Question
Do you think they favor socialized medicine so they can be the first to do it right? Do you think they are really trying to help the other nations that are struggling with it?
What's the motive? It isn't better care for our citizens ... so what's the motive? More control? More votes? Buying the poor vote? Buying the unemployed vote?
In the UK if you suffer from Dementia you should probably move. They won't allow you to recieve medication that's been approved here in the US for 11 years that is known to help.
Here are a list of things that Hillary Clinton voted against in regards to health care. In my mind - they sort of prove she's not really looking to change anything but to control everything.
So what is it? Socialized health care in other countries is riddled with problems. And if you want health care here and you don't work there are options. I was without health care for several years out of college. I went to clinics. And I can tell you what a big problem is for insurance in this country ... doctors charge insurance companies way more than they charge individuals. I guess they feel bad charging me $850 a visit, so they only charge me $175. I was also fairly healthy, I was lucky.
The problem becomes if you have real illnesses. If your diagnosed and don't have insurance at the time, you're in big trouble. Insurance companies have issue with pre-existing conditions. And it's a tragedy that needs to be addressed.
But putting Papa Government on the case seems to be a bad choice. Or maybe just reform Medicaid. Health care should be available for those who need it. But does it have to be a government subsidized program on all levels? Isn't there a level of compromise between nanny state and heathens that let their citizens die?
I don't want the government telling me what medicines I should take based solely on the price tag. I don't want them deciding what's best for patients. I want doctors doing that.
More later ...
What's the motive? It isn't better care for our citizens ... so what's the motive? More control? More votes? Buying the poor vote? Buying the unemployed vote?
In the UK if you suffer from Dementia you should probably move. They won't allow you to recieve medication that's been approved here in the US for 11 years that is known to help.
Here are a list of things that Hillary Clinton voted against in regards to health care. In my mind - they sort of prove she's not really looking to change anything but to control everything.
She voted against providing seniors with a prescription drug benefit.
She voted against allowing people to save tax free for their out-of-pocket
medical expenses.
She voted against medical liability reform so that docs are not forced out
of practice by junk lawsuits.
She opposes leveling the playing field so that people who pay for health
insurance out of their own pocket get the same tax break the big corporations
get for providing health care benefits to their employees.
She's against allowing people to shop for health insurance across state
lines like we do with auto insurance so the consumers would have more choices
and there'd be competition to get your business, give you more for less.
She's voting for penalizing seniors who have those private health care
plans through Medicare.
So what is it? Socialized health care in other countries is riddled with problems. And if you want health care here and you don't work there are options. I was without health care for several years out of college. I went to clinics. And I can tell you what a big problem is for insurance in this country ... doctors charge insurance companies way more than they charge individuals. I guess they feel bad charging me $850 a visit, so they only charge me $175. I was also fairly healthy, I was lucky.
The problem becomes if you have real illnesses. If your diagnosed and don't have insurance at the time, you're in big trouble. Insurance companies have issue with pre-existing conditions. And it's a tragedy that needs to be addressed.
But putting Papa Government on the case seems to be a bad choice. Or maybe just reform Medicaid. Health care should be available for those who need it. But does it have to be a government subsidized program on all levels? Isn't there a level of compromise between nanny state and heathens that let their citizens die?
I don't want the government telling me what medicines I should take based solely on the price tag. I don't want them deciding what's best for patients. I want doctors doing that.
More later ...
Comments