Ruth wrote: > So, you would rather have 47 million people uninsured? > No, I would rather have universal employment, so that everyone could afford their own medical care.
> And it isn't the old people that are uninsured, it a > mix of people. > Old people are already insured through Medicare, Medicaid and the drug prescription plan passed by Congress. Many old people already have a medical plan carried over from the previous employer when they retired. > For example, young people with jobs that don't offer > insurance or the insurance costs too much. They feel > bullet proof and go without. > That's my point - young people don't need medical care because they're not sick and they hardly ever get hurt in accidents. My question was, why should the young people have to pay for medical care for old people? Are you suggesting that the government force the young people to pay? If so, that could cause a riot. Hillary Clinton suggested that the government garnish the wages of those young people who resist paying. Is that fair? > Some will have accidents. Some will get cancer. They > are screwed. > You want to see screwed? A government-run universal health care system. The U.S. Goverment can't even secure the nation's borders and you want the young people who were born here to pay for the medical care of the illegal aliens? The U.S. Government could't even prevent an attack on the World Trade Center. It has already been established that the government got us into a quagmire in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. Government can't even take care of it's own wounded soldiers! The U.S. Government brought on a crises in the present Medicare system; lost a war in Vietnam; failed to prevent North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Iran from getting nuclear weapons. What makes you think the U.S. Goverment could run a medical care system? > Some will get treated anyway, but because they are > judgment proof the health care providers eat the cost > and pass it along to everyone else. The problem is > that people can't say they don't need health insurance > because they are healthy. Health is not something that > is a matter of personal control. Sure you can live a > healthy life, but you still can get cancer, be born with > diabetes or other chronic illness, or have an accident. > I personally have seen far too many of those young healthy > people who suddenly are not healthy any more and cannot > get health insurance at any price. > Sure, there are going to be some people who need help - that's where charity comes in. But you are going to have a failed plan if you try to make all the young people pay to take care of all the older people, many of whom failed to take care of themselves. Yes, there are those who get sick and we should not judge them, however there are many respondents here who would agree that people don't eat right, don't exercise, and refuse to work. Why should I be forced to take care of them? I've got a simple plan for young people: 1. Finish school and get a degree. 2. Get a good job with benefits and save some money. 3. Don't get married until at least 22 years old. 4. Don't have any children until you're 35 years old. 5. Have only 2 children, with at least 5 years between sibs. Country will grow!
