It costs money to provide healthcare? BS!
-
miaangel345 — 17 years ago(January 14, 2009 07:28 AM)
This is what Obama is going to change!
Hopefully we can change so that Healthcare is provided for everyone!
Sure we may pay higher taxes but at least the welfare of the people in our nation will be taken care of.
Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness is what the founding fathers wanted for every citizen, how can healthcare for all not be a part of that?
All you need is love! -
james_m351 — 17 years ago(January 14, 2009 09:44 AM)
First off the 2008 Federal budget was $2.66 trillion and no we did not have enough money to cover it.
Second total health care spending in 2008 for the US was $2.4 trillion.
So explain to me how on earth we would pay for any thing with the $260 billion left over.
As far as Health being a money making industry show me any government run entity outside of the Military (you know they put you in jail if you don't do your job) that can actually do there job effectively or efficiently. With out free enterprise and a reward system we would have undereducated and inept health care. -
miaangel345 — 17 years ago(January 15, 2009 09:41 PM)
^^
Well like I stated, we would pay for it with higher taxes!
Healthcare shouldn't be a part of the free enterprise, health should be considered a NECESSITY that should not be monopolized.
All you need is love! -
flyby215 — 17 years ago(January 18, 2009 05:04 PM)
Canadians pay some 121 billion on healthcare. The US population is ten times greater, does that mean you'll have to spend 1.21 trillion? Hmmm
An upper middle class family (150k/yr) can pay approximately 45-50% income tax. That means the government is taking half of the money that person earns. On top of that, there's government sales tax, and provincial sales tax. That works out to be 13% tax on everything we buy depending on the province.
I honestly don't know what taxes look like in the US, but are you paying 13% on everything you buy with only half your paycheck? I think that a national healthcare system is not necessarily a 'small' increase in taxes. -
miaangel345 — 17 years ago(January 20, 2009 09:45 PM)
Well, we'll just have to make another tax bracket for those who possibly make more than 10 or 20 million a year? Maybe they would pay 50-55% tax increase? I think doing this would greatly give us the funds needed to provide free healthcare for all.
Also, so it wouldn't seem like people who are lazy and don't work are getting these benefits we need to create more jobs in general so everyone contributes to the entire need, there are TOO many homeless/hungry people in this country.
All you need is love! -
electroniccompost — 17 years ago(February 09, 2009 01:59 AM)
josephson wrote:
<Hmm I think we should all have a "human right" to shelter, right?
I want my government-paid house! NOW!!
I think it's pretty clear we all have a human right to be clothed. Agree?
I want my clothes for free!! NOW!! (And this should include nice clothes like suits and dresses, of course!
God forbid anyone goes hungry in a "civilized" nation. Food is certainly a "human right" isn't it?
I DEMAND three hot meals a day from my government! NOW!!
Of course, if I have to give up a few trivial luxuries like my Constitutional rights, why should I care? The government has taken care of my basic "human rights" including housing, food and health care. I'm fine!
Just like an animal in a zoo. -
Voodoo_01 — 16 years ago(April 07, 2009 07:07 AM)
Health care should be a basic human right. The government is elected to care for its citizens(or it should be). Instead of wasting trillions for war, they should be providing free health care to those that need it. Im going to be a realist and say that although the financial benefits are one of the reasons for becoming a doctor, another one should be to help people.
Just to point out that im generally conservative and in no way pushing any 'leftist socialist agenda' but its seems that Americans still have such a deep rooted fear of communism that any socialist ideal such as free health care is often rejected even when it would only benefit themselves.
And the reason that health care is so expensive is that the pharmaceutical corporations have such a tremendous lobby presence in Washington which allows them to significantly overcharge for medication. -
texasangel0985 — 16 years ago(June 15, 2009 02:46 AM)
I would rather pay extra taxes and know that i had health coverage it would probably work out to less than what some people pay for private or employer provided insurance. Not too long ago my husband had to have his appendix out in one of the worst hospitals i have ever seen and they didnt give him the proper care they should have because we were broke with no insurance they didnt even bother to close his incision correctly which delayed his recovery and made it even longer before he could work again and on top of that the job he had at the time fired himthe medical care in this country sucks and i think any doctor who puts money above saving someones life should have his license revoked
-
richard-goodenough — 15 years ago(July 05, 2010 01:30 PM)
I normally try to avoid politcal discussion online because most people have strong opinions and discussions tend to quickly degrade towards personal insults, but I hear this argument a lot
"And the reason that health care is so expensive is that the pharmaceutical corporations have such a tremendous lobby presence in Washington which allows them to significantly overcharge for medication."
Pharmaceutical companies dump literally billions of dollars annually in to drug research, many of these products never see the light of day because of adverse, unintended, and/or undesired side effects that outweigh the benefit, or the drug never causes the intended effects at all. After that drugs spend years being tested to ensure they are safe to use and continue to cost the company money while providing no return. Once the drug is released, money continues to be spent on extensive follow up studies, liability insurance, and out of court settlements for adverse effects even when clearly spelled out. The cost of medications are not from the cost of production, but a combination of the above. If you were to look over the balance sheets of a pharmaceutical company you would see the margins and PAT (profit after tax) are much lower than most industries in America.
The real reason prescription medications are so expensive are because of the "sue sue sue" mentality most Americans have. I am not saying a pharmeceutical company should not be liable, but if the possible side effects are clearly spelled out, and an informed decision is made that the possible side effects outweigh the condition you are trying to cure/treat/manage then the no court should award damages to the "victim." A recent case I can think of involved Wyeth. I believe, and I may be wrong, the drug in question was for gout and the warnings very clearly stated that an incorrect dosage or improper administration carried a sever risk of gangreen possibly leading to amputation. The patient opted for the drug and the physician prescribed too high of a dosage, the physician's assitant administrered the drug incorrectly and the worst case scenario happened. Despite FDA approval of the warnings, the physicians mistakes, and the informed consent from the patient knowing the risks a jury of peers awarded large punitive damages in favor of the patient from Wyeth. -
hawks_senator — 15 years ago(April 25, 2010 02:26 AM)
Well said. How can health care be a right? Are you going to force people to spend 100 grand to go to college, med school and intern for 12 years to work in an underpaid socialist system? Do we put a gun to the doctors head and force them to work should they refuse?
According to this god-awful preachy movie I guess putting a gun to a doctor's head is perfectly fine as long as it gets the leftist socialist agenda through. Other than that, gun-control for all too.
I completely agree. It's not like healthcare is free. How do you expect doctors live? They spent their @$$es off in medical school and they paid large sums of money. They work hard and they deserve money for these unbelievably complicated procedures. It costs money.
If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story. -
Ainull_seepage — 16 years ago(August 16, 2009 11:24 AM)
My beef is, my father has a heart attack about a year ago. It was pretty massive, and nearly fatal. He flatlines for 5 moments. He had the heart attack while working on a car with a friend whom called the ambulence. The ride in the ambulence alone was 750 dollars. Then, to perform the life saving surgery and follow-ups totaled to around 87,000 dollars.Most of it is covered by my father's insurance, but what if he had none? There is NO way it costs almost 100,000 grand to save my father. However somehow it costs that much to save someone's life.
Had he been uncovered, he may have still received treatment, but what difference would it make? He would have to pay every cent he made for quite sometime to pay such a debt off. All for survival. It's ridiculous. Fortunately he is doing just fine, but questions continue to stir in my head. Not only about 'what-ifs' but about others who go through the same process as my father, especially the ones who have to make such hard decisions on do I save my life and cripple my family financially for life? Or do I just die?
The same goes for the pharmaceutical companies. We have old people in the U.S. who have to decide whether they buy their pills (which according to the DOCTOR who prescribed them will keep him/her alive) or they buy their weekly groceries. They have this dilemma because their refill of pills costs an arm and a leg, and may not be covered by medicare. That is just a dowmright disgrace. These people built the country to what it is, and they can't even get their medicine which keeps them alive as a token of the country's gratitude.
All in all you're just a nother brick in the wall.