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.
No it's not, in my opinion and experience nothing is really cheaper if the government gets involved.
Because many people feel that a lot of people are not worthy of help from the government. Do you want to pay for the health care of a person who is frequently seen holding a beer in one hand and holding a cigarette in the other?
Health care access benefits everyone. People who are denied it can't work and contribute. So they'll either stay home unproductively, find someone to support them ate enormous expense or beg in the streets.
All of those activities are not the sort of society most people want. I doubt Somalia is where even Conservatives want to live.
Ohhhh the drama. We have more of a socialist state than even the Soviet Union did when it was around. Our safety net is killing us and all liberals can do is tell everyone to wrap themselves even tighter in that death net.
you couldnt afford a single payer system
look at the numbers
wrong
1. medicare is not 100% like medicaid...so PEOPLE would be faced with a 20% bill. and NEEDING to buy suplemental isnurance just like our elderly get screwed on everyday
2. medicare THIS YEAR cost over 500 billion dollars..and that is NOT covering its people at 100%.....and yes we all know the elderly are the most costly demographic
medicaid which is a singlepayer system this past year cost over 300billion...to cover about 30 million poeple...................our total population is 315+ million
4. the COST of a UHC with 100% coverage for all would be anywhere between 2.5 to 5 trillion A YEAR...meaning the 80% coverage would cost 2 to 4 trillion dollars a year. to cover the entire population of 315 million USA citizens
4. of that 2-4 trillion (2.5 to 5 trillion@ 100% coverage) about 800 billion is already in the budget(the 500 billion for medicare and the 300 billion for medicaid) so the actual ADDITIONAL cost would be only 1.2 to 3.2 (1.7 to 4.2) trillion dollars
5. of that 1.2 to 4.2 trillion dollars. that means the 115 million taxpayers (number of 1040's filed with the IRS) would EACH be stuck with 10,400 to 36500 dollar tax bill.
can you (the average working/middleclass tax payer) afford an ADDITIONAL 10k to 35k taxbill....I think not
Health care access benefits everyone. People who are denied it can't work and contribute. So they'll either stay home unproductively, find someone to support them ate enormous expense or beg in the streets.
All of those activities are not the sort of society most people want. I doubt Somalia is where even Conservatives want to live.
Really? A large percentage of the British public are living off benefits, with quite a few being 3rd generation "dole wallers." That so-called FREE medical care hasn't made them any healthier to work and contribute to society. It just means that they can continue to get s**tfaced drunk all weekend and then go to the doctor because they feel "icky."
If any American visits the UK and wants to have an interesting eye-opener, stop in ANY UK emergency room on a Friday or Saturday night. You are sure to get an eyeful of what genuinely injured and ill Brits have to contend with. Just don't get injured yourself on these nights unless you want to wait 6 or 7 hours for the hospital staff to first work theor way through all the "patients" who fell down and skinned their knee while drunk, are puking and "don't feel well" because they drank too much, or they have the sniffles and want something to make them feel better so they can continue getting drunk.
Socialized, "free" medicine means that people who would normally need to use some common sense before going to the doctor or hospital for something as simple as a cold or flu will end up inflating the waiting lists because they will see the doctor for ANYTHING that causes even minor discomfort.
Ohhhh the drama. We have more of a socialist state than even the Soviet Union did when it was around. Our safety net is killing us and all liberals can do is tell everyone to wrap themselves even tighter in that death net.
Ask someone from that country during that time period how much communism afforded them. Then ask what country has a more socialist state. We have free healthcare if you're sick and need it. We have SS, medicare, medicaide, unemployment, WIC... etc. You can't possibly tell me or anyone else on this forum we have less of a socialist state than the SU did when it was even around.
I just don't want the United States government to force tax payers to pay for it. A public option that didn't require funding from tax dollars would be great, single payer would be great if that single payer wasn't the US tax payers.
I hear a lot of people saying that conservatives like myself don't want people to have health coverage which is completely false. I want all US citizens to be healthy and have access to affordable health care, I just don't want my hard earned tax dollars to be spent on it because I work to pay for my own health insurance and that's not cheap. I'm by no means rich, I shouldn't have to subsidize people who may not even want health insurance in the first place.
Call me greedy or heartless, I don't really care because it's not the federal government's place to provide health insurance for people.
I think a single payer non-profit if structured correctly would be really great at cutting down bureaucracy, paperwork, middleman profits. Most of the healthcare dollars would go to patient care, medical supplies, and healthcare worker wages.
I mean, US tax payers are going to be the people who use the healthcare, so they should probably pay for it too. I don't see any money magically appearing. The good thing is that it will probably be much, much cheaper than paying out of pocket for insurance. And much, much cheaper than not having insurance and being slapped with a huge bill when you have to go to the ER.
It doesn't matter if it is the federal government or a non-profit organization who does it. As long as it is not corrupt and has boundaries to the type of care it provides so that it can be efficient. I mean, you can't provide everyone with the right to have experimental cancer treatments - though proven cancer treatments with good outcomes can be provided. You can't provide people who refuse to change their lifestyles with infinite amounts of resources. And you can't provide end of life care for everyone who is terminally ill. That's just impossible. But you can do a pretty good job of having preventive services and solid, basic care.
Certainly you don't want to tax the rich to provide care for all the poor either. Everyone has to pay into it.
All the super rich people can go get their own private doctors for exotic, experimental treatments (most of which aren't even proven to extend life) and specialized nursing care.
Exotic/experimental treatments for people who cannot afford it can also be funded by research money or R&D from private companies to help further medical science.
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.
