Why is 'everyone' on this board so against an expansion of Public Health Care in the U.S?

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
That's the question i pose to you all. There seems to be a general consensus that helping millions of people who cannot afford to get health care is fundementally wrong. It seems to suggest that a as long as 'i'm all right Jack' kind of culture exists in the U.S.

Correct me if i'm wrong please, but surely helping those who really genuinely cannot afford health insurance get it is a great thing. No-one, i feel, should have to enter through hospital doors with 'can i afford this?' running through their head.

We have the NHS in the U.K and it is nowhere near perfect, trust me, but at least it is all inclusive and levels the playing field for everyone. ANd at the same time you can get private health care if you please.

I am not trying to interfere or tell you how to run your country, i just have trouble understanding the mentality behind this. Is it because of the economic troubles your country has, and you think you cannot afford it as a nation? Is it an idelogy against any kind of paternal socalistic role of the government?

Please let me know.




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonkbut at least it is all inclusive and levels the playing field for everyone.


Something about "equal opportunity suffering" that bothers me.

Because a minority of Americans don't have adequate coverage government needs to revoke that coverage from the majority and supply everyone with care deemed "acceptable" by government?

There's a reason our government asshats refused to take this program on for themselves.

I'd rather do without than have some oligarch's sloppy seconds.

Learn about the "level playing field" and check the links in my sig.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
It's a combination of resistance to government in healthcare, afterall they can't run anything else correctly and the "i'm ok, if you're not it's your own fault" mentality.

Not everyone in America is against the reforms. Mostly people who lean right politically and of course the corporations. There are some valid concerns I think, but in the end I think healthcare should be available to everyone, regardless of income.


Generalizations, I know.

I agree with you on the NHS. It isn't perfect but if I need to see the doctor my financial status isn't a factor.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Level playing field was in reference to the U.K. Yes this bill will not solve all the inequality of the system but it will go some way. It may be a minority, but i belive it is 40 mil without insurance or adequete insurance, a pretty big minority don't you think?

I'm sure those with the money will still continue to see much of the same service they already recieve. There were the same fears about the NHS, that it would take away from those who already had the money to get coverage, yet there is still private healthcare in Britian which helps the NHS out and recieves help back, making it easier to treat patients.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Peruvianmonk]


+1 more 
posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


So far our government hasn't shown they can fix much of anything. They already blew literally mountains of money trying to fix the economy and so far its not shown any signs of working. They pass bills without even reading the contents, pontificate on things they barely grasp, and in general are failing at good governance.

Given such a horrible track record like that why would we want the government to _try_ to implement socialized medicine? The odds of them creating a successful program are slim, the chances of them not taxing the citizens into poverty to fund it are completely non-existent.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


By the way my Parents lived in New Hampshire for the past two years, and i visited it three times so kudos to you



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
I'm sure those with the money will still continue to see much of the same service they already recieve.


Those with money will.

Those of us in the middle (the 3 of us that are left) will be pushed down and out of our private plans and lumped with the have-nots and given the LCD plan.

If it's so good, and those "with money" will remain unaffected why havent the oligarch's adopted the system for themselves? Why have they refused it for themselves at least twice?

I'm not one to enjoy living under thumbs. Especially when the thumb is "for my own good." "Helpful" fascism is all that is.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by thisguyrighthere]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Helig
 


So it is a fear of government incompetence? The stimulus bill seemed to me to be the only way to come to terms with the complete 'incompetence' of previous administrations inability to regulate the free-market. Anyway i'm going off track

Wouldn't you rather have some say in the system (paying tax, in a country where your tax level is low compared to most industralized countires) than it to be run by the money hungry medical insurance companies, phramcutical companies and an elite group in the medical profession?

I knew someone in America who worked 3 jobs and could not afford medical insurance, and they were severly overweight, so were clearly going to need it in the near future, is that right?

Sorry i'm not trying to moralize, i'm just writing...



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Nothing the government gets its meathooks into ever runs efficiently, neither costwise nor speed. Government-run anything is bloated, slow, and generally a PITA (google it) all the way around.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
1) I already pay 50% of my income to the govt, I don't need more taxes.

2) I don't want the govt to dictate where I can go and what health services I can get. I want a trained qualified doctor of my choice.

3) U.S. govt is inept at running things and wasteful of the money taken in and being spent back out.

4) Our own govt won't be on the health care plan they mandate for us!



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 




Why is 'everyone' on this board so against an expansion of Public Health Care in the U.S?


personally, I have nothing against seeing to it that those who would not otherwise have access to good healthcare, get it with the help of Uncle Sam. But when we start talking about a broad sweep that would put into place a national healthcare system, there are just too many gremlins in the mix.

If it were as simple as people taking a card to any doctor or provider they chose, to have any care or procedure a physician saw the need to administer, that would be a perfect thing. But it won't be that way because government can't allow that kind of control slip through its fingers.

Again, speaking just for myself, I would like to see the health insurance industry removed from the equation. They have now positioned themselves directly between the market, your doctor, and the consumer, you. Today's reality is that we now must pass through this leeching industry before we can see our physician. And the cost? Heck, since we are also supporting the huge health insurance industry, the cost of care had to go up.

Remove insurance, add no long-term government intervention, and allow a few years for the market to settle. The costs will come down so that the market can survive at a level the consumer can afford.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


You already live under the thumb of the fradulant medical insurance companies though surely? I bet you have been in a situation where you thought your insurance covered all, only to find out at some point you had to pay extra for pills, operations etc?

There is so much fraud in the health care system at the mo, it would appear to me it could not get any worse. Medicare is not even allowed, by law, to try and get drugs at a cheaper price from the pharmacutical corporations and is hated solely becasue it pays 20% less private insurance. Without it i dread to think of the consequences..
www.counterpunch.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


Well if you have kept with the various threads in the issue you will not be making this thread right now.

Go back and read them and your question will be answered.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Peruvianmonk
 


It's just a form of class warfare. The difference between the 'haves' and the 'have nots' is affordable health care.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


That's what im talking about, 'i'm alright so don't worry about everyone who isn't', attitude. I'm sure you will still be able to choose who your doctor is just as you can here in the NHS. There is so much fear mongering in the media about the whole bill. It is not looking to take away from those who have but provide for those who don't have.

If you pay 50% in taxes then i'm sure your doing very well for yourself, and thats cool, but many many people in your country are living in abject poverty...your supposed to be the land of the free, the beacon of the free world, the richest country in the world. Cannot this be coupled with providing healthcare for your whole population?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I bet you have been in a situation where you thought your insurance covered all, only to find out at some point you had to pay extra for pills, operations etc?


No, I havent. Unlike most I spend time reading through the fine print and shopping around. I've gotten terms to change with phone calls and provider comparisons. You'd be amazed at how many insurance providers will abide by the common department store policy of "price-matching" in more way than one.

Now, dealing with government agencies in a similar fashion?
They call your inquiries and complaints threats and send the police to your door.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


Interesting, how would you go about removing the insurance companies? They are so powerful and are some of the reason behind alot of Democrats not supporting the bill, as they are big campaign contributors.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
We hear numbers like 40 million people in the US don't have health care.

To me that means that 260 million people do have health care.

The people that don't have health insurance can still get treatment if they go to the emergency room. So, if they break a bone, it's not like it won't be taken care of for free.

The concern that I have is that the government is going to pass a huge bill, 1000 plus pages, that most of the congress and senate have not even read and that this bill will screw up my health care/ health insurance.

That's it in a nutshell.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
We hear numbers like 40 million people in the US don't have health care.


Does that number include the 12-20 million illegals? That's another reason I hate this idea. Half of the uninsured arent even supposed to be here. If they were proper immigrants they could land a proper job or start a proper business. Day-laboring, theft and drug dealing don't exactly come with great health benefits.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


Evidently you haven't had to use an emergency room. They are not free. Oh, they will provide enough care to get you stable and out the door, but the bills come later. From the hospital, the doctor, radiology if that's done, etc...

I want to know where in Fantasyland this free emergency care is so that I can move there.





top topics
 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join