August 9, 2009
-
Doing nothing is not an option: We NEED Universal Medicare
First I have a new article on the new site skepticish here. Please read, comment, tell me how stupid I’m being, or whatever.
Now, on to the Health Care Reform Debate. Actually… I’ve got just one question.
Why is there a debate?
Seriously. Why is anyone arguing? Why are people upset? I don’t get it at all.
Here’s how the discussion SHOULD have gone:
“How’s American Health Care going? “
“Terrible. 15% of Americans are uninsured. Many many more are under-insured. And even more are at risk of losing their insurance or subject to insurance limits.”
“Really? Well maybe that’s normal. How do we compare to other comparable countries?”
“Horribly. According to the World Health Organization the US rates 37th in the world. (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) The US spends more money per capita than any other country in the world on Health Care and gets much worse results than most.” (http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm)
“Well how are things looking in the future if things stay the way they are?”
“Much much worse.” (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml)
“So what are we going to do about it?”
“Change it.”
That it. Done. Conversation over.
I can understand debates about HOW to change Health Care. I can even understand debates about WHO is going to responsible for how that change comes about. But what I can’t understand is arguments about WHETHER we should Reform Health Care.
That’s really ought to be a no-brainer. Health Care Reform is a fundamental necessity. We should have done it twenty years ago. The idea that there’s a big debate going on in the country about whether the Government ought to DO anything about rising Health Care costs is just ridiculous. Costs are rising exponentially. Who do you expect to fix that? The tooth fairy? The ONLY instrument we have for global systemic change is the Government. So perforce the government really ought to fix Health Care. There are no other options. Either retain the status quo or fix things. And that status quo is NOT acceptable.
It’s not even hard to figure out WHAT the government ought to do to fix health care. You just look at all the countries that are doing better and see what they are doing and EMULATE IT. Guess what the main difference between them and us is? MORE Government involvement. That’s it. Some countries have fully publicly run health care. Others have a public health care with the option to buy private insurance on top. Others have much more heavily regulated private insurance than we have. But in ALL of them, the Government plays a huge and VITAL role in insuring that Health Care is efficient and effective and available to a majority of their citizens.
Now some argue something along the lines of “we ought to come up with a uniquely American solution to our Health Care problems.” What a load of crap! If another country were to invent a cheap, clean, and efficient alternative to oil as an energy source would we reject it just because it wasn’t “American” enough? No of course not! We’d be all over it. Likewise you’d think we’d do the same for Health Care. Other countries have solved the problems we are encountering. Why don’t we USE their solutions? Why don’t we at least TRY their solutions? That doesn’t mean we can’t improve upon them once implemented. Or modify them a little to better fit our circumstances. Of course we can. And we would. But first we have to DO the initial reform. And that reform should be to bring into place a system that we KNOW will work BETTER than the current system.
I understand that people are worried about Government messing things up. And that’s not an unreasonable fear. The government does have inefficiencies. Governments screw up all the time. There are tons of horror stories about anything government run including Health Care. But there are many MORE horror stories right now about people dealing with a privatized Health Care system that goes out of its way to maximize profits at any and all costs.
This isn’t just anecdotal. The numbers back it up. When asked who do they trust “to put your interests above their own,” in administering Health Care. 68% of responders said they trust Medicare “a lot or some” to put their interests first. In contrast only 48% of responders trusted Private Insurers to do the same.
According to surveys provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 56% of enrollees in Medicare rated Medicare with 9 or higher on a scale of 1-10 with 60% of Seniors in Medicare Managed Care rating it the same. In contrast only 40% of Americans enrolled in Private insurers considered the health care they were receiving to be that good.
Source: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20090629_2600.phpGuess what?
Medicare is run by the EEEEVVVVIIILLLL Government. I guess all those Seniors have just been brainwashed. They just don’t get what great Private Insurance they’re missing out on!
Have you heard those “hip replacement” stories? About how Canada causes such horrible wait lines for things like hip replacements? Well guess what? Who in the US funds most Hip replacements? MEDICARE! The GOVERNMENT! So in so far as hip replacements DON’T have lengthy waiting lines in the United States, it’s precisely BECAUSE we put in the hands of our lowlife, do nothing, pathetic government to handle it.
It’s like that for everything though. Government handles utilities. Government handles public education. Government regulates our food industry. Government runs our police forces. Government puts out our fires. Government handles our military. And it does a damned good job of handling all of it all things considered. Sure it’s not perfect, but without those Government programs we’d be a lot worse off. Imagine a world where 15% of our people don’t have water or electricity. Where 15% of the people don’t get a basic education in reading and writing and arithmetic. A world where 15% of our towns and cities don’t have access to a police force. A world where 15% of the global terrorism threats are ignored. That’s the kind of world that we live in today with regards to Health Care. That’s how unregulated private systems work. Great benefits for some at the expense of none for others.
Is that the world you want to live in?
There’s a reason why private insurers don’t want and have never wanted public health insurance to exist. It’s not because the Government will suck at it. It’s because the Government will do so damned well at it that it might put them out of business. Now let me ask you this? If the Government puts private insurers out of business, employs the same number of people, provides the same or better level of care at a lower cost to more Americans, who is the loser there? Why on Earth would that be a bad thing for anyone? The only people who would suffer are the share holders and stakeholders in major insurance companies. And they can bloody well put their money some place else.
The government is a big easy target for villification. Whenever anything goes wrong for us we say “Man our Government sucks!” But all the while we’re forgetting one important thing.
We live in a Democracy.
Maybe not the best one. Maybe not even a half-way functioning one. But it IS at least trying to be a Democracy. And that means the Government EXISTS to manifest the will of the people. That means whenever anyone says “Govenrment Run” in your mind you should replace it with “People Run”. It’s not Government Run Health Care, It’s People Run Health Care. It’s Health Care Run by us. And so in so far as it is good or bad it depends on us. We ought to have the means and the ability to compell our elected officials to implement our will. We really should have the capacity to make a Government Run Health Care system amazing.
Or we can make it a total flop. And to the extent that we CAN’T compell our leaders to implement our will with regards to Health Care or anything else that means our system of Government is broken and it’s up to us to CHANGE it. Today. Right now. We don’t just throw our hands up in the air and say “oh government is worthless, let’s all have a beer and forget about it”. Doing nothing is NOT an option.
It’s hard to imagine if we really do try to create a People Run Health Care that we could possibly end up making something worse than the system we have now. And judging how we’ve done a decent job with Medicare (again not perfect), we have EVERY reason to believe we can do at least a good a job with a Universalized Medicare system for All or any other kind of Publicly run Health Care system we can come up with.
Why don’t we just trust ourselves?
Why don’t we AT LEAST give ourselves a chance to try?
So instead of screaming at each other back and forth about “No Health Care Reform!” vs “Yes! Health Care Reform!” we should be looking to do the best damned Health Care reform we CAN do. And then year after year doing our very best to make it better.
That’s what “Reform” means. That debate should be settled. Reform is what we need.
Doing nothing is just not an option.
Comments (73)
Which clause in the Constitution provides for the federal government to regulate, let alone provide, universal health care coverage for citizens (let alone non-citizens)? Please let me know.
Can’t find it? That is why there is a debate…
We already have universal medicare. It’s called “non-payer accounts” at hospitals.
The question you should be asking is, “Why are so many hospitals closing and doctors quitting practice?”
@radicalramblings - The Constitution itself (not counting the bill of rights and the subsequent amendments) merely sets up our form of government. The Constitution guarantees nothing more than legislative, judicial, executive and federal powers; any of which could be used to help pass amendments that would pertain more to the American citizen (The Bill of Rights and 17 amendments take care of that, and can be added to with a majority vote at any time).
The debate exists because there is not an amendment that guarantees health care for citizens of the US. However, we decided it was important enough to prohibit and then repeal the prohibition of alcohol, guarantee the right of any citizen to firearms, and rule that black people no longer count as 3/5th of a person.
I don’t see health care as outside the realms of an amendment.
@radicalramblings - I don’t get your point. The US Constitution is a minimalist document. It doesn’t say a LOT of things that we actually do right now like providing public education for example. The constitution doesn’t say anything about building roads or railroads. It doesn’t say anything about our network infrastructure, about launching satellites, about going to the moon. The constitution doesn’t say A LOT of things.
If there was let’s say a nuclear catastrophe or a major outbreak
of a new and deadly disease, we wouldn’t say the Government should just
ignore it because the constitution doesn’t give it the right to intervene. Or should we have in New Orleans just let people drown because the framers of the constitution didn’t envision the possibility that we might need federal aide to save people from a hurricane?
Heck if you go by the original document, the constitution doesn’t even give more than half the citizens the right to vote. The US Constitution is not infallible, it’s not our God, and it’s not the determiner of the limits of debate.
I’d actually be all for ammending the constitution to make access to Health Care a fundamental right. I’d do Education too. They’re at LEAST as important for our freedom and happiness as the right to own a gun. But it is not *necessary* for the constitution to direct us in order for us to know that we have to fix a broken system.
@soccerdadforlife - non-payer accounts at hospitals drain resources without putting funds back into the hospitals. I’m suspecting more doctors working more hours to treat people who aren’t going to pay is a contributing factor to them quitting the practice and hospitals closing.
With a health care plan, doctors can be assured of payment, hospitals will receive their money for time spent, materials used, and people who normally wouldn’t be able to see a physician can be spared of the possibility of a worse ailment that might put them on disability, or worse.
I’m normally not one to use antiquated sayings but this seems entirely appropriate: “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” – if the people are having to foot the bill either way (tax dollars going towards either health care or going towards disability) I’d choose the one that can help prevent the long term one from being needed.
I agree.
And this post has inspired me two write a post about for-profit prisons, which are just as bad an idea as for-profit health insurance is.
@AdrianRamirez - You’re absolutely right. We spend over a trillion dollars every year on emergency care for uninsured people in this country. How much of that money could have been saved if they could have seen the doctor when it was a pain in his side and before his appendix burst, or if we could have gotten the girl the pill or condoms instead of delivering her baby and take care of it and her on our dollar?
I’m in favor of privately-funded, for-profit universal healthcare.
What amazes me is that what is considered the “leftist” side of the discussion (public option) is actually the centrist option, and the truly leftist view (single-payer) is being completely left out by everyone except Bernie Sanders.
@GodlessLiberal - This is the second time you’ve reminded me that I need to write a post on the problematic relationship between Christianity and medicine. One more time and it’s a turkey.
@SirNickDon - Like snake handling and faith healing? Or like prayer vs. surgery? Or like the “morality clause” in US medicine? Does this count as a reminder? Do I get a live turkey?
@AdrianRamirez - Apparently, doctors are changing their practice so as to reduce the amount of malpractice that is necessary. OB/GYNs are not doing OB, family practice physicians are no longer delivering babies, etc. One of the responders at the following blog states that he is an OB. http://healthypolicy.typepad.com/blog/2006/01/are_doctors_qui.html
One of the problems with the aim of egalitarian health care reform is that the lower class will never get high quality care–mostly because of the problems associated with being part of the lower class. They miss appointments, sometimes due to lack of resources, sometimes due to alcoholism or drug abuse, sometimes due to depression, sometimes due to conflicts. They have to wait longer in clinics than more affluent patients who are seen privately, and this impacts their lives and makes seeing a doctor more aggravating, especially for preventative care, which they may see as non-essential. Thus preventative care will always be lacking for them.
The single-payer egalitarian solution will likely result in most patients (except the extremely affluent) being given the same low level care as the lower class receives currently.
doing something for the sake of doing something is not an option.
@radicalramblings - Why does there need to be a clause in the constitution saying that? I’m sure there are a hell of a lot of things the US government does that aren’t in the constitution. If something’s broke, fix it; clearly the current system is broken, why isn’t anyone fixing it?
@radicalramblings -
US Constitution Article I States in part:
“The Congress shall have Power To…provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;”
and
“The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers” (which includes the above.)
Revising the health care system is a way of promoting the general welfare, thus the Congress of the United States is explicitly empowered to do it.
@QuantumStorm - I’m in favor of invisible flying dinosaurs. I think mine is at least as likely as yours.
@soccerdadforlife - Outside of emergency care (which means intervention that is, as often as not, too late, and always more expensive) it is shockingly difficut to even see a doctor in this country without both an insurance card and a fair bit of cash. Universal health care that isn’t.
@BobRichter - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090115164530.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/13/opinion/should-we-revive-the-dinosaurs.html
One day, our dreams will be realized… one day…
@soccerdadforlife - The lower class currently recieves no care. the only way to bring that standard of care to the middle class would be to outlaw hospitals and doctors.
I too am constantly dumbfounded that nothing is done about the US health care system. In the UK we’ve got a system that is far from perfect but I know that if I get hurt or even think I might have broken something, I can just rock up to my doctor or even head straight to hospital and I don’t have to worry about calling insurance companies or jumping through hoops first at all.
How you guys have gone so long with such a ridiculous system and nobody even raelly trying to change it amazes me but the fact anyone thinks it needs discussing is even worse. Anyone who doesn’t think there should be at least some form of universal healthcare (regardless of implementation) is a selfish idiot and will probably be the first to stamp their feet when their insurance screws them over.
@BobRichter - You don’t know what you’re talking about. I have a daughter who treats people without insurance at a free clinic. The poor get preventative care if they choose to wait long enough at these clinics.
With universal healthcare, everyone would go to the doctor every time they caught the sniffles just because they can. Doctors would be overworked and under payed. No one would want to be a doctor. The medical care might be free, but the waiting list will be longer than hell with limited staff and over-populated patients. So you might be able to afford that new liver, but you’ll die before you even get to see a doctor. Not to mention, with limited funds coming into the hospital, they’re not going to have the materials necessary to put that new liver into you.
I have another daughter who doesn’t have health care because it isn’t provided by her employer (she’s a temp) and she doesn’t want to pay for it herself.
@Lisa_x09 - That might be true for some people, but not for all and maybe not for most.
@soccerdadforlife - Exactly!!
@soccerdadforlife - I do know what I’m talking about. I have a better perspective on it than I think you’d imagine.
@MelancholyRambler - When it comes to care for the chronically ill, the UK system sucks. An english friend of mine had an aunt who needed a hip replacement, and it took her almost two years to get it.
@BobRichter - Then perhaps you’re simply a liar.
@GodlessLiberal - PLEASE tell me you reference “Death Race” in your post!
@soccerdadforlife - I have 2 issues with your reply:
1) You’re making very general assumptions about a large group of
people. You state that the lower class include a large amount of drug
users and alcoholics and therefore are arguing against preventative
care for them for those kinds of reasons when they should be afforded
the same privilege of quality care (or at least the option of it).
In my opinion, it seems that this kind of thinking is partially what
hinders progress in this area by creating a reason to not even try.
I can state without a doubt that YES there are substantially more drug
users and alcoholics in the lower class, but they do not comprise
completely this demographic. What about the single mother? What about
the young married couple struggling to make ends meet? I can guarantee
how much the offering of these services would improve the overall
quality of their lives.
2) As for the single payer solution you mention, you’re making an
assumption without any basis in fact. What is there to suggest that the
quality of health care in reputable facilities would decline? Perhaps
I’m missing something.
3) In an unscheduled addition: I just noticed your post to @BobRichter – the free clinic can only take so many people per day as they are woefully understaffed. Waiting all day without the guarantee that they will be able to see anyone is not acceptable. People can’t just take the day off work if they are in this position if they can’t be sure they’ll be treated. The reason they choose to work rather than go is often because they’ve been “shafted” in the past.
@supsoo -
Providing a necessary service is not doing something just to do
something. As I said above, there is evidence to suggest that if
preventative care were embraced rather than “sick care”, it’s entirely
possible that less tax money would be spent in unnecessary ways like
unemployment due to disability, or workman’s comp. Quite possibly less
money going to welfare if people can keep their jobs because they are
able to prevent illness that would cause them to lose their jobs.
@soccerdadforlife - My SIL is from Denmark …it took her 18 months to get a simple gall bladder operation.
I thought it was rather odd that Henry Waxman wants Congress to be exempt from any universal health care plan. Now that speaks volumes to me!
@soccerdadforlife - I never said the UK system is perfect; there is no country that is great at everything but I’m still damn glad we don’t have the US system otherwise I would probably be totally bankrupt.
Everything about our system is better value for money than yours and we have the added benefit of knowing that we don’t have to worry about getting help if anything unexpected should happen to us.
Yes, there are problems with aspects of the UK health service but when it comes to value for money, we are head and shoulders above the US.
@soccerdadforlife - Med school is extremely expensive and competitive. Do you honestly think aspiring doctors are going to want to pay thousands of dollars to go through excruciatingly difficult schools and never get that money and time back? They’d be in debt in years. I want/wanted to be a psychiatrist. But if they make health care universal, no way. I just couldn’t.
So, the next thing they would do is make med school cheaper and more accessible. In other words, less educated and more stupid doctors.
What they need to do is fix the food industry. If people ate more healthily, less of them would need to go to the hospital.
it’s all about the money, man.
@soccerdadforlife - That’s possible. It’s also possible you’re wrong. Either way, this discussion is over.
I agree wholeheartedly, I don’t understand why there are people in this comment section trying to argue points that are irrelevant either.
@AdrianRamirez - where does preventative care start? does it not start at home? with yourself? why should i have to be burdened because some joe wants to stuff his face with hamburgers with bacon smothered in mayo? why should i be burdened with some johnny who jumps off of a cliff because he thinks he is invincible? many cases of disability stems from obesity. many cases of disability arises from unhealthy practices. would you have the government dictate how and what you should consume? would you? i know that there are many cases of disability that is due to external causes. but you can not ignore the fact that many people with handicapped signs on their cars are not truly handicapped. you should know that the worker’s compensation kicks in when there is an injury on the job. it has nothing to do with preventative healthcare. i am 30 years old. i exercise, i eat low fat, high fiber diet. i don’t smoke, drink or snort. i try my best to keep my body in working condition. not because i am a health nut but because i can not afford to be injured. i can not afford insurance. but should my tax dollars go to help someone that drinks? jumps from a rooftop? who eats angus burger everyday? why should i be penalized for doing my part? it is not fair. you speak of the poor. we have medicare. we have charity. we have many sources of help. you should watch this.
@AdrianRamirez - ”In my opinion, it seems that this kind of thinking is partially what
hinders progress in this area by creating a reason to not even try.”
Universal government health care has been tried in Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Hawaii, which have abandoned the plan. UGHC isn’t a viable solution. Any government plans that are subsidized threaten private plans. See my blog for some workable, moderate ideas about health care reform. We need to lower costs so that we can afford more medical resources (doctors, hospitals) to treat the poor.
“Waiting all day without the guarantee that they will be able to see anyone is not acceptable.”
My daughter hasn’t mentioned that this is a problem. She says that the staff stays until everyone waiting is treated. Do you have evidence that people aren’t treated? Perhaps it depends on locale?
My daughter states that the clinics double-book because of the large number of no-shows.
“The reason they choose to work rather than go is often because they’ve been “shafted” in the past.”
Or they just don’t like to wait. We don’t really know anything except that there’s a problem. More investigation is required or perhaps just finding some that have already been done.
@Chinese_Sait0u - Yep. We gotta reduce costs. Inappropriate, costly regulation is a big part of the problem.
@Lisa_x09 - See my blog’s post about some ideas for health care reform.
The average med school grad has a debt of $160K or so, with interest accumulating. Here’s an article about OB liability premiums http://journals.lww.com/lww-medicalcare/Abstract/2009/04000/Obstetricians__Rising_Liability_Insurance_Premiums.8.aspx
@MelancholyRambler - But then, in the U.K. you don’t have the problem of extensive litigation like we do in the U.S (by a factor of 10). We have an overabundance of lawyers. That has to hurt value. Tort reform would go a long way towards giving the U.S. a better value in medical care. Making health insurance more competitive by allowing people to purchase plans across state lines would also help. (In the States, individual states regulate health insurance, and this produces a lack of competition among health insurance companies.) We also need standardized insurance forms and ways to minimize administrative overhead.
Right now, a big part of the problem that the U.S. is facing is the baby boomers are aging, which will significantly increase health care costs.
@supsoo - Yes, preventative care does start at home yet can only go so far. There’s only so many salt-water gargles you can do before you need to see a dr. for your throat infection, which by the time you see him has spread to your lymph nodes, because you decided to treat yourself.
Normally, I’m in favor of just taking care of yourself by eating healthy and lots of vitamins and etc, but I’m going to relate a personal story to you so that you truly understand this point that I’m about to make.
I just lost 2 months worth of work recently because of contracting Mersa in my right foot large toe, to the point that i was unable to walk. My job (before I lost it due to my inability to work) involved alot of walking. Walking spreads the Mersa infection in the foot, up the legs causing severe pain.
Because I have health coverage, I was able to see my podiatrist and general practitioner once a week (as Mersa is very aggressive virus) and only have to pay the co-pay of 10 dollars for my medication and doctor visits.
However, because I was self treating my injury instead of seeing a doctor, it got much worse and required an extra month before I was able to work again. Luckily now I have a better job that doesn’t require any manual labor.
The point of this is that there are many people who do try and self treat rather than see a physician. By the time they do see one, they often have to come back as often as several times a week to keep it under control until the body can fight the infection itself effectively.
Without health coverage, the visits alone would have cost me $100-150 each out of pocket, and in the past 2 months I’ve made 10 separate doctor visits, not to mention that the medication required to treat mersa isn’t one of the reduced/free ones from wal-mart, you have to pay full price unless you have medical coverage.
In total, I would have most likely been put very far into debt (about $1000) for something as simple as a toe problem if I didn’t have health insurance. That kind of financial burden is far too much to bear for lower income families who are already struggling to make ends meet.
EDIT: Almost forgot to mention that yes I’m aware of the fat people taking advantage of disability, but that’s simply one faction and one part of the problem. The criteria for qualifying as disabled is so vast than nearly anyone can apply and get a plackard for their car. For example, if you have trouble using a telephone or keeping track of money, you are qualified as disabled. I’ll have to find a source for that but I remember reading that and thinking it was quite interesting.
EDIT AGAIN: And yes I realize that my story is just one example that is not indicitive of the whole, but I only used it to serve the illustration that I’m lucky to have health coverage or else I’d be up shit creek without a paddle. I’m lucky to have it and be able to see a doctor in a timely manner. I’m lucky to have it and it not deplete the money in my bank account. These same luxuries I take for granted, others die from not having.
@soccerdadforlife - I’m not saying that what nephyo suggested is the only option, but something that WORKS in our own convoluted government is what needs to be established. I’m all for health care reform as long as it achieves the same outcome: something that allows people without health coverage the same privileges as we lucky enough to have health coverage have.
Part of the problem with the free clinics is that they are not all as well and good as the one your daughter works at. It may or may not be a regional problem, but 2 people have gone undercover themselves and reported that there is often a cap on the number of people that can be treated per day. One is (the evil, as I’m sure many people will say) Michael Moore in both his movie “Sicko”, and his TV show from the 90′s “The Awful Truth”
(again, not indicitive of the whole, but it proves the point that denying care at free clinics does exist somewhere)
And by Morgan Spurlock (the McDonalds 30 day diet guy) on his documentary show “30 Days” – In season one, he and his fiancee decided to live on minimum wage for 30 days and had the exact same problems when it came to visiting free clinics and the inherent problems with that.
Sadly, I know that many people will disregard these examples, but I take them to show that maybe further looking into this is needed because it’s not as easy as many people here are making it out to be. One poster above related that there is medicare, and there is charity. But unless you have special needs or are a senior citizen, most people dont’ qualify for medicare. And, alot of charities don’t have the funds to give to everyone that comes to their door. There was a widely publicized occurance recently with a church who turned away a family because they had no money with which to help them.
@AdrianRamirez - i never advocated for self treatment. if you have a lump in your breast you should see a doctor. if your foot is hurting you and it is swelling you should see a doctor. if you are in need of a doctor and cant pay for it then i’ll be more than happy to contribute my tax dollars to help you get on your feet again. but to burden the entire health care system? for what? a woman who wears high heels despite an excruciating heel? southerners who have an ungodly attraction to fried food? i’m glad that you are well and healthy again.
did you know that the top one percent federal tax payers pay the same amount as the bottom 95%? the top one percent pays nearly 50% of federal taxes. there are about 1.3 million in that top one percent. there are approximately 100+ million total federal tax payers. how much more can you tax the rich? do you think that the top one percent needs to work anymore? they will retire. stop investing. remember 50% of nothing is nothing. 30% of something is something. the rich will simply stop contributing. obama’s plan will not and can not work.
@AdrianRamirez - There is a serious problem in southern Cal. because many hospitals are closing because of non-paying patients. About 20% of those non-payers are illegal aliens. http://www.hasc.org/lott.cfm?ID=73623 Maybe we can’t afford all of the illegal immigrants who get free health care and contribute to the closing of hospitals. Part of the problem is undoubtedly the collapse of house prices in California and the impact on the residential building industry.
My daughter actually volunteers at some clinics–she’s unpaid.
Michael Moore is not a reliable authority. He’s only in it for the money.
There is a cap at clinics on the number of people scheduled for one day, not treated. This forces the poor to wait longer to be seen than someone with health insurance.
The problem of health care is that the cost is too high. Why is it too high? –Lawyers and burdensome laws that other countries lack. U.S. laws regarding drug testing are much more burdensome than those in other countries. We aim for the ideal instead of the optimal. This is true for all types of health care regulation. Ideal regulation is simply too expensive.
Malpractice insurance helps eliminate incompetent doctors. We need more transparency in our system of physician licensing and review of same. Then malpractice insurance rates might decline. That would allow more doctors to charge less per patient and would reduce health insurance premiums.
These are issues that have been known for some time. The democrats have been blocking tort reform and continue to do so, since they are in the pocket of the tort lawyers.
Everybody (including republicans) wants insurance premiums to decline except insurance companies. We need to open the insurance companies to more competition. Steve Forbes has been pushing to eliminate borders when it comes to purchasing health insurance (and other types as well). More fair competition is a benefit. Government-subsidized competition is not.
First of all, from my own personal viewpoint, I think that universal health care is a horrible idea. Why on earth would we want people living LONGER? Have you ever heard of this morbid thing called population control? Yea, it’s all good and nice to say that everyone should be able to see a doctor up until everyone turns 65 and starts banking in on social security. So where the hell is all of this money coming from anyway? Raise taxes? On who? The Rich? LAFF. They’ll just donate their money and get tax rideoffs in order to stick a fat middle finger at the democrats for trying to utilize money that doesn’t belong to other people for causes that don’t interest the aforementioned. The realistic outcome would be the middle class having to tank yet another tax increase on top of everything else they already have to deal with since they don’t have enough $$$ to donate and but too much money to avoid the tax. It’s all good and easy to raise taxes when it’s not you that’s paying for them. The solution to ‘raise taxes’ is one of the most unempathetic resolutions I hear and it’s always ironically suggested by the party that claims to be the most empathetic.
Now onto more appliable arguments…
You’re assuming that all of the lower class would jump at the opportunity to get ‘universal’ health care. You know what’s cheaper than being taxed for universal health care? No health care at all! TADA! Despite what you may like to believe, not all people need health care nor want healthcare. Especially if it comes out of their pocket either way.IF a cost is avoidable, then people that don’t have money tend to avoid it one way or another.
And the reason America has one of the highest per-capita for health care is because we have much higher populations compared to other European countries and those countries are on a somewhat universal system which makes it clearly obvious why each individual is paying LESS for health care when it is provided by the government in those countries as opposed to here in America where people have to pay MORE because the government doesn’t necessarily provide as much.
There also is a semi-universal system in America already and it’s called medical/medicare.
Oh, and don’t get the wrong idea, I’m not against universal health care, I’m just against raising taxes and losing even more of my disposable income towards something that I feel isn’t even necessarily something that the government should provide. Healthcare is a privilege, not a right. Since when does the government have to tend to every single need of every citizen? I’m also extremely humored by your comparison of universal health care to the government regulating utilities and food quality.
I definitely agree that the current health care system in America is extremely exploitative in some aspects, but universal health care is definitely not the solution I would have provided. Instead, using your logic, why doesn’t the government just force private industries to follow strict regulations that do not allow doctors to charge $14 bucks for a pill of tylonel extra strength? That sounds a hell of a lot cheaper and just as effective and seems like it would give everyone the option to buy affordable health care plans as opposed to giving every citizen coverage without discrimination.
I don’t know, I just don’t like the idea of my tax dollars being spent on saving the life of some worthless thug who tried to rob a mom and pop liquor store, or some fuckheaded drunk driver who crashed into a light pole and could have easily swiped someone off of a sidewalk, or some useless freerider whose only skill is mooching off of others.
It’s all nice and easy to say ‘we should do this and that!’, but when it comes to reality, things aren’t that easy. Especially in America, you’re being EXTREMELY naive if you think you can just directly fight the private health care industries.
I’m not a republican either. More of a liberitarian than anything else.
Anyway, I’m not really trying to bash, just pointing out a few issues that I came to realize in my quest to push for universal health care only to see how unrealistic it is in a time like this. I’m more than open to debating any of my points, and certainly subject to changing them if you give me enough reason to do so.
It needs to be fixed, no doubt, but I often wonder if what they’re doing is even going to improve things or make it worse. There are lots of ways to make health care cheaper and more affordable and neither Republicans nor Democrats have looked into these methods. Instead, both sides talk about adding more plans and reforms that just filter more money to bureaucracy than the heart of the problem. Any economics professor can tell you how to lower the cost of health care, but yet no one will hear these guys (and girls) out.
I’m in agreement that our health system needs reform.
There is debate on this issue for many reasons. Many Americans, myself included, are not comfortable with handing over control of our health to government bureaucrats. The stimulus package Obama signed in February created a board named the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Basically, the government does research and decides how “efficient” it is to provide care for certain types of people. It is for rationing health care because the government will not be able to afford running a future universal health system otherwise. If you doubt me, look into how their universal health program for Native American Indians is doing… Not to mention the failed attempt in Hawaii to have universal care for children 0-18 in 2007. It is unsustainable unless you ration the care. I am not willing to put my life and my health in the hands of politicians. My health care should be between me and my doctor. Not the government dicatating to my doctor what should be done to me.
Medicare/Medicaid and SS are going bankrupt. We are already taxed beyond what is reasonable. How would the government pay for that? How much more would they have to tax us?
The government has never handled anything better or more efficiently than the private sector. I believe many of our problems stem from the monopoly between insurance and pharmaceutical companies created by government mandates. I agree there is much that needs to be reformed. But handing everything over to the government is not the answer. I’ve been uninsured since March and I still do not approve of universal health care or that disaster of a bill called HR 3200.
@soccerdadforlife - Perhaps this irresponsible lower class in which you speak would ultimately have access to resources to fight their depression, alcoholism, etc. and thus become the wonderful patients that the responsible upper class patients are.
This is complete bullshit by the way. I work in a doctor’s office. Many of our patients are patients who are on Medical Assistance. I work in a sleep lab. Those who choose not to follow through with their care are from all walks of life.
I have been on Medical Assistance myself and so have my children. The worst part of it was that the clinics that served us were few and far between. If I had been lacking in transportation, there was no way I could have kept my appointments. When doctors can choose not to accept what they perceive to be a certain “class” of patients, for whatever reason, that puts the patients at a distinct disadvantage logistically.
We need reform. Frankly, this is about the people that the government is supposed to serve, not just the doctors.
Well, we live in a democratic republic, but yeah… I completely agree that we need universal health care, and we needed it 20 years ago. I’m really tired of our “Pay or Die” system.
@gottobereal64 - Does your office double-book? What is the average time spent waiting in your office?
We need freedom, not your socialist programs. Why don’t you go to Canada or the UK, since they are already set up the way you want, with socialist programs, and leave the rest of us in the U.S. in peace? We don’t want your universal health care.
You need to keep in mind that if we have universal health care (which is a good idea in itself…just like Communism…) the QUALITY of health care will dramatically decrease.
@poetrymyescapefromreality5 - why?
I think part of the ongoing argument is that there is a fair number of people who think that, however bad the current health care system might be, the government will fuck things up even worse than they already are.
@nephyo - Doctors are in high demand – even now. If EVERYONE had health insurance and went to the doctor for every little thing…well doctors would have A LOT more work. This would eventually lead to carelessness because they are rushed, over worked etc. and therefor everyones quality of care would be reduced.
Hallelujah. We can be BFF’s now kay?
Very interesting viewpoint that I haven’t yet seen too much of on Xanga.
OK, here is whats up with “universal health care” almost everyone else in the world has it right. the elderly just get totally fucked. yea if they have one heart to transplant, just as an example lets say, there is a 10 girl who is a perfect match and just got her name on the list to receive.. now lets say there is a 75 year old women, again perfect match but her name is at the top of the list, the “granny” as i’ll call her gets screwed, she has already had a life and the heart will go to a younger patient who can have a longer life. Just on example of why i think socialized health care couldn’t work to well over here. There are many, many, many options that are offered through the health care systems in france, norway, cuba and canada that i truly agreee with. but by no means do i think that it could work here as well for us now, we need to come up with our own way adopting others ways, and make it something worth having. next you’ll be saying you agree with the “new world order” and make us all have ID cards that act as our paycheck/ credit card. please. if you want insurance get a full time job the has benefits, you can choose this for your self.
@radicalramblings - No the federal goverment does not have that right. But the constitution is so much toilet paper is the eyes of si many. Sadly I think we will just need to admit it someday, the constitution is dead. Just not today
So who is it saying do nothing? Funny I have not heard that side of the argument. That side gets trashed all the time, yet not once have I ever head anyone say do nothing.
im very against it
I think in one of the townhalls, a Teabagger yelled something like, “Get the government’s hands off my Medicare!!!” We have a long way to go here.
Newsflash – Medicare is going broke!
The debate exists because most people have health insurance, most people are happy with the insurance they have and most people don’t want government FORCING there way into their private lives and records. IF government wanted people to have access to private health insurance – like they say and IF government was STEALING this extra money to cover it, only from “the rich”, then why is government not offering employers incentives to keep their employees in private healthcare? Instead the bill calls for employers to jump through hoops and to meet mandates that the private insurance they offer is “adequate.” You know why? Because they want EVERYONE, with the exception of congress and the president and his family, on government run healthcare. It’s a power grab. If the universal healthcare is so good, why has Obama not agreed to keep his family on it and not go outside of it? He was asked that question. He wouldn’t answer. Why isn’t congress pledging that they will be on it? If it’s not good enough for them, why should it be good enough for any of us? Why should I have to pay higher (MUCH) taxes to pay for someone who isn’t working to be covered? I know this isn’t everybody, but believe me, there are a lot of people out to abuse the system.
Healthcare needs reformed, it does not need to be taken over by the government. It’s not the governments responsibility and most people do not want the government involved in their healthcare. All these protests you see, they are not set up by the insurance companies. People are mad and rightly so.
Why doesn’t anyone want to at least give it a try? Because once it’s there, there’s no turning back.
Here’s a link about socialized healthcare across the world.
http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#canada with articles on many different countries, many different sources.
They need to make insurance more affordable, not take it over. Open up insurance across state lines, create competition, torte reform.
I’m sorry if I come across angry at you, I’m not. I’m just very angry over this whole issue. America is not about the government sticking their nose into private lives and mandating something that is a choice. This is not good.
By the way, we have the best healthcare now. That’s why people come here to get treated, because they can’t get the quality and timely care in their socialized systems.
@poetrymyescapefromreality5 - doctors are in high demand for a number of reasons. One training a doctor is expensive. Two doctors want to retain the high price for their services so they unite to limit the number of slots in med schools. Government could pay for more grants for more doctors and prevent that kind of restrictive access to training and allow more doctors from out of the country to practice medicine in the US. That would increase the amount of doctors available.
But in principle your idea is not certain. Though it seems to make logical sense, it often is not the case. Doctors in emergency rooms are overrun for example causing hospitals to charge extra to insurance companies whenever they CAN get compensated for treatment. They are required to treat anyone in an emergency room regardless of whether they have insurance. Those insurance companies then pass the prices off to consumers and businesses. Reduce the flow of uninsured to emergency rooms and you greatly lessen the load of doctors in hospitals where the are most over burdened and reduce costs. One way to do this is to get them into clinics and family practitioners early so that preventative medicine can eliminate the need for emergency room visits.
Think about when a person misses a vaccination for a major disease. That person can then get that disease and spread it to others. The costs are then spread throughout the society not just to them. Any system that gets those people those much needed vaccinations reduces overall strain on the system. Yes it gives doctors more work in the short term, but it gives them less work in the long run.
Contrary to popular opinion, private insurers have a lot more bureacratic overhead than public plans. Those are addictional costs that practitioners of all sort have to pay. Severe cuts in that bureacratic overhead would reduce costs in a way that would offset additional usage of medical facilities.
Furthermore public plans have so many people under their belt that they can exercise leverage in bargaining for lower prices. This is particularly important for pharmaceutical prices which are sky rocketing just the same as doctor costs.
Not all of the uninsured can’t pay for health care. Many can’t. Some don’t want to. Insuring all of them insures that those who can pay do pay. We all pay through our taxes and through our co-pays.
Health Care is GOING to be more expensive. The cost of Health Care is rising in all countries all over the world and is projected to continue to rise for the foreseeable future. Part of that is new technologies. Part of that is our destruction of our environment. Part of that is our poor diets. Part of that is just that people are living longer. Who knows what else. But the thing is, it’s growing in the United States FAR FASTER than it has been anywhere else. Health Care reform will, hopefully, put us in line with other countries cost-wise without sacrificing quality.
But my point is just this there’s no guarantee that covering everyone will result in substantially higher prices than we would have otherwise seen. And fixing the system so that costs overall are lower is likely to reduce prices. Although in my opinion, even if it didn’t and it was more expensive, saving the lives and protecting the welfare of the uninsured would probably still be worth it. It’s what civilized societies do.
… This was such a babbling brook of idiocy I stopped taking notes on which points to critique about one-third in. I’m not just saying that to be rude. I’m saying it because the thought of someone who honestly can’t see the problem in having universal government-run health care and says things like “We live in a Democracy” (which is both untrue and irrelevant considering that only 37% of Americans approve of universal health care reform) casting votes for people who will ultimately decide my fate — a fate which they themselves will be exempt from — makes me actually ashamed to wear a uniform that obligates me to fight for your right to put forth such nonsense.
@BobRichter - the so-called “Welfare clause” is enumerated by the amendments included therein; as James Madison put it, “If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.” The phrase “general welfare” was never included as part of the body of the text enumerating the powers granted to the government; it is not a blank check of authority for the government to do whatever it deems in “the peoples’” best interests. Furthermore, article 1 section 8 states in regards to the purposes for the federal government to collect taxes, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” The federal government is only authorized to collect taxes for the welfare of the states respectively, not for “the people” as declared in the Preamble. There is no Constitutional backing for the federal government to take over control of health care.
@poetrymyescapefromreality5 - I’m sorry I didn’t answer your comment properly. We were talking about quality not costs. Though many of the same things I said carry over. IT won’t necessarily be more work for the doctors. Cutting down costs overall reduce work for doctors. And dropping overall costs frees money up for paying to hire more doctors. If we drop the cost we will ultimately increase the quality of health care as well.
@methodElevated @GermanWrench - - ”Well, we live in a democratic republic,” “We live in a Democracy” (which is both untrue”
Of course I was using the term colloquially. lol. I am more than well aware of what kind of government we live in. However technically inaccurate, we certainly USE the term democracy unqualified when describing our nation in numerous scenarios, most notably when discussing what kind of government we’re going to bring to the rest of the world via our military escapades in Iraq and Afghanistan.
My point was a broader one though perhaps not well enough explained in my initial post. When people critique government run systems they act like they are this “other” out there removed from them. But in reality anything government run is Democratic to the extent that the Society is Democratic. In a totalitarian dictatorship, a Government run system basically means a system that is run by a few dictators to suit the ends of those dictators. In a true democracy a government run system is one that is run by the people to suit the needs of the people.
Corporations are inherently top-down, totalitarian structures. Meaning a privatized system is not one run in the interests of people or in accordance with the will of people. It may incidentally serve the needs of the people. The need to compete with other private institutions, strict regulations, and internal pressure through unions may in fact force selfish institutions to serve the needs of the people. But it might not. And in the case of Health Care it clearly hasn’t.
Some people are happy to argue that we live in the greatest country in the world, and spout on about our amazing commitment to freedom and Democracy. If that’s true then you should have no fear whatsoever of Government run Health Care. It’s not like tacking the word “Government” on something automatically imbues it with some fundamental “evil” characteristic that makes it fail. If our country is so great, then we ought to be able to do great health care here. If our people are so amazing then they ought to be able to run a system that works.
At the very least we should be willing to give it a shot. Why should we trust a few mega-million dollar corporations to do better when they have clearly failed?
If however we don’t live in such a great democracy, well then we ought to MAKE it such a great democracy shouldn’t we? What will that entail? Largely the same kinds of reforms involved in setting up a Universal Health Care System. Namely getting the money out of politics. Making it so that politicians are elected on their merits and to the extent that their ideas reflect our own RATHER than based on how scary they can make their advertisements or how good they look in a suit. Breaking down overly powerful corporations. And shifting power away from privatized entities back into the hands of the people.
And once that happens, yet again, we’d have no need to fear government run health care.
If we live in anything remotely resembling a Democracy than a reasonable course of action seems to me to implement a government run, people run system and then doing all we can to make our democracy more and more democratic so that that system evolves in accordance with the will of the people.
Because if we don’t there’s nothing you personally can do to change how your insurance company will behave toward you unless you happen to be rich enough to own enough shares to have a seat on their board of directors.
Had anyone stopped to consider that… maybe letting people die was an option?
I mean… there are quite a few of us on this planet.
Gotta go some time.
Granted, there’s a level of jest in this comment.
But think about it.
@GodlessLiberal - ”this post has inspired me two write a post about for-profit prisons”
I’ve read a little bit about that. I look forward to reading your post!
Well I’m glad my post did some good
@QuantumStorm - “I’m in favor of privately-funded, for-profit universal healthcare.”
If you add “high quality” and “low cost” to that then I’d be for that too. But the problem is, private organizations have no impetus whatsoever to cover everyone. They maximize profits by covering the healthiest and the most expensive procedures which are not necessarily the best. So the only way to do this is to get government heavily involved either in a regulatory role or running the system themselves. The current proposals going through congress are effectively doing both. Namely regulatory in that companies that elect to be a part of the health care exchange are forced to comply with certain restrictions like covering pre-existing conditions. And directly in creating a public option to compete with the existing companies (and subject to the same restrictions).
Although a slight nitpick, if a private not for profit organization can provide damned good health care coverage, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t accept that as part of the solution too. I’m not sure why anyone would suggest that ALL health care MUST be for profit.
Also it’s important to make a distinction between health care coverage and the actual health care itself. All plans on the table do not alter the doctors, hospitals, and clinics relationship to the society. They would continue to be private for profit or not for profit organizations just like they are now.
Lastly, I CAN’T WAIT FOR THE INVISIBLE FLYING DINOSAURS! That’s way cooler than health care reform. ^_^
@Lisa_x09 - The doomsday scenario you paint just hasn’t happened. We can LOOK at other countries that have far greater coverage than we do and see that it hasn’t happened. Heck we can look right here.
Not everyone goes to the doctor every time they catch a sniffle when they are on medicare a government run program that is universal. It covers everyone over a certain age. There’s no reason to suspect younger non-disabled people will, if given the same option, especially considering that would mean time off work, getting a babysitter for the kids, etc.etc. In nations that have universal health care there are no gigantic waiting lists and in countries that have private health care like the US wait times are not particularly short.
“a 2005 survey by the
Commonwealth Fund of sick adults in six nations found that only 47% of
U.S. patients could get a same- or next-day appointment for a medical
problem, worse than every other country except Canada.”
“The Commonwealth
survey did find that U.S. patients had the second-shortest wait times
if they wished to see a specialist or have non-emergency surgery, such
as a hip replacement or cataract operation (Germany, which has national
health care, came in first on both measures)”
(http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042072.htm)
Judging from that all we can say is wait times seem to have absolutely nothing to do with whether the Health Care system is national or universal or privatized or what have you.
The existence of a universal health care system does not prevent us from training more doctors, paying more nurses, ordering more supplies, or restricting patient visits for healthy patients if need be. In fact doing those things is easier under a universal health care system than otherwise would be.
@soccerdadforlife - @MelancholyRambler - The UK’s problems with hip replacements had nothing to do with the fact that they provided universal insurance. It had everything to do with a flawed mechanism of compensation for specialists. Namely in effect the government of the United Kingdom made the specialists salaried and in no way tied their compensation to how much or how good the care they provided. The specialists then chose not to perform as many procedures. Why should they bother? As a result waiting lists grew.
It need not have been that way and in other countries with universal coverage of various forms there are no such problems. And in fact in the UK the problem has largely been solved since hospitals now compete with one another for government funding. There are still problems but not the system is turning around.
However, it is disinegenuous to suggest that the US is better because our private system avoids such long wait times. Most hip replacements are done through Medicare a government run non-private insurance system which covers hip replacements. To the extent that the US is better at wait times, it has nothing to do with the privatized nature of the system and everything to do with the way medicare compensates physicians per procedure and the fact that we have many more specialists here.
And specialists aside, waiting times in general in the US are not particularly ahead of other countries with universal systems. See my reply to Lisa_x09 above.
So yes the UK’s system could be better. And yes it still kicks our asses here in the United States all over the place. They’re 18th to our 37th in the WHO rankings.The UK spends 8.4% of its GDP on Health Care, the US spends over 15%! And the infant mortality rate and the adult mortality rate are both higher in the US than the UK. We are a year or so behind the UK in average life expectancy in spite of paying almost twice as much! It’s ridiculous. That’s not even looking at other world class systems like France, Italy, Sweden, and Germany. If the United States Health Care system was a single business whose profits depending on controlling costs relative to performance, its CEO would have long ago fired everyone involved in its management and design. And that’s the system we got by relying on low regulated private industry to decide our fates.
@supsoo - ”doing something for the sake of doing something is not an option.”
It is, in this sense.
Suppose you and a few of your friends are having a late night and you discovered a fire in your kitchen late at night while the kids upstairs were asleep. You immediately reach for the fire extinguisher. A solution that you’ve seen work for putting out fires many times in the past.
But one of your friends stops you. He suggests going for the hose and water. Another friend argues that you should just call the fire department. Still a third friend suggests smoothering the fire with clothing. All options with varying degrees of reasonableness. There can be a reasonable debate between these plans. Though the person thinking clearly would just take the best option, the fire extinguisher and try it and should that fail maybe move on to one of the other options.
Now suppose your friends were of a different character. One tells you “There is no fire! You’re being ridiculous.” Another says “Just let the fire burn, it’ll burn itself out eventually.” Still a third says “Let’s not act too hastily. Let’s wait for the rest of the family wakes up and call a neighborhood meeting to decide what to do”. Still another suggests putting up a bounty to pay the person who can put out the fire. Lastly your final friend just says “Fires aren’t a big deal, they’ve been with us since the beginning of time. We can live with a little fire.”
You’d think your friends were crazy wouldn’t you? It’d be like they’ve lost their minds.
That’s the state of the US Health Care Debate today. On one side you have people arguing legitimately about the various options. One option, public universal health care seems like the best option judging by what others have done. That’s the fire extinguisher. We can SEE that it works. We have every good rational reason to believe that it will work. But it still might NOT work. This could be a specialized problem that requires some other solution, a hybrid between public and private. Or something else entirely like the world has never seen. Hell it’s even conceivable if we don’t know what caused the fire that, the fire extinguisher might make things worse.
But on the other side you have people arguing things like “Don’t you dare touch Health Care!”, “Health Care is FINE!”, “Health Care will fix itself!”, “Just let people get sick and die.”, “Health Care can be reformed just so long as it’s not the evil DEMOCRATS that do it”, “Anything the Government touches is doomed to fail!”
And maybe you say that’s good. Exercising caution is good. At least don’t use the fire extinguisher or the hose or call the fire department until you’re CERTAIN any of those things won’t make things worse.
The only problem is while you’re choosing not to act your kids are upstairs dying of smoke inhalation in their sleep. Indecision paralyzes. So yes sometimes doing something, making your best rational guess at what’s best and acting as opposed to doing nothing IS an option. It’s a very very good option.
@nephyo - ”The UK’s problems with hip replacements had nothing to do with the fact that they provided universal insurance. It had everything to do with a flawed mechanism of compensation for specialists. Namely in effect the government of the United Kingdom”
All you’ve done is prove government incompetence to run any program.
The UK health care is better than the US health care unless you have breast cancer, prostate cancer, or heart disease. If you have back pain, steroids won’t be prescribed in the U.K., leading to reliance on narcotics, with associated health risks and lack of mental competence, or back surgery, with attendant risks.
In Canada, if you want to be seen by a doctor in some towns, you have to win the lottery.
“Seriously ill patients are being kept in ambulances outside hospitals for hours so NHS trusts do not miss Government targets,” Daniel Martin wrote last year in London’s Daily Mail. “Thousands of people a year are having to wait outside accident and emergency departments because trusts will not let them in until they can treat them within four hours, in line with a Labour [party] pledge. The hold-ups mean ambulances are not available to answer fresh 911 calls. Doctors warned last night that the practice of ‘patient-stacking’ was putting patients’ health at risk.””
‘Thus, Canadian supreme court justice Marie Deschamps wrote in her 2005 majority opinion in Chaoulli v. Quebec,“This case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care.”’
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2M0ODk0OTNkZjkwNGM4OGMyYTEwYWY3ODUzMzFiOTc=
In France, the health care system is going bankrupt. Same with Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Hawaii.
Your statistics are so vague that they are worthless. The U.S. health care system cannot be compared with other countries for two reasons: 1) we have a larger percentage of poor illegal aliens (due to long borders with Mexico and Canada) than any other country and 2) we have a huge problem with litigation boosting the cost of medical care. We also have more health care gadgets and more doctors per capita than most other countries. We have the baby boomer issue.
Check out the Patient’s Choice Act. http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=HealthCareReform.Home
@nephyo - And what about patient responsibility? I don’t want to pay ridiculous taxes so a meth addict who got high and shot himself in the foot can go to the emergency room without having to use any of his drug money. Or any irresponsible person who thinks it’s okay to shove fatty foods and gallons of beer down their throat and wonder why they’re overweight and diabetic. I don’t believe people are good natured. Take my cousin for example. He intentionally will not get married so his girlfriend and baby can stay on welfare. His girlfriend is unemployed, and she does nothing except play video games and sleep. She doesn’t even clean the house or the baby. The neglected, unhygienic baby now has something wrong with him. So now the taxpayers have to pay for the baby’s medical bills, because the mother is too lazy to take care of him properly.
@nephyo - And if your rational guess is to throw gasoline on your house’s fire, then perhaps you aren’t all that rational.
@GermanWrench - The passage I quoted (part of the Taxing and Spending Clause, sometimes called the General Welfare Clause) is in fact in the section enumerating the powers of congress. I see you were able to find it yourself. What I don’t see is where you have trouble understanding it, or where exactly in the text it is. I think I sense spoon-fed rhetoric as a substitute for research.
As historically interpreted by the United States Supreme Court (the only body with the power to do so) this clause establishes that the Congress does have the power to enact legislation to promote the general welfare (i.e. happiness, well-being) of the nation and its people.
Even if we accept Madison’s narrower view of the Taxing and Spending Clause (which not only makes little sense, but is not presently the fashion in constitutional law,) the Commerce Clause still gives the Congress considerable power to regulate (or “take over” if you prefer) the health-care system.
I can see no way to interpret the Taxing and Spending Clause as you have, at least not if we are constrained to the English Language. If you may suppose that that one Clause (alone) was written in some other language (which you’d likely have to invent,) you might be able to support the idea that the Constitution does not support public regulation and funding of health care.
But I don’t suppose I’d be inclined to allow you that conceit.
we live in a democratic republic, but in any case, this is a much needed post. I feel that confusion every day of this debate
3 in 4 americans want healthcare reform. The people who believed obama is trying to pull the plug on grandma are people who already hated him for being black, a democrat and/or pro-choice and A-FUCKING-MEN they are NOT in the majority anymore.
Woo and/or hoo.