Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ican'tbelieveit

The other problem is that you don’t want people to avoid going to the doctor and miss a possible detection of cancer because they are cheap (especially after they reach 50) but on the other hand you don’t want people to go to the doctor every time they catch a cold.


38 posted on 10/18/2007 12:21:45 AM PDT by ari-freedom (I am for traditional moral values, a strong national defense, and free markets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]


To: ari-freedom

That is my concern. For the currently uninsured, they show up on the doorsteps of every emergency room in the country, knowing they can’t be turned away.

And you have the problem with people not going because all they carry is catastrophic coverage... mandatory is never good.


86 posted on 10/18/2007 2:37:56 AM PDT by ican'tbelieveit ((Join FreeRepublic's Folding@Home team (Team# 36120), KW:Folding))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

To: ari-freedom

I’m not sure why I care if “people” miss cancer because they are “cheap”. I only care that I DON’T miss my own cancer.

If we count on everybody’s own greed, people can take care of themselves.

If you tell me to spend my money to ensure I have coverage and don’t get cancer, and then turn around and say that if someone else who spent their money on trips and a big-screen TV and booze and what-not, and then they have a medical need, I have to pay more tax to treat THEM, what’s my incentive to take care of my own needs?


142 posted on 10/18/2007 8:57:34 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT (ninjas can't attack you if you set yourself on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson