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.
The US provides foreign aid to a certain country, to the tune of several billion annually, a country that provides universal health care to its own citizens, and considers health care to be a right.
I think that it is totally unacceptable that the US doesn't provide universal health care to its own people.
As did Reagan, who signed the act which denied hospitals the ability to turn away those needing life-saving care.
Right, so in your world it makes sense to force hospitals and their providers to pay for those who cannot, which skyrockets health care costs, as well as denying them preventative care which would keep them out of the hospital in the first place. Rather than having a government based system where all are covered, costs are lowered, and people are better able to control their health issues. Not to mention the business and job growth which would be encouraged by not forcing employers to pay into their employees insurance plans.
No. Living a healthy life; diet, exercise, not taking the various drugs, (liquid, botanical, pharmaceuticals), in excess. Is everyone's responsibility and civic duty, so as not to impose themselves on their fellow citizens.
We are all TABs (temporarily able bodied) and are all going to die. No amount of healthy living can cheat death. Cancer is a thief that can hit anyone. No one can guarantee a healthy baby through healthy living. Most deaths and illnesses are not from smoking or bad diet.
It's disgusting, immoral, and un-Christian to blame the victims and not help.
Every civilized country except the US considers healthcare a basic human right
Yes, but only in civilized countries. (In Syria for example just being alive is a privilege).
Bottom line: it depends on what kind of society you choose to be.
The hospital I work (as with all non-profit hospitals) already serves all, regardless of ability to pay, so your point is moot. The only thing that would change in a Medicaid-for-all system would be compensation for those services to the facility and providers, which would bring down healthcare costs. And of course, providing for that preventative care which keeps people out of the hospital in the first place, one of the main tenants of the ACA.
The availability of preventative care/education is not the same as people actually using them. Most people start using it after something has happened.
Right, so in your world it makes sense to force hospitals and their providers to pay for those who cannot, which skyrockets health care costs, as well as denying them preventative care which would keep them out of the hospital in the first place. .
Reagan's move I fully agree with. I would prefer people work, as in most cases, they will get quality employer insurance just as I am sure we both do, by earning it.
Yes it should be. No reason what so ever that most in this country are one trip to the hospital away from bankruptcy. No reason people should not get care and have to wait until 65 to get a version of single payer everyone should have access to.
If you can provide for the sickest and most un-insurable folks in your country via a single payer system then you can do it for everyone. The idea that health care should only go to those that worked or have x assets is completely retarded.
Funny thing is some of these people advocating this worship a man that would look scornfully on such an idea.
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.