A quick poll take two

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

tough question. i guess honestly i'd say no. its not a basic human right.

but people should have the opportunity to purchase insurance, whether they get it through a job or not. There should be basic, fairly inexpensive plans that would cover emergencies.

You are right, very tough questions.

If we go with "health care is not a basic human right", should we force private insurance companies to provide low cost plans to try and insure more people? Or provide free clinics (who would pay for it?) I don't see the point, if health care isn't a basic human right. What about sick people (diabetes, heart disease) - should all their non-emergent, routine care be forsaken?

Right now, that's what we have. Those that have, have health care, and those that do not, are screwed, and the rest of us are paying for their emergency-only care.

I take the view that health care, in a first world, wealthy nation like America, is a desire, indeed a right, for every citizen.

It's part of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to not die when you can be readily saved, to be not be sick when a ready cure exists.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

You are right, very tough questions.

If we go with "health care is not a basic human right", should we force private insurance companies to provide low cost plans to try and insure more people? Or provide free clinics (who would pay for it?) What about sick people (diabetes, heart disease) - should all their non-emergent, routine care be forsaken?

they should go to the doctor and pay for a visit.

doctors can choose to provide pro bono work. People can provide money towards charities to help poor people with their health care.

but #1, lawyers need to get out of the heath care business so it can become much more affordable.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

they should go to the doctor and pay for a visit.

doctors can choose to provide pro bono work. People can provide money towards charities to help poor people with their health care.

That's what we have now. With our American system, we have 60 million uninsured, that the rest of us are paying for when they go to the ER. They can't afford to pay for a visit, or buy insurance.

What happens to those that make less than about $40,000 a year, who cannot afford routine doctor visits, the cost of meds without a copay, etc? No health care for them?

but #1, lawyers need to get out of the heath care business so it can become much more affordable.

I don't think Americans should be limited in seeking redress for unhappy outcomes in medical care. Some are justified, some are not.

These are tough questions.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

I don't think Americans should be limited in seeking redress for unhappy outcomes in medical care. Some are justified, some are not.

.

you want to have your cake and eat it too.

if you want cheaper health care in this country #1 thing is to get rid of the lawyers.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

you want to have your cake and eat it too.

if you want cheaper health care in this country #1 thing is to get rid of the lawyers.

Naw. First, I don't think that the cost of malpractice insurance, although great and indeed forcing doctors out of certain practices (for example, delivering babies), that isn't driving the cost of medicare care in this country that I've ever seen documented. If you have documentation, please post it.

Secondly, I don't think people should be legally limited from seeking redress in this country.

[joeydb]

At what point do high taxes become "oppressive government" ?

[dellinger63]

I think every American should have the same access to health care.
Agree
Everyone should have the same access to healthcare. Like car insurance, insurers should base rates solely on expected risk. In addition people in California and New York should be able to shop for a policy with a company based out of Alabama or Mississippi and vice versa.

25% of American children live in poverty. That is their parents responsibility, not society's.
Agree
Probably in 25% of the time it is the parents and more commonly an absent mother and father. When a kid lives in poverty yet sits in front of a flat screen with cable wearing his Nikes while Mom sports more artwork on her body than is hanging on the wall are simple clues of it being the parents’ fault.

The greatness of America is my freedom from oppressive government.
Agree
But that is changing for the worse every year. Now I get to pay for insurance policies for people who have spent a lifetime smoking and not really giving a crap about their health.


Health care is only for those that can afford it.
Agree
The best healthcare is for only those that can afford it. There are plenty of free clinics and county hospitals that provide care. Plus 9-11 is still available to all.

People should always pay their own way. If they can't afford something, including food, tough.
Agree
We have a giant food stamp program to go with neighborhood pantries, soup kitchens and churches. No one should starve especially a child, disabled or elderly person (and especially person who has made SS payments all their life that were wasted by the Fed)


Elderly Americans can't get health care, nobody will insure them. We should do something about that.
Agree
We did it’s called Medicare. We should though make sure the elderly who paid into SS all their lives be treated with priority as opposed to the elderly who spent their lives collecting from, in part, the formers SS payments.


I don't mind paying a little, so every American knows they will not be in poverty in their old age.
Agree
Provided the money I pay via a deduction every paycheck goes to people in their old age and not to say some crazy solar panel company that is doomed from the start.


25% of American children live in poverty. We should all contribute a little, to help them.
Agree
We should ALL contribute a little so the 50% who pay taxes don’t have to pick up the whole tab. Even if ‘contributing’ is making sure the children get their homework done and keeping in contact with their teachers.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

At what point do high taxes become "oppressive government" ?

I don't know, Joey. Taxes have never been lower. You'll have to go back in history. What do you think? Is your SSDI an oppressive tax on all the rest of us?

[Antitrust32]

the people from back in the day when the constitution was written were lucky if they made it to 40.

If we wanted free, socialized medicine in this country everyone would have to be taxed at 50% or even higher. We'd have to wipe out capitalism and replace it with socialism. I'd rather be ruled by the individual than ruled by the state.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

the people from back in the day when the constitution was written were lucky if they made it to 40.

If we wanted free, socialized medicine in this country everyone would have to be taxed at 50% or even higher. We'd have to wipe out capitalism and replace it with socialism. I'd rather be ruled by the individual than ruled by the state.

Nobody said it would be "free"

A single-payer system isn't, in my view, "socialized medicine", as a national health care system could be. Those two things are quite different. I am in favor of the former, not the latter.

That does not require "socialism", as we provide that, as a democratic republic, right now with Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIPS. So no "socialism" necessary.

And even completely free health care wouldn't require taxes at 50% of income or higher. It doesn't in any socialized national medicine system that I am aware of now (if you know of one, bring it up)

BTW, the definition of socialism, a term commonly misused, is: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole; a procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

Even nationalized health care isn't "socialism".