Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Problem with your scenario is that $8.50 an hour is not supposed to be the wage you live on for the rest of your life. It's not my fault if these people would rather live off welfare than fend for themselves. Why should I ensure, using my own money, that these people are provided for? The argument for/against healthcare, in my mind, is the same as that which is used for/against welfare in general. Want a better life? Get a better job. Learn a skill, work your way up, get an education of some kind...it can be done with some determination and short-term sacrifice.
You're talking about people who earn $8.50 an hour. Reality is that there are some people who simply are not capable of earning more. Luckily for us, we are smart and went to college and ended up with pretty good jobs.
If you look at the general population, there will always be people who are less intelligent, less talented and they are NOT college material no matter how much college is dumbed down.
So these people cannot receive medical treatment? Should they just give up and go on welfare so they can get medicaid? I think you'd rather see them working than on welfare.
I know you say that with some determination and short-term sacrifice anyone can get an education and work their way up but that's simply not true. Good for THEM that, given their limitations, at least they are WORKING.
BTW, there are also people who are not emotionally cut out for high earning jobs -- should they just give up and go on welfare too? Or wouldn't you rather have them work doing something?
Then there are the self employed who don't deserve to be punished by not getting the advantage of a group health insurance plan that they can afford. No more self employed people? Is that the answer?
You're probably mad at freeloaders and illegals--well, so am I. But just remember that there are plenty of people who do work and they do the best they can but they can't afford health insurance. I believe that these people should be helped. We all need medical care, not just the ones who have the high paying jobs.
So what you are saying is that, if you cannot afford to pay for the service, you should not get it even if it means you may die as a result?
so are you saying that a service should be just GIVEN to you..even though you wont pay your own bill???
no one is denied medical treatment...but that treatment is a service... its your body,,,your health,, a service YOU recieved..its YOUR bill...pay the bill for the services rendered
what makes you think that a service/product should be given to you for free???
again, as NO-ONE has answered THIS question....to have a singlepayer system that will cost about 3-5 trillion a year to cover ALL (everyone..all 320 million of our population)..........HOW WILL YOU PAY FOR IT????
I know all conservatives think that everybody should get health care-- if they can afford it.
But do you simply believe that if you can't afford it, you don't get it. As in health care is a privilege for people with money?
Lets face it, there is going to be a certain segment of population who are going to work the low end jobs all their lives. In a capitalist Free Market™ economy there will always be people at the bottom.
The simple fact is if you make minimum wage and your job doesn't provide employer based health benefits, you will not be able to afford health insurance on the open market. Period. $8.50/hour will get you a 1 bedroom apartment in a poor area, a bike, and just enough food not to starve.
So what do we do with this population if government benefits are not the answer? No healthcare, sad day for you?
The fact is, people who can't afford medical care can still get it. No one get's turned down from an emergency room. And the 'TM' thing isn't funny or witty at all.
so are you saying that a service should be just GIVEN to you..even though you wont pay your own bill???
no one is denied medical treatment...but that treatment is a service... its your body,,,your health,, a service YOU recieved..its YOUR bill...pay the bill for the services rendered
what makes you think that a service/product should be given to you for free???
again, as NO-ONE has answered THIS question....to have a singlepayer system that will cost about 3-5 trillion a year to cover ALL (everyone..all 320 million of our population)..........HOW WILL YOU PAY FOR IT????
We already have UHC. Nobody is turned away. So we are already paying for it. The question is how we make it more efficient and how do we spread payment more fairly.
Health care is not a right any more than a car is a right.
The notion that we even compare owning a car and/or car insurance to a right to a Universal health care system
for all citizens that is needed for the psychological and physical fortitude of our nation to continue to succeed
and thrive, is just crazy rationale. There is no comparison
between the two.
I beleive i heathcare for all but not a program like the present heathcare bill. i alos do not beleive i single payers or just taxig the rich for the entire amount . Notice than every democratic special interest refused to pay any share in the finance comittee.We need to make i afforsable while keep evryone with some ski i the game or it like most things will continue to be abused more and more.Say free and people want it ;needed or not.
I always have to wonder just what kind of society we'll end up with if the right is allowed to carry their belief systems to their illogical conclusion...
Every time someone mentions that maybe, just maybe medical care should be available to all who need it, that person is immediately dismissed as a socialist, Obamabot, commie, etc.... No one has the "right" to have a service provided to them for free. Why should we be responsible for someone else's health condition, who is going to pay for it, etc.... The usual generic arguments.
By this same logic then, if you observe a person attempting to steal your neighbor's car, and you call the police to report a crime in progress, and the cops get there and arrest the guy, who is responsible for paying for the police services? You for calling them, or your neighbor for benefiting from the services they provided?
Why is it acceptable to pay for police, fire, public education, out of tax dollars to the benefit of society as a whole, but not medicine?
How many of us complain that cops cost too much money? Or firemen, or teachers, for that matter? The return on the investment is much greater in terms of benefit to society than the cost in dollars.
How many of us can afford private police forces? Private fire protection? Hell, even private school for our kids? The fact is it would be less expensive over the long run if we all were to chip in. There is an economy of scale in that way.
The one point I would have to agree with the Conservatives on concerning the subject is that everyone has to contribute. It can't be like it is now where a fraction of us carry the burden for everyone.
again, as NO-ONE has answered THIS question....to have a singlepayer system that will cost about 3-5 trillion a yaear to cover ALL (everyone..all 320 million of our population)..........HOW WILL YOU PAY FOR IT????
You won't... as a single payer system just isn't the correct approach.
But that doesn't mean the (simplistic) opposite of that is correct either.
We need a mixture of all types:
A tax supported plan for certain things (eg: the catastrophic and traumatic and major disease) that individuals can't ever afford on their own but also can't afford to insure against either.
A whole lot more personal responsibility for the day to day things the costs of which are most affected by the other day to day choices we make and will be most impacted by competition and market forces.
And some small degree of private insurance on an individual basis for the services and costs that will come between those two.
---
But what we DON'T need are the Humongous Private Insurance Companies in every corner of our lives to do any of this.
So far, the policies that have the most traction in DC are the ones that work against this model... that support those big HI Companies.
The fact is, people who can't afford medical care can still get it. No one get's turned down from an emergency room. And the 'TM' thing isn't funny or witty at all.
Ah, but that's a bit of a fallacy.
Sure, if you show up in the ER with an urgent need, you will get treated for the need and sent on your way. Try showing up at the ER with a cancer growing out of you. Very likely, you are going to get the minimal of treatments and sent on your way. Think you're going to get the ongoing care a cancer patient needs? Not likely unless you happen to get accepted into one of the "free" clinics that take on some welfare cancer patients.
I'm not "basically" saying that. I'm saying exactly that.
Don't put words in my mouth.
It's not a "privilege." It's a service.
Explain to us why health care services should be any different than any other professional service, what your ideal health care service picture would look like and why you believe that health care services should be treated differently than any other professional service.
Because people will die if they don't received health care services. Health care is nothing similar to any other professional service. It is not something that people can simply opt out of not having.
One of my sinks is broken currently. I just got off the phone with my plumber and he is on the way to fix it. He is going to provide me a service and I am going to pay for it. I could go without his service if I wanted, and thats a great thing. It is completely optional for me to ask for his service.
If I was to incur some serious injury today, I would not have a choice in seeking medical help. I would HAVE to go to an ER or my life may be in danger. This is not optional. My options are, "I can not go to the ER and risk dying", or "I can go to the ER and be hounded by debt collecters for who knows how long".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not my fault if these people would rather live off welfare than fend for themselves. Why should I ensure, using my own money, that these people are provided for? The argument for/against healthcare, in my mind, is the same as that which is used for/against welfare in general. Want a better life? Get a better job. Learn a skill, work your way up, get an education of some kind...it can be done with some determination and short-term sacrifice.
