Why is it so unrealistic...?

Why is it so unrealistic to expect the poor to try to help themselves instead of wanting someone else to do it for them with no effort of their own?

The 'Rich" pay the lions share now, but instead of trying to better themselves the "Poor" just sit there and cry for more.

As for Healthcare, the Poor already get it free. But the last thing I want is some Bureaucrat dictating what care I can have, When I can have it, and for how long.

Ask your neighbors, if they had a real Medical Emergency, would they wait for Canada's Healthcare system to take care of them, or would they cross the border and get the Healthcare they need.

HERE IT IS IN SIMPLE ENGLISH

You are asking two questions.

(A)

How do Americans feel about the rich subsidizing health coverage for the poor?

(B)

Why do Americans oppose a National HealthCare System funded by taxes?

(A – 1)

In concern of the first question, American society can be quite competitive.

The spirit of ‘help your neighbor’ can often take a back-seat to the spirit of

‘why should I help my lazy good-for-nothing neighbor?’

America is also hurting financially to a considerable extent by the millions of

illegal immigrants (ILIM) who reside in America and who pay no income taxes.

These ILIM’s have no health coverage due to mostly occupying off-the-books

jobs which offer no health coverage. They go to hospitals and receive care by

medical staff without paying. American hospitals are prohibited from denying

care to any person even if the person can not pay.

The hospitals receive government funding. So ultimately, our taxes end up

funding the free healthcare of ILIM’s. This adds fuel to the anger against

“the poor” who don’t pay for their own health care.

(B – 1)

Americans oppose a National HealthCare System funded by taxes (NAT) for

two main reasons.

Firstly they simply don’t like the idea of government having the right to force

people to buy anything. People feel that it is a fundamental American principle

that government shall not force its population to buy any product. In the current

discussion NAT is viewed as a product.

Secondly they feel that the American government shall simply continue to

mishandle new funds as it does the existing funds that it currently collects.

That is, the government wastes much money and its officials steal much of it too.

If we give them more money than they will just have a bigger pot to steal from.

So why give them more?

It should be noted that the American government currently does deduct money

from people’s paychecks for the Medicare program. Medicare is, in fact, a NAT

though it is only available to those aged over 65 or those under 65 with certain

conditions such as a disability.

There is no such thing as "free."

You think doctors work for free? Or Nurses or other health care workers? Somebody has to pay...and that somebody ends up being us taxpayers. And given that 47% of able-bodied working Americans DON'T PAY any federal taxes, then how is it fair to burden those of us who DO PAY with everyone else's health care costs?

I think people should do their best to help out the less fortunate - so I suggest you find someone who has less than you do and contribute to them.

Nothing is free in life. Health care is not free in Canada. It is paid for by taxpayers.

When averaged out over many elections and polls, the average American is deemed to be a moderate conservative. So Obamacare is a socialist program that goes against their political beliefs. Simple.

I guess when it's everyman for himself some people exceed and are not dragged down by the weak. I recomend you dont use the slogon "free health care" it only confuses people, try "universal health care"