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. How about this novel concept: You want healthcare? You pay for it yourself. You know, take personal responsibility for you and your family? Or is that concept so difficult for liberals to grasp?
On the average, you will need health care to the tune of just over 7 000 $ per year in your life. So will your spouse and your children. Of course, "one the average do not mean it'll be evenly spread over the course of your life.
Your first child may well need 250 000 $ worth when he is 5. And if you can pay that, there is no guarantee that he won't need more next year. Or that you may need that much the same year.
The "pay for it yourself" notion is about as practical as saying national defense should be an individual responsibility.
On the average, you will need health care to the tune of just over 7 000 $ per year in your life. So will your spouse and your children. Of course, "one the average do not mean it'll be evenly spread over the course of your life.
Your first child may well need 250 000 $ worth when he is 5. And if you can pay that, there is no guarantee that he won't need more next year. Or that you may need that much the same year.
The "pay for it yourself" notion is about as practical as saying national defense should be an individual responsibility.
And again, how is that my problem and/or responsibility? That is the core of the issue. If YOU pay for your own health insurance, you won't need to worry about Kid A, B, or C, now would you?
The problem is, people are having children they cannot afford and forcing the rest of us to pay for them. My responsibility is to pay for my health insurance, my wife's, and our three kids. Its NOT my responsibility to go to work every week, so free loaders can partially live off of my income.
However, there is zero, zip, zilch incentive for the freeloaders to do anything. Why? Liberals will just forcibly take more money from the rest of us, and give it to them. Everything is free for them anyway. Money, healthcare, childcare, free cellphones, free everything. Except it isn't free: I work for it.
And again, how is that my problem and/or responsibility? That is the core of the issue. If YOU pay for your own health insurance, you won't need to worry about Kid A, B, or C, now would you?
The problem is, people are having children they cannot afford and forcing the rest of us to pay for them. My responsibility is to pay for my health insurance, my wife's, and our three kids. Its NOT my responsibility to go to work every week, so free loaders can partially live off of my income.
However, there is zero, zip, zilch incentive for the freeloaders to do anything. Why? Liberals will just forcibly take more money from the rest of us, and give it to them. Everything is free for them anyway. Money, healthcare, childcare, free cellphones, free everything. Except it isn't free: I work for it.
I am afraid that is not the core of the issue.
The core of the issue is that you pay far more to keep some people from health care, than you would to just provide health care for everyone.
Consider..there are 600 000 people working in health insurance in America, most a salaries well above average. What do they do? They do not nurse, do surgery or produce medicines. Their one function is to decide who gets health care, and how much. They work for scores of health insurance companies, each with their own bureaucracy, reimbursement and billingb schemes, which the actual health care providers have to work with.
In another thread, I think it was Jaggy, noted that some hospitals have as many employees working on billing as they have beds. Many other countries have decided it is is much cheaper to simply provide health care to everyone than keep this enormous middle man just to decide who should get health care.
The red bars are public money, coming from taxes. The pink are what citizens spend privatly after that. Notice how Americans pay more tax money towards government health care than the average European?
Today, government health care in America includes Medicare, Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, VA, IH, etc. Each with their bureaucracies, bureaucrats, forms and schemes. For which the American tax payer pays -unsurprisingly, more than the average European tax payer does for their single government program and its one set of bureaucrats.
Basically, having loads of departments with different procedures doing the same job each for a limited number of people is much more expensive than having one that does it for everyone.
Notice how you are paying a 100 % extra surcharge to keep people from getting health care?
I seem to have pointed this out to you before. It'd be nice if this time, you didn't just bug off to pop up with the same erroneous notion later.
Bankruptcy for health care is preferable to rationed, socialized medicine.
Wow, just wow! You are aware that we have rationed care in this country too. The insurance companies ration it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
It is free for the poor and the illegals because of Reagan Repulicans created a law which mandates (forces) hospitals to give free care. Than was the begining of the downfall of the American health care system.
Health care is not free for the poor and illegals. People with life-threatening illnesses and active labor must be stabilized. This does not cover a whole lot of health care.
Wow, just wow! You are aware that we have rationed care in this country too. The insurance companies ration it.
They ration it, they sometimes dictate to doctors how to diagnose (my doctor told me this), plus they have to make a profit for their shareholders. Yet, many people feel this is preferable over a gov't-run or not-for-profit run insurance system. Go figure.
No. How about this novel concept: You want healthcare? You pay for it yourself. You know, take personal responsibility for you and your family? Or is that concept so difficult for liberals to grasp?
Hey, I will happily pay for my own health insurance. Oh wait, I have a pre-existing condition so no one will let me. Yet, if I drive like a maniac, I can still buy car insurance.
I work hard, sometimes 50+ hours a week, but my job doesn't have benefits. I am looking for something else, but I need health insurance in the meantime. When you make $9 an hour, it is tough to afford a $425 asthma inhaler.
The thing that makes me angry is that I know one woman who quit her job and just because she was willing to lay with a man and get pregnant, she can qualify for Medicaid. I work hard and try to do the right thing, but I can't have healthcare.
I am conservative on most issues, but I do understand that some folks need a helping hand at times. I don't think that anyone who quits a job should qualify for Medicaid. Yet, there are many hard-working Americans who are underemployed who need help with healthcare.
With all the young people needing jobs, I think the minimum age of "old and useless" has just dropped about a decade. They're pushing people out of jobs at around 55 now. But the minimum age for getting social security is going up. So what are people supposed to do in the meantime?
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.
I work hard and try to do the right thing, but I can't have healthcare. 
