free health care?

Should we have "free health care"? When I say free health care, I mean universal health care.

Why shouldn't be have it? Other countries that have it are happy with it.

 

universal health care?

i don't think the rich would be happy with it. haha

 

iono i think it be kool to have free health care

 

i think if the money was like not an issue with the riches then yeah

universal health care would be ideal

but half the governemnt wouldn't want that

 

I believe that we should have universal healthcare for everyone.

Currently:

"The number of people with health insurance increased by 1.0 million to 243.3 million between 2002 and 2003, and the number without such coverage rose by 1.4 million to 45.0 million. The percentage of the nation’s population without coverage grew from 15.2 percent in 2002 to 15.6 percent in 2003."
www.Census.gov

With most healthcare companies and insurance companies are running "for-profit", not not for the insured.

Of course, most Republicans, in Washington, don't have much concern for healthcare, other than to not have it universal (Democrats included in this, but they try for healthcare reform). They have their healthcare choices and their massive incomes; Our representatives' salaries are at $165,200 per year for Senators and Congressional Representatives.

They don't worry about their care, they have it made. If they're sick or need some surgery- it's taken care of.

For Joe-shmoe (no offence to any Joe's out there ) if you're not insured, too bad. You won't be getting any help.
He could go to the emergency room, but those are overcrowded and under funded. Why would that be?

Because, most of Joe's community is already there, themselves being uninsured too.

The healthcare and insurance companies are for-profit. They don't serve their customers as they should. Why do we see all those "Larry H. Lawyer I'll fight for YOU!" commercials? We must "fight" for what is rightfully ours, the coverage we pay for. The coverage every human being is entitled to. Their goal is to make money, if paying out full coverage to a deserving customer infringes on that, skimp on the payout.

I seem to recall this little phrase, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
These are everyone's unalienable rights, as stated by our Declaration of Independance.
Life- good health, you have a right to live unoppressed
Liberty- freedom to live your own life and to own property etc..., not being controlled by an opressive government
Happiness- it's definitely not the same for everyone- but we're still entitled to it

Currently I see it as you can have all those things, but you need the money when you begin this game of life. No money- infringed rights.

We have many problems in this great nation of ours and only by working together can we make this a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people.

For all the people. No exceptions.

 

That's very insightful of you Mark.

I have to say you've persuaded my thinking in the universal healthcare.

keep up your great responses

 

RE: universal healthcare

ANY system of distribution of ANY service involves inequalitys.

Given the idea of "universal health care" it sounds great to a lot of folks but it has a snag, and that is the rich will always be able to get the services of a Doctor, the poor are forced to take what they can get. Socialized medicne is ALWAYS rationed, there can be no other way. Health care providers are forced into a position of having to decide who gets care, and if not the DOCTORS its some administrator who is NOT a Doc but a beancounter (ew, yuck!) No matter how you cut it, its gonna be unequal and VERY expencive.
In my grandfathers day, babies where born at home, or possibly in very simple facilities. NOW you have a hospital with tens-of-thousands of $$$ in high-tech gadgets to monitor everything and also lots of expencive drugs to help MOM deal with the pain. And its not getting any cheaper!
So what do we do(?) go back to nineteenth century infant mortality rates?
I really don't have a complete answer, however just a bit of food for thought, when the species had an aprox 15% infant mortality rate (pre WWI America)
Humans where as a race VERY strong. I can't help but wonder if we are breeding humans that are less fit than the example of humanity of a century ago.

 

It seems to be less of "survival of the fittest" to let "everyone have a chance." With lower infant mortality rates it may be that more and more people are less than perfect examples of what humanity has to offer.

I'm not saying we should go back to the 19th century and all, we just need to set better examples for future generations so it won't matter so much that we have more people around.

Would free (all encompassing) healthcare be a step towards a better example for future generations?

 

Free? You are kidding right? Take a look at the tax rates in nations that have "free" healthcare. Tax rates of 50 to 60% to support "free" health care don't appeal to me. Dying on a waiting list for what is considered to be routine care now doesn't really appeal either.

 

I think the richest, most powerful nation in the world really should have free health care and the fact it doesn't is an absoloute disgrace.

 

First of all, there's no such thing as "free health care". Secondly, it's a matter of principle -- self-responsibility.

It's not the government's job to provide health care, and when they do, by definition, it gets slower, more expensive, inefficient, and grows to become a bureaucratic mess.

 

I'm only writing this to get past the five character rule.

 

True enough. "Free" health care means a raise in taxes which basically means you're paying for it.

My mother is physically disabled - she has progressive Multiple Sclerosis. Right now she can't move her legs at all and has extremely poor hand-eye coordination. She can't so much as roll over in bed without assistance. She needs a minimum of two people to get her in and out of bed and she can only stay in her wheel chair for a few hours at a time before it starts to become extremely painful. How is she supposed to take responsibility for herself when she can't so much as use the bathroom without someone helping her?

But it's there. If it wasn't there at all then my mother wouldn't be able to survive today. As is our family barely scrapes by off of SSDI and my father's paychecks. I wouldn't have been able to go to college if it hadn't been for scholarships. Her quality of living is dropping rapidly and the money that it would take to improve it again just isn't there.

But hey, that's not your problem, is it?

 

Nothing is free, especially healthcare. Look around the world. Nations with socialized health care are being driven into the ground by abuse, and people are dying on waiting lists as a result.

 

I am very sorry for your mother's disease. As to how can she take responsibilit -- I understand that she needs assistance. I'm not anti-assistance or anti-help. I believe that private charitable institutions are always much better than government-sponsored charity.

For instance, when I was younger my grandfather grew very old and weak and like your mother, needed help with the everyday activities such as getting out of bed, going to the bathroom. My grandmother had to work so she couldn't always be there. Their church organized a program where people volunteered to stay with my grandfather for nearly every hour when my grandmother couldn't be there. Eventually, they developed a schedule and it took off from there.

In my opinion, such a helping organization is preferable to that of an expensive, bureaucratic one where millions of dollars seem to get lost.