Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Member
    Status
    Disneyfanforever is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like
    This user has no status.
     

    Should the government provide health care to it's citizens

    What is your opinion.
     
         

  2. #2
    Twisted Scientist Frankenstein's Avatar
    Status
    Frankenstein is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    A hot place
    Posts
    3,821
    Post Thanks / Like
    They say I 'm a troubled boy,
    just because I like to
    destroy, all the things that
    bring the idiots joy. Well,
    what's wrong with a little
    destruction?
     

    Re: Should the government provide health care to it's citizens

    No it should let them die and then rot.

    (wth is this question?)
     
         

  3. #3
    Banned
    Status
    NeverEnding is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Land of No Return
    Posts
    1,571
    Post Thanks / Like
    Lmao NvG still hates my
    guts...
     

    Re: Should the government provide health care to it's citizens

    Yes and no it's complicated!!! If I would post my opinion I'd be here for a day!!!
     
         

  4. #4
    Khallil's Avatar
    Status
    Khallil is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kyoto, during the revolution
    Posts
    14,194
    Post Thanks / Like
    Must.. Be..... SARAISTHEBEST!
    #AkhiTsuki
     



    Re: Should the government provide health care to it's citizens

    *let everyone die*
     
         

  5. #5
    God of Wood O_O HashiramaDescendant's Avatar
    Status
    HashiramaDescendant is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Xyloid City with Hashirama
    Posts
    5,557
    Post Thanks / Like
    안녕하세요! ^^
     

    Re: Should the government provide health care to it's citizens

    Sure, why not? The Affordable Care Act is already in full swing anyway, but it has caused many businesses to lay off their employees and even shut down completely. I could go on, but I'll stop there.
     
         

  6. #6
    Banned
    Status
    GenKiDama is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    7,453
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ban Count 24. Estimated time
    Spent Banned: 7 Months
     

    Re: Should the government provide health care to it's citizens

    oh right, they don't have that in america. lol.
     
         

  7. #7
    Senior Member Pumpkin Ninja's Avatar
    Status
    Pumpkin Ninja is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Kamui Land
    Posts
    3,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    This user doesn't need a
    status.
     

    Re: Should the government provide health care to it's citizens

    Canada is ahead . Take that America
     
         

  8. #8
    J & A YowYan's Avatar
    Status
    YowYan is offline
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    At the Organization, decapitating Rimuto
    Posts
    11,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Lone Ranger, Sun Gazer
     

    Re: Should the government provide health care to it's citizens

    Sure, but I'd rather have the monopolized hospital chain's motto change. Rather actually heal people with natural medicine instead making them sick with chemical medicine and chemotherapy.
     
         

  9. #9
    §€X¥╘ΘvéR§ Gary777's Avatar
    Status
    Gary777 is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    IN UR heart ♡ InDIa♡
    Posts
    3,032
    Post Thanks / Like
    When the road gets dark and
    you can no longer see let my
    love throw a spark have a
    little faith in me .
     

    Re: Should the government provide health care to it's citizens

    Yes to a possible extent
     
         

  10. #10
    Space/Time Manipulator Michio Kaku's Avatar
    Status
    Michio Kaku is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Sage Realm
    Posts
    113
    Post Thanks / Like
    Traveling through time and
    space to ensure the future of
    this dimension.
     

    Re: Should the government provide health care to it's citizens

    It is a good idea and a bad idea. I believe everyone should have healthcare. The problem with that is (assuming your a american) the government cannot afford these programs the give to us. Americans demand a high standard of living but are government simply cannot afford these programs. With each program added we only increase the deficit and send this country that much closer into bankruptcy.
     
         

  11. #11
    Senior Member Anorien16's Avatar
    Status
    Anorien16 is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,887
    Post Thanks / Like
    This user has no status.
     

    Re: Should the government provide health care to it's citizens

    I think Germany has something like that.... u may like to look it up.
     
         

  12. #12
    Sith Lord of the Lawyers Darthlawsuit's Avatar
    Status
    Darthlawsuit is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,531
    Post Thanks / Like
    Need additional Phylons
     

    Re: Should the government provide health care to it's citizens

    Basic health care only: 2 doctor visits a year, 1 eye exam, 1 dental exam, mammary/prostate exam. If you want anything more than that you can pay the private sector to get more comprehensive coverage which can replace the government health care.
     
         

  13. #13
    Issues Klaroline's Avatar
    Status
    Klaroline is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Australia.
    Posts
    1,535
    Post Thanks / Like
    My heart on my sleeve and the
    world in my hands.
     

    Re: Should the government provide health care to it's citizens

    We have healthcare in Australia and a lot of other countries in the world have it to so I say yes.
     
         

  14. #14
    Senior Member Aim64C's Avatar
    Status
    Aim64C is offline
    Gender
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    2,125
    Post Thanks / Like
    This user has no status.
     

    Re: Should the government provide health care to it's citizens

    That really depends upon how one defines: "citizen," "Healthcare," and a number of other things.

    The question should, really, be: "Why is it that so many people do not have what they feel is adequate healthcare?"

    Too expensive? Why is that?

    It's not 'because of money-grubbing insurance companies.' It's not as simple as cartoon villains. Insurance companies have huge amounts of power with which they can (and do) haggle the industry standard pricing for procedures, medications, etc down (because that stuff costs -them- money). If prices are going up - it's not just because health insurance companies want more money.

    I don't have all the answers - but a number of different probes have been launched and the results published by various think-tanks that attempt to identify the sources of swelling healthcare costs.

    http://www.catrg/pubs/pas/pa211.html

    "Largely ignored in much of the current debate over health care is the excessive use of medical resources by ordinary Americans. No politicians are giving speeches blaming the average citizens of the country for overusing medical care. There are no fireside chats with the president asking citizens to stop seeing doctors so often, asking parents to have their children "tough it out" and not see the doctor for every little scratch, asking the elderly to give up that extra year or two of life. Politicians are not so foolish.

    But turning a blind eye to the consumption of medical resources by patients is a mistake. If the country is overusing medical resources, patients must bear responsibility for much of that overuse. We cannot cut our medical expenditures without reducing our consumption of medical resources. Fortunately, we know why patients overuse medical resources, and we know how to solve the problem. Unfortunately, the political will to enact correctives to the problem is not as easily come by, and the current administration in Washington seems to prefer to make empty promises to reduce costs while at the same time increasing medical services.

    The concept of "excessive" medical use has a very precise meaning in economic analysis. When the marginal value of the resources used in a medical treatment is greater than the marginal value provided to the patient by the medical treatment, then the medical treatment is classified as "excessive." Note that the economic concept does not require that the medical treatment be without value altogether.

    That definition needs to be contrasted with that of the medical community, which typically defines "excessive" treatment as a treatment that is not medically beneficial, as in the claim that cesarean sections are performed in many cases where they serve no positive medical purpose. The medical definition of "excessive" is similar to that of "fraudulent." Patients purportedly accept unneeded treat ment because they are misled by doctors. Yet the economic concept of "excessive" does not require any deceit or fraud at all. It merely requires that patients receive treatment that the patients themselves value at less than the cost of the treatment."


    http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/...sOnTheRise.htm

    While I believe a government has a responsibility to promote the development of new medical technologies, only the most local of governments should be taking on such massive amounts of responsibility for the individual within society.

    If a city wants to fund public access to healthcare for its residents - by all means - they can do that. In fact - I would not be entirely opposed to having public clinics funded by town/city ordainance. But I wouldn't be for treating it with the delusional idea that it's going to become the most prestigeous hospital/clinic in the state. It's there to provide a functional service, not to save the world.

    That said - I think we do place too much faith in 'modern medicine;' surgery, prescriptions, and other 'doctor magic' that can be a simple solution to problems. More emphasis needs to be put on the raw fact that many surgical procedures (such as bypass surgery) show no statistical advantage over those who undergo lifestyle therapy following a heart attack or other such problem. Sure - surgery has its place, and coupled with lifestyle therapy can be a very effective way to help someone recover to a good quality of life... but the fact of the matter is that simply adjusting your diet to include more balanced nutrition (it doesn't even have to be "organic" like all the 'tards like to bellow about) will often do just as much, if not more for you than any prescription drug will.

    It's the microwave mentality: "Well... go ahead and cut me open so we can fix this. Time is a wasting, Doc!"

    And while our bodies are machines, blessed with amazing self-repair abilities... when the failure of those self-repair systems to keep us in health become apparent, it is going to take more than a couple hours in the OR or a few simple pills to correct the issue. But that's not how people want to think - and people who think like that should, honestly, not have medical treatment wasted on them.
     
         

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •