Do you think there should be National Health Care coverage in the United States?
952919
No! Countries which have national health have oppressive tax bases and the systems are highly ineffective and unresponsive. I believe that we should look into to insurance and medical reform. Pricing structures should be examined. For example why should insurance companies be allowed to pay one price to doctors while people off the street must pay more. \nInsurance coverage should be made affordable for all wishing it, perhaps in the form of a government group plan which leverages large scale buying power much the same way as corporations do. \nWe should also review medical savings accounts. Contribution should be allowed to carry over from year to year allowing people to build medical nest eggs. Currently the plan allows tax free contributions, but they are lost if not used in a particular calendar year.\n\nThere are many things we can do to help make Health Care more affordable and available to all in this country, but creating what would be the largest entitlement in American history is not the answer.
429910
I'm Canadian and let me tell you, free health care is the most important thing to our government and it works wonders. If The united states were to implement a plan like ours it would be the biggest social milestone in US history. But of course you have Bush so i feel sorry for all those people.
410215
It is not the governments job to take care of people! This country was built on the rugged individual and not the nanny state. I would never want the government to think it knows what is best for me. There is nothing stopping people from seeing a doctor and making payments. \nMy father had no insurance for years with us 7 kids and that's how they made it work. We have it so much better in this country than anywhere else in the world. When you grow up you will realize this.
565681
Because health care in the USA is NOT equal for men and women. Pregnancy and childbirth are often not covered either. Nor is any kind of gynecologic 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
561233
I agree with you to a point. The law does require us to purchase auto insurance. But it does not tell us who we have to purchase that insurance from. Personally, I feel that if it is required by law, then affordable coverage should be provided by the state, particularly to those who cannot afford it. And by the way, I am a conservative.
951361
Dick DeVos (r. MI) running for governor thinks that those people should just get jobs.  When confronted with the fact that over 1 million of us have jobs and no health insurance, he responded with 'well they should get jobs and that way they will lead to better jobs that offer health care'.  Guess who I'm NOT voting for?  BTW democratic incmbent Granholm does NOT advocate socialzed healthcare, but rather a pool in the state that people can buy into, that is affordable health care..  This has been successful in states that have tried this.
811951
The best debates against the health care reform involve 2 elements:\n(1) economics\n(2) logic;\n\nArgue that nationalized healthcare and other proposed reforms restrict the free-market economy and reduce the quality of healthcare by increasing long lines and failing to provide incentives for innovation.\n\nArgue that nationalized healthcare or other reforms are populist ideals.  Just because everyone wants reform, doesn't mean that it is the best way to go.  Even if everyone wanted no reforms, that wouldn't make it right, either.  \n\nYou should be able to find a lot of information on the web b/c it is a hot topic right now.
125604
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.
1125251
Perhaps the U.S. problem with Hugo Chavez is not what he says but what he stands for. The U.S. gov.   should be feeling its neck over the fact that while  the rest of the civilized western world has comprehensive health care for all of their citizens, the U.S. has more the 40,000.000 people who no coverage at all because of the greed and avarice of the country's health providers.
71543
Someone aside from Bush because he's a complete moron- needs to seriously attack the issue of health care.  Health care is a necessity.  You need to have health insurance no matter if your employed or not.  But it needs to be affordable health care.
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.
66175
No, they should not. Offering health insurance is a benefit that companies use to recruit and keep their employees. But nowhere was it a requirement or law that they should provide insurance. \n\nAlso, if it were required small businesses would fail, not able to keep costs in order while trying to compete with the larger corporations of the world.
509179
Yes for somethings healthcare can be free in the US. For most people it is not and we pay for it in way or another.
248856
No.  Not if what they are using the hospital for is required treatment.  Too many people will go to emergency rooms for things that aren't really an emergency because they figure they will get free treatment.\n\nA better way would be if there was free and equall health care for everyone.
454977
Repuglican idea: screw you get your own. \nDemocrat idea: national health care set up on the order of Canada or England.
480478
No because there should be a right to free medical care (as in the British Health Service) and to free education throughout life (Life-Long Learning).\n\nWhat bothers me is that some people have to pay, when it should be free for everyone as of right in a civilised society.