DerikC wrote:Saying that we can "choose" not to have a car and therefor not have to buy car insurance is a little convenient I think. Almost everyone needs a car to either get wages for a living, or an education, or just groceries. In the same way choosing death is ridiculous to avoid paying for health insurance, so to is choosing to walk everywhere to avoid car insurance.
OK Derik, my wife and I have one car that we share. If every individual must have health insurance, this line of reasoning suggests that since we are two drivers with one car we should pay double the premium for auto insurance.
That's not what the line of reasoning suggests, you both are covered. If only one of you were covered the cost of the insurance policy would be cheaper.
SmokinFool wrote:Derick, the problem is not that ways to help do not exist. Any citizen of this great country of ours can walk into just about any hosbital emergency room, and receive treatment, regardless of whethere they have insurance or not. In areas where this is not available, there surely is a free clinic nearby.
You feel that ways are needed to help people with their medical expenses? Then let's set up charities to help those in need. I will surely be one of the first to contribute! Oh, wait - such charities already exist, AND I DO ALREADY CONTRIBUTE!
All this talk about insurance being a necessity and a right is just downright bunk. I went without insurance for many years, and yet I always found a way to get medical attention when I needed it. I was by no means a wealthy man, (and I'm still not!). HEALTHCARE is not the problem. Yes, we in the U.S. do have the best HEALTHCARE system in the world. Now, INSURANCE is a different matter. It is not the same as healthcare. They are two completely different beasts. It most certainly is possible to receive healthcare without insurace, without breaking your bank.
The government has done a great job of making insurance synonomous with healthcare, but it is only a "smoke and mirrors" trick. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME, and it is possible to get one without the other.
Ok, a few points...
1) Access to treatment isn't my argument. I'm well aware that I can walk into an emergency room and be treated. What I have a problem with is the price tag. Dave has an incredibly valid point.
2) You talk about these charities as if they're more popular than starbucks. I've never heard of one, either here or where I used to live 2 1/2 hours west. Until they become as prevalent as hospitals you can't expect the 42 Million uninsured to rely on them.
We don't have the best healthcare...at least not in 2000
Today I went to a walk in clinic type thing. I was charged $75 dollars before I saw anyone. I waited for almost 3 hours, the doctor looked at me for no more than 90 seconds, prescribed anti-biotics and walked out. I'm not sure how much the medicine is going to cost, but the $75 alone is a pain to pay. That's about 11 hours of work, wasted.
I make about $660 a month, give or take $20
660, -$300 for rent, -50 for electric,- 40 for water, -45 for internet (something I need for school, not a luxury, it's actually required), -100 for groceries (a modest estimate), -40 for phone, takes me to a whopping $85 in the bank. Now subtract my bill for uninsured healthcare in this great country of mine and I have $10 to my name. Now, starting next month I'll be working less hours because of school, I'll have to tack on car insurance and a car payment, as well as have more costs because of two people living here. I don't have access to free healthcare. Period. I sure could use it though.
"Although it is generally known, I think it's about time to announce that I was born at a very early age." - Groucho Marx
Proud member of the Corncob Snob Society