Universal health care- For or against? (solution, dollars, school, support)

[Coyote_Blond]

Many European countries have universal, government-run programs, but they come at the cost of higher taxes. Such systems also result in varying health care quality.

In Britain, for example, all residents are covered, but many people complain of lower standards of care and lengthy waits - of sometimes years -- to see certain doctors.

[rmmuc]

I go to Canada several times a year and have gone out of my way to talk to average Citizens and to date not one would trade their health care model for the one the U.S. has. The hype on this issue is tremendous. What we hear about the universal system is just not true. Is the canadian system perfect of course not, is ours of course not but all statistics have the Canadians living longer healthier lives than Americans. Their system focuses on prevention rather than treatment. and it pays. On average their health costs are about one third per citizen that we pay and everyone is covered. we don't get a lot of bang for the buck.

[carolinajack]

well medishare is for christians, and so the rules of smoking and following the Bible as your authority-which is a part of the christian life.

that is sad that South Florida doesnt have many jobs with benefits, i havent seen many jobs like that in my working life, so i cant speak to that. I choose jobs that have health benefits. What kind of work does your husband do and which part of South Florida?

[Pixie Dust]

Originally Posted by carolinajack

well medishare is for christians, and so the rules of smoking and following the Bible as your authority-which is a part of the christian life.

that is sad that South Florida doesnt have many jobs with benefits, i havent seen many jobs like that in my working life, so i cant speak to that. I choose jobs that have health benefits. What kind of work does your husband do and which part of South Florida?

Yes, he does smoke, no Christian is without his/her faults.

He is an electrical/mechanical engineer, mostly in an industrial level. It is not uncostumary for job not to offer health insurance here.

[Pixie Dust]

Originally Posted by rmmuc

I go to Canada several times a year and have gone out of my way to talk to average Citizens and to date not one would trade their health care model for the one the U.S. has. The hype on this issue is tremendous. What we hear about the universal system is just not true. Is the canadian system perfect of course not, is ours of course not but all statistics have the Canadians living longer healthier lives than Americans. Their system focuses on prevention rather than treatment. and it pays. On average their health costs are about one third per citizen that we pay and everyone is covered. we don't get a lot of bang for the buck.

That is the key...prevention. Because of the high cost of medical treatments people usually dont get medical attention until they have to go to the ER.

[Pixie Dust]

Just throwing this out there. My son (18 yrs old) had knee surgery because of a football injury seven months ago. He had a graft put in replacing hi mls, miniscus and lateral ligaments. The boys have insurance through there dad, AMerican Airlines a United Health Care plan. His physical therapy was 3x's a week at an out of pocket of $30/per visit. Needless to say after two weeks I couldnt continue paying this; thus not recooperating as he should and his knee continues to give him problem. Doctor says PT but I cannot pay $90/week. Is it fair??? I dont think so. Yes this country needs a change in health care. This same son wants to join the armed forces but with his knee like this be cant and he has ALWAYS been a great athlete.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by burdell

Well, I still believe in the Constitution and until someone proves differently I take provide for the general welfare to mean provide for the general well being of the people and all that entails.

The government shouldn't be making vehicles safer? Cuts into corporate profits too much, eh?

This explains it as well as, or better than, I could:

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”

http://www.lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

This explains it as well as, or better than, I could:

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”

http://www.lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm

But Congress IS given the power to provide for the general welfare, sure it's open to interpretation but the federal government surely does many things that are not listed as specific powers, why should healthcare be singled out as a no-no when other things are not?

We allow tobacco sales, THAT is providing for the general welfare of what? The tobacco lobby?

And is it indicated anywhere that Madison was voicing the majority view or was it his personal opinion?

[Amaznjohn]

Against!! I'm always against forcefully taking money (extortion) from one individual to give it to another.

Some here have called those of us who do not support this redistribution of wealth, heartless. I would suggest that those of you who DO support this act are being more heartless in two ways:

1. By advocating taking other people's money.
2. By providing for those who don't want to achieve, a means for them to continue their unproductive lifestyles.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Against!! I'm always against forcefully taking money (extortion) from one individual to give it to another.

Some here have called those of us who do not support this redistribution of wealth, heartless. I would suggest that those of you who DO support this act are being more heartless in two ways:

1. By advocating taking other people's money.
2. By providing for those who don't want to achieve, a means for them to continue their unproductive lifestyles.

The why have a government? And no matter what you think its purpose, how does it get financed without taking other people's money? Just keep printing more?