2011-02-01, 02:59 AM
Anonymous Moose Wrote:I cant answer any of that. If a state were to offer universal healthcare, it would be on the state's own individual terms. If a state wanted to cover all four things you mentioned, then yes.
But obviously the problem with any Universal Healthcare system is the fact that the government runs it, sets the rules and limits, and you have to deal with the limitations rather than just telling your healthcare provider "screw you, I'm going to go next door where they dont treat customers like pomegranate,"
Personally, I'd prefer to leave healthcare and the choice of your insurance up to the free market. It costs less, reduces government puts more money in people's pockets so that they may be able to afford healthcare on their own, and it would definitly leave any hospital open to anyone.
Of course, I might make exceptions in my opinions for some of the less fortunate. For example I agree with the concept behind Michigan's MiChild program that offers healthcare to those under the age of 18. but I mostly support it because it ensures a form of healthcare for those extremely volnerable because of all the legal restrictions put on children.
So it's an "all or nothing" (Gov) VS complicated options and possibly very bad options ( states)?
Why not both exactly?
Have the right to choose which way you want to go...