National Health Care System....please read all before answering?

I know I can be long winded But bear with me.

Ok, I'll be the one to open the can of worms this morning.

I for one agree we have to do something. We do need some kind of health care system to protect and help those who are TRULY in need. We have many elderly who have worked for many decades for very little just to retire and die from something very treatable, along with children dying from various carcinomas and other things.

Everytime you hear the Hillary or any of the others on her bandwagon, speak about how good this program would be, the one thing I NEVER heard or hear is, HOW THE INTEGRITY OF SAID PROGRAM IS GOING TO BE ENFORCED.

Like any other government programs, its subject to abuse. That being said, with the rediculous amout of abuse it will recieve, how effective will it really be and what are the odds that the care will actually get to those who need it and whats the plan to insure that it does?

Right now, I haven't heard a single chirp on this subject.

I asked this the other day and it was deleted almost immediately. However, I got no violation notice...odd don't you think?

Like any new program, it's likely going to be loaded with problems like you are pointing out that need to be tweaked.
The problem I see with any social programs the federal government starts is that these programs are headed by liberal socialists types who don't have any clue about fiscal control nor are they able to recognize people who are abusing the system.
That was the problem for decades with the welfare system. It was run by bleeding hearts who fell for every con job that came along.

Hillary's healthcare debacle would kill the economy and a lot of people, too.
It's not the answer. Report It

I absolutely agree with you on that! Report It

Well obviously there will be corruption. It will be a government program after all. But it will help the people who truly need it the most. If they can see a doctor without worrying about how they are going to pay for it then they will more than likely see the doctor and get better. After they get healthy they will not have to see the doctor as often.

No health care plan will succeed as long as the proponents overlook two key facts.

1. We're all going to die from something, someday, and no amount of Universal Healthcare can change that.

2. All Universal Healthcare programs will fail to deliver what people THINK is being promised, unless it addresses the fact that there simply are not enough doctors, nurses, hospitals, and medications to deliver what people need NOW, let alone what they will "need" when it is free.

To answer your question, the odds are zero that the plan will "work", if the goal is to deliver healthcare.

You name it the government can **** it up royaly. This is what has me concerned

You can count on incidences of abuse because that always happens, and a lot of socialists believe that spending money to police the system would be a waste.

BS TALK IS ONLY FOR VOTES ALL SHOW NO GO

The only true healthcare fix is what Kucinich is talking about. He wants to get rid of for-profit insurance companies. What does it tell you that Warren Buffet, the 2nd righest man in the world, gained the majority of his wealth by owning insurance companies.

All other candidates are stating crap... that wont' fix anything. As long as you have insurance companies making record profits from ppl being sick... the country is sick.

You bring up an interesting point but the sad fact is there really isn't a way to truly police a program like this.

My issue with all this medical crisis talk is that the Republicans have put forth ways to reduce medical costs dramatically. Unfortunately the Dems shot this down time and time again in order to create a tax and spend program.

My thought, why not try to reduce the costs and then think about a tax and spend program? If your going to make the rich and the upper middle class pay for this program what wrong with getting them the best deal for their money?

We already have a system in place for the "truly needy." It's called Medicaid. Check out the eligibility requirements and see for yourself.

I don't think we need another one, especially one controlled by the feds.

Once you get rid of private industry and place things into the hands of the government to run, you're well on your way to communism.

That being said, the industry itself needs to be reformed, not dismantled. Hillary's plans leaves the thugs in charge and Kucinich is a nutcase who I wouldn't trust within five feet of me. In Hillary's case, she'll just keep the industry fat and happy at our expense and continue to get support and money for her campaign from the HMO's and drug companies.

With the federal bureaucracy's propensity for graft, corruption, mismanagement and misappropriation this would result in no more than the fox standing guard of the hen house. A socialized healthcare system of this nature would be disastrous for the individuals you speak of (look at the time and red tape for instance involved in Canada's system for an individual to receive such procedures as a routine MRI here in the US)...

I see what your saying. And your right about the "selling to the public part". What the ones doing the selling aren't taking into account is the cost of the program plus the cost of enforcing its(integrity) as you put it. I doubt those who really need it would ever get it and a lot of attention from it would go into the abortion clinics for under aged inner city kids.

Can you please explain to me how, if EVERYONE in the US is part of the system, how can anyone abuse it? If EVERYONE pays in, and uses, the program, then there can BE no abuse. It is when you allow a subgroup of people to pay less into the program or when they pay nothing, is when you get abuses, like when Congressmen vote perks for themselves which the rest of the US cannot access, that is where abuse of the system occurs.

Can you also explain to me how removing Insurance Companies from Healthcare decisions (while taking a healthy cut of the revenue for themselves) makes Healthcar more effective and less costly?

Insurance cos in the US took in over $750 Billion in premium payments last year, and paid out around $100 Billion in benefits. Simply removing Insurance Cos fromt he equation SAVES the US more than half a trillion dollars a year.

As long as those who propose universial health care,

Refuse to talk about how much it will cost or where the funding will come from.

They will never be taken seriously.

When you ask alot of people who are for the idea, how it will be funded, you get silly answers. Like ..........

1.If we weren't in iraq, we could afford it,

Like the 100 billion a year cost for iraq would pay for universial health care for 300 million people .

2. Or they talk about how much private citizens now pay for health care,

Thats nice, but that still didn't answer the question of, what it will cost, how it would be funded.

Fundamantal questions are not being asked or answered, such as :

How much will it cost.
How will it be funded.
Who decides what is covered.
Who decides what doctors will make.
Who decides where medicial facilities will be located.

We "Baby Boomers" are starting to retire,that's 50% of the taxpayers.
Where is the money going to come from to support another huge federal bureaucracy?
I used to drive ambulance as a volenteer,hung out in emergency rooms helping where I could.
Medicaid receiptients would show up with non-emergency problems and get pissed when they had to wait.
Of course ,real emergencies were taken care of first.
Their care was billed to the government at Emergency Room prices,going to a doctor would have been cheaper.
There is and will be abuse.
Then we'll start seeing elective surgury,liposuction,sex changes,face lifts ect. (self esteem issues )
You want to vote in health care at state level,where it can be better controled,not at the fed level,where it's a political football.