30 · answer #5 · answered by michael c 3 · 2 1

Try thinking of it this way, its good leadership, regardless of what ideology you prefer. People being what they are, any government whose people are too sick or starving or diseased or lack opportunities is going to be blamed by those people. A leader really doesn't have to care as long as the leader makes sure it is done and in a reasonably efficient manner. Otherwise, they won't be a leader for long. I have a preference on this subject but it really doesn't matter. What matters is that what we are doing now is not working. Remember in your proposed solutions that our legal system is also not working and is partly or completely to blame. Make your case.

2007-12-31 01:17:56 · answer #6 · answered by balloon buster 6 · 0 0

A privilege. I have never read in any of the Federalist papers where it was considered otherwise.

2007-12-31 01:42:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

A basic Instinct

Care for fellow humans dates to prehistoric times. Anthropologists have found skeletal remains of Cave Men with bones set or evidence of severe wounds that would have required treatment from a fellow human.

Rejection of the human need for shared care is tantamount to devolving to pre civilization humanoid existence.

2007-12-31 00:13:24 · answer #8 · answered by Guerilla Liberal fighter 3 · 5 0

Does anyone recall that thing called the constitution that says that we have the RIGHT to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This would imply that health care (in support of life) is a right. Now I know that you neocons/righties think that the constitution is a door mat to wipe your feet on, but wait until you get some health issue that wipes out your savings. You'll be squealing a different tune then.

2007-12-31 00:08:46 · answer #9 · answered by kevin t 4 · 6 3

It's a RIGHT. Unless you don't pay your taxes in which case you are a thief because you'll be benefiting from the taxes paid by honest citizens you have every right to full medical coverage.

Watch that movie 'sicko'. It depresses the $hit out of me when I see two tax paying citizens being treated differently because one can afford private healthcare and the other can't. I say that's one big lousy sack of horse$hit. Does the average citizen pay for police protection when: your house gets burglarized, the car gets jacked, you get mugged etc.? Of course you don't. Then why shouldn't medicare be covered by the taxes you pay? Both cases involve your life and/or the well being of your body.

And some tools above said it's an "earned privileged". Since when is the right to live and be healthy an earned privilege?!?!? First of all don't compare health care to cars, internet etc. ok. Just when I thought I'd get by my daily visit to yahoo answers w/o seeing a retarded statement you go about ruining it. You should be the first one who needs free medical help and ASAP. When was the last time you saw someone die because he or she couldn't afford a car or internet access?!??

Let's get around some hypothesis and facts here. Put yourself in a person's shoes who is a law abiding citizen, paying her taxes and barely managing to feed her family. Here is the hypothesis - if her kid(s) get sick she's screwed, isn't she? After all can't afford her "earned privilege". And here is the fact - she represents more than 60% of the US population. Still think it's an earned privilege????

Edit: If you are concerned that others would benefit from your tax dollars if it were a right then guess again. NOBODY wants to be sick. If you have a choice to be terminally ill so you can blow Joe Smith's tax dollars on medication vs. staying healthy then you'll choose the former, wouldn't you?? (Gosh for the sake of mankind I hope not)!!

2007-12-31 00:02:40 · answer #10 · answered by ///D 3 · 6 6

fedest.com, questions and answers