10-19-2003 09:01 PM
10-19-2003 11:47 PM
10-20-2003 12:38 PM
10-20-2003 01:41 PM
10-20-2003 01:49 PM
10-20-2003 01:50 PM
10-20-2003 06:36 PM
10-21-2003 04:56 AM
Originally posted by The Eristic
It happens all the time, sadly.
I'm not a fan of the idea of a national healthcare program. I just think our nation has become too reliant on insurance companies for aid with healthcare coverage, and I've been wondering what would happen if that type of coverage was abolished. My questions are:
Could doctors, pharmaceutical co's, etc, survive at their current rates if there were no insurance companies? Also, could the US survive the shock of the transition to a society without them, or are we too far gone? It's clear that healthcare is something everyone needs. Therefore, should not the average bill be reasonable? Most US citizens already have insurance of some sort, so it's unlikely that there would be an astronomical influx of clientele, large enough to overwhelm practices. However, what new clientele there would be might recoup a bit of the lost profits from reduced fees. It's a really tough issue to tackle, because there are so many variables. Some might argue that today's fees are justified. Honestly, I can't say. I'm not a doctor. I'm a history major. Just observing, looking back through US history tends to make me think that the existence of the insurance companies is how drastic fees for simple things are derived. I might be wrong. Won't know till something goes down.
10-21-2003 05:20 AM
Most US citizens already have insurance of some sort
.....in this world there are many who will take advantage of a situation that is designed to help people
your neighbor was ignorant of the fact that LA County would have provided free health services...
10-21-2003 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Stringman
I don't know the exact figures, but there are millions who do not.
10-21-2003 11:24 AM
10-21-2003 11:38 AM
10-21-2003 12:05 PM
Originally posted by The Eristic
According to the Census Bureau in 2002, there are about 43.6 million without health insurance. However, that works out to only about 15.2 percent of the 288,368,698 (2002).
You've inspired me to start researching more in depth on the issue, to see why that 15.2% does not have health ins (poverty, etc...).
10-21-2003 12:34 PM
10-21-2003 12:50 PM
10-21-2003 01:33 PM
Originally posted by '82 Wine red
Major issues that would need to be resolved in order to enact a "national" healthcare system:
WHO pays for it? Do we just continue to give more of our income towards taxes for yet another mismanaged and fraudulant government-run service?
Even in the name of helping people, the gov. would be the WORST organization to fund and run a system as diverse and complicated as health care.
Realize that the U.S. government does little to nothing to generate any income of it's own. The government operates because we give it money to operate.
WHO is eligible for the service? Does it cover everyone, from Mike's neighbor up to Bill Gates? What is the cut-off point if there is one? Can you opt-in or out as you please according to your income?
Is there a cap on coverage? Who determines elective vs. necessary surgeries?
WHAT happens to those who are of sound mind and body and yet desire to smoke/drink/eat junk all to excesses? Do they pay a higher tax? Are they refused coverage? WHat about hereditary health issues?
National healthcare sounds like a grand idea until you realize that such a titanic undertaking would be run by people who aim at icebergs and spend their lifeboat money on state-funded personal vehicles, personal trips and office furniture.
HarmonyCentral.com is the leading Internet resource for musicians, supplying valuable information from news and product reviews, to classified ads and chat rooms.