| You don't want "something for nothing", but if health care is free, take! That's OK, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Asked 18 days ago
by Jawn  United States |
|
About
I am a busy retired person.
|
8 Points
|
SOMEBODY has to pay the costs; doctors' (and nurses') time, prescription costs, hospitals, prosthetics, all these cost somebody a lot of money. I if elect to 'take', who is bearing the actual cost?
Everybody. That's the point.
It's all shared equally. Isn't that the way it should be. Just like if you own a condo and someone's roof starts leaking. Everyone has to share the costs because it's just fairer than way.
True, it's fair if that person didn't actively cause the problem. Now if that person shot holes in the roof with a shotgun, then it wouldn't be fair for everyone to share the cost. I believe the same goes for healthcare. How do you deal with people who choose to lead an unhealthy life? Is it really fair for everyone to pay for a smokers emphysema treatment? How would the government make it fair? Ban all unhealthy activity? Unfortunately it's not so cut and dry.
'Got me there. That is a good argument.
The same people that are currently bearing the costs of slaughtering children in Iraq and Afghanistan--you and me. It really is a matter of what you think is important. We know that our 'leaders' think destroying other peoples is more important that taking care of our own. Most of us don't agree.
OMG !
Don't feel guilty, you are paying one way or another.
You are entitled to be cared for, you are entitled to have good health care free.
It's the Insurance companies and their shareholders who don't want you to have free health care.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Where is the "entitled" coming from. From the rich? From the taxpayers? Why should they be saddled with your health problems?
Every one pays for it in taxes and people form the US don't say stuff like its one step closer to communism its just fair. plus whats wrong with a ''free'' police and fire putter outer service, if you have those you are there for knocking on Communisms door.
well thats my logic for you.
It's called a mixed economy. The same people who rant against health care would sue if their house caught on fire and the firefighters didn't come, or if they suddenly had to pay a toll on every road they drove on, or if their child's public education came with a semester billing, or if they had to pay for a library membership so that child could do homework, or if they were billed for the government's (mis)-management of Social Security, or...
We can easily afford universal health care, It is only a matter of where we decide to spend the money--on healing our people, or killing others. Unfortunately, the insurance companies and the powerful here are just fine with killing other people at the expense of our own.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Again, Dumguy, check the US Constitution! Fire fighters, schooling and most road work comes under each individual State's cognizance. (Except for interstates). Health care is not in the US Constitution & neither is education. If the States want to run a health care system on your State Income Tax payment that is their business & they can do that.
What do you not understand about how this country became so great? We have honored the Constitution since its inception and we have done well by it. Why do you wish to change the fundamental rules our Founding Fathers inscribed on that document when it has proven itself for hundreds of years? Why do you keep bringing up this rant you have on this subject? I have explained numerous times how this works but, as usual, you ignore the true facts. Your commie style of socialism is showing again! Find something to bitch about that I don't have a good answer for... PLEASSSSSEE!
You nailed it, dauguy.
This question is either completely biased, or very ignorant of how universal health care would be paid for.
Or are you simply a major shareholder in an insurance company?
The question is neither biased, nor ignorant. It is meant to provoke some thought, and perhaps some further analysis would be helpful.
There is a difference between purchasing insurance from a company with a policy which covers specific considerations, for which one must pay a premium, and having the government supply coverage (through taxes=premium) for a policy which is beyond one's power to define the parameters of coverage.
Given that one is paying for government sponsored health care coverage trough taxes, one might conclude that this service is 'free'. Just as others are saying that coverage costs should be shared equally, like a condo roof repair or the costs of a military campaign or the costs of police and fire protection are all under the same umbrella of protection because "that's what we are paying for", health care coverage should be provided the same way.
This isn't what we might call a 'mixed economical' issue, it is whether or not you can get the level of care your specific health condition requires (and for which you are willing to pay a premium for), or whether the 'free' service being offered will in fact be adequate for everybody.
Thank you, everybody, for continuing to consider what is meant by 'free', when offered by the government.
"Given that one is paying for government sponsored health care coverage trough taxes, one might conclude that this service is 'free'."
One might, if one was an idiot. Portraying this as a common attitude is a straw man argument. No one thinks this.
So are you saying that people who don't pay into the "system" wont be covered and wont have access to government sponsored health care?
You sound like Chipmonk, extrapolating odd conclusions where they don't exist.
As everyone pays taxes to the government, I think people will get that they are paying for it, just as they get that they paid into social security. The only difference between this and other programs is that people would see a direct benefit from their taxes. I mean seriously, tell someone on medicare that their medical coverage is free - they are very clear that they pay for it.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
What about the "poor" who are below the tax levels and pay no taxes? Are the going to get "free" (and it would really be FREE for them) health care or are they going to have to pay something too?
"It's not free. ... Someone's going to have to pay for it and you bet it's going to be the taxpayer." --Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) on the "public option.
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” ~~ Thomas Jefferson
And actually, the question is incredibly biased. If I say yes, then I agree with the premise that it is "free". If I say no, then I am speaking out against government health care. There is no way to answer this without supporting a premise I don't agree with.
Biased--of course it is. You imply that a taxpayer using a tax-funded health care system is taking without giving.
Ignorant--Well, your statement could only be excused of bias if you didn't know that a state-run health system is taxpayer funded.
Don't know if you hold shares in health insurance companies, don't care.
unbiased version of your questin:
Is there something wrong with a taxpayer using a tax-funded health care system?
So are you saying that people who don't pay into the "system" wont be covered and wont have access to government sponsored health care?