it seems to me that proper health care should be a civil right, not a luxury. why should the rich and those who qualify through certain jobs have a better chance of survival than the rest of the people? What can we do to promote an equal plan. Would you be willing to pay more taxes for such a proposal?
132000
Yes, it ought to be universal.  A nation that recognizes basic human rights for all people should naturally include a right to basic health care.  It's already unfortunate that the health of each new life is a role of the dice; adding financial ruin or access to care as an additional role of the dice just compounds the injustice at our own hands.  That, at least, can be fixed.\n\nThe description of the recent Massachusetts reform is incorrect (see http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1807837 or http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060406/ap_on_re_us/health_care ) (and Senators don't make state laws), but it's an interesting idea.  In particular, employers who don't provide insurance have to pay into a fund -- a lesser amount than insurance would have cost, but it creates money to discount insurance for the poor.\n\nBut insurance models are difficult; insurers by nature are in the business of avoiding or gouging people likely to make large claims, and those are exactly the people who need catastrophic health care.
651382
How about we just do away with marriage and give everyone the same privileges. Health care the same quality for everyone no matter how much they make or who they are sleeping with. Marriage is an outdated concept that is rather limiting. Just my oh so humble opinion. \nLove & Light\nSharon
625484
It is merely the government not paying for it,  the person is requried to be responsible for thier own medical care.  If they can not afford it, are there not social service or medical care for the poor.\n\nBut I can not see why workers comp should even be paying for heart medication, cannot see a relation between workers comp and heart issues.\n\nBut they only pay according to the rules of the policy nothing more, nothing less.
390250
It depends on how much govt involvement you think should be in those areas. Some people want the govt to regulate and fund all of those -- universal health care, pensions, social security, etc. Of course that means raising enough taxes to pay for all of that.\n\nOthers think the govt should state out of the social service business, and allow the private sector to handle all that. Opinions vary.
436091
Your link looks like a pension question, but you are using it for national health care purposes??? Would you rather ask about Social Security to make it more relevant?\n\nYou can get more information about this issue and analysis of the health-care problem from all the angles at the link below.\n\nLaissez-faire health-care economics makes no sense. Markets are good for some things, bad for much and  immoral for health-care. Markets can function efficiently if people have choices. There is no choice in your health-care requirements. If you have congestive heart failure, you can't say to yourself, "Ah, I don't need the attention of a thoracic surgeon this week, I'll put it off until next week."\nOr, "I don't have any need for cancer right now, I'll take indigestion instead."\n\nTherefore, a market solution will only distribute our health resources inefficiently and inequitably. Rich hypochondriacs get all the care they "need" while poor folks with bad hearts let their conditions deteriorate until they need the most expensive care available.\n\nOur high malpractice problems and claims are a direct result of having no national health insurance. When those poor folks who can't afford health-care finally are faced with a heart attack or some other acute episode, they head to the hospital to a doctor they've most likely never seen with no medical records to speak of. The doctors are "flying blind" trying to save the patients not knowing the full array of ailments, allergies, etc they might have.
675197
Absolutely not.  Our health care system is a mess, it's true, but I think the best way to fix it is with less government intervention, not more.  You see, as with everything else, you tend to get all the best and most expensive stuff you can when someone else is paying the bill.  Well, if the government is paying the bill, that really means the taxpayers.  It's not fair for healthy people to have their tax burden substantially raised because some others can't or won't take care of themselves.  Which leads to a related point:  If you're paying your own bill, you're more likely to take good care of yourself, so you don't end up paying more than you absolutely have to.
49589
I am a consultant who earns $75 an hour and have not had insurance for years.  It is not an issue to me.  The issue of the next election should be centered around governments interference in our lives.  Smaller government, less taxes & obliteration of family court.
134265
your ideas are good, but there is too much money to be made, remember congress get health care and money from drug companies and lawyers, and doctors groups, so why would they want to change it when they get everything they need?\nThey get money from both sides
547141
I support a moderate form of libertarianism.  People should have a choice about things. I favour a minimum wage but agree with free trade and tax cuts.  I don't support the taxation of income trusts and would eliminate red tape for small and independent business.  I am very capitalist but believe hard work should be rewarded and there must be guidelines on labour standards.  Let people purchase private health care if desired but don't abandon a public system, however, more money into it is not the answer.  We need to supplement the system with private clinics and private delivery of health care to reduce waiting lists.  Actually, maybe I take that back.  Somehow I fear 'Ralph Klein' style health care.  \n\nSay no to corporate welfare and high property taxes.  Say no to duplication of services and union-oriented agendas.  Say no to a lax civil service that provides services better taken care of by the private sector.  Require a balanced budget and insist that money be spent on essential programs like subsidized housing, shelters for the homeless, public education, roads and health care.  Say no to welfare maintenance for years on end and get corporations to take care of daycare for anyone who earns above the poverty line.  I do favour a subsidy and tax benefits for families below the poverty line.  It is better to move single mothers into the workforce and support them with public housing and daycare then leave them on welfare for years.  The only exceptions should be women with disabilities with kids, under nineteen, women with disabled children, and ones in a rehab facility or with severe health problems.\n\nAlso, Yahoo! should spend less time censoring speech in general and spend more time      ing down on public statements of      against gays, ethnic minorities, women and Jews.
271186
Poor workers still take more from the system, education, health, etc. then their taxes put in, even if they pay income taxes.  The middle class pays most of the benefits through taxes.  That is why all countries limit how many people without economic resources can come in, regardless of how hard they work.  The problem is that the employers aren't held accountable for those costs as they should be.\n\nImmigrants need to stand in line and come in legally.  The reason the line is so long is because our middle class so highly subsidizes services for the poor. We can't pay for the poor of the entire world.\n\nAnd if our people are so lazy, how did we come up with the sort of economy they are so desperate to join?  We pay them, don't we? And we work hard for that money.\n\nThey really tick off people who might be sympathetic when they steal our services, ruin the education for our kids that we, not they, pay for, then say we are lazy.
210583
I honestly think liberals in general think government should be there to protect the weakest among us. While that is a noble goal, I think we can see from example that it rarely works out that way.  A good example is the so-called "Great Society".  Here we are in 2006, and poverty is still as big an issue as it was in the 1960's.  We could have handed every poor person in the country a check for a million dollars and spent less than the trillions of dollars we've wasted on failed government social programs.
395074
Yes we deserve affordiable health care and drug coverage.  As you say we send billions of dollars to other countries and leave us here back home to dig up enough money for a $75 pill.  Bush stated that he would send billions over to Iraq to aid everyone there to get the health care they need....huh???  What about us.\nWe bring people over here from other countries to have surgeries they cannot get in their countries and they get it for free because we feel sorry for them...huh??? What about the people holding bake sales to help a child in the neighborhood get a heart transplant.\nI could go on an on....rant rant.
648002
No, that wouldn't be fair....  just suppose it takes someone with a serious illness months to win the raffle....  He/she would never get his/her life saving operation    ; -}\n\nJust kidding. The people who suggested that are those who would like to see the health care system in the USA introduced in the UK --- where if you don't have the money you don't deserve to live....  The UK in this does lead the world.. because in this issue, they are one of the most civilized nations on the planet.
213225
Since it is the peoples republic of MA I amsure it is some form of socialism. Socialism never works! The governmen does not pay for anything we do!It is not the governments money... it is ours. Free healthcare is paid for by those who work. It is not free. What makes you think that I should provide you with healthcare? What about housing, shouldn't everyone have a free house? Is it fair that I have two cars and someone doesn't have one. Should I buy them a car too? I ate steak last night, Should I be forced to buy you a steak too, because you are tired of chicken? If I take the risk and build a business by working 80-90 hours a week and hire you to work 30-40 hours a week. You have assumed no risk and only work 30-40 hours a week what the heck makes you think I should give you anything but a paycheck?\n\nNo one owes you squat! If you want health insuance go buy it! I had to cancel mine whan I started my business, now I have a crappy plan that I pay for! I don't expect someone else to pay for it for me! If you need emergency treatment, guess what you go to an emergency room and the tax payers pay for it anyway! \n\nThe government can't run anything efficiently, what makes people like Hitlary think they can do it better?
13503
Most homeless people are homeless because they refuse to work, therefore they have no money to maintain any type of home.  Just look at the ones that refuse to go to shelters if they are expected to even clean up after themselves or help out while stayng in them.\n\nAnd just a comment about the "right" to health care.  I work a full-time job that gives lousy medical benefits.  If I cannot afford the services of a doctor or a dentist (we have no dental plan) I do not get treated. I just have to suffer. I do not have the "right" to have the problem taken care of, so why should a person who refuses to work have that right?
509296
Proper change is proper change.  Paying taxes is not balancing the budget, as we have seen with the republicunts. In Europe they pay a higher tax rate but have more services for all people across the board, plus they pay no tax in their retirement years.  I would rather pay higher taxes and have health insurance then supply the military for the world.
475799
that's the plan with education... break it down, say it has to be privatized to work... \n\nthen you get a fantastic system like the current health care system where only hundreds of thousands won't recieve an education... and those will basically become the slave laborers... low, low pay for maximized profit... basically an end to the middle class...\n\nof course, that will set up the prime ingredients for a revolution...