Why should other relatives discharge for YOUR strength insurance?
It seems more fair to hold people pay for their own strength insurance. (unless we are running a charity; see previous question)
Answers:
runing a charity or living in society? God forbid you have an calamity or get cancer or something. Health insurance companies are quick to find rid of those with longstanding illenesses. If there is no free (state) robustness care or schooling available for all (yeah even for the super rich if they want it), next there should be no taxes, no cheap labour, walk and build your own house, walk on your own feet, cure your own wounds... society is a see
Actually, I believe that if everyone had insurance, the productivity of the US would go up. I suppose it would actually be an investment to have the US to be more productive and be more competitive on a worldwide scale. With government paying for insurance, it would allow individual citizens to be capable of spend or invest that money as they see fit making this country stronger.
Why should other people foot for YOUR roads you drive on? Why should other people have to clear higher taxes so YOU can have duty exempt 401 K plans. Why shoud taxpayers pay for YOUR kids college education?
Every time you hear one of these right-wingers whining roughly "why should I have to pay for" something--you can bet it comes down to they are saw "I want MY freebies--I jost don't want anyone else to get any."
We need vigour care freform. There are ways--good ones--to do that without national form care. But the right-wing doesn't want to do the work of formulating real policy alternatives. They jsut whine and mouth political slogans.
Well, guess what--when it comes time to recover the health care system, lawmaker will pick fromamong the REAL ides that are on the table. And the right wing doesn't have any. So socialized medicine is what we're going to capture stuck with.
Don't like that? Then stop the political BS and start producing some ideass. IF you don't-it willbe your own blame you are stuck with government-run health fastidiousness.
By other people do you mean other taxpayers. We repay for wars, and the welfare of other countries, why not help to pay envelope with our own tax dollars, the healthcare of our fellow citizens? Don't you realize that your duty dollars are supposed to help defray the cost of health consideration for our citizens instead of the healthcare of foreign citizens? I'd like to see how you would do if you lost your job through no breakdown of your own and you've been paying taxes for a long time and you can't get anything for it. Wake up and stop one so selfish.......
And what about those who CANNOT afford to pay packet for insurance? Those who work for a living and have to choose between feeding themselves/children or making sure they stay nutritious? What about those who are doing their best?
It's sad the folks in this country, like YOU, worship materials instead of helping those who in actual fact need it. This country has an large amount of EVERYTHING. Why do people have to HAVE IT ALL?
Only a despot would even dream up of saying something that stupid.
A rational personality says: "Why should I pay insurance premiums adjectives my life and then be denied so Insurance Corp Tyranny can flourish?"
Thomas Jefferson said "I reject tyranny surrounded by any form"
That includes REPUBLICAN Corporate tyranny too ..
.
Like in Saddam's Iraq they had Universal Health Care
Good entry Bush attacked those free loaders look at them now. NO health guardianship just like contained by Bush's America.
a better question is why is america the only developed country in need universal healthcare,yet it is the richest! america be founded on christian values, one of which is generousity to the less fortunate
Because America's collective riches should be used to benefit America's public rather than to kill Middle Eastern populace in an imperialist war or simply to further enrich America's super-rich.
I know what you be a sign of! I'm going to nursing school. I am breaking my back erudition hard material. So it should take-home pay off for ME! I dont want to pay strength insurance for poor uneducated people who don't want anything for themselves.
We should with the sole purpose take care of the truly helpless empire by that i mean children.
You are bringing up an age old debate between Democrats and Republicans. And although the Democrats are typically the promoters of these types of social programs, Republicans will approve them as okay (given the proper bribes and/or payoffs). We could debate and argue until we are blue in the face, but in that is a hierarchy in our governing body that determines what we do and do not pay for. We can't change it.
Do you think that only the money you hold paid to your insurance company is used if you have a claim. A group policy is duplicate way. Your premiums pay for adjectives policy holders claims collectively. That would be no different than it is now except the pool would be much larger.
Renegade is absolutely right. If you thought of money as a pie, there's other enough to go around and everyone deserves a piece.
Jesus said that the poor are other going to be with us and we need to thoroughness for them.
If you research the "single payer" plan that Dennis Kucinich is proposing (That ALL OTHER industrialized countries have had for DECADES) you can answer your own examine. Health care is a RIGHT and not for those who can afford it only.
Learn here:
http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issue…
The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves at the thought that the federal governing body was providing any insurance to any people agree to alone to all people as a mandate system. People have lost sight of what America is about- rugged individualism, kinfolk, hard work, grit, determination and so forth. I dont oppose sanctuary net programs but way of energy entitlements are a huge negative that only serve to push society further into dependency and to strip them of their freedoms.
Hello Willis.
Insurance lone works when other people pay. That's the unbroken point of it. Everybody pays even when they have no symptoms so that anyone can get treatment when he or she is not at your best. The idea is to use the combined resources of the group to negotiate better prices on all facet of diagnosis and treatment.
Whether it's a private insurance company with 40% administrative costs or a nationalized system with 20% administrative costs is unrelated, because any way you look at it, those participating keep on paying while they're okay for access when they're sick.
Thanks for listening.
Why should you pay for someone elses' kids' rearing? Why should you pay for other peoples' police and fire protection? Or their share of the national defense?
With commercial insurance, insurance companies have an incentive to insure solely the healthiest people, excluding the elderly, chronically ill, and poor. This is why we own Medicare and Medicaid in the first place, because the insurance companies didn't want to insure -sick- people so they foisted them sour on the government.
But the most economical and cost-effective plan is to have EVERYONE insured within the same pool. This is how every other developed nation does it. The highest priority of healthcare is not profit, it is HEALTH.
This mechanism that people who are healthy or well-off will overpay, associates who are either chronically ill or poor will underpay. But ALL establishment services are this way, except Social Security which is the reverse. As you get elder, you'll use the plan more and more, so it all comes out in the completion.
In fact Medicare is a great program. It has one and only a small fraction of the overhead of commercial insurance, and the same or better level of user delight. If we simply expanded medicare to cover everyone in the country, we would save hundreds of billions of dollars per year, for nearly the same care.
We are a civilized country. Nobody bleeds to departure on the steps of the Emergency Room. When people show up at the ER and don't have insurance, the hospital is bound by decree to treat them anyway, to a point. If they don't get paid for this, they catch it back by raising the prices they charge the rest of us who DO enjoy insurance. This is why a Tylenol in the hospital costs $20. So you're paying for these people anyway. You might as ably pay for their preventive care and salvage yourself some money. 8^)
Seems fair to me, why should I have to clear health insurance for people who don't want to work, or would to some extent have the following:
$100+ phone bills
$100+ cable bill
$900+ bills on cars they can't afford
$$$+ on material things they don't really involve
Related Questions:
Answers:
runing a charity or living in society? God forbid you have an calamity or get cancer or something. Health insurance companies are quick to find rid of those with longstanding illenesses. If there is no free (state) robustness care or schooling available for all (yeah even for the super rich if they want it), next there should be no taxes, no cheap labour, walk and build your own house, walk on your own feet, cure your own wounds... society is a see
Actually, I believe that if everyone had insurance, the productivity of the US would go up. I suppose it would actually be an investment to have the US to be more productive and be more competitive on a worldwide scale. With government paying for insurance, it would allow individual citizens to be capable of spend or invest that money as they see fit making this country stronger.
Why should other people foot for YOUR roads you drive on? Why should other people have to clear higher taxes so YOU can have duty exempt 401 K plans. Why shoud taxpayers pay for YOUR kids college education?
Every time you hear one of these right-wingers whining roughly "why should I have to pay for" something--you can bet it comes down to they are saw "I want MY freebies--I jost don't want anyone else to get any."
We need vigour care freform. There are ways--good ones--to do that without national form care. But the right-wing doesn't want to do the work of formulating real policy alternatives. They jsut whine and mouth political slogans.
Well, guess what--when it comes time to recover the health care system, lawmaker will pick fromamong the REAL ides that are on the table. And the right wing doesn't have any. So socialized medicine is what we're going to capture stuck with.
Don't like that? Then stop the political BS and start producing some ideass. IF you don't-it willbe your own blame you are stuck with government-run health fastidiousness.
By other people do you mean other taxpayers. We repay for wars, and the welfare of other countries, why not help to pay envelope with our own tax dollars, the healthcare of our fellow citizens? Don't you realize that your duty dollars are supposed to help defray the cost of health consideration for our citizens instead of the healthcare of foreign citizens? I'd like to see how you would do if you lost your job through no breakdown of your own and you've been paying taxes for a long time and you can't get anything for it. Wake up and stop one so selfish.......
And what about those who CANNOT afford to pay packet for insurance? Those who work for a living and have to choose between feeding themselves/children or making sure they stay nutritious? What about those who are doing their best?
It's sad the folks in this country, like YOU, worship materials instead of helping those who in actual fact need it. This country has an large amount of EVERYTHING. Why do people have to HAVE IT ALL?
Only a despot would even dream up of saying something that stupid.
A rational personality says: "Why should I pay insurance premiums adjectives my life and then be denied so Insurance Corp Tyranny can flourish?"
Thomas Jefferson said "I reject tyranny surrounded by any form"
That includes REPUBLICAN Corporate tyranny too ..
.
Like in Saddam's Iraq they had Universal Health Care
Good entry Bush attacked those free loaders look at them now. NO health guardianship just like contained by Bush's America.
a better question is why is america the only developed country in need universal healthcare,yet it is the richest! america be founded on christian values, one of which is generousity to the less fortunate
Because America's collective riches should be used to benefit America's public rather than to kill Middle Eastern populace in an imperialist war or simply to further enrich America's super-rich.
I know what you be a sign of! I'm going to nursing school. I am breaking my back erudition hard material. So it should take-home pay off for ME! I dont want to pay strength insurance for poor uneducated people who don't want anything for themselves.
We should with the sole purpose take care of the truly helpless empire by that i mean children.
You are bringing up an age old debate between Democrats and Republicans. And although the Democrats are typically the promoters of these types of social programs, Republicans will approve them as okay (given the proper bribes and/or payoffs). We could debate and argue until we are blue in the face, but in that is a hierarchy in our governing body that determines what we do and do not pay for. We can't change it.
Do you think that only the money you hold paid to your insurance company is used if you have a claim. A group policy is duplicate way. Your premiums pay for adjectives policy holders claims collectively. That would be no different than it is now except the pool would be much larger.
Renegade is absolutely right. If you thought of money as a pie, there's other enough to go around and everyone deserves a piece.
Jesus said that the poor are other going to be with us and we need to thoroughness for them.
If you research the "single payer" plan that Dennis Kucinich is proposing (That ALL OTHER industrialized countries have had for DECADES) you can answer your own examine. Health care is a RIGHT and not for those who can afford it only.
Learn here:
http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issue…
The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves at the thought that the federal governing body was providing any insurance to any people agree to alone to all people as a mandate system. People have lost sight of what America is about- rugged individualism, kinfolk, hard work, grit, determination and so forth. I dont oppose sanctuary net programs but way of energy entitlements are a huge negative that only serve to push society further into dependency and to strip them of their freedoms.
Hello Willis.
Insurance lone works when other people pay. That's the unbroken point of it. Everybody pays even when they have no symptoms so that anyone can get treatment when he or she is not at your best. The idea is to use the combined resources of the group to negotiate better prices on all facet of diagnosis and treatment.
Whether it's a private insurance company with 40% administrative costs or a nationalized system with 20% administrative costs is unrelated, because any way you look at it, those participating keep on paying while they're okay for access when they're sick.
Thanks for listening.
Why should you pay for someone elses' kids' rearing? Why should you pay for other peoples' police and fire protection? Or their share of the national defense?
With commercial insurance, insurance companies have an incentive to insure solely the healthiest people, excluding the elderly, chronically ill, and poor. This is why we own Medicare and Medicaid in the first place, because the insurance companies didn't want to insure -sick- people so they foisted them sour on the government.
But the most economical and cost-effective plan is to have EVERYONE insured within the same pool. This is how every other developed nation does it. The highest priority of healthcare is not profit, it is HEALTH.
This mechanism that people who are healthy or well-off will overpay, associates who are either chronically ill or poor will underpay. But ALL establishment services are this way, except Social Security which is the reverse. As you get elder, you'll use the plan more and more, so it all comes out in the completion.
In fact Medicare is a great program. It has one and only a small fraction of the overhead of commercial insurance, and the same or better level of user delight. If we simply expanded medicare to cover everyone in the country, we would save hundreds of billions of dollars per year, for nearly the same care.
We are a civilized country. Nobody bleeds to departure on the steps of the Emergency Room. When people show up at the ER and don't have insurance, the hospital is bound by decree to treat them anyway, to a point. If they don't get paid for this, they catch it back by raising the prices they charge the rest of us who DO enjoy insurance. This is why a Tylenol in the hospital costs $20. So you're paying for these people anyway. You might as ably pay for their preventive care and salvage yourself some money. 8^)
Seems fair to me, why should I have to clear health insurance for people who don't want to work, or would to some extent have the following:
$100+ phone bills
$100+ cable bill
$900+ bills on cars they can't afford
$$$+ on material things they don't really involve
Related Questions:
- If I catch employer-provided robustness insurance, will I still enjoy any freedom to choose what form I want?
- What does "This pet also comes near 30 days of prepaid pet form insurance" have it in mind?
- Everyone drop their strength insurance?
- What is the best vigour insurance for a domestic within Massachusetts?
- How would the subsidies proposed for robustness insurance within the reorganize bill be determined?