Online Medical Classes

Do you still think national healthcare is a good idea?

"States are running out of health dollars By SHANNON McCAFFREY, Associated Press Writer Thu Feb 22, 1:54 PM ET ATLANTA - Some states are warning that hundreds of thousands of poor children could lose their health insurance if Congress doesn't act soon to come through with more money for the program. The situation is most severe in Georgia, where officials plan to stop enrolling kids in the state's PeachCare program starting March 11 because of a $131 million shortage..." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_us/children_s_health Of course we all know that National Healthcare is just another Washington power grab and Marxist infection. "tell that to the 95% of people who must claim bankrupty because of health issues. educate yourself" No, educate yourself. Healthcare is screwed up because of the government. Did you know that 75% of the dollars spent in the system are spent by the government? Did you know that government regulations prevent insurance to actually be insurance (if it were, premiums would be much less expensive)? Did you know that HMOs were created by the GOVERNMENT? And your answer is more government involvement. Real genius. EDUCATE YOURSELF!!

Public Comments

1. it is nothing but a communist theory. if the democrats provide free health care- they are GIVING away something so that peopel can be equal. that is a communist idea no it is not a good idea
2. "Of course we all know that National Healthcare is just another Washington power grab and Marxist infection."..........tell that to the 95% of people who must claim bankrupty because of health issues. educate yourself
3. Yes I do. Edit: it is the hidden cost of health care that is worrysome to me. The Ceo of General Motors has said that $1500 of every new car sold goes to the cost of providing heatlh care for their employees and retirees, I would assume that this applies to other industry's as well. He went on to say it is hard to compete in a global marke with these kinds of cost added onto the price of a new car. What this means is American company's moving off shore to places where these cost are not incured do to their Universal health care system. This is American jobs. This is why more and more people are without access to affordable health care. To many democracys have U.H.C. to be calling it a Washington power grab or a Marxist infection.
4. It is not and never will be. Anytime bureaucrats are involved, it become a money pit, with poor results.Just look at our Federal Govt, Bloated and full of layer upon layer, of crooked bureaucrats. you really believe, someone else has you best interest in mind. No they just care about drawing a paycheck. If they get paid, its okay if the system is not helping anyone .
5. I live in the state of GA, and I remember hearing this. I have mixed feelings about it. I have 2 children, and when my husband lost his job, we applied for peachcare. However, we were denied for some reason or another and they went for 6 months without insurance. Instead of crying about it, I became more resourceful. I located affordable clinics, took them to the public health center for their vaccines, and researched home remedies. Now that we are employed again, we are paying $600 a month for insurance! It bothers me to think that there are so many people getting "free" insurance off of my hard earned money while I pay an arm and a leg. It's like being punished for being responsible. I had to figure out a way to supply this for my family because it is the responsibility of the parents not the community. Maybe we could work together to find a way to make healthcare more affordable.
6. Country funded health care would put the health of the American people on a level playing field. Why should your health depend upon if you have money or not? Why should the rich get better health care simply because they can afford it? Again, the eletist mentality comes through. I think something needs to be done in health care to stop the insurance companies and businesses from gouging their members/employees for health care premiums, only for sub-par health coverage. My best friend's husband has over $400 per month taken out of his pay (he is paid twice per month) for family health care. Now, taking that out of a check that is only around $700, that makes it hard to support the family. And for that insurance, they have a $1,000 premium, and after that, the insurance only covers 80% of the bills - if it falls within its specifications. A major illness could still bankrupt them - even with health insurance. Something has to be done. Whether it be the government supplying health care, or simply placing guidelines and mandates upon the industry, I don't know. But they have to do something. I would rather have the communist view of health care than the eletist view. I don't think that the more money you have should give you better health. One might as well just finish what Hitler started. It is the same ideal, only on a different level. Instead of religious ideals it is on your wealth and value to the country. By the way - my best friend's husband works in the health care field. I would think that his position might be a bit valuable to this country, or else you would be caring for your elderly/disabled family members at home. . .
7. It IS a serious step towards socialism and communism and should be fought against at all cost. Not only that but there are plenty of other options which remove the government (hence why liberals are against it) and allows the people to seek what is best for them, not what is best for some money-hungry bureaucrat. First, place limits on malpractice insurance settlements. I am not trying to be cold and heartless but how much better does $10 million or even $100 million make the fact when your loved one is still dead or incapacitated. Does it really solve anything except maybe the feeling of revenge? Is it fair, though, to make other people suffer just so someone else can get revenge on their doctor? Second, healthcare is a priviledge not a right. Therefore, I as a hard-working tax payer should not be forced to pay for some lazy, no good loser who sits on his butt all day to get healthcare. My responsibility is to provide it for my family PERIOD. If someone cannot provide even the most basic of services for their family they shouldn't have a family. Third, privitization of healthcare will ACTUALLY lower costs by making doctors have to compete more for clients. Clients can researh and find doctors willing to pay THEIR costs, not be forced into going to a doctor who is already slammed with patients. Fourth, it removes the government from an area which it has no right being in. Governments from the dawn of man to present have been entrusted with certain roles (i.e. self-defence of that nation or state). Once those roles are allowed to be abused and more roles added, friction follows and the government will continue down the road of removing freedoms in order to preserve its power which it feels is now threatened. Fifth, people (in general) will always be more generous if they are allowed to freely give instead of it being forced on them. An example of this is when taxes are raised to "help" the poor, the tax-payer is less likely to give as much to a charity. However, with privatized healthcare either the doctors or charities will provide healthcare in greater abundance than when it is forced on them. Finally, with nationalized healthcare the doctors will be hurt as well. Just like with all elements of socialism, national healthcare will force the doctors into wage controls. This will have two effects. The first effect is doctors will no longer have the incentive to give their best because no matter how hard they work they won't make more money (a benefit found with capitalism). The second effect is fewer people will become doctors because the benefit which comes from going to 20 plus years of school (i.e. higher wages, hours, etc.) will vanish.
8. It is very sad to hear about this is sad. But a national health care program just begs for corruption and money laundering. Money going to the homeless for food or shelter would go to health care which they can't ever make the appointments because they have no car. Sure, we all would have health care but those who can't pay the tax would be put in the well fare system and have to deal with food banks closing down and shelters not being able to stay open because those who originally donated to them would be struggling to pay their bills and wouldn't be able to donate.
9. no. it would be an unmitigated disaster.
10. I never thought it was a good idea, and still don't.