Universal "socialized" Health Care (Chicago, officials, working, tax)
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.
Nice sweeping generalizations. I've had family members face grave illnesses and had only copays to worry about and didn't receive sub-par treatment or rushed out of the hospital. So using your logic, I'm safe to assume that there are never issues with private insurance.
You mean, as long as your hospital expenses don't exceed your plan's annual maximum per person, perhaps also even a lifetime maximum per person.
So certain conditions/diseases/injuries requiring high levels of expense can lead to personal bankruptcy. Isn't that a nice kettle of fish.
Medicare happens to work a lot more efficiently than our current private pay system.
If you are referring to a 2% administrative cost, that's because the cost is passed on to the doctors and hospitals. They in turn pass it off to the private insurance companies... not exactly comparing apples to apples.
If you are referring to a 2% administrative cost, that's because the cost is passed on to the doctors and hospitals. They in turn pass it off to the private insurance companies... not exactly comparing apples to apples.
You also won't find another universal health care system in the Western world with any where near the administrative cost (waste) that we experience with our private insurance system.
In reading through a few of the posts I am disturbed by the idea that most health problems are the result of bad lifestyle choices or lazyness. Take the case of a woman with the gene for inherited breast or ovarian cancer who, in spite of making good choices--not smoking ,exercising,etc gets cancer. And having had cancer, employers are less likely to want to hire her (they don't want someone with health problems). So, if she can't get a job with benefits,is it "fair" to deny her coverage or charge her an exorbitant rate to get insurance?
Of course it is! This is America, everyone always gets pretty much exactly what they deserve. If you're born with bad genes then your sinful father must have passed down his wickedness through his seed to your corrupted soul, or something like that. Natural selection will sort it all out, Vote Republican 2008! Whoohoo.
In reading through a few of the posts I am disturbed by the idea that most health problems are the result of bad lifestyle choices or lazyness. Take the case of a woman with the gene for inherited breast or ovarian cancer who, in spite of making good choices--not smoking ,exercising,etc gets cancer. And having had cancer, employers are less likely to want to hire her (they don't want someone with health problems). So, if she can't get a job with benefits,is it "fair" to deny her coverage or charge her an exorbitant rate to get insurance?
Probably not. But, is it "fair" to force others to pay for her health problems?
Well, if you own a home or property you will pay school taxes whether you have children or not.
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.