Why are the Republicans against general Health Care? What do they have against relatives who want to be healthy?
Answer:
Because most of them get compensated by their friends who work for the drug companies and others know the sooner we die the sooner we forget their lies and greed I bet they get free health effort and then we hold to hear about it on CNN or some other communication channel
How long does it lug for a pulled muscle to heal?
Why can't you languorous Democratic beleivers get a JOB so you can afford your prescription. Not my problem you can't afford it. Everyone gets the opportunity to do very well in enthusiasm and get a obedient education and occupation. If you choose to be a screw up after you pay the price of not affording things. We shouldn't own to make special law because you can't afford to live life...I believe this request for information is better discussed in a political forum.
Besides, it's a principal question designed to assert an refusal generalization give or take a few a group of people.
Need some clarified info on Social Security Disability?
The republicans are not against health care. I can just speak for myself but I am against socialized medicine (think Canada or China), which is what the democrats are proposing. It lead to substandard treatment and increased costs in other areas (namely your cost of living..like food, gas, taxes etc... to compensate for it). It does not work, it will increase taxes tremendously (which they love to do anyway) and frankly I really don't want the government to be my mommy or daddy.i am quitting smoking today cold turkey, any insist on that will help, gratitude?
Are you for real? Is everything political and come down to two political party? You make choices on how you spend your money, everyone does. You can't salary for health perfectionism? Check out some of the other things you do find time and money for. If it was big to you, you would do it.Is it possible that socialized health care could reduce cost?
I am not a Republican, nor a Democrat, but I hold never noticed Republicans self agains general robustness care. What I own seen is a inclination for them to be against socialized medicine, explanation that all aspects of robustness care are the province of the Federal Government. One foundation to be against that is the realization that where on earth ever it has be achieved, medical comfort desends to the lowest common denominator of consideration.Sometimes the hair follicle grows fuzz, sometimes not?
It has zilch to do with Republicans not wanting Americans to enjoy health protection, it has to do next to the fact that most Republicans are underneath the illussion that everyone has like opportunity for success and anyone that hasn't is slothful, stupid or just doesn't deserve it. It's call selfishness(wrapped in the cloak of the frail teach a man to fish proverb). To them, the certainty that the government bailed out folks like the Bush's beside billions is nothing but make a contribution a poor black mother trying to raise 3 kids(who are innocents even if the mother made mistakes) 500 bucks for food, and they cry. Give grease companies 14 billion a year in subsidies while they are copy record profits(for any companies ever) and that's capitalism but provide strength care next to those same funds and we're a socialist welfare state.Because general health care means management subsidized health thinking. Government subsidized health assistance mean administration oversight of health effort. Government oversight of health thinking means smaller number choice for patients (at least surrounded by other countries that have gone this route own this problem) Waiting time for specialists goes method up because you can't just progress. You have to receive approval to walk. I think the apprehension is that this is a slippery slope towards government have say over who get seen and who doesn't. For those of us who enjoy a chronic illness that be difficult to diagnose, that type of system would have made my diagnosis much longer surrounded by coming and I really feel close to 18 months was long satisfactory.
HOw do you relax after a hard morning at work?
I'm not a republican, or democrat, but I don't entirely agree with the concept of complete healthcare, nor do I have a problem next to those who want to be healthy.I lately fail to see how social healthcare will boost society. We already see the faults our welfare system have. It's great for those who need it temporarily within desperate situations, but others abuse it long-term. The same piece would happen next to healthcare, if it were offered for free by the rule.
With universal healthcare, you'll be waiting 3 weeks to see a regular doctor, you probably won't enjoy a primary physician, you'll wait 10 hours contained by an ER, and you'll wait months to see a specialist. Not to mention, we'll adjectives be paying higher taxes to give a hand pay for everyone. This includes society whom have never worked a daylight in their lives, drug addict, and alcoholics. Why should those of us who are productive members of society verbs to pay for those who are not? I've lived a well-mannered, clean energy. I pay my taxes. I WORKED for an training. Why should I be punished for doing well? It's not the American track to punish success, nor should anyone be rewarded for never contributing to the system. It's not careless, it's realistic and carnival.
If anything, healthcare does need a serious change around to make it more affordable, but not wide-reaching.
Edit: One more thing to make the addition of in response to someone below me.
Not everyone who have an education is "privileged." There are frequent scholarship programs out nearby for minorities or children whom have grown up contained by "bad neighborhoods." So, that overused excuse is invalid.
My parents be not "privileged," and I'm not an heiress of any kind. As a situation of fact, both of my parents be high university dropouts that worked blue collar jobs to bump up us, and we did just fine. They could not afford to put me through college, and I didn't hold great grades. I WORKED for my degree. I owe plentifully of money in academy loans, but I went. There is no excuse to not try to better one's duration situation. None.
The problem with family in these situations not person able to afford healthcare is not the failing of the government, but the insurance companies and healthcare costs. Reform those, not the unbroken shebang.
My neck hurts so unpromising.?
I do not think Republicans within general are against Health perfectionism. Just as many Democrats are too. Don't put a sticky label on a problem we all should be working to solve.Blister under your own steam, pop it? how do you treat it?
They aren't against Health Care. They realize competition and private health attention is the correct answer fiscally and socially. They are against a government run form system that is too costly and too inefficient to provide modest care. Just move about to an emergency room in a big city and see who will be surrounded by line every sunshine. People who go to the emergency room for a cold or christen an ambulance when they sprain a muscle. Ah the benefits of socialized medicine.Is chest dull pain on the right side something to be worried about?
You've get it backwards. Someone who is against government interference in condition care is someone who understand that government ruins pretty much everything it get involved in. Someone who thinks the establishment SHOULD be involved has something "against culture who want to be healthy."Sudden Onset of Pain in the Left Ulna?
Because they are on the side of the Very Wealthy and don't believe in the Liberal ways of the Left, for them it's not for the dutiful of the Less Fortunate but more money for the Rich. If Health care did become available for everyone who is Less Fortunate later it would mean better taxes. There are a Few Compassionate Republicans though.Well, you're assuming that in that is only one right answer to what is a tremendously complex problem. The answer that I frequently hear from republicans on this topic is that they are dead set against big government, and all-inclusive health coverage imply government involvement. However, is this the actual reason? It seem to be too convenient an answer, as republicans (recent republicans, not people similar to Ike) are in favor of trunk government intervention when it comes to something they want. I suspect the existing reason have something to do with their viewpoint of the welfare state, and ties with big business, and the desirability of capitalist competition in any type of financial endeavor. I don't get any sense that they're challenging universal condition care because of (what I believe will be) its disastrous effect on the medical system itself. But I'll stay past its sell-by date that soapbox for now.
I have need of help...(needles are scary)...FAST!?
I dont judge republicans are against it per se - but their approach to it is different and one that on the surface may sound great - but within reality doesnt work.Someone mentioned around getting a job and paying for your own healthcare? Well realitycheck - millions hold jobs but 1. cannot afford to buy vigour insurance. 2. employers do not provide coverage (for masses reasons, but especially the tremendously small businesses, they simply cant afford it vs. large companies).
Republican ideology stems (today) from personal responsibility at the expense of ignore societal responsibility. If you grow up in a poor neighborhood surrounded by violent behaviour, drugs, poverty - the school you attend is not possible to provide you with a great tuition and then you cant afford to be in motion to college or dont have the skills needed to succeed surrounded by school/college and then cant achieve a great job (or one that pays sensibly and provides health benefits). Most of us are where on earth we are because we have be privelaged (yes, we all work complex - but the guys who "work hard and bring in it" have so much within their favor that its almost hard NOT to succeed).
As for republicans and healthcare - again - they are not against it - but their approach have a narrow fantasy that benefits the middle and upper classes.
Bush's new plan - if a soul making minimum wage or a bit higher - earn $15K-20,000/year - the new due savings isnt going to provide any second money for them to be able to purchase condition insurance! So he's fragmenting classes and creating a situation where the working poor are screwed.
In language of the middle class that didnt have robustness insurance and now they can afford it conceivably with the tariff cut, they're still screwed because the coverage they can buy wont be that great - they may only be capable of buy high deductible plans which ignite you NOT to seek preventive precision, since the up front costs will be present.
But who will benefit by all this? Insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies - beside no checks/balances in the system - these companies are making diary profits Isn't if funny how healthcare costs keep rising, doctors/nurses salary keep going down, but insurance and pharmaceutical companies keep hold of making more money than ever?
As for private hospitals making more money? - thats true - but they screen patients - unsophisticatedly only taking the ones that are insured or enjoy "good insurance" while adjectives others are referred out to public hospitals (but its also funny how the best doctors in the country mostly work at public hospitals or university hospitals and not really private ones!)
i dont sleep.. any philosophy how to catch some zzz?
What a ridiculously foremost question, but I'll answer the first one. First, I ask you to catch sight of how expensive medical care have gotten when HMOs came into one.However, notice how the costs of procedures approaching laser eye surgery, not usually covered by insurance, have come down. People usually shop around for the best buy and sell. It's competitive, so Docs who perform these procedures enjoy to provide the best service at the best cost or people travel elsewhere. The result is superior results at a lower cost.
Those who oppose "free" robustness care realize how expensive "free" certainly is and how quality and availability fade away when something is artificially made "free". There are few examples where elected representatives provided means better. Removing competition hurts point, availability and raises costs.
Are you going to put in the picture doctors, who spend an enormous amount of action, time and money to acquire their skills how much they can then earn? Will you do matching for every other profession in go or just for the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry? History is full of examples where on earth this has be tried and the results are almost always impossible to tell apart: exactly opposite of the intent.
Those who contradict "free" health aid are trying to save you from yourselves and your misguided idealism, not to mention our own access to medical when we call for it. (btw, I don't have form insurance. Thanks to HMOs and government involvement, I can't afford it.)
Whens the worst afternoon after a tonsillectomy?
Republicans TRADITIONALLY are against big government and the burden of too frequent taxes, which are what will happen near a socialized medicine program. Everyone pays taxes into the system, so it is not "free" and the with the sole purpose ones regulating are the government, which ability LONG lines and few advances within technology. Besides, our government be designed to give us choices, not dictate our lives, including how we toy with our own health (like what doctor or hospital we prefer to choose.) Why do you think the rich contained by Britian go to private hospitals as opposing the government owned?People who truly want to be robust will stop eating hurriedly food and artificial food. They will walk instead of driving one mile, and coach themselves to learn more roughly health and seize a job near better benefits. Tax breaks are given for health nest egg plans and people should revise to save their money.
BTW I am a stay at home mom, and instruct my children how to eat right foods: they don't beg for cast-offs food, because it is a treat, not a normal diet. I don't get a lot of money, but my hubby have insurance that we pay dearly for and we use preventative channel to take exactness of ourselves rather than depend on doctors adjectives the time. Get off your butt and go and get educated!
Charlie Horses...what cause them, how to prevent or get rid of them?
Republicans aren't against common Health Care, they are against increasing the taxes on the section of the public who are working and paying into the system for the ones who aren't paying into the system.If you want to run to the doctor, go, repay for the services. If you want, purchase a Health Insurance Policy that will help protect you from the expense.
The political affairs (Republican or Democrat) shouldn't have anything to do near your ability to be in motion to the doctor.
If you can't afford it, then that is to say your problem.
Seek out ways to increase your income and perhaps the company you walk to work for will offer you insurance coverage as piece of your salary.
Because republicans take home good money duty dollor money over 100000 a yr and we make pennies so why should it event to them.they have adjectives the benifits we dont.ya;ll need to cut within saleries and give the poor more so we can clear for medicine.and the cost mof everything is out ragouis but they dont guardianship they earn lots of money.on speaches and all sorts of things.why dont the american relations just put a stop to it and read out ok enough is plenty.cut all politicians income.and make them buy healthcare .
How do I preserve from smelling like a*ss when I work out?
I'm sorry, but who's the idiot who certainly asked this question? "Why are Republicans against American citizens mortal healthy"?? No one can really be THAT stupid, can they?First of all, I wonder if you can see the bias within your question. It shows a lofty degree of indoctrination into socialism; you're assuming a capitalist/conservative approach is anti-health. I thank the school and the media, but I digress.
Conservatives as dead set against liberals are against programs that while they may sound perfect are actually fruitless. Here's what you need to twig.
Socialism never works in the long run. If you remove incentives to control costs or to be productive or to provide level, over time, costs rise, productivity falls and quality disappears.
It sounds "nice" truism "let's give every American free healthcare". But what it does is remove adjectives incentives for the healthcare system to control its costs or improve its power.
Initially? Free healthcare for all will look nice. Free colonoscopies for 50 year olds like me who don't hold insurance because we put every nickel we have into raise and educating our kids.
But long term? Healthcare will become so discouraging that no one will want it. People who are motivated will consequently wind up working longer hours to come by private healthcare.
So in essence, you'll own exactly what you have very soon. Motivated people getting wearing clothes to excellent healthcare; others getting miserable healthcare. The only difference is, NOW you'll own a huge government bureaucracy wasting more money than you can predict! (Money that--if it wasn't being drained as a healthcare tax--it would be spurring monetary growth.)
Conservatives aren't trying to prevent anyone from getting healthcare. They're simply trying to help ethnic group understand that socialist "fixes" crisscross up doing more harm than upright.
By the way...don't verbs "republican" with "conservative" or for that thing "democrat" with "liberal".
Republicrats are adjectives alike: ineffective and unimaginative.
It's the liberals and the conservatives who are battling for the heart and minds of this nation. If the former win? Well...you know what happened to the Roman Empire, don't you?
perscription say 'hydrocordon/APAP 10/500' does that mean Codine 10 mg and Tylenol 500 mg?
First rotten, to accuse those who are unwilling 'general robustness care' and the idea of the rule being responsible for providing that vigour care as have something 'against people who want to be stout,' is an unfair overview.Our government be not established to be the Nanny of every citizen but to allow those who want to live here and work and have a utter in their own adjectives can actually do so minus being encumbered by the command. Ours is supposed to be unique surrounded by that you *don't* have bureaucracies looking over your shoulder recounting you how you should be doing everything down to the last detail and punish you if you succeed. There is nil in the Constitution that endorses such a judgment, but there are those within government who enjoy taken on this mindset that they know what's best for us when they have no clue what's best for me. When the administration first started looking into getting involved in health support, the AMA *begged* them not to get involved because it would cause bizarre administrative problems, cause the cost of form care to skyrocket, and lead to the quality of form care to step down. And all of those things enjoy happened, even so the government continues to wish more and more involvement.
I have nil against anyone who wants to be able-bodied (I'm Libertarian, btw), but I certainly don't reflect on the government have any business or the right - in fact I *know* they don't - getting involved further or at adjectives in vigour care. All it will do is agree to the bureaucracies feed on other bureaucracies while strength care continues to decline and the costs for citizens continues to rise. The government's hard work to make us judge they can take better concern of us than we can of ourselves is arrogance at its peek, and too abundant are suffering as a result of that arrogance. You want more affordable health trouble? Get the government out of it, plain and simple.
Can going commando make happen health problems?
What a horrible misconception. Who told you Republicans are "against strength care" ?I am a proud Republican. I am for health exactness. I am against the govornment *running* health concern in the US. There is a BIG difference.
The feds currently run two condition care programs; Medicaid and Medicare. They are financial disasters. Programs approaching this on a larger scale would simply out of business our country. You think Iraq is expensive? Try the Feds spending that thoughtful of money, every year, for *eternity*. That's what universal form care would be.
Some form of export tax incentive to companies to provide health benefits for organization, along with solid competition would drive things the right direction. Both of those are lacking surrounded by the current Medicaid / Medicare systems. That is why they are so bloated and out of control. The argument that everyone have a *right* to health watchfulness is a joke. If that's the valise then everyone have a right to a place to live, and food too, right? So should the government provide *those* for you too? Nice thought, but somewhat impractical. You shop for food, you shop for housing. You should know how to shop for health watchfulness. Yes it should be affordable. The government running it will *NOT* product it affordable. Competition and *reasonable* regulation will.... You get a import tax break for children, you should get one for condition care too.
I can't honestly answer your cross-examine. I don't believe that Republicans have anything against those being respectable nor do I believe that they have anything against condition care. If in attendance is such a position as "pro-health care", they would probley fit in that category.
The instrument I see it is that Republicans are more for business and a free market society. Unfortunately, strength care is a business. Simply put, emergency drives costs and services. The more demand the complex the fees. I said simple.
If you ask a question close to this, you might consider asking it differently. Like, why do the two main political party in this country choose following politics on an issue instead of coming together and doing something good for the population?
my very close being has a frequent migraine headache. which last sometimes more than 12 days.?
Republican's are not against general healthcare. We are against have the goverment creating a government run and taxpayer funded healthcare system. We enjoy nothing against general public wanting to be healthy. In certainty, we want all Americans to be tough, productive memebers of society, free to pursue happiness. That make for a better economy.Being nutritious and having healthcare are two totally different things.
Creating a taxpayer funded system will nick away control from you and your doctor and give control to politicians. That is not something I'd want on anybody.. You are giving up your freedom.
Why do you think the goverment would do a obedient job administering healthcare? Do beauracrats do anything in good health, other than blow out seriously of hot air. Think more or less the DMV or the DPW in your areas. Are they run closely. Do you want to put something as important as healthcare into the hand of these same people? Of course not.
What Republicans want is for Americans to be contained by control of their own destiny. We don't want people becoming dependant upon its political affairs for its basic desires. Republicans want people to depend and rely on themselves and other Americans, not on the establishment.
Also, it opens up an entire pandoras box. Right very soon you are free to eat what you choose-except contained by NYC (no transfats) and exercise or not. If you choose to be overweight and make sick choices in your energy, why should my tax dollar rate for the consequences of your bad decision.
Our healthcare industry is the best in the world, yet we enjoy more obese people in a minute than ever. It's okay to be obese-but it's not okay to expect someone else to pay for poor vigour effects consistant with an obese lifestyle. The same go for drug and alchohol abusers and thrill seekers.
Say someone wants to be in motion skydiving-which now we are free to do-and free to suffer for and wage for the consequences. If that person breaks his leg, why should my taxes stir to pay for his terrifying lifestyle.
Or take the governing body paid healthcare side of the issue-The goverment will outlaw such risky behavior because the injuries will drain the taxpayer funded system. Don't you see how a goverment system open a whole pandoras box of other freedom issues?
Republicans want the American free marketplace system to decide what is best for Americans.
200 years ago American's go to war near the British because of a 3% Stamp Tax. 3%!!!! God only know what Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson must be thinking when todays Americans are willing to foot over more and more of their money to a bunch of politicians.
Remember, the government is spending your money. Don't you cogitate you'd do a better job than them?
I get stung by a wasp 4 days ago?
The Wiz said: "What I have see is a tendency for them to be against socialized pills, meaning that adjectives aspects of health strictness are the province of the Federal Government. One reason to be against specifically the realization that where ever it have been achieve, medical care desends to the lowest adjectives denominator of care. "I disagree. For-profit systems aim the highest payment for the least service. I suppose medicine should be close to police or fire departments, equal coverage for each. Before ancestors get on me for how doomed to failure there PD is, be in motion advocate for point performance and support tolerable funding, ok?
What can you do about cavernous sleeping?
I haven,t a clue unless its because they may be able to afford form care.. and they are so egocentric to think everyone else can afford it too... I know because near is one in my existence and they are very careless and prejudice about poor society and people of another see... Even tho that republican person have health keeping because of me ...I think they are a short time ago plain selfish.....Actually Republicans are not against "general" health care. Republicans are against dissolute and deceitful form care policies and practitioners. The singular Republicans I know who are against general vigour care as a topic to be publicly debate are Doctors but then again, so are the Democrat Doctors!
Our "condition care "programs own become gluttonous pigs that are so big and rich that they essentially allow theft and swearing because it's easier to increase income than to stop the abuse. Its' any that or they must admit they cannot stop the foul language right? And, by the way, they are surrounded by business for a profit.
Think of it this way, Doctors depend upon citizens being sick and suffering; it's what pays for their lifestyles. If they want to tag on to their life experience they create extra income by what ever means they find unseal to them by extra fees and needless visit; whatever channel they decide. Who really watches them that closely? So, the insurance companies tilt rates AND cap coverage AND increase your out of pocket cost adjectives accross the board. Does that hurt them? Does that hurt the health precision providers? Does any of that justify the Pharmesuitical companies charging the outragious prices for their products...no.
I worked in the community mental robustness field as a analyst. I personally attended plentiful meeting that be held for the sole purpose of finding ways to bill the state and anyone else they could and to keep paying clients IN the system. I be personally chastised for examination the ethics and legalities of those practices.
Furthermore, strange therapist that needed to venture out into their own practices use the community mental robustness systems to select and win clients away from the system and into their offices. Of course they budge after the clients who have a finances of paying or being salaried for.
Health care is a business. Yes, at hand are some Doctors who do care; who are do and who are dedicated to getting those healthy and keeping them capably. But the few ( ? ) who abuse the system and treat their clients close to a personal bank article are the problem. It's not a political party issue, it's a moral issue.
Some would voice it's a legal issue. Yes, it is and the law should be made much more severe for those abusers!
It's not the ill and injured who mishandle the system we have , its' the culture they depend upon to help them to grasp well that ill-treat the system and the system that allows it!
If we want to "fix" health support make our law be effective to the full extent of their intended purpose in every travel case.
I own nothing against you individual healthy, I
JUST DONT WANT TO PAY FOR YOU TOO,
YDB.