# "Health care is a right" - agree or disagree?



## Witan (Jun 13, 2009)

Do you believe that, in a developed society like ours, that health care should be a right, as opposed to a privilege?


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Yes, but I think we need to spend less money on end of life care. And euthanasia needs to be legalized. People need to be realistic and accept death (for themselves and for their loved ones) when the time comes.

Especially preventative care and birth control/abortion should be free.


----------



## MaxPower (May 1, 2012)

Living a healthy, pain-free life is a human right, in my books, and health care plus preventative care should be free (not including cosmetics) and available to everyone who needs it.


----------



## Perfectionist (Mar 19, 2004)

komorikun said:


> Yes, but I think we need to spend less money on end of life care. And euthanasia needs to be legalized. People need to be realistic and accept death (for themselves and for their loved ones) when the time comes.
> 
> Especially preventative care and birth control/abortion should be free.


Ditto this, though good luck trying to tell relatives of a dying person they aren't worth the funds. I think that's a pretty far off dream.

I truly can't understand the reasoning behind the thought that health care is a priviledge. I really truly don't.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

Sick=Help. Simple.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

....not the way Obamacare forces it. :no


----------



## Brad (Dec 27, 2011)

Yes. I find it disturbing that some people think that private insurance companies should be able to deny people with desperate need for health care or have life threatening conditions.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

millenniumman75 said:


> ....not the way Obamacare forces it. :no


It has to be forced, since it won't happen any other way.


----------



## David10 (Feb 9, 2012)

In the U.S. our Declaration of Independence states that we have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." In a way, that kind of coincides with having good health. So yeah, as part of any developed society I think we should have the right to good health care. However, I don't think anyone should just rely on the government to help support them. Too often I see people abusing this system and expecting the government to give them an easy handout. But I guess they also have the right to choose how they want to live when it comes to their poor health choices. It just sucks that other people have to pick up the slack for them. :stu


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

You have a responsibility to take care of yourself which includes your health. As such, you have the right to purchase healthcare. You do not have the right to have it given to you. No one, government included, has the right to force you to buy it.


----------



## coldsorehighlighter (Jun 2, 2010)

Amocholes said:


> You have a responsibility to take care of yourself which includes your health. As such, you have the right to purchase healthcare. You do not have the right to have it given to you. No one, government included, has the right to force you to buy it.


You make it sound like people who get sick are always at fault for how they got that way, when that's certainly not the case. 
People like to say that in my country, Canada, we have "free healthcare"...it's not free though, everybody pays their fair share to cover the costs for everybody. It's not "given" to us. And we don't mind doing it this way, because the alternative(American style healthcare) is not civilized. But that's also because we care about our "neighbors" up here, in general.


----------



## scriabin221 (Nov 16, 2008)

Yes. But I don't care if it's a "right" or not. We focus too much on principles here. We need healthcare because it makes sense. Most everyone needs or is going to need to see a doctor at some point. There is no way around it (unless you're crazy religious person or something). It shouldn't be considered a commodity. Everyone should pay their share and receive it when they need it. Regardless of your ideology, I don't understand why we feel it's OK to allow someone to go bankrupt because they ended up with cancer. Even if they smoked. Isn't the pain of dealing with a terrible disease punishment enough? It isn't just the individual either. Most people have families who will suffer along with them. Why should they be put through any more pain than they already are experiencing?

And who says anything about forcing? Nothing is being forced on you. If anything, this system is much more forcing. It forces people to pay exorbitant fees, fear for their finances should they get sick. Plus, what choice do most people have over insurance companies? You have what your job gives or have what your state gives you. How many people actually have the luxury of going shopping for the best insurance company? No one I know. Sounds pretty _forced_ to me. Or you might get forced to stay out in the cold because you had a pre-existing condition (glad that's getting over with).


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

the cheat said:


> You make it sound like people who get sick are always at fault for how they got that way, when that's certainly not the case.
> People like to say that in my country, Canada, we have "free healthcare"...it's not free though, everybody pays their fair share to cover the costs for everybody. It's not "given" to us. And we don't mind doing it this way, because the alternative(American style healthcare) is not civilized. But that's also because we care about our "neighbors" up here, in general.


Here, there is a group of people who feel that they are entitled to have all of their health needs taken care of by the government at no cost to themselves.

In most cases, getting sick is not the fault of the individual. I feel that it is the responsibility of the individual to pay for their own health care. It is not a right. The government is under no obligation to provide health care. It is not in the Constitution for it to do so.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

Brad5 said:


> Yes. I find it disturbing that some people think that private insurance companies should be able to deny people with desperate need for health care or have life threatening conditions.


They shouldn't deny people coverage, but a company would know that this is an expense from the start as opposed to people who aren't sick - that is what they are afraid of, and rightly so.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

MaxPower said:


> Living a healthy, pain-free life is a human right, in my books, and health care plus preventative care should be free *(not including cosmetics)* and available to everyone who needs it.


What if breast implants would help some women feel more confident & happy with their body? That seems the standard reason for all types of cosmetic surgery. If such could improve how one feels then wouldn't that be a mental health benefit? Thus potentially justifying coverage?

Just tossing that out there as something to think about. Feel free to substitute hair plugs if you want a similar example for the other gender.

Heath care at no direct cost to me would seem to have rather limited benefit. The ability to see all the doctors & therapists I wanted without any concern at all for the cost would be nice, but just how much use would I get out of it when SA makes me too afraid to do so?

Someone asked me about this just a couple days ago. And I pointed to somebody on this board as an example, someone who despite employer-provided health insurance has never seen anybody for treatment of their SA, despite having chronic & severe SA that has had a devastating impact upon their life. They have access from an economic prespective, but have seen a doctor once in the last 20 years. Seems removing the economic barrier isn't going to help them, seeing how they don't face an economic barrier & still SA keeps them from getting treatment for SA. Damn, that SA is a real b****, isn't it?


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Amocholes said:


> Here, there is a group of people who feel that they are entitled to have all of their health needs taken care of by the government at no cost to themselves.
> 
> In most cases, getting sick is not the fault of the individual. *I feel that it is the responsibility of the individual to pay for their own health care.* It is not a right. The government is under no obligation to provide health care. It is not in the Constitution for it to do so.


I assume your employer provides heavily-subsidized group health insurance, right? From you posts I gather you are rather healthy & likely consume a below-average amount of health care. Yet, with group health insurance everybody in the group pays the same amount, so you're paying the same as a co-worker who's 100# heavier than you and who only gets exercise when lifting a jelly donut, or one of the few dozen cigarettes he will smoke each day.


----------



## MaxPower (May 1, 2012)

UltraShy said:


> What if breast implants would help some women feel more confident & happy with their body? That seems the standard reason for all types of cosmetic surgery. If such could improve how one feels then wouldn't that be a mental health benefit? Thus potentially justifying coverage?
> 
> Just tossing that out there as something to think about. Feel free to substitute hair plugs if you want a similar example for the other gender.


Yes, there would be a mental health benefit in that case, but having cosmetic surgery free will cause more mental health issues, if breast implants were free then shouldn't all women have it done? What if a woman doesn't want them done, would she be branded as a non-conformist and become an outcast?



UltraShy said:


> Heath care at no direct cost to me would seem to have rather limited benefit. The ability to see all the doctors & therapists I wanted without any concern at all for the cost would be nice, but just how much use would I get out of it when SA makes me too afraid to do so?
> 
> Someone asked me about this just a couple days ago. And I pointed to somebody on this board as an example, someone who despite employer-provided health insurance has never seen anybody for treatment of their SA, despite having chronic & severe SA that has had a devastating impact upon their life. They have access from an economic prespective, but have seen a doctor once in the last 20 years. Seems removing the economic barrier isn't going to help them, seeing how they don't face an economic barrier & still SA keeps them from getting treatment for SA. Damn, that SA is a real b****, isn't it?


When someone is ready and willing to ask for help then they should get any help they need, not a bill. Wouldn't making SA people (who most of the time doesn't work) pay for the help make them less inclined to seek help?


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Amocholes said:


> No one, government included, has the right to force you to buy it.


According to the Supreme Court, the government can mandate that you buy insurance.

This mandate is just fine under the Constitution so long as one calls it a tax, which it is.

Of course, when Obama rammed through ObamaCare he couldn't call it a tax, seeing how Obama would never raise taxes except on "the rich who don't pay their fair share."

Seems openly saying that one wishes to raise taxes on any sizable number of voters tends to be a leading way to lose elections. Even Obama knows that when speaking of taxes he must be certain to focus only on that 1% the other 99% of us are supposed to blame. I just love the irony of Warren Buffet complaining about how he's not taxed enough when he's used every tax trick in the book to prevent Berkshire Hathaway from ever making any distributions (as would be required & taxable for a mutual fund). Does he feel guilty for doing everything legally possible to avoid taxes for himself and all the many folks who have become incredibly wealthy by holding Berkshire stock for the last 40 years?


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

MaxPower said:


> Yes, there would be a mental health benefit in that case, but having cosmetic surgery free will cause more mental health issues, if breast implants were free then shouldn't all women have it done? What if a woman doesn't want them done, would she be banded as a non-conformist and become an outcast?


I think we can find some common ground here. I suspect everyone would agree that the world is neither equal nor fair. Can we all agree on that?

Some women naturally come with shapely, ample breasts. And there are other women who come with a chest so flat it's on par with that of a 13-year-old boy. Not fair at all, is it? It's easy to see why Miss Double-A, still easily fitting a training bra despite being 25, might wish to go up to a B-cup. Certainly a B-cup isn't some outrageous transformation (not like she's asking for implants the size of watermelons).

If you argue that cosmetic surgery shouldn't be covered that effectively means that those of lesser means should be stuck with a flat chest if that's what they got by chance, while women with money can pick whatever size they so desire.

You do make a valid argument about how plastic surgery can result in mental problems (and even stem from mental problems it would seem). The late Michael Jackson would seem a prime example of this. He went from a normal looking black boy in the 1970s and over the decades transformed into a freakish looking white lady. With an estimated 50 nose jobs alone, he seems to be the very definition of taking plastic surgery way too far.



MaxPower said:


> When someone is ready and willing to ask for help then they should get any help they need, not a bill. Wouldn't making SA people (who most of the time doesn't work) pay for the help make them less inclined to seek help?


Yes, I agree treatment without a bill would surely encourage seeking treatment. I don't disagree with you there at all. I was simply making the point that in the case of SA the dynamics of seeking treatment are complex & difficult, with cost be only one of the issues preventing treatment.


----------



## VagueResemblance (Apr 17, 2010)

UltraShy said:


> ... Seems removing the economic barrier isn't going to help them, seeing how they don't face an economic barrier & still SA keeps them from getting treatment for SA. ...


There are also terminally ill people that will die today no matter how much medical attention they receive. Clearly nobody should receive medical attention. Am I right? That is the logic of your argument, isn't it? 
Honestly, sounds a lot like "if I won't benefit, nobody should benefit" dressed up in lots of words to obfuscate the point.

Here's how I think about it - healthcare should be a right.

There exists a moral obligation to care for those that cannot care for themselves.

Society and technology have developed to the point where it can be done. Therefore it should be done. To reduce human suffering is a morally correct course of action.


----------



## MaxPower (May 1, 2012)

UltraShy said:


> I think we can find some common ground here. I suspect everyone would agree that the world is neither equal nor fair. Can we all agree on that?
> 
> Some women naturally come with shapely, ample breasts. And there are other women who come with a chest so flat it's on par with that of a 13-year-old boy. Not fair at all, is it? It's easy to see why Miss Double-A, still easily fitting a training bra despite being 25, might wish to go up to a B-cup. Certainly a B-cup isn't some outrageous transformation (not like she's asking for implants the size of watermelons).
> 
> If you argue that cosmetic surgery shouldn't be covered that effectively means that those of lesser means should be stuck with a flat chest if that's what they got by chance, while women with money can pick whatever size they so desire.


Nope, I don't agree. Because what you are saying is that women who are born with flat chests, or as you put it "chest so flat it's on par with that of a 13-year-old boy" are somehow broken. Lets turn this around a bit, what if a man was born with a smaller than avenge penis. Should he be somehow required to make it larger because its size is not on par with others so therefore it is broken? Some women would argue that they prefer a smaller size, while some others prefer a larger size and some would prefer something in the middle. Defining what is normal and acceptable is a very dangerous road to walk down, and you don't need to look far back in human history to find examples of that.


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

UltraShy said:


> According to the Supreme Court, the government can mandate that you buy insurance.
> 
> This mandate is just fine under the Constitution so long as one calls it a tax, which it is.
> 
> ...


It was the Supreme Court who called it a tax. Every one else just agreed once they found out that mandating it was unconstitutional but a tax for failing to buy it was perfectly legal.

My employer's medical insurance program sucks. We have a $1500 deductible for a single and $3000 for a family. These must be paid before the insurance will pay for anything. Since, as you say, I am in good health, I will probably not exceed the deductible so I am paying for nothing.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

MaxPower said:


> Because what you are saying is that women who are born with flat chests, or as you put it "chest so flat it's on par with that of a 13-year-old boy" are somehow broken.


I never said that. In no way did I imply there was anything wrong with a flat chest. If you look I'm sure it won't take you long at all to find tons of porn specializing in women with flat chests, so evidently there are men who deem that very attractive -- certainly not broken.

What's attractive or not is a matter of opinion. And those who go to plastic surgeons for larger breasts would clearly be of the opinion that they'd prefer larger. Nowhere did I ever say bigger was better. It's all a matter of opinion. And with opinions there is no objectively right or wrong answer.



MaxPower said:


> Defining what is normal and acceptable is a very dangerous road to walk down, and you don't need to look far back in human history to find examples of that.


Every society has standards of beauty. Rubens painted heavy-set women in an era when having abundant food was a symbol of wealth & such plump gals were widely seen as the ultimate in beauty. Today those formerly hot chicks would risk being rejected as "too large" even to model for plus-size Lane Bryant, where their models ironically never seem to exceed the American average of size 14.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Amocholes said:


> It was the Supreme Court who called it a tax. Every one else just agreed once they found out that mandating it was unconstitutional but a tax for failing to buy it was perfectly legal.


Perhaps the media should have asked Obama what he thought of the high courts decision, specifically the majority opinion that characterized it as a tax.

Wasn't he a professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard? I'd love to hear Obama's take on the tax vs mandate issue. I'm sure he could (but won't) speak to the public at great length on the issue given that he is a Constitutional law scholar.


----------



## pisceskyuu (Jul 29, 2012)

would be nice is we had free health care... like in Libya-before the west help remove Gaddafi. Libya had free health care, free electricity, free education, and a banking system that gave out 0% loans... you might think a country as "developed" as the USA would include some of those things. what might help our health care system, amongst other things, is if the government didnt use more than 50% of our taxes on the military. its fine to discuss the things we should get but we should also focus on why we arent getting it.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

Developed into what?

No.


----------



## MaxPower (May 1, 2012)

UltraShy said:


> I never said that. In no way did I imply there was anything wrong with a flat chest. If you look I'm sure it won't take you long at all to find tons of porn specializing in women with flat chests, so evidently there are men who deem that very attractive -- certainly not broken.
> 
> What's attractive or not is a matter of opinion. And those who go to plastic surgeons for larger breasts would clearly be of the opinion that they'd prefer larger. Nowhere did I ever say bigger was better. It's all a matter of opinion. And with opinions there is no objectively right or wrong answer.


Exactly my point, if you make cosmetic surgeries free, you would be implying that there is a standard of beauty and, people are born broken and needs to be fixed. If cosmetic surgeries remains a paid service, then it is seen more as a luxury item. If anyone wants cosmetic surgery, they need to really consider it deeply and not do it on a whim.



UltraShy said:


> Every society has standards of beauty. Rubens painted heavy-set women in an era when having abundant food was a symbol of wealth & such plump gals were widely seen as the ultimate in beauty. Today those formerly hot chicks would risk being rejected as "too large" even to model for plus-size Lane Bryant, where their models ironically never seem to exceed the American average of size 14.


Just because it is done, does that make it right?


----------



## David777 (Feb 6, 2011)

I somewhat disagree. I just can't see it as being a right.


----------



## John316C (May 1, 2011)

its not a right. its a way to get you to pay for others who cant pay themselves.
but i want security so i support it.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

You have a right to healthcare. And therefore you don't have a right to refuse healthcare. Flawless logic.


----------



## RandomKillsTime (Aug 11, 2012)

I think healthcare should be linked to military/defense budgets in countries that don't have a social healthcare system. 

If it's not okay to spend tax payer money on helping your citizens in their time of need, why is it okay to spend tax payer money on weapons?


----------



## worldcitizen (Aug 28, 2011)

Everyone has a right to health care. That doesn't mean it has to be free. 
Those of us who work hard & don't get sick very often are going to see our valuable tax dollars being used to provide free health care to those that don't work hard & get sick a lot (mostly liberals & people I don't like). Where's the justice in that!


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

Everyone should have health care, but we all must pay for our own. It is supposed to be up to the companies to help - that bubble as of late is the next one that needs to burst - tech, housing, next healthcare - a nice wakeup call should do it wonders.....and not Obama's pocketbook/law signing pen.


----------



## Otherside (Jun 8, 2012)

Agree. Iv grown up a UK citizen with access to free healthcare. People get sick, they get help. Nobody gives a toss about how much money you have, about whether you will pay your fees or asks for your insurance details. Granted, most people will pay for some things...prescription drugs, dentists for example, but emergency health care is free, visiting the GP is free...and after visiting San Francisco and seeing ill people on the streets who simply cannot afford to pay for healthcare...I simply don't see how everyone should not have a right to it.


----------



## Glacial (Jun 16, 2010)

When people in this thread are saying, "everyone should pay for their own," does that mean you pay out of pocket your entire medical care costs from your own personal savings??? I thought most people in the US who have health insurance have it as part of an employer funded insurance coverage program--I didn't think that is considered "paying for your own" if you're a part of a health plan and everyone in that group is paying into it and inevitably some people are going to incur much more higher costs than others.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

Yes, healthcare is a right, but only a basic level of it and accidents/emergencies. Now, this includes mental health of a sort. Australia has come up with an on-line based approach for CBT that covers the basics. There are also books and other simple things that can be tried first.

Lots of other diseases are cheaper to catch early instead of letting someone carry it and infect lots of other people.

And people should take care of their bodies. I don't think insurance should cover lung transplants for smokers, liver transplants for heavy drinkers, or cosmetic surgery.



Amocholes said:


> My employer's medical insurance program sucks. We have a $1500 deductible for a single and $3000 for a family. These must be paid before the insurance will pay for anything. Since, as you say, I am in good health, I will probably not exceed the deductible so I am paying for nothing.


That is a different problem, but a real one. It is part of the reason people don't like health insurance, because it disincentivizes cheap preventative treatment, but lets people gamble and will pay for more expensive care.

My company/health insurance pays 100% of the first $750 (up to $1500 if you didn't use it the year before). It is just like socialized medicine when I go to the doctor. After the two years, the company/health insurance keeps the money, or if I change jobs it goes away. A simple change to have that money tied to me regardless of my job, and let it accumulate year after year would mean that I would have $5,000 now instead of $300 (I used $1200 in the past few months). Having that pool of money to lend out to older people for their healthcare against their estate would put more power into the hands of the healthier and younger generation. It would also make insuring people look better if they had thousands of dollars in a health saving account that the banks couldn't charge fees against.

When I got sick the CT scan that I got would have cost $3900 if I didn't have insurance. How many people would be able to afford that to know if there was a bigger problem or not? There was probably only a 10% chance that it was really serious, but that would be a $100,000 problem if it was a big problem and I let it go (luckily it wasn't really bad, but still not perfect at the time).


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

Classified said:


> Yes, healthcare is a right, but only a basic level of it and accidents/emergencies. Now, this includes mental health of a sort. Australia has come up with an on-line based approach for CBT that covers the basics. There are also books and other simple things that can be tried first.
> 
> Lots of other diseases are cheaper to catch early instead of letting someone carry it and infect lots of other people.
> 
> ...


The question comes to mind, "Why does a CT scan cost $3900?" Its done using a piece of equipment that could be built for a few thousand and run by a technician making $20 an hour.

Referring back to my own situation, I got notice in the mail that my insurance will not be changing next year. That is unless, I fall into a "high risk group. We have to go through an assessment each year. Apparently this coming year, anyone who has high blood pressure or cholesterol will be paying more.


----------



## leonardess (Jun 30, 2009)

worldcitizen said:


> Everyone has a right to health care. That doesn't mean it has to be free.
> Those of us who work hard & don't get sick very often are going to see our valuable tax dollars being used to provide free health care to those that don't work hard & get sick a lot (mostly liberals & people I don't like). Where's the justice in that!


what difference could that possibly make? as it is now, I see my valuable (?) hard earned money going to health insurance that doesn't do squat.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

Amocholes said:


> The question comes to mind, "Why does a CT scan cost $3900?" Its done using a piece of equipment that could be built for a few thousand and run by a technician making $20 an hour.


That is the question. Nobody ever told me what it was going to cost before I had it done. I was guessing $500. And I might have been in there for 10 minutes, but I did have a kidney stone inbetween the kidney and the bladder at the time.

Then I get the insurance statement saying they paid $1000 because of some 'discount', but the full amount was $3900. The medical testing place still sent me the bill that had already been paid by my insurance too.

I did write to my health insurance to make sure that it wasn't a mistake, and they said it wasn't and that the medical imaging company could 'write off' the difference. That sounds pretty shady right there when it come time to pay taxes... The IRS should look into that practice.


----------



## Glacial (Jun 16, 2010)

Classified said:


> That is the question. Nobody ever told me what it was going to cost before I had it done. I was guessing $500. And I might have been in there for 10 minutes, but I did have a kidney stone inbetween the kidney and the bladder at the time.
> 
> Then I get the insurance statement saying they paid $1000 because of some 'discount', but the full amount was $3900. The medical testing place still sent me the bill that had already been paid by my insurance too.
> 
> I did write to my health insurance to make sure that it wasn't a mistake, and they said it wasn't and that the medical imaging company could 'write off' the difference. That sounds pretty shady right there when it come time to pay taxes... The IRS should look into that practice.


Insurance companies, due to the large people they insure, are able to negiotiate discounts with providers that individuals would not be able to get on their own if they did not have insurance. The reason behind this is because large health plans have the power because they insure so many people. In the end, if a provider agrees to accept patients with that insurance, they agree to the rates set by the insurance company and the provider, ethically, cannot charge the patient for the difference because they already agreed upon it when they accepted the insurance. A service may cost $100, but the insurance already had negotiated a discounted rate of $60. Providers probably feel they at least have some financial security by accepting insured patients, even though they will get paid less, they are at least guranteed to be paid.


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

So the insurance company is paying 1/4 the price and yet the medical provider is still making a profit. This in itself should be proof that medical costs are hyper-inflated.


----------



## enzo (May 30, 2011)

Depends on the system in practice. 

As a Canadian, I'm inclined to say yes.


----------



## adamsbell (May 1, 2013)

*health care*

Hi
Health care is one of the most important components in life. Disease or illness can really mean a down turn in your life. The biggest asset we can have in life therefore is health. Health care is normally defined as the treatment of any health problem through medical, nursing, dental or any other related services. So health care is always important there are some online products available for health care or for strong immune system. Health care is always right and useful.


----------



## Monotony (Mar 11, 2012)

Unless they injure themselves through their own stupidity then they shouldn't receive help. Especially morons who walk into things well texting and end up smashing their face in.


----------



## Kanova (Dec 17, 2012)

Well, in Canada its part of a tax, and I would really rather pay a few hundred a year as opposed to having to pay over 50k to get a finger put back on.


----------



## diamondheart89 (Mar 21, 2011)

I think (as far as the US is concerned), it is a part of the "right to life". People should have basic access to healthcare so we can prevent disease that later costs us billions.


----------



## Theillusiveman (Mar 18, 2013)

The way the poll is worded made me cringe. It reminds me of those job assestment tests.


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

As always, I firmly believe that health care is NOT optional, it is a necessity. Every person has the right to health care. The US system is the most costly, ridiculous, and inefficient system in the world.


----------



## TrcyMcgrdy1 (Oct 21, 2011)

Healthcare is a right for those who pay into the system. Obakacare has made thus skyrocket for taxpayers so we can cover illegal imkigrans and those who can't afford it. I don't kind helping people but the prez keeps taxing an already struggling middle class into oblivion to support those who aren't even us citizens and those who are already receiving massive welfare benefits. This nation is slowly sliding into socialist territory it is scary. We shouldn't provide healthcare for those who can't afford it on other people that are also struggling to make ends meet.


----------

