Why is health care such a touchy subject with the republican party?

Similar questions: health care touchy subject republican party.

I don't know that ALL Republicans are touchy on this subject, but I know what you mean. The socialized medicine in other countries does not always work as well as you may think. Many people in those countries, if they can afford it, go to doctors outside the network (I know this is true in England, anyway, as we have family friends in England).

I also know that in Canada, you get excellent care if you are young and your situation is not one of great expense. If you are older and require, say, bypass surgery, it may not be provided or you may be put in a situation of waiting so long that you'll likely die first. People like this who can afford it come to American and have surgery.

The staunch Republicans I happen to know (clearly not a representative sample) feel like people make their own destiny. One of my two sisters pretty much chooses to believe that people who are in bad situations made bad choices, etc. Why should her dollars bail them out when she made all the right choices and has a good husband and the money for a nice warm home, plenty to eat, etc.I personally don't agree with this as you can't make a "blanket" ruling on all people in bad circumstances. I don't believe people choose to be schizophrenic, as just one example.

One of the choices this sister was willing to make was to abort her second child if he was Down's or spina bifida, etc.Lucky for him the amniocentesis showed he was a healthy boy. As an aside, this sister now supports Sarah Palin's stance on abortion (not permitted even in cases of rape, incest, or mother's health in jeopardy). How soon we forget.

However, I have to say that her decision to have that amniocentesis done does bear out that she made sure she wouldn't be one of the people coping with raising a handicapped child. This sister has also maintained that a lot of the people without health insurance CHOOSE to be that way; that they have jobs that offer coverage but they opt not to pay for it. I think that's silly, and, if a nationwide plan were put into effect, people certainly couldn't get away with that.

But it is convenient for her and others like her - reminds me of a tongue-in-cheek take on what a manager might say to someone "According to my calculations, the problem doesn't exist". Ergo, why should I help people who could help themselves but don't? I don't believe this myself, but admit I'm torn over the concept of socialized medicine as I've been in an HMO and did have some problems.

I have also become aware that uninsured people visit emergency rooms a LOT and the expense is enormous and, of course, is passed onto the rest of us. What could be handled in an office visit for those with insurance, is handled in the emergency room for the uninsured because they have to be seen there. Republicans are traditionally on the side of the well-to-do and don't usually like social programs of any kind.

Plus they are traditionally for LESS government in our lives - at least they used to be, but a lot of them now support the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security abuses of the Constitution. If we were taxed as highly as some really socialized countries, there wouldn't be much motivation to excel, so there is some logic there. However, in MY opinion, compassion also has to enter the picture.

Not saying I have the answer! (Wish I did). But I think this is why many Republicans oppose socialized medicine.

Sources: personal opinion and experience .

1 I could answer - "because they are all a bunch of old coots and need it a lot! "but I won't because that would be rude.

I could answer - "because they are all a bunch of old coots and need it a lot! "but I won't because that would be rude.

Rhine44 replied to post #1: 2 Go ahead and answer. I love people when they are rude and telling the truth all at the same time.

Go ahead and answer. I love people when they are rude and telling the truth all at the same time.

3 For a moment, I'll set aside those who are playing it for partisan gain. That may well be a huge chunk of the leadership, but it's not a particularly informative way to look at it. The rank-and-file are more genuinely concerned about the quality of care they receive.In this country, if you receive care at all, the care you get is pretty good.

Those with health insurance generally get lots of tests (too many, even) and a fair bit of flexibility in choosing their doctors (at least as long as they're willing to pay for it. )That's not to say they're completely thrilled with the system as it is: they know it's more expensive than it needs to be, and that they're going to have to fight with the insurance companies. But they'd rather fight with an insurance company than the government: they stand a better chance of winning.

McCain's points on health care should actually be considered by Obama. He called for shifting away from the employer-sponsored health care, and I agree with him. Why on earth should your job have anything to do with your health care?

Why do the self-employed pay more? In a perfect world, the money that your employer spent on health care would instead end up in your paycheck, and you'd be free to spend it as you like. But nobody believes it would actually work like that, so Republicans never even brought it up.

Republicans have two other good reasons to worry about Democratic plans for health care:1. The last plan (llary's) served too many masters, and was an easy target. That was really more a political failure than a health care one; it was actually a pretty good plan, and certainly better than the status quo.2.

There currently isn't any Obama plan, not even really an outline. So it's easy to fear the worst (especially if you start with an insane but common presumption of socialism). Health care is an intractable problem: demand will always exceed supply.

Republicans are inherently suspicious that they're being taken advantage of, and they hate being pushed into "risk groups". They'd rather take their chances, even though their understanding of their risk is poor: if you lose, it's insanely expensive. Combine that with the generic opposition to all things Democratic, and Obama has his work cut out for him.

I know what sort of a bill I think he should put forth, but it's going to be opposed no matter what it is, simply because sowing FUD is so much more politically expedient, outweighing any actual legitimate concerns.

For a moment, I'll set aside those who are playing it for partisan gain. That may well be a huge chunk of the leadership, but it's not a particularly informative way to look at it. The rank-and-file are more genuinely concerned about the quality of care they receive.In this country, if you receive care at all, the care you get is pretty good.

Those with health insurance generally get lots of tests (too many, even) and a fair bit of flexibility in choosing their doctors (at least as long as they're willing to pay for it. )That's not to say they're completely thrilled with the system as it is: they know it's more expensive than it needs to be, and that they're going to have to fight with the insurance companies. But they'd rather fight with an insurance company than the government: they stand a better chance of winning.

McCain's points on health care should actually be considered by Obama. He called for shifting away from the employer-sponsored health care, and I agree with him. Why on earth should your job have anything to do with your health care?

Why do the self-employed pay more? In a perfect world, the money that your employer spent on health care would instead end up in your paycheck, and you'd be free to spend it as you like. But nobody believes it would actually work like that, so Republicans never even brought it up.

Republicans have two other good reasons to worry about Democratic plans for health care:1. The last plan (llary's) served too many masters, and was an easy target. That was really more a political failure than a health care one; it was actually a pretty good plan, and certainly better than the status quo.2.

There currently isn't any Obama plan, not even really an outline. So it's easy to fear the worst (especially if you start with an insane but common presumption of socialism). Health care is an intractable problem: demand will always exceed supply.

Republicans are inherently suspicious that they're being taken advantage of, and they hate being pushed into "risk groups". They'd rather take their chances, even though their understanding of their risk is poor: if you lose, it's insanely expensive. Combine that with the generic opposition to all things Democratic, and Obama has his work cut out for him.

I know what sort of a bill I think he should put forth, but it's going to be opposed no matter what it is, simply because sowing FUD is so much more politically expedient, outweighing any actual legitimate concerns.

4 I am wealthy. I am wealthy because ________. I am not wealthy.

I am not wealthy because _____________________. Who pays? .

I am wealthy. I am wealthy because ________. I am not wealthy.

I am not wealthy because _____________________. Who pays?

" "If it were possible for the following to get together for a dinner party, what would the subject of conversation be.

Ok... Let's put partisan politics aside and talk about issues - Health Care.

This really isn't about politics or the health care bill ... but isn't it odd that.

If it were possible for the following to get together for a dinner party, what would the subject of conversation be.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.