Ok, I want to ask the day people, on the lines of a Universal Health Care Insurance program, pros's and con's.
Ok, the con's are: Longer weight periods, less choice, higher taxes etc
The pros's are: Everyone would have health care, no one left behind, and yes once again, everyone would have health care.
To give an example, the other day I met a homeless person, he is 35, looks 40. He does not do drugs, he just cannot hold down a job due to his illness and needs help. He explains to me that no doctor will touch him. He is asked the same question over and over, "Do you have Insurance" When he tells them, no I do not, they turn him away. He said he was told 1.5 years ago that he has cancer and surgery them Kemo would be the treatment. I have asked similar questions in the past and some of the answers went like this. We do not need it because of higher taxes, why should I pay for it, Longer wait times, it wont work etc. One, how can you tell people that has no coverage, and no health care service now, they dont need it cause of longer wait times. I say this is an outrage. How can this be. Is there
Answers:
There is a big difference between "Universal Health Care" and "Universal Insurance" -- the Some Countries have Universal Health Care which gives longer waiting times, and no one can get better care than another.
Universal Insurance can work pretty much the same as current insurance -- only everyone has access to insurance at a lower cost. Done properly, Universal Health Insurance will still give the option of purchasing Better insurance, and will allow people to choose their doctor, and pay more for better medical services.
There is only one big problem with the idea. All of the people on welfare ect., we get to pay for. I already surrender about 20 percent of my paycheck, how much more do I need to give. What potential gains are in it for me, the working class...
Universal Health Care will be paid for by the outrageous profits of the drug companies, medical insurance companies and all of the for-profit hospitals. All of those profits will be capped and regulated. No more $78 million dollar CEO's like the crook who runs Caremark...
http://www.forbes.com/static/pvp2005/lir...
Cons:
Monopolies are bad, especially ones that have guns and will put you in jail. Government (the ultimate monopoly) is not the answer, it is the problem.
You seem to dismiss "less choice" and "higher taxes" as no big deal. You may think slavery is cool, but leave me out. I am willing to fight for my freedom and my hard earned private property, it is a shame people like you are so eager to sell yourself into slavery.
I eat right and exercise, raising my taxes to pay for health care of people that don't diet and exercise is just plain EVIL. If you don't want to take care of yourself, that's fine. If you want to steal money from my family to pay for your bad decisions, then you are a sick, demented, evil, inhuman monster.
Income tax started at 1% and affected less than 1% of the population when it started. Now it averages 30% and affects 100% of the population. Government only gets bigger and more oppressive. If you surrender your freedom to choose your own insurance, it is only a matter of time before the government is literally deciding who lives and dies. Do you want a government bearucrat in D.C. deciding if your sick child will live based on how much it costs?
The government getting involved in health care in any way is one of the worst ideas in human history. Why won't people fight for freedom for a change instead of giving it away?
Under our current plan everyone pays the same AMOUNT for their insurance coverage )those that can afford it anyway). Regardless of what you earn.
Lets say $500.00 per month. Now if you are earning $2000.00 per month , that coverage costs you 25% of your total income.
If you earn $20,000.00 per month you pay $500.00 per month, that equals 2.5% of your total income.
Under National health insurance everyone pay the same PERCENTAGE:
If you earn $2,000.00 per month, you pay 3% or $60.00 per month, and if you earn $20,000.00 per month you pay $600.00 per month.
Very simple.
Look to the 17 other countires that have it; especially Canada.
We are in an excellent position here, because we can study the countries that have had National Insurance for decades, and put in what works, and leave out what does not.
The main thing is we cut out all the huge exploitation of the workers; the outrageous "profits" of the insurance comanies and pharmacutical conglomerates. And put that money into medical treatment and services for AMERICANS.
I know of a mentally disabled person, who has not had available coverage to treat his afflictions also.
It took him 3 years to convince the government that he could not hold a job, or get along with others.
He has had 53 jobs in his life time, and has been homeless off and on since he was 16.
After getting approved for disability, he had to wait 2 years before getting medical insurance.
He did not qualify for his states medical programs, and had various severe physical health problems as well, including emphysema.
By the time he qualified for medical, he was to far gone for any current treatment to be affective.
He still lives, but prays for death.
We need to set up a system for each State to have access to free medical for those uninsured.
When the bill is drawn up for the treatment, it is passed to the State, in which the Government has set up a half State, half Federal fund for payment.
This can be funded by " SIN TAXES " on cigarettes, booze, and lottery, along with payments from fines on pollution.
Just an idea.
The Answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers:
The pros's are: Everyone would have health care, no one left behind, and yes once again, everyone would have health care.
To give an example, the other day I met a homeless person, he is 35, looks 40. He does not do drugs, he just cannot hold down a job due to his illness and needs help. He explains to me that no doctor will touch him. He is asked the same question over and over, "Do you have Insurance" When he tells them, no I do not, they turn him away. He said he was told 1.5 years ago that he has cancer and surgery them Kemo would be the treatment. I have asked similar questions in the past and some of the answers went like this. We do not need it because of higher taxes, why should I pay for it, Longer wait times, it wont work etc. One, how can you tell people that has no coverage, and no health care service now, they dont need it cause of longer wait times. I say this is an outrage. How can this be. Is there
Answers:
There is a big difference between "Universal Health Care" and "Universal Insurance" -- the Some Countries have Universal Health Care which gives longer waiting times, and no one can get better care than another.
Universal Insurance can work pretty much the same as current insurance -- only everyone has access to insurance at a lower cost. Done properly, Universal Health Insurance will still give the option of purchasing Better insurance, and will allow people to choose their doctor, and pay more for better medical services.
There is only one big problem with the idea. All of the people on welfare ect., we get to pay for. I already surrender about 20 percent of my paycheck, how much more do I need to give. What potential gains are in it for me, the working class...
Universal Health Care will be paid for by the outrageous profits of the drug companies, medical insurance companies and all of the for-profit hospitals. All of those profits will be capped and regulated. No more $78 million dollar CEO's like the crook who runs Caremark...
http://www.forbes.com/static/pvp2005/lir...
Cons:
Monopolies are bad, especially ones that have guns and will put you in jail. Government (the ultimate monopoly) is not the answer, it is the problem.
You seem to dismiss "less choice" and "higher taxes" as no big deal. You may think slavery is cool, but leave me out. I am willing to fight for my freedom and my hard earned private property, it is a shame people like you are so eager to sell yourself into slavery.
I eat right and exercise, raising my taxes to pay for health care of people that don't diet and exercise is just plain EVIL. If you don't want to take care of yourself, that's fine. If you want to steal money from my family to pay for your bad decisions, then you are a sick, demented, evil, inhuman monster.
Income tax started at 1% and affected less than 1% of the population when it started. Now it averages 30% and affects 100% of the population. Government only gets bigger and more oppressive. If you surrender your freedom to choose your own insurance, it is only a matter of time before the government is literally deciding who lives and dies. Do you want a government bearucrat in D.C. deciding if your sick child will live based on how much it costs?
The government getting involved in health care in any way is one of the worst ideas in human history. Why won't people fight for freedom for a change instead of giving it away?
Under our current plan everyone pays the same AMOUNT for their insurance coverage )those that can afford it anyway). Regardless of what you earn.
Lets say $500.00 per month. Now if you are earning $2000.00 per month , that coverage costs you 25% of your total income.
If you earn $20,000.00 per month you pay $500.00 per month, that equals 2.5% of your total income.
Under National health insurance everyone pay the same PERCENTAGE:
If you earn $2,000.00 per month, you pay 3% or $60.00 per month, and if you earn $20,000.00 per month you pay $600.00 per month.
Very simple.
Look to the 17 other countires that have it; especially Canada.
We are in an excellent position here, because we can study the countries that have had National Insurance for decades, and put in what works, and leave out what does not.
The main thing is we cut out all the huge exploitation of the workers; the outrageous "profits" of the insurance comanies and pharmacutical conglomerates. And put that money into medical treatment and services for AMERICANS.
I know of a mentally disabled person, who has not had available coverage to treat his afflictions also.
It took him 3 years to convince the government that he could not hold a job, or get along with others.
He has had 53 jobs in his life time, and has been homeless off and on since he was 16.
After getting approved for disability, he had to wait 2 years before getting medical insurance.
He did not qualify for his states medical programs, and had various severe physical health problems as well, including emphysema.
By the time he qualified for medical, he was to far gone for any current treatment to be affective.
He still lives, but prays for death.
We need to set up a system for each State to have access to free medical for those uninsured.
When the bill is drawn up for the treatment, it is passed to the State, in which the Government has set up a half State, half Federal fund for payment.
This can be funded by " SIN TAXES " on cigarettes, booze, and lottery, along with payments from fines on pollution.
Just an idea.
The Answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers:
- Is legal action possible in this situation?
- What kind of trouble can a Man face who gives 13yr olds Illegal Fireworks?
- Isnt there a website that tells you if there are any sex offenders in your neighborhood?
- Are you suppose to be read your Miranda right every time you get arrested.?
- IS everyone a PETA member now!?
- Must a quit claim be recorded to be valid in Calif??
- Do you agree with?
- Flag disposal?
- If someone faints on your property is the home owner liable ?