The people on universal healthcare are the burden' date=' not the working folk who pay their way.[/quote']
Taxpayers already pay for so-called universal healthcare, it's called welfare. Hospitals do not turn people away, whether they can pay or not anyways.
The problem is greed in the pharmaceutical companies, coupled with not enough preventive medicine to begin with which drives medical costs through the roof..
So, we should expand the amount of people who get free health care on the backs of those who pay taxes?
You also want to punish the companies that develop the medicines that cure the sick and save lives. It costs a lot of money for R&D for drugs, and they don't have a very long time to recoup these expenses before the drugs are made available to be copied and sold by other companies as generics.
It would be ideal if everyone could work; Although could you imagine the gridlock traffic
However, umemployment is at an alltime high, since so many jobs have gone to other countries. Not all jobs offer affordable insurance either.
Unemployment rates are not at an alltime high, that's just the how the panic spreading media wants to make it seem. They are lower now (6.7) than they were in 1992 at nearly 8%, and way lower than they were in 1982 where it was close to 10%.
Universal is the way to go. Taxes to stave off diabetes in children already borderline fine by me..
Not really sure what you mean here, but as for government provided health care, it's a big reason that New York is broke and asking for money from Congress and it didn't work very well for Hawaii either. They just made it apply to children and had to repeal and cancel the program in 7 months because it caused the state to go broke.
I have to agree with the heat control thing too. My last apt was never under 86 degrees because of the older woman who lived downstairs from me. We had heat included with the rent. So she kept it on 365 days a year. She did it to stick it to the landlord, who was an awesome guy.
He told me that for his units last year alone, he paid over $50,000.00 in heating costs. Which I know could have been avoided if most of his tenants closed the **** windows or threw on some slippers and a **** sweater.
So you're saying that because your landlord chose to include the heating cost into the rent the government should control everyones thermostat. Wouldn't a better solution be for the landlord to quit whining about the problem and make the tenants pay the heat bill?
I think that if I pay the **** bill, I should be able to decide where it's set.
If I understand you right, you are arguing that the government should control people's thermostats because some people who didn't have to pay their heat bill abused the system.
What do you suppose people who don't have to pay their medical bills will do? Furthermore, do you really want the government deciding if you get treatment or not?
