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.
The UHC system proposed by some on this board cannot be afforded by this country - as these people (person) suggests that almost all hospitals be government hospitals - and that would mean the US government would have to buy all these facilities for one thing.
Why would the govt. need to buy hospitals? I see no such need. And why would ownership have any effect on affordability? A hospital is a hospital, whether owned by a company, a church or the govt.
Well - as someone who has actually CHECKED people into the facilities, I question your statements above. While they may not publish the fact of such care, they do give such care.
The UHC system proposed by some on this board cannot be afforded by this country - as these people (person) suggests that almost all hospitals be government hospitals - and that would mean the US government would have to buy all these facilities for one thing.
Your question is non-answerable as stated.
So you are saying that it is top secret that they give cancer treatment free? that sounds like a lame way to run a hospital. i know what the hospital told me dude and its not what you are saying.
what proof have you got that a uhc system is not affordable here.
i did not see anyone say that all hospitals here be govt. i did see that another poster said that you can still have uhc and private and the private cost would go down due to competition. that sounds pretty reasonable.
a attempt to stop insurance companys loading you or refusing you is not a fact. have you got any hard evidence that a uhc would be too costly or would fail. that is after all what you are saying.
Well - as someone who has actually CHECKED people into the facilities, I question your statements above. While they may not publish the fact of such care, they do give such care.
The UHC system proposed by some on this board cannot be afforded by this country - as these people (person) suggests that almost all hospitals be government hospitals - and that would mean the US government would have to buy all these facilities for one thing.
Your question is non-answerable as stated.
Is it possible that some of the people you are familiar with got their care paid for by some benefactor or some group? I was on a mission trip to Brazil this winter, and our group was arranging for some man to get cataract surgery. But that doesn't solve the problem of getting the surgery for everyone that needs it.
Why would the govt. need to buy hospitals? I see no such need. And why would ownership have any effect on affordability? A hospital is a hospital, whether owned by a company, a church or the govt.
One of the proposals is to make the system government run / owned. Very limited private insurance. The proposal includes government run hospitals - not private.
Is it possible that some of the people you are familiar with got their care paid for by some benefactor or some group?
Let me explain (again). My wife and I work DIRECTLY with people in the at risk population. We help find them the care they need. No benefactors - no groups. We find the RESOURCES necessary for their care.
Could you imagine the boost to the American Economy and jobs if a UHC was started now. New Hospitals being built. New jobs being created. Training hospitals to give new Doctors. Health cover for every singl;e American...how awful would that be???????? Well maybe for the selfish opnes who already have good health care.
Let me explain (again). My wife and I work DIRECTLY with people in the at risk population. We help find them the care they need. No benefactors - no groups. We find the RESOURCES necessary for their care.
I hope this helps
Well, that does help, but obviously, these people are not getting free care. You are helping find someone to pay for their care, as I understand it.
Do you buy your own insurance? Or do you have one that your employer "hands it" to you? Either way, you're not only paying for your coverage, you're also paying towards profits of the middle men standing between your physician and you. Why is that not an issue for you?
What makes you believe that these corporations are acting in your interest, and will never deny you any coverage at an opportune time? Do you have similar feeling about Medicare? Assuming you're not there yet, at some point you will get there, and won't you love the idea of not having it, instead relying on these corporations, you find comfort in, to continue providing you the service to you?
I pay for my own as I have already stated previously. I tailor my plan to my needs, but have from time to time used company based ones when their plans were competitive. My wife has worked in the industry for over 6 years and a lot of the claims made about either side private or government here are false, filled with ignorant social gossip serving agenda.
As for medicare, my wife has denied (or put them in limbo which is just about the same) more medicare claims than private ones. Doctors hate medicare, it is bloated, bureaucratic and filled with typical political road blocks that serve the interest of politicians, not the doctors needs for their patients, or the interest of those patients.
I don't care that a company makes a profit and in fact, it is that drive for success that allows me to find competition between them. That is... when government regulations don't stifle attempts to find better deals and service which many do.
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.