Quote:
Originally Posted by Iliftrocks
My personal belief is that if the government is going to require us to have it ( being anything really ) then the government needs to be the provider. It would negate any conflict of interests. Otherwise you will get the gov't passing bills that charge you for not buying a private industry's product. Eventually it would have you buying a specific company's product, one with a no-bid gov't contract ya know
|
Well if that was the case then it would be just like everything else government ran. And thus be part of their socialistic movement, not only would that mean a decline in health care and a rise in standardized cost, and one of the only reasons they're even trying to pass this bill is because they know how many people don't have insurance and they're trying to pad their own governmental pocket.
If they do provide health care it needs to be on a level of equal to or above the standard. And as such they shouldn't skimp out on the benefits but also in the same breath I could add that the level of heath care that they could require (so we wouldn't be fined) could be based off of, like say, a basic heath care. I.E. Doctor visits and E.R. co-pay, as a most basic function. And then they could step it up to prescriptions and the like.