Do people 'deserve' universal health care?

[steelish]

I'm aware that a good many poor and not-so-poor Americans risk not buying health insurance because they can't afford it. Some of them contribute to these threads. If they do need it, and have to get state-funded treatment, are you telling me that they will get the best America can offer?

And you're thinking that ALL Americans on a government run program will receive the best? If you think state-funded health care won't be good, what makes you think that federally run health care will be?

Another question...who is able to afford a computer, internet access and time to post in these threads, yet can't afford to buy insurance? (just sayin'...) That to me is the same as someone lamenting that they can't afford to feed their kids, yet they have a cell phone, smoke cigarettes, and drink like a fish. Priorities need to be considered. If things got so bad for me that I had to make sacrifices to be able to afford necessities...I would.

In the UK, people with jobs contribute by deduction from salary and people without jobs receive contribution credits from the State. Thus everyone is entitled to the best treatment the NHS can give. That may not be as good as your best, but it's way better than your worst.

Our worst is none at all. Anything is better than nothing.

[SadisticNature]

And you're thinking that ALL Americans on a government run program will receive the best? If you think state-funded health care won't be good, what makes you think that federally run health care will be?

Another question...who is able to afford a computer, internet access and time to post in these threads, yet can't afford to buy insurance? (just sayin'...) That to me is the same as someone lamenting that they can't afford to feed their kids, yet they have a cell phone, smoke cigarettes, and drink like a fish. Priorities need to be considered. If things got so bad for me that I had to make sacrifices to be able to afford necessities...I would.



Our worst is none at all. Anything is better than nothing.

If you're in a decent area you can get a usable desktop for $200 US and internet for $10/month. If you go for more expensive options you're talking $1000 US and $50/month at most. Even buying a new computer every year (not suggesting anyone actually does) that's cheaper than healthcare.

Also for a lot of people internet is the single best value for the entertainment dollar. If one chooses to cut costs on inexpensive entertainment at home, one will often find themselves going for more expensive entertainment elsewhere.

As for cell phones, a lot of people have them instead of a home phone, particularly if they do contract labor. A plumber or electrician who gave up their cell phone would lose a lot of work. There are certainly some for whom these are luxuries but with a cheap plan and low usage they aren't much more expensive than a home phone, and have replaced the home phone with the younger generation. And there are those who have no clue about money, couldn't budget for their lives and end up throwing away money on trash and going hungry at the end of the month, but there are probably a lot fewer of this kind of people than you think.

As for the actual bill, it isn't about the government taking over the health care system, it is about the government regulating the health care system. The specific regulations in question are actually less stringent then the Federal Broadcasting Standards. I don't think Americans have problems with government regulation that led to what many would consider the best broadcasting television system in the world, and I don't think Americans would argue that every TV station in this country was owned by the Government, even though they are subject to fairly stringent regulations that they meet as conditions of their broadcasting license.

Similarly, the government wants some regulations dealing with problems in the medical sector most importantly the fact that Americans pay more than any other country in the world for medicare and don't get a correspondingly high standard of care. With the rates that Americans pay your system should be leading in almost every category, instead you are doing poorly in many, while leading in a few.

I happen to live in a country (Canada) that has public health care and it has been considered successful. Almost everyone in our country is in favor of it, and despite a few minor problems now and then I doubt it will ever change. Even the right wing parties would not campaign against it as much of their base views it as the right of any Canadian. We are often critical of specific decisions in that system, but the system as a whole works. That being said its not your system, and its not what Obama is proposing.

[steelish]

As for the actual bill, it isn't about the government taking over the health care system, it is about the government regulating the health care system. The specific regulations in question are actually less stringent then the Federal Broadcasting Standards. I don't think Americans have problems with government regulation that led to what many would consider the best broadcasting television system in the world, and I don't think Americans would argue that every TV station in this country was owned by the Government, even though they are subject to fairly stringent regulations that they meet as conditions of their broadcasting license.

Oh! So you've read the entire currently proposed bill from cover to cover and know exactly what the U.S. Government is planning.

I happen to live in a country (Canada) that has public health care and it has been considered successful. Almost everyone in our country is in favor of it, and despite a few minor problems now and then I doubt it will ever change. Even the right wing parties would not campaign against it as much of their base views it as the right of any Canadian. We are often critical of specific decisions in that system, but the system as a whole works. That being said its not your system, and its not what Obama is proposing.

You're right...it's not what Obama is proposing.