You realize I hope that what you describe as ‘free’ healthcare means allowing fellow citizens who don’t have the wherewithal to afford health insurance that I can ($600 per month) comes - freely - from those who actually pay taxes (also like me) who do not begrudge a penny of it? That much of the money given to conservative states from the federal government come from the taxes gathered in liberal states? Freely given to help our fellow citizens there.
I do not like mandates, particularly those with IRS-levied fines. There are those of us who do not “need” full healthcare coverage and who do not wish it. Opting NOT to purchase it should not be met with a financial penalty. Hill-Burton is also federally-funded and helps when a need arises; under Obama, it was pointed out that there simply are not enough doctors in the US to handle the increased load, should everyone have and use, coverage. Obama’s response? A shrug.
The AMA limits the number of medical students that can be admitted annually, kind of like dumping oranges to keep the price of oj high. It’s a difficult issue.
Anyway, free health care and free education are not either of them free, nor will they be. The man who wrote that post made no distinction, which you have, and I do get your point. Government control of it, in my view is government takeover of a large share of the US economy, I think it was roughly, a third? When what really needed addressed was the activity of the AMA.
You do not think you need healthcare? That’s pretty privileged of you. And seriously glad for you that you have not encountered a health crisis requiring hospitalization. Good for you. Children, mothers, injured workers, sick parents, accident victims would disagree. You certainly do not speak for them.
Maintaining that the AMA has the prerogative in establishing artificial standards that exclude candidates from medical school is a very narrow take on the crisis of insufficient doctors. Consider the crisis in maternal health care, the marginalized so-called orphan diseases that nevertheless kill thousands. Perhaps you don’t know a child with a rare cancer, or a husband stricken with a crippling disease.
In fact I have never been hospitalized, knock on wood. However as a retiree, the federal government extracts what it needs, now $145 a month for Medicare from my social security. On top of that a monthly fee for supplementary health care is required by law.
I speak for no one, but oppose “universal health care” operated by the federal government for a fee. There are alternatives that have the potential to cover everyone, my preference, minus the bureaucratic takeover.
The AMA does in fact deliberately exclude candidates from med school. It is the direct reason for the doctor shortage.
You realize I hope that what you describe as ‘free’ healthcare means allowing fellow citizens who don’t have the wherewithal to afford health insurance that I can ($600 per month) comes - freely - from those who actually pay taxes (also like me) who do not begrudge a penny of it? That much of the money given to conservative states from the federal government come from the taxes gathered in liberal states? Freely given to help our fellow citizens there.
That’s grace too.
I do not like mandates, particularly those with IRS-levied fines. There are those of us who do not “need” full healthcare coverage and who do not wish it. Opting NOT to purchase it should not be met with a financial penalty. Hill-Burton is also federally-funded and helps when a need arises; under Obama, it was pointed out that there simply are not enough doctors in the US to handle the increased load, should everyone have and use, coverage. Obama’s response? A shrug.
The AMA limits the number of medical students that can be admitted annually, kind of like dumping oranges to keep the price of oj high. It’s a difficult issue.
Anyway, free health care and free education are not either of them free, nor will they be. The man who wrote that post made no distinction, which you have, and I do get your point. Government control of it, in my view is government takeover of a large share of the US economy, I think it was roughly, a third? When what really needed addressed was the activity of the AMA.
You do not think you need healthcare? That’s pretty privileged of you. And seriously glad for you that you have not encountered a health crisis requiring hospitalization. Good for you. Children, mothers, injured workers, sick parents, accident victims would disagree. You certainly do not speak for them.
Maintaining that the AMA has the prerogative in establishing artificial standards that exclude candidates from medical school is a very narrow take on the crisis of insufficient doctors. Consider the crisis in maternal health care, the marginalized so-called orphan diseases that nevertheless kill thousands. Perhaps you don’t know a child with a rare cancer, or a husband stricken with a crippling disease.
Consider these things please
I don’t. Honestly.
In fact I have never been hospitalized, knock on wood. However as a retiree, the federal government extracts what it needs, now $145 a month for Medicare from my social security. On top of that a monthly fee for supplementary health care is required by law.
I speak for no one, but oppose “universal health care” operated by the federal government for a fee. There are alternatives that have the potential to cover everyone, my preference, minus the bureaucratic takeover.
The AMA does in fact deliberately exclude candidates from med school. It is the direct reason for the doctor shortage.
You’ve been more fortunate than a great many people. Don’t begrudge them care they would otherwise not be able to afford.