TheRealMafoo said:
Government does have the FDA. There is a difference between protecting people, and providing for people. I am all for the government making sure doctors will not kill me because they are incompetent, or the FDA making sure a meat processing does not poison me. These are ways government protects the health of it's people. Paying for a healthcare service however, is not the same thing. If there was some magical way the government could provide healthcare to everyone, and it not mean someone is not forced to work in the service of others, I would be for it. The government makes nothing. For them to provide for someone, first they have to take it away from someone else. That, I will never be for. |
So you would rather people go without help and be put in debt or jail for not being able to cover the cost or hope some charitable soul helps them is better than say diverting funds away from your armed forces to provide basic healthcare?
In a natural disaster if someone is injured does your government not help them? or do they have to show their insurance details first?
A health country is a more productive country. How can you say peoploe should be forced to find their own health care but not the same for education? or the roads. Maybe everyone should pay for the upkeep of the road outside their house and if they don't want to then fine.
I don't understand how people can say a basic human need, health, is up to the person and not essential and the gov should stay out of, my taxes are better spent elsewhere but then quite happily have the gov pay for something you don't really need like roads with your money?
Education, health, food and a home are essentials for people to survive and if someone has problems with that then there should be some way of getting it. If there is a broken system or no system in place then it's down to the gov to do their job and provide it or put it in place for the population.
Of course no-one here will ever be homeless, hungry, out of work for a long time or seriously unhealthy over an extende period with no insurancw.
That just doesn't happen.
Americans have a piss poor system which isn't working unless you're rich and are objecting to a possible alternative using fox news excuses to justify it.
It boggles the mind. I've seen this before when govs don't want to bring in a change which could possibly help and they feed propagander to the masses who lap it up and repeat it verbatum.
I'm not saying that the new system will work I'm just questioning the attitudes of the american public. No-one has given a good enough reason why having the gov change the system is bad. Are you all telling me that the current system was not put in place by the gov? and they had no hand in it?
Please help me to understand your attitudes. I really want to thats why I'm asking.
