user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes
I was skeptical until you tossed in that tax bit. Truth like. Truth *liiiiiiike*...
Voted : No
Whoever would want to work?!
Voted : We should learn something from them.
It always puzzles me when Americans cry out against "socialized medicine." It is our money, as the President keeps telling us. Why shouldn't we provide healthcare for the poor? I'm truly at a loss to explain the people, many who are poor, who rail against this. I guess it tells us how good the propaganda machine of the rich is.
I think one reason why alot of people rail against it is because of fear of low quality health care. Like you mentioned, margaret, many of them are poor and have experience with the low quality doctors that they're forced to use because they're the only ones that accept Medicade. Also, there's the fear that government (or state) paid doctors will be more influenced by the powers that be (pharma companies, corporate medicine, etc..) and less influenced by their own patients' needs. They dont want to bite the hand that feeds them.
Those of you who have read my comments know that I'm conservative (not necessarily Reublican) on many topics that are discussed here, but when it comes to the healthcare issue, I swing to the left. First of all, I think that anyone who has a catastrophic disease like Cancer, ALS, Multiple Sclerosis, Cystic Fibrosis, Muscular Dystrophy, Juvenile Diabetes, etc., or if you're a burn victim, etc., or if you suffer from mental retardation or blindness, etc., you should get free healthcare. That's right, I said free healthcare, and everything should be done to comfort these people to make their lives easier. Through no fault of their own, these people suffer, and I don't mind my tax dollars being used to help them. However, if you've smoked three packs of cigarettes for 30 years, and now you've got lung cancer, or you've eaten your way to the 500 pound category and now you have Heart Disease and/or type II Diabetes, or you've contracted AIDS through high-risk, unprotected sex, not one penny from the government (the tax payers).
Mr. Grumpy: If you were poor, which would you prefer: Slow, bureaucratic, and poor medical help, or no help at all? I consider it an abomination that the richest country in the world, who gives massive tax breaks to the rich, refuses to help their least fortunate citizens.
While we are on the subject, the tax breaks given the rich translate into tax increases for the rest of us. We are left to pay the incredible debt that Mr. Bush is piling up.
Voted : No
Terrible idea. The Scandinavian countries are only doing okay because they have great human capital. They'd be doing great if they liberalized their economies.
Mr. Grumpy: If you were poor, which would you prefer: Slow, bureaucratic, and poor medical help, or no help at all?
by margaret123
I honestly can't answer that because I'm not currently in that situation. I do have a relative though who goes to Mexico for his medical treatment rather than use the doctors (cost free) that he's given here in the US. Some would argue that's better for him, some would argue that's as good as having no treatment at all. And another very good friend who's on the verge of having his cancer treatment terminated and letting it run it's course because he feels the treatments themselves are worse than dying.
The medical industry (of which we're paying customers) and the pharma companies are one reason why medical treatment in this country is so costly.
|
|
