Should House pass Senate healthcare bill? Why or why not?

3 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    No. Aside from the fact that most Americans are opposed to it, not to mention most of the knowing world who live under socialized health care and beg us not to get it -- what do they know what we don't -- it should not be passed for many reasons.

    One of the reasons is that most people who do not have insurance can qualify for medicaid, which would cover their medical bills.

    People who cannot qualify for 100% coverage in medicaid can often get a partial pay medicaid, in which medicaid will pick up any bills more than, say, $1000 a month; i.e., if you wind up in hospital for three days and wrack up $25k in hospital bills, 'caid will require that you pay the first thousand -- which does not have to be paid all at once -- and they will pick up the rest.

    Most hospitals are federally funded, which means if you don't pay the bill, the government pays for it anyway. It is illegal in this country to deny you care for lack of ability to pay. This is why most hospitals are federally funded, to ensure people get the urgent care they need, not to mention headache care, toothache care, broken leg care, etc.

    There are also county clinics that one can go to that cost $50 to $100 for an office visit. While it's not pleasant to have to pay that out of pocket, it's still not six hours at an emergency room for a headache, and it's relatively rare that people are sick like that every single month. For most people in this situation, like me -- I don't qualify for caid and I don't have insurance because I'm self employed -- if I get sick enough to go to the doc, I shell out $60 for a walk-in clinic and I'm done. Lots of people do this.

    There is no reason to pass sweeping heath care reform that will tax Americans into oblivion when the only thing that needs to be done is enforce insurance companies and make them do what they're supposed to be doing in the first place: Don't drop people for getting sick. Don't force people to get referrals, which just clogs up doctor's offices and makes people wait for care they need. Don't deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions. Life is a pre-existing condition.

    Insurance companies have profits in the billions. Why should we have to pay more taxes so they can continue to dole out million-dollar bonuses to administrative lackies who were really good at telling their insureds, No, you can't see a specialist.

    I've lived in countries that have universal health care. The one thing I remember is when I couldn't get the care I needed in a timely fashion, I hopped on a plane and came home.

    Even France, who's medical system everyone touts as "the best," they have been telling their citizens for ten years now that "supplemental (private) insurance is necessary because we can't do it all." This is on France's "emigrate to France" page of France's website.

    You think it won't be a big deal to pay a little extra in taxes. The lowest tax I paid while living in another country was 40%. 40% of my paycheck went to the government right off the top. And then when I wanted to buy a luxury item -- a washer, a fridge, a stove, I had to pay value added tax (VAT), an additional 22%, just for the 'luxury' of owning a fridge. This is true all over Europe and the Middle East. I can't speak to East Asia; never been there.

    That's the short story. It's too easy to fix what we've got just by forcing insurance companies to do what they are supposed to do. That would solve most of the problems right there.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 3 years ago

    Possibly. However, I undertaking anybody to exhibit me a invoice that did not have "unrelated language" (sometimes called riders) in it. Some examples: An emergency invoice to support Midwest flood sufferers had a rider that exempted 1000's of acres of historical progress from all Forest Service systems, making them open for logging. A invoice to pay UN arrears had a rider that reduce off federal help to loved ones making plans firms that participate in or take a public function on abortion, even supposing performed with the group's possess budget. (The invoice used to be vetoed.)

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    no. Its crap. We're better off with the broken system we have now than that plan. At least currently we are not forced to buy that crap.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.