"Free" Health Care Isn't Free
Not surprisingly, Rasmussen reports that a majority of American workers earning less than $60,000 per year are in favor of "free" health care for everyone, while a majority of those workers earning more than $60,000 per year are opposed. No kidding. The obvious reason for this is that workers with higher earnings are the ones who will be footing the bill for the "free" health care.
Despite what some Americans may believe, the federal government does not have its own money. It derives its revenue from taxpayers, which means that if the government is picking up the tab, it is doing so with monies collected from American workers. In other words, if the government decides to provide "free" health care services to all Americans, it simply means that taxpayer A is paying the bill for taxpayer B.
This may seem like a ridiculously obvious fact, but I'm convinced that many Americans don't understand this basic concept. I'm convinced that those who believe the "free" health care mantra actually think that Uncle Sam is just printing more funds at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in order to take care of their health care needs. It's either that or the 44 percent of Americans in favor of "free" health care know that a fellow American is paying their bill for them and just don't care. If it's the former, it's indicative of a populace ignorant of our governmental processes. If it's the latter, it's just one more example of the ever-increasing entitlement mentality that has been gaining ground in this country over the years. Somehow it has become acceptable to have others provide for us.
And speaking of the entitlement mentality how's this little tidbit from Breitbart.com today: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has stated that she thinks every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the federal government. This bond, according to Breitbart.com, would be used "...to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home." According to the report, Senator Clinton "...argued that wealthy people 'get to have all kinds of tax incentives to save, but most people can't afford to do that.'" Of course, the Senator's plan would require taxpayers who could afford it to buy the bonds that the government would then provide "free" to other Americans.
Published by Greg Reeson
I am a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal and a The Veteran's Voice. I also regularly contribute to GOPUSA and The Land of the Free. View profile
- The True Costs of Health CareThe most expensive health care system in the world doesn't deliver.
- A Look at Health Care Services in BelgiumIf you are moving abroad to live in Belgium for any period of time you will want to familiarize your self with the health care services in the country.
- Hispanics' Limited English Proficiency is a Barrier for Getting Good Health Care S...Limited English Proficiency (LEP) is a key component for the limited health care services that U.S. Hispanics are getting in the United States.
- Health Care Services for Elders in Springfield, OregonFor elder care services, in Springfield, Oregon - this article will help you find out where to go and who to talk to to find services and facilities.
Six Silly Stories from the Right About Universal Health CareA little bit of truth to counter the spin about health care reform.
- Health Care Services for Elders in Pasadena
- Health Care Services for Elders in Eugene, Oregon
- Health Care Services for Elders in Cottage Grove, Oregon
- Where to Access the Best Health Care Service for Elders in Philadelphia
- Arizonans to Vote on Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act
- Weight Control Health Care Consultant: What to Look for
- Cancer Health Care Consultants: What to Look for
9 Comments
Post a Commenthealth care in america sucks thats all i have to say. unless your rich or if your insurance dosnt decide that you dont need the treatment for the cancer you have. i mean they dont denie traetment but they can denie payment then you die.its all eugenices.were do you think hitler got it from.(america)
On a side note, there are also existing government programs (such as WIC) that allow people to purchase healthy foods at the expense of taxpayers who can't afford to do so themselves, because those products are generally more expensive than their less healthy alternatives.
Excellent article. And nearly all of the comments make excellent points. However, if Mr. Kelly ever comes back, I'd like to know how much of that $4,662.00 is actually going toward health care (people actually being medically TREATED)and how much of it is funding the bureaucracy, paperwork, insurance companies, and salaries of people who are not actually caring for anyone's health?
Alyce, prices of pharmaceuticals are set by the market. It's called supply and demand. If the market won't support x number of dollars for drug A, then the supplier will lower the price. Any business will charge whatever the market will support. If a drug company says drug A costs $300, but nobody buys it, they will lower the price until they realize maximum sales. What makes drug companies different? Government allows individual companies to set prices on stethoscopes, tongue depressors, etc. Supply and Demand.
A lack of limitations on awards for Malpractice lawsuits, also, makes medical facilites and servers pay high premiums for Insurance. Those costs get passed down to the consumer. All of that makes finding affordable health care an impossible dream for low wage earners. Being forced to provide free health care to "illegal aliens" is causing So. Cal. hospitals and clinics to go bankrupt. So Free Health care does indeed cost everyone. Common sense seems sadly lacking among the average citizen. Every time we ask the government for something it raises taxes.
Even people who earn less than $60,000. a year are helping foot the bill for free health care. Minimum wage earners do pay Income taxes, federal exise taxes, sales taxes. Some, may even pay school and property taxes; taxes on telephone bills and car registrations and all of that. The problem is corruption in government that allows wealthy pharmeceutical companies such as Hoffman La-Roche to set the cost of medications. Padding of bills by medical suppliers, because "the Insurance company is going to pay it".
It seems that what you want is to be free of the expense of health care for others.
The lack of health care is expensive for the nation, so the only way to avoid it is to leave.
Whether it's the uninsured using emergency rooms or public hospitals or the cost to business of reduced productivity, the costs to society of a lack of health care are far greater than the cost of providing health care to all citizens.
The current annual costs for health care in the US per capita is $4,662.00--nearly double that of other developed countries with universal health care.
Your mean and selfish argument is penny wise and pound foolish.
You don't live in a bubble. You depend on others for your health care, you depend on the society around you for the money you earn and the infrastructure which enables you to exist.
Hammer of an article that found the nails head.
I completely agree, Thomas. But many candidates for public office are very good at selling the notion that government is paying for a good or service and hiding the truth that another American taxpayer is in fact footing the bill.