They argue that introducing private health care will lessen the burden on the publicly funded system as many well off citizens would simply choose to pay out of pocket or through private insurers for services rather than rely on the public system. They argue that the government cannot do it efficiently. At zero prices there is an increase in demand for health care services. This in turn causes the introduction of expensive technology which increases health costs. With taxes at a breaking point government has little recourse but to try to hold down costs.
Anything that goes against what the corporate powers that be is demonized and twisted into a different form through their media outlets to create something that the ill-informed will swallow it no questions asked. Anyone that speaks out against what is obviously wrong with the system is turned into an enemy, while the one’s violating our rights and freedoms are treated like benevolent kings. Recently there have been many successful efforts to subjugate the poorer voters in this country. These measures have passed and it will become difficult for poorer and elderly people to vote in this country. The reason for this is simple, poor people and minorities are more likely to vote for Obama in the coming election and they have more numbers than those that will not.
If this this is something MoveOn practices, I don’t think I can support this part completely. I believe politicians should sell us on the good they have been able to do before they were elected, their character, and weather or not they will be to person who really listens to the people and makes our voices heard. I will acknowledge that MoveOn supports many candidates through donations that are less than $20 and that is something I would rather have than major corporations donating billions to “buy”
Details from this source show this as it says, “…there will be a considerable degree of ratting…” This means that the doctors will give up the fight because Bevan is too powerful to stand up to. “Unfortunately, the economic sanctions which Bevan can draw against us are grim…” The source also shows how the doctors were unhappy with the NHS scheme. “…90 per cent vote amongst doctors against the National Health Service Act, and tempers are rising on all sides.” This supports the impression and message that source one gives. Source three somewhat agrees and supports with source one but not to the full extent. It backs up the fact that the doctors had to be pushed
There was great fear among the working class of what they called a “pauper’s burial,” so the backbone of insurance business was policies for working class families that paid death benefits and covered funeral expenses. But because the reformer health insurance plans also covered funeral expenses, there was a big conflict. Reformers felt that by covering death benefits, they could finance much of the health insurance costs from the money wasted by commercial insurance policies that had to have an army of insurance agents to market and collect on these policies. But since this would have pulled the rug out from under the multi-million dollar commercial life insurance industry, they opposed the national health insurance
The money from the rich would go to the poor. The government would tax the rich more, and the poor less trying to make the foundation a little more stable for the economy. In order to help, some companies would donate a lot of their money to charities. Because the companies would donate money, they would get out of hand, give a little too much money, and then the company
This creates a downfall in the system because the rich receiving cares while the poor are not. Poor and impoverished receive care, but the waiting may mean life or death. Although patients with long-term diseases receive free care, meaning they can see a special at no added costs. A current issue Ireland is facing is the rise of private insurance, which is forcing the premiums for public insurance to increase. Private companies are offering incentives for joining private insurance.
This would allow individuals to set up their own personal Social Security accounts in which the taxes taken out of their earnings would be set aside in a private account especially set up for when they retire or stop working for whatever reason. Also with these funds, individuals would have the option to invest these funds in the stock market and potentially have a much higher return then what the current system of what the government provides for these individuals. There are many individuals who find this to be the best way to reform social security, claiming that the current way is extremely detrimental to the average American’s hope that the taxes they are paying for their future will provide for them when they are no longer able to work. Some have even described the current system similar to that of a government sponsored ponzi/pyramid scheme where as stated earlier, the funds coming in from current payroll taxes are made to look like surpluses. With the privatization of Social Security, this will give workers the contractual right to their retirement benefits, instead of the current system where the government has no liability to provide individuals with Social Security.
However, the negative effects on health insurance and health market trickle down to the society. The society through high taxes will have to absorb the negative effect of Medicare to the elderly in the society. The society is socially obliged to take care of the elderly and with the rising cost of health acre, which cannot be fully absorbed by the government it will be a small price to pay to keep the elderly healthy. Children who provide finances to cover medical bills for their elderly parents benefit considerably from Medicare because with the rising cost of medical care it would put financial strain on them. “What about the positive for society effects of caring for the elderly?” The family structure has changed considerably over the years.
However, it could be argued that since tobacco lowers life expectancy and causes diseases, tobacco costs considerably more than it should to the taxpayer. Tobacco indirectly costs the government considerable amounts of money in healthcare, all which come from the taxpayer’s pocket; were these to be reduced, taxes may be reduced as well, benefiting individuals and the overall economy. It is my personal belief that although tobacco should not be banned, restrictions should be placed. Tobacco used for medicinal and therapeutic purposes should remain in place and continue to be produced; however, an additional tax should be placed on those who smoke recreationally, in order to discourage this