Do you think our government should provide health insurance to all? And why or why not?
363120
yes i think it would be a great idea for the goverment to provide us all with health coverage, it would set in place a standard rate of cost for proceedures of all kinds and employ more doctors and more staff at offices and hospitals, medical standards would be set and therefore medical mal-practice would be more governed by the actual courts and dis-allow for frivolous lawsuits. it would also thereby de-organize the pharmacuetical compnanies and how they practice. medicines would be more available at cheaper rates due to more people using the drugs provided by pharmacies.so "yes"
961124
I would support it , if it could be proved to work.  We are supposed to be the greatest country, then we should make it work.\n\nI am sick of hearing about it making our taxes go up.  of course it will.  but are you forgetting that you will no longer have health insurance premiums.  If our taxes go up much less than what the cost of our insurance was, then it is a good thing.  \n\nI also have no problem with government health insurance if run right.  We all know that group insurance is the best.  Why not make one giant group with everyone in America eligible?  make it affordable.  I live in a state where 1 in 4 doesn't have health insurance.  If it were more affordable, that would make a difference.  My current coverage is with a very small group  and it cost me 10 to 12 thousand a year to cover my family.  I can't afford that.  most Americans can't afford that.
989859
We need a health care system in this country and it will be hard to get. You know who is in congress. pro business!\n\nWe need a way to pool the Monet, an have some say into some things, like costs!\n\nHMO's who have people who are paid over 2 million a year plus bonus, plus their stockholders. They are taking all that from you before they have paid a thing!! There are over 450 HMO's in NJ!\n\nWhen I retired from the state, all of a sudden the HMO who represents retired state workers can get pills that I was paying over $12.00 each, I can get a 3 month supply for $4.00! That's right! $4.00 for three months!\n\nMedications is too expensive and needs to be brought under control. I don't have an issue with someone making a profit, but a 14 Million dollar income for 1 person in an HMO? That is obscene, and they have at least 3 more making more than 2 million a year. Now multiply that by the # of HMO's and the money they return to their shareholders, who didn't work a damn day!. That's a lot of money that goes to everything but health care.\n\nI have a ton of those example's, and I am sure we have enough smart people, who are not politicians, who can come up with a health care plan. What do you think an HMO is?
232278
Yes.  In a supposed free country we have very little freedom.  It's time for the government to stop acting like strict parents and let adults make adult decisions.  As long as no one else is hurt, why not?  People have ready access to it anyway.  Why not tax it so our country can benefit from it.
949477
no....the parents should!\nThe government will supply the SSI check to help out!
1009343
good question.  the answer is quite simple....  the government doesn't see free education (k-college) and free health care as a priority for all of its citizens....\n\nmany first world countries have this!!!\n\nby privatizing health care.....  companies makes zillions of dollars in by charging outrages prices for health care and prescription drugs....  it's the good and bad of a free market.  \n\nit's a shame that a country so rich couldn't provide basic health care to all of her citizens!!!!!
560440
I think all the healthcare services and products shd be made free. At least after paying out so much from our pockets as taxes, these basic aminities and services should be made free.
88399
nope, not a long as they can hold down the poor with outrageous prices. That and its one way of comiting legal genocide. See if you get sick in this country and you can't afford the OUTRAGEOUS health insurance premiums chances are you make too much to get public assistance. By the time you do qualify? The cancer or what ever it is thats killing you will be too far advanced to do anything about.I have asthma. I can't even buy health insurance, life insurance or any other kind of insurance..and as you may have guessed ...I can't afford the medicines I need either. I am but one of millions with this problem.. Until we do something about our current government structure.. NOTHING will change. The rich will become richer the poverty stricken will starve and the middle class?.. well they slipped below the poverty line years ago. They just set things up so that you make one or two dollars too much to qualify for assistance yet can't afford health insurnace. MEAN time? they pump billions of dolars into forein counties that hate us..bolstering their programs while Americans do without!
106309
The US spends twice per capita what other industrialized countries do and yet only we do not cover all our people.  When we decide we want to get real value for our money we can get care for all Americans and resolve other aspects of the present crisis.\n\nHealth care should be like public education (K-12) a right enjoyed by all Americans.
1086677
Give National Health care
468854
Yes because your premise is invalid.\n\nMany people use no health services and some use more than your example. In a population of that size the ones who use less subsidize the ones who use more, just like insurance companies.\n\nBob Higgins\nWorldwide Sawdust
1009969
I personally would. I'd say about 70% of people would be ok with it. A lot of people might freak that that's not right. But as long as you visit them often, it's probably better because then they'd have all the healthcare and help they could need at any time of the day... But that's just my opinion.
1120604
My guess would be no. They have a state income tax, coming from a highly taxed state - that is good. Health Care bill signed today for small business seems like a good idea too. I am ultra-conservative but not against the people who are trying to fend for themselves.
1028930
Heck, as tax payers we pay for convicted criminals to live, eat, wear clothes, exercise, watch t.v, get educated, and get free health care. There is something wrong with that!!!! An honest hard working person has no health coverage but a murderer is taken care of for free. There should be a national health care plan, but knowing this country and it's politics, if it ever happened it would be so corrupt we would all be better off with out it.
42060
No. Health insurance is a huge expense and it is their choice whether or not to offer it. Most will offer it to attract and retain quality employees. Alot of smaller business cannot afford to offer it to their employees.
67962
Well, none of us knows what we might face in life, and the whole insurance market is a numbers game anyway.  The vast majority of premiums  (those paid by an individual and their employer) cover people who will not get chronically ill.  Those individuals' payments far outstrip the actual health care costs they will incur over a lifetime, and they subsidize the poor unfortunates who end up with rare and expensive diseases.  That's the whole point of insurance in the first place--to cover people's medical costs who could otherwise not do so themselves.  \n\nInsurance companies regularly cap coverages, disallow procedures they deem not medically necessary, and sometimes refuse to pay in circumstances where the covered individual was at fault for the injury/disease (not wearing a seat belt, suicide attempts, etc.)  But going down the path of covering only select diseases is taking things a bit too far I would say.  In effect, the company in question would be saying "You're a hemophiliac?  Oh man, that's a shame.  Good luck on that not dying thing dude."  Of course we'd (as taxpayers) pick up the tab for all the emergency room visits the uninsured hemophiliacs would make, and that emergency-care-only approach may turn out to be far more expensive than covering the regular treatment and drugs which might prevent the emergencies in the first place.\n\nAlthough I can see the logic of your argument, I can't say that it strikes me as a good idea.  I think there may in the end be less savings than first meets the eye, and that our society has a certain self-interested obligation to take care of those people who are in need.
716775
Yes, it is possible to establish free healthcare in a nation.\n\nAlmost *every* other developed nation On Earth, that is, in Europe, on the Pacific Rim and on the North American continent, almost everyone who *can* afford to do so has done so.\n\nWe haven't.  Why?  Because the Rich Man Says So.  Not much else really....it's just the suits, and they own the media so they get to play an endless mindgame with us all, telling us that if *one more grandma* got her meds paid for it would just *bankrupt* the nation when poorer countries than ourselves *have* national healthcare that covers *everyone*.....\n\nReally.  And some clever folks will piss and moan about "socialism".  Look....socialism is actually *normal* for the rest of the developed world, ok?  It is.  Look at the UK, France, Austrailia.....even Canada, they all have national healthcare, all have it cheaper than we do, and none of them are bankrupt nations.\n\nThen look at Japan.  They definitely are pacifist, and socialist compared to us...and how do we know this? *America* wrote their constitution post-World War II, that's how!  Think about it.\n\nSocialism is normal for the rest of the world.  It isn't a dictatorship like communism, people still own their property, and the rich guys still get theirs, just not *rapaciously so* like here in the USA....\n\nSo yeah, it's *possible* to have free health care in the US....everyone else who can do it is in fact *doing it*.\n\nWill we?  Nope, because our Rich Men have made us all *retarded*.  Really, they call it "special", but when the cameras are turned off, we all know which meaning of "special" they really mean.....\n\nJust saying.  :)