Is health care a responsibility of the government. or a personal responsibility?

It is not practical nor pragmatic. It is more of an emotional argument.

 

A nice thought, but how about I take care of my needs, you take care of your needs, and if I am so inclined, I VOLUNTARILY take care of others needs and so can you. Second, our government according to our rule book, the constitution, does not have the authority to take from me to give to you. A constitutional amendment could be created to do that, but the votes and power to make such a thing law will never pass with enough votes to change the constitution (thank God).

 

I'm sorry, I mistook you for a person who actually was trying to address a point.
Obviously you missed the prime point anyway- that no system works better than the people using it. We have a rather serious problem in that respect- many people, apparently like you, who think that the "system" is responsible and is supposed to compensate for their bad life choices, or force them to do the right thing against their will. I'd suggest moving to California where the government agrees with you.

 

What you who want someone to take care of everyone elses health care are simply communists. The state owns all property and services, and let you "run them" while taking from your productivity to pay for them. Close the damn emergency rooms to indigents and show you have the ability to pay up front. If this rule makes you feel bad, then open up YOUR WALLETS and voluntarily contribute to the non-productive flotsam of this world. You can't pay, you don't play, unless someone else will voluntarily pay your way.

 

It's empirical reality. It is how advanced nations have, demonstrably, achieved Trump's commitment to "something terrific!" that "covers everybody!" at "less cost!"

What alternative approach has been repeatedly demonstrated to achieve Trump's stated objectives?

 

Which nations are those?

 

It's sad to say- but being charitable, sympathetic and caring is a somewhat hazardous undertaking. Too often it winds up attracting opportunists instead of helping deserving people.
There are many who deserve a hand-up from their fellow man, and who would be paying it forward as they recover.... but there are a vast number who would line up for the hand-outs, then lay back and complain about how little it is and how cruel those who provide it are. For example, Californias sympathy for and acceptance of responsibility for the homeless has resulted in homeless people finding a way to move across the country to take advantage of the easy pickings. About 25% of the nation's homeless live there now, with more coming everyday.

Now, Stockton California. a city known as the foreclosure capitol during the mortgage crisis and bankrupt 3 years ago, has decided on a new experiment- giving money away. It will pick 100 people and give them $500 a month free, with no strings attached, to see if it improves lifestyles. That will of course be funded with OPM, a serious and addictive drug that once used is very hard to turn down. The acronym stand for "Other People's Money". The pilot program is funded with rich liberal donations, but that is a one-time thing. I predict that government, once having set the precedent, will have a terrible time turning it off and be faced with demands for expansion- and will be desperate to find a way to milk the entire population to keep the cash coming. Free invariably sells well.

There is nothing more fair than each of us carrying our own weight, and each of us extending help and generosity when we feel it is justified.

 

healthcare should be treated as a right.

its in the public interest to have a healthy society.

its good for the economy and govt. spending.

 

LOL! Hilarious! "It is good for government spending".

 

reduces Medicaid spending.

also increases GDP which increases revenue, which makes bringing down the deficit easier.

sad that my points go way over your head

 

LOL! Your "points" are just left wing talking points. They are not fact based.

 

if everyone has health insurance, medical spending goes down.

its a fact.

Medicare-for-All would save the USA about $300 billion a year in medical spending.

 

Much like if everyone can get student loans the cost of college will go down? LOL! You do not seem to understand basic economics.

 

A few days ago, there was a story about a couple who's baby girl fell off a couch, and while no injury was obvious she wouldn't stop crying. So, they took her to a hospital, where she was examined,and found to have no injury. She was put in a crib with a bottle for awhile, and was then sent home. When the bill arrived, it was $18,800.00. Seems they had alerted some emergency team just in case, and that costs money...

THAT kind of crap is why insurance is prohibitive. I was once billed $5000 for a 45 minute ER visit, where I got an X-ray, a pain shot and a prescription. I got off cheap compared to many. One man cut his finger chopping vegetables, went in and got a few stitches, 45 minute visit. Bill- $14, 018.

When you pay your own bills, you are frugal- when it's round-about and doesn't come directly out of your pocket, you get stupid, and so do the medical and insurance industries when you let them gouge you and don't demand better. Insurance could be reasonable and affordable, IF we were paying a fair price for value received instead of getting ripped off for everything- and I mean, everything.

Reader's Digest offered examples of other overpriced hospital items: single Tylenol pill: $15. A small box of tissues (sometimes listed as a “mucus recovery system”): $8. Nonsterile gloves, one pair: $53. Father being allowed to hold his newborn child, $40 (billed as skin-to-skin contact time).

Before we can control insurance, we need to get the charges we are insuring controlled.
Cost-management in the medical industry is virtually non-existent, they think it's a bottomless pit.

You can fly to Spain and get a hip replacement, with flight, hotel and all expenses included, for about the same price as the average insurance deductible you would pay here.

 

re Thomas Paine - without him the Revolutionary War would never have been won

re 10% for national defense, courts and national road systems - eliminate the war part and use the rest for SNAP and infrastructure: our Founders would have approved

re RAPE & "feelings" & folly - the needless deaths caused by your warmongering heroes thru overseas wars are more fitting for these terms with Bush's rape rooms in Abu Ghraib and his decimation of the Iraqi populace being perfect examples

re people 'who refuse to take of selves' - say that to the disabled such as combat veterans, seniors, those born with illness or debilitating conditions

 

There are numerous examples of regulated medical systems which work perfectly well in Europe. All we need do is to follow their examples. The result would be lower costs, far more efficient service, and a healthier society.

 

You have no shortage of proven superior paradigms from which to choose:

https://www.numbeo.com/health-care/rankings_by_country.jsp

... but, if you have an alternative that better meets Trump's vow to create a system that is "something terrific!" that "covers everybody!" at "lower cost!", please identify it.

 

Hospitals can't just 'close the damn emergency rooms to indigents' as I believe hospitals can't refuse to treat people for emergency care.

 

The government doesnt give a damn about the constitution.

 

Lots of people who work their butts off are not as lucky as you to be able to afford $1000 a month for health care insurance.

 

the Constitution gives the government the power to tax - however it does not give it authority to enrich corporate capitalists through warmongering

 

same reason the government provides public schools, roads, police, the list goes on, it's needed and benifits society

how about we have public hospitals and private hospitals like we do schools

 

Texan↑
I worked my butt off and made many sacrifices and made a lot of "practical" decisions to get where I am. I avoided drugs and didn't make babies before I got married and could afford it. Luck had little to do with it.


Iriemon↑
Lots of people who work their butts off are not as lucky as you to be able to afford $1000 a month for health care insurance.




Throughout much of the world, most people don't pay so much as $1,000 in their lifetime for health insurance.

Since so many right wingers in the USA see this country as guardian of the world, it is altogether fitting and proper that we enjoy the same benefit we promote and often finance in other nations. So let's adopt their health care systems.

 

I think we could learn a lot from other countries, however "perfectly well" leaves out a lot of factors that often create or require political conditions that wouldn't sell here.
There is also a "people" issue. In a country where the average person is responsible and works with others, it's easier to get along. We have far too many who would never consider that; they think adversary in everything- in order to win, someone else has to lose. That is one of the bad aspects of the divisiveness of the current political atmosphere- to be obstinate just for the sake of being obstinate. In other words- we could... if we would, but we can't because we won't.

 

no, Reagen signed the EMTALA into law which means hospitals MUST save the life of anyone, regardless of income or having insurance.