Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
I, for one, think that there are a lot of people who simply can't purchase insurance; they simply don't have the money for it. They may be too disorganized, they may not have the ability, they may be flying beneath the governmental radar for one reason or another, or they just may not have the dough because they can't scrape it together.
That is very true, Bob, but the question is.....so? I will wholeheartedly agree with you that certain groups like the mentally incompetent, the schizophrenia and Bipolar disordered patients, need to be helped. WHat about the others? In the link I supplied you seemed to have difficulty in understanding certain areas like the unnmarried, 18-34 age groups and the triple poverty level crowd, although those things were explained in th report. The most important question in the entire thing, though, was the last sentence....The more important question is, ‚ÄúHow many uninsured people need additional help from taxpayers?‚ÄĚ
The "above triple poverty level" group can afford health insurance. The 18-34 group, especially the unmarried who are not responsible for raising a family or supporting a household of more than one, can afford health insurance. Of course there is a catch...they must work.
Why is it that there should be a plan dictating that those who work furnish insurance for those who don't, unless they have specific problem areas which prevent them from earning a living? America was not founded under these auspices. America is a country where people have the freedom to work as hard as they want to be as successful as they want. If one wants something, one works for it. That has made America the land of opportunity the world recognizes as such. It has made America the greatest country in the world, economically and militarily. If someone doesn't feel like working, why should you - or I - or anyone else be obligated to pay his bills? If a welfare mother feels like having children year after year, knowing she can not afford to raise them, why should you be responsible for contributing to their welfare? You shouldn't - they should.
We are, by far, the most giving country there is. We give because we want to, not because we have to. There are organizations to help the homeless, set up soup kitchens, give to a large number of charities, and help the poor and aid those who have suffered tragedies in their lives. We do this because we are a giving people, the organizations like the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, religious groups, community groups and just ordinary people give millions in their charitable efforts.
The government, under Obama and his socialized health care plan, wants people obligated to pay for the health care for those who don't work. That is not the answer and goes against the grain. The nasty, evil rich people and even small businesses who donate money voluntarily, will stop. The critics of this thought claim that "Charitable people who give will keep on giving, no matter what." They are wrong. They won't. Those who work will not want to pay the bills of those who won't because the government is telling them they have to. That is the first stumbling block of the plan.
Having said that, the health care system still needs a major overhaul but the overhaul should be in the system itself. There is a ton of waste and inefficiency in the system. A customer of mine is a nurse in one of the larger hospitals in Ft. Lauderdale. She tells me that any supplies that go to hospitals automatically carry inflated prices. She gives a case in point in reference to hospital beds. The hospital beds in her hospital cost over $17,000.00 apiece. A bed that would do everything a hospital bed does purchased from Craftmatic or Seely would cost around $3,500.00. Multily the savings of 340 beds times 13,000 and you will come up with quite a saving....and that's only one hospital! It's like that with all hospital products, from beds to gauze. It boggles the mind how much money could be saved by bringing these prices in line. Prescription drugs? They can be bought much cheaper from Canada. Open up the market, then, and allow world-wide competition. I think you will see prices go down dramatically. Obama, though, wants to go after the pharmaseutical companies, too. Guess what those companies will cut back on, when the new taxes hit them...research and development. America is responsible for 88% of new advances in medicine in the entire world. Do you want to see that stifled? I don't.
There are many ways to cut down medical costs. Cut them down and rates will be much more reasonable and health plans much more affordable. This "obligation" tactic Obama wants to initiate is a prescription for disaster. The government wants to run health care, even though Obama says it doesn't in the same voice he said that the government doesn't want to run automobile companies..and yet they are. The gov't running our health care system???? The government can't even run the Congressional cafeteria or post office!!! Do you want to put your health in their hands?
A good health plan may supply access to a gym
Yes. it may, Bob, but the main fact is that people would have to actually go to the gym. WOuld they? The government has a ton of stop smoking programs...have the people stopped smoking?
Once again it boils down to the same ingredient - personal responsibility. People need to be held responsibe for their actions. They need to get health insurance and pay for it, instead of having their hands out, palms up. The term "No such thing as a free luch" used to mean something in this country but now a whole lotta people are saying "Wanna bet?"
Obama wants a new health plan....insists on an IMMEDIATE new health plan, run by the government. He wants it done despite the recession we are in. He wants it done but can't say how it will be paid for, nor can anyone else. He wants to push the country farther into debt, although the current debt will last several future generations. He wants to do this, although an overwhelming majority of Americans say the are happy with their current coverage.
He just wants to do it. It's part of his "redistribution of wealth" plan.