 Quote:
Originally Posted by hkbajwa  I dunno what it is you claim i have stated that is a LIE, but i agree with what you are saying. I know that nobody gets turned away from the emergency room when it is an emergency. But the point is that many costly EMERGENCY PROCEDURES could be prevented if people had free access to PREVENTATIVE medical treatment. Maybe i'm wrong but my understanding has always been that emergencies get treated, but not before they are emergencies. Prevention works better than curing. YOu get my point? | The statement was made that some people had to wait a week or sometimes two for treatment. That was the lie. While I agree that preventative care goes a long way, how do you prevent a cold???? Again you ignore the fact that many people who have free access to healthcare exploit its use. Quote:
Originally Posted by hkbajwa Well, once again the issue here is the practical application of a principle. It MUST be possible to work the system such that curing a cold DOESN'T wind up costing the state $2500. I mean the fact is the ( yes i know its on a smaller scale) denmark CAN pay for the treatment of its sick people, without incurring unreasonable losses. To assume that it is not possible is to assume that government administration is by its very nature incompetent. And while i agree some government administration IS incompetent, it is not a universally defining quality of government involvement. | But government administration is just that, incompetent. Look at all the time it takes to qualify for benefits. Sometimes months......Again you ignore the main contention, that with free access to healthcare comes misuse. We already see it with those who rely upon medicare and medicaid. Universal healthcare in this country will require year in and year out more money. Money that comes from the working men and women, giving them less and less of their own to take home. Quote:
Originally Posted by hkbajwa I think that would be much the same as public healthcare. You know why? because if you make it MANDATORY to have health insurance, as a government you must also ensure that your population can AFFORD the insurance ( car insurance is only applicable when you have a car, which many people don't, but EVERYBODY has a HEALTH to care for ). | Really!?!
89% of Americans own a car. Since when is 11% many. So it would seem that your comparison is inaccurate and therefore my original contention remains unimpeded. Quote:
Originally Posted by hkbajwa Anyhow in this process of mandatory health insurance, steps need to be taken like increasing minimum wages, subsidizing families with more children, and other social welfare programs, so the government is gonna HAVE to spend no matter what. I personally believe that this will wind up costing the government MORE since insurance companies have to make a profit. That means that the savings a government can make by having a healthy population instead goes to private business. ( X is healthy, but he keeps paying insurance premium even though he is fine, and the government needs to keep ensuring that he can keep paying the premium. In a free healthcare society, if X is healthy, the government simply saves that money that would have gone to insurance under your proposal) | See insurance companies have the right to deny a claim. The great thing about this fact is that it will help to prevent the misuse of the system, which causes the prices to increase. It will not cost the government more money, but rather less. By making health insurance mandatory, that means the demand will increase, and accordingly the price will decrease as the supply becomes more available. By people having a financial repsonsibility in how they use their care, people will be less likely to misuse the system. Year in and year people by life insurance, to protect families in case they die, if they don't die all that money they pay is wasted, but if they do, well then it paid off. The same is true of all insurances, home, auto, and even health. By buying a policy young, a person can lock in lower payments throughout the course of their life.
dmk Conservatism, I repeat is not an ideology. It does not breed fanatics....But if you want men who seek, reasonably and prudently, to reconcile the best in wisdom of our ancestors with the change which is essential to a vigorous civil social existence, then you will do well to turn to conservative principles
-Russell Kirk- |