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.
So let me get this clear
The hospital told me they do not give free cancer treatmen. you are saying that you and your wife find cancer victims care and hospital treatment or resources to get treatment.
does that sound like a good system to you Gday?
To get cancer treatment if you are poor in America you have to go to a third part to hunt down care for you. that sounds lame.
yet from what has been shown on here a uhc would provide cancer care for anyone no matter who they are or how poor they are sounds much better.
have you those facts about how we can not afford a uhc system yet Gday or how it could not work?
Don't hold your breath for facts . Did you look at the links i put on here? those are facts.
Do you have a problem with Naval officer pay? What about teachers? Police? Fire? DMV? Library? City manager? Mayor? Alderman? Governor? Court clerks? Jailers? Public defenders? National park personnel? Meter maids? Street sweepers? Cal trans? Etc., etc.
No Greatday, I don't live in fear of public employeees nor publically funded employees.
Doctors in private practices likely would have their incomes limited. Are you supportive of this?
Don't hold your breath for facts . Did you look at the links i put on here? those are facts.
I am getting the feeling you may be right.
i looked at the link and was suprised. this is def not what we are told here. i hate it when i know what i have been told and it is disputed with no facts to back it up.
i really want to see facts for both sides so i can get a real understanding. so far the people against a uhc system are going on what their buddies tell them or propoganda. i hope i can get some facts about why a uhc system will fail here.
Seriously though, do you also think we should do away with medicare?
Yes, get rid of it or allow people who do not wish it to opt out of it without being taxed for it.
You think yourself important enough to skip through any other responses prior to yours and jump to responding to you? A bit narcissistic don't you think?
Well, the only thing I can tell you is, I don't usually put our clients experiences on-line for all to see. So, if it is a link to their personal experiences, and the care that they personally got at the hospitals I noted (and more), you are not going to get it.
Yes, get rid of it or allow people who do not wish it to opt out of it without being taxed for it.
You think yourself important enough to skip through any other responses prior to yours and jump to responding to you? A bit narcissistic don't you think?
Yes I do, if that helps you make a point, especially after I saw your post attempting to demean someone else along the lines. Being a bit hypocritical, aren't we?
But, I'm not here to discuss each others' personality disorders. Instead, we should let our posts speak for themselves. With that in mind, and to ensure that the line of discussion doesn't get derailed, here are the questions you forgot to answer:
1. <you've answered this one although, you didn't go far enough in explaining how it would affect the populace and the American society as a whole, or whether it is even feasible>
2. Do you believe you will never be denied any coverage, as you pay your premiums?
3. Do you believe you will always be able to buy health coverage, with pre-existing conditions, if a company chooses to drop you (or goes out of business)?
4. Do you believe that it costs you less to pay to insurance companies than it would in a single payer system?
5. Do you prefer being limited to a set of physicians/hospitals that your insurance company subscribes to?
Google it yourself. It is there to see rather easily.
So, I googled your statistic and found nothing even remotely close to what you claim.
I did find reports that stated that around 1.6% of the total U.S. population relied on some sort of assistance (food stamps, TANF) in 2006.
What, please do tell, accounts for the unbelievable increase in recipiency from 2006 to 2008?
I also found this, which I think is quite relevant to the OP. Don't think the government is going to finance UHC via cuts in welfare benefits.
""No one really even talks about welfare anymore because the caseload numbers have gone down so much," says Suzanne Wagner, a research assistant with Project Match, a welfare-to-work organization."
AFAIK, everywhere. After all, nobody wants to model their system after ours, one of the most political, immoral and corrupt systems as it exists today.
In other words, you've assumed we're doomed either way and would rather sit and watch it happen.
Other way around. We have the right system, not the top down authoritarian systems used in Canada and the UK. Who has the best hospitals and doctors? Where are there more innovations made, in terms of Pharmaceuticals, devices and treatments.
Of the supposedly 46 million uninsured, almost 10 million are illegals. About 1/3 are people aged 17-34 who premiums (in many cases) aren't that expensive. Another 1/3 are from households with incomes of at least $ 50K, and many of those uninsured are ALREADY eligible for Government programs.
Why destroy a system that works well for tens (if not hundreds) of millions of people to try to save a relatively small percentage of people
Doctors in private practices likely would have their incomes limited. Are you supportive of this?
I couldn't care less. Why would I?
The world changes. Ecomomies change. Winners and losers emerge. That's life. I'm secure with those facts. Are you?
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.