Replies

....is it the state's responsibility?

I suspect you'd say no. So, given that, you would opt for a large percentage of the population to have no health insurance. This is a hugely dangerous situation, not only for those who would lose everything because of a major illness, but for the rest of us. There's a lot of nasty bugs flying around out there and I for one would like the guy preparing my salad at the local eatery to see a doctor regularly. Not to mention, I wouldn't like to see a replay of 1918.

The state has unfortunately designated themselves guarantors of health insurance. They do provide it. The responsibility of insurance is yours. You buy it...from a company. It IS affordable just as any commodity that a family needs. Some family think cable TV or fashionable shoes are necessities, and after those costs they think spending on insurance (and not getting anything tangible) is unaffordable.

It's apparent from your comments and the comments of many other's that "insurance" really just means "free" health care. This is the same technique that convinced people to accept seniorfare (social security). They were too proud to accept welfare so FDR told them it was "insurance". Of course, it's never really been insurance.

So let's stop saying "insurance" and just call it what it is: government funded health care.

People without insurance aren't without access to care. My mother had no insurance, but took my brother and me to the doctor whenever we needed it.

It was probably even cheaper that way too. Why give money to an insurance company that will simply take a portion of it for themselves and give remains back to your doctor? Giving it directly to you doctor is less expensive.

And people without insurance aren't all poor.

In fact, the richer you are, the LESS likely it is that you even need insurance.

Insurance isn't there to pay for your health care. You pay that in your premiums. Insurance is there to handle the uncertainty -- not to give you affordable or cheaper care.

Anyone who is ill can go to the emergency room and never have to pay a dime. They cannot refuse to see you.

There are also many charities that do nothing but take care of people who can't afford to see a doctor. Charities that pay for prescription drugs, drug companies with programs that give away free drugs for the needy, local doctors and pharmacists who volunteer at free health clinics, neighbors who volunteer with local hospices to take care of the needy, etc.

If anyone is in need of health care there are places that know how to get it done. All one needs to do is ask around their community. People are not heartless no matter what a bunch of liberal kooks say.

I know because I belong to several of those organizations and people can get help if they need it.

Since when do we need the government or unions to tell employers how they should run their businesses? Why do you think they want people to think others don't care about the needy? Maybe because they want people to think they can't make it on their own and need the government and unions to take care of them? That comes with a huge price too.

I suspect you'd say no. So, given that, you would opt for a large percentage of the population to have no health insurance. This is a hugely dangerous situation, not only for those who would lose everything because of a major illness, but for the rest of us. There's a lot of nasty bugs flying around out there and I for one would like the guy preparing my salad at the local eatery to see a doctor regularly. Not to mention, I wouldn't like to see a replay of 1918.

True. The 1918 flu pandemic killed my great grandmother. When my maternal grandmother passed on in 1997, I finally got the truth from her younger cousin who she used to babysit. For years, my grandmother tiptoed around the issue saying her mother passed "because of a bad heart" or something like that. However when the scare of the 1918 flu got big in the late 1970's, 1978 IIRC, I remember she got bent out of shape all over it, now I know why.

Ping to A. Pole and Aliska and Willie Green

So, given that, you would opt for a large percentage of the population to have no health insurance. This is a hugely dangerous situation, not only for those who would lose everything because of a major illness, but for the rest of us. There's a lot of nasty bugs flying around out there and I for one would like the guy preparing my salad at the local eatery to see a doctor regularly.

We should not use government intervention to limit the free spread and competition among bugs. This would be the speciesism - a hate crime.

Besides, you prevent that way the natural culling of the more sickly and less fit humans. Freemarketeers will get angry!