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.
Even people who aren't sick? In any case, if everyone's paying, what's the problem?
You're not getting it: Health care is a service, not a right. Exercising a right creates no incumbency on another person, save non-interference. Either a doc, nurse, or tech has to work for free OR someone has to be compelled to pay the bill. That isn't a right, it's an entitlement.
But should you decide to buy one, they can force you to buy a television that is built to their specification. Good luck trying to find one that isn't.
And they don't do it for customers. They do it for themselves. Besides, what is the difference between health care and buying a news paper after all?
They don't do it for customers? You want a Mulligan on that one? No customers=no business=no profits.
You just hit the nail on the head with your last question, though: There is no difference. You are no more entitled by right to a newspaper than you are to a check up.
And you think access to health care should not be a right? Interesting... What do you gain when parts of society run around sick?
What does society running around sick make it a right? I can think of a lot of things society runs around and does, like eating, do you think thats a right?
The government has an obligation to provide for the general welfare of its people. Every democratic government on the planet, including ours, recognizes this fundamental obligation of government. A sick nation is a nation at risk, a nation that is insecure. Is that what you want for yourself and your children? If people are dying because healthcare is unaffordable, then we have a serious national security issue that must be addressed.
You're putting a healthy citizenry in the same category as howitzers. That's an argument for health care as an public expenditure, not a right.
That's a splendid argument for privatizing health care. Welcome to the light, my friend. When medicare/caid sets the price basis for health care, every doc gets pretty much the same fee whether their in demand or not. let market forces take over and docs will compete, either by price or by reputation, for business.
No, it's a spendid artument for breaking up monopolies. Medicaid only sets the price for reimbursement under the medicaid program. Private insurers negotiate rates the same as the government. But try paying non-negotiated rates, which is what you pay if you have no insurance or aren't qualified under medicare or medicaid. Good luck with that.
But should you decide to buy one, they can force you to buy a television that is built to their specification. Good luck trying to find one that isn't.
I can already find healthcare built to governments specification, and health insurance for that matter. You lost the comparison when you comared "should you decide" because I have no right to buy a television set, nor am I mandated to do so.
They don't do it for customers? You want a Mulligan on that one? No customers=no business=no profits.
No, it is foolish to assume a business is putting customers over profits. There is no desire for a business to be serving a customer, unless the customer offers a profitable proposition. If you become a liability, you're better kicked out. Sounds strange?
Quote:
You just hit the nail on the head with your last question, though: There is no difference. You are no more entitled by right to a newspaper than you are to a check up.
Perhaps the nail was hit in the wrong place... if check up is the idea of health care.
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.