Originally Posted by DanaT
So should YOU (as in you muscogee personally) be responsible for paying for MY my (as in me personally) so that my liquid assets are not taken from me if I have a heart attack, kidney failure, etc?
Give me an exact amount of dollars and cents that YOU, muscogee, should be responsible for paying for MY, dana's, medical care if I were to have a heart attack so my liquid assets (read money) is not "taken" from me.
I have a friend in Germany who developed colon cancer and lost his job because he couldn't work. He has some rental property and some investments so he was able to get by. He took some of his investments and started a business. He has recovered quite nicely. In the U.S. he would have been driven into bankruptcy by his medical bills and be on welfare. Which do you see as the better solution? I vote for letting people get back on their feet and work instead of being financially wiped out and forced on government assistance. Think about it. When that happens the healthcare industry gets the money and the person's support gets dumped on the government (i.e., the rest of us). This transfers wealth from everyone to the healthcare industry.
I'm not sure exactly how healthcare works in Germany, but we should be able to do as well here. As for what should I pay, whatever everyone else pays. Don't give me a, "Let them eat cake" answer. You know that won't work.