We are all putting money into a pot and then letting the government decide who needs it most in both situations. Why is one more favorable than the other? The point of universal health care would be to provide care to those who couldn't afford it otherwise right? I am just trying to figure out what the difference is? And no, I do not have an aim or objective with this post... I am really trying to sort it out. Why does one have this negative "people are abusing it" response but the other does not? Is it because groceries etc are easier to come by than medical care?Answer Question
Asked by Anonymous at 1:53 PM on Jun. 25, 2009 in Politics & Current Events
Answer by Anonymous at 2:03 PM on Jun. 25, 2009
Answer by Anonymous at 2:08 PM on Jun. 25, 2009
Answer by VeronicaLee at 2:09 PM on Jun. 25, 2009
Answer by SabrinaLC at 2:16 PM on Jun. 25, 2009
Answer by VeronicaLee at 2:24 PM on Jun. 25, 2009
Answer by Anonymous at 2:40 PM on Jun. 25, 2009
Answer by lilbit022009 at 3:21 PM on Jun. 25, 2009
Answer by itsmesteph11 at 3:31 PM on Jun. 25, 2009
"It's just one more thing that tax payers get to pay even more for. Thanks Obama."
Did you watch the 60 minute special on this (was it last night?) He was saying something like, the money is already in the system to pay for UHC. I guess by cutting off some of the services of those already on medicaid/medicare. The impression I got was he plans on cutting a lot off the care that our elderly get to pay for new participants in the universal health care system. Seems like BS that "the money is already there to pay for it".
Honestly though, after watching the show, I don't feel any better about my understanding of what his plan truly means to our children and our elderly that are in the medicaid/medicare system already.
Answer by VeronicaLee at 4:47 PM on Jun. 25, 2009
Answer by Anonymous at 5:16 PM on Jun. 25, 2009
Check out some of the top posts today in Groups: