Obama and EMS - the roll-on effect of universal health care

While in basic prinicpal I agree with you, I have to point out that your assertion, and the assertion made by the late President Reagan is based on the assumption that everyone is given an equal shot at birth. While it is an unfortunate reality, a baby girl born in Appalachia does not have the same opportunities as a baby girl born in suburban Maryland. The role of government in this situation is to raise up the downtrodden so that there is a truly level playing field. Its one thing for us to be talking about government intervention with homes to keep us warm at night, and internet to keep us connected to the world; and its another thing entirely when a sick woman in Southeast Washington DC who cant afford to heat her crumbling home talks about paying either her medical bills or her electricity bill. While you personally may not agree with the new system, sometimes government DOES have to step in, and ensure not just the survival, but the blessings of freedom and living in the nation with the best, most advanced healthcare systems in history are endowed upon everyone.


As they say here in the Australian Parliament when they agree passionately with the speaker - "here here".

It's about making governments care not expecting them to simply because they are the government. Because they are not the government - you are - ".....Of the people, by the people, for the people".

The government is the arm of public will that sets ideas into motion. At least it should be.

If the public thinks the government doesn't care it's because the public don't. Agitate for change the way Obama did. He got it - you can too.

Nick (MM)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is it my fault you do not have the money or work for an employer that does not provide health care insurance? Why should I have to work an additional job and make sacrifices?

I do realize there is the needy and those that need a hand up and NOT a hand out. Unfortunately, giving people what they need has never nor ever worked. The " Great Society" is the worse thing that ever occurred. We have made people dependent upon others to "provide" for them.

There is programs that will provide preventative medicine, but unfortunately this is NOT what the society wants. They much rather go to a ED to be treated because why? It's faster and there is no payment required!

I have worked IHS hospitals where there is free preventive and even free medicine and care and majority was non-compliant. Free health care, free medicine, even a paid van or ambulance to transport and still will bombard the ED.

I have triaged patients to the clinic because their condition was not warranted as "life threatening" yet, they refused to go because: 1) They would have wait to be seen by the PCP (even though they had an appointment for that day) 2) The PCP can actually charge (nominal) fee.

I will be all for governmental free health care as soon as :

They have to ensure no bad habits or deterrents such as smoking, alcohol or substance abuse is causing or affecting the outcome of the disease process.

They are placed on a limited time schedule. Unless a catastrophic illness then one should only be allowed so much.

I am sure the ideas are well intention but realistic it is not. Remember, where Obama was an attorney for.. Revco.

R/r 911


I hear where you are coming from Ryds and I've been there too. The world is full of bludgers, spongers and opportunists. If we are to have free anythings there must be filters in place to weed out these kinds of individuals but not to disadvantage the genuine.

What you are expressing is frustration - the same feeling any EMT with a taste of a few years in the job has felt many times. And government systems are open for abuse that is clear - always have been.

But for every occasion where I have seen some knuckle head get a free ride out of the system I have seen decent hard working people get value for money out of "free" public services. (And don't kid yourself that they are truly free - they never are).

Some are old, some young, some very deserving others who could have found a better alternative.

I have even seen the very rich benefit, deservedly, from free health care particularly in emergencies and have nothing but praise for every component of the system, often surprised by how effective it was.

From the ambos who met them at the door, to the equipment and training we possess, to the nurses, doctors and facilities at their disposal for themselves or their loved one in crisis - and this time no-one said - "do you have private insurance" or "you have to sign this payment schedule before we can provide treatment".

There are filters against abuse and perhaps this is where the system is often let down as the respective ideological positions argue over who is deserving, where you should discriminate and above all how we judge who gets the freebies.

And you're right about dependency. But this is not a failing of the system itself but of society as a whole. Press a button, make a call, fill in the form and the pizza will be delivered to your door courtesy of the taxpayer.

Getting some sort of health service is often no different that setting up a mobile phone account.

What happened to self reliance and common sense? Perhaps we've had it too easy for too long but tell that to the have nots.

It's too easy to judge all by the actions of the few. The majority of calls for EMS are genuine even if sometimes misplaced. Education is key and those few EMS services who have taken the plunge and dared to tell the public how to use the system wisely will reap the rewards in reduced demand. But of course it doesn't end there.

There has to be a mindset among the population (this is where doing the right thing comes in) that it is "un-american" to abuse the "system". This can start with the kids telling mom that they were shown at school that EMS is very busy and only for emergencies not sore throats right through to if necessary billing, penalty and other more punitive measures.

As for smokers, drinkers and drug takers - I wonder if we start being selective about who pays what relative to "poor lifestyle" decisions we might at the same time bill the companies that have marketed, pandered, indoctrinated, lied, conned, abused, denied responsibility but in the end still made billions out of those idiots (like me) who got sucked into the dependent substance maelstrom?

You talked about why should you have to pay for others? Were they too dumb, poorly educated, cheapscapes, mistaken, overanxious, not aware of alternatives - it's hard to know which at times. But this is our perspective not theirs at the time crises happens or the point where they call upon a service.

You might be on a decent wage with no major debts, a reasonable and comfortable lifestyle but when your kid gets that rash that you're not sure about what will you do? If he falls over, bangs his head seems OK but you read about the insidious progression of extra dural haemorrhage what will you do?

You may well shell out the bucks happily for the care. Others can't. Others can but will endure some level of sacrifice anywhere from missing out on the six pack this week to mortgaging the family home so the child makes it through the night.

Many taxpayers are irritated by the idea of paying for others and often justifiably so. But it's all a matter of context and situation.

We all make sacrifices under public systems. You may well be surprised how big some of the sacrifices are for the users on the other end of the line.

MM
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now it's my country Canada that has a right wing government.

Go Stephen Harper - (but he can thank that good old lefty Tommy Douglas for universal health care in Canada).

MM

PS found this interesting piece whilst trawling for info

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/109/12/1460

PSS I'm pleased to say my remarks citing the US constitution and health care were written here before I found this article. No plaigarisim here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know - Perhaps it should be.

Given the US constitution was written in Philadelphia in 1787 it is hardly surprising that there was no ideological premise underlying the provision of health care for all citizens written into it. Its omission may well have reflected the views of Jefferson etal but I don't believe so. Nonetheless the conceptual basis for a health care "system" IE an organised and widespread delivery model still arose out of the public domain.


Alternatively, the founders realized that you can't grant someone a right at the expense of someone else. In fact, most of the "rights" guaranteed by the constitution isn't so much a right as much as it's a limitation on the government. This is an important distinction. For example, there is a difference between "Congress shall make no law respecting... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" and "Citizens have a right to freedom of speech." One is a limitation on the government, the other is an affirmation. As a strict interpretation of the second one, shouting over someone could be considered a civil rights violation. Following a strict reading of the second phrasing, moderation on a message board would violate a person's civil rights.

In fact, in the US Bill of Rights, there's only one clause that requires the work of a citizen to meet the civil rights of another. After all, everyone loves jury duty.

Now, how does this go towards the discussion of if health care is a right or not. Simple, health care is based on the service provided by an individual. If health care is a right, would a physician who refuses to treat a patient in a non-emergent situation be violating that patient's right to health care? What if that patient can't pay, should the tax payers fit the bill or should the provider work for free? After all, it costs the citizens nothing to meet the rights set forth in the constitution outside of the right to a trial by jury. Furthermore, now that the tax payers are fitting the bill for health care, shouldn't the tax payers have a say in a person's health decisions? Should tax payers be required to fit the bill for cancer treatments for a patient that smokes? Alternatively, should society just ban smoking, alcohol, fast food, etc? Just because health care becomes a right (hey, I'm still looking for that "right to privacy" clause in the constitution that the supreme court found when ruling on Roe v Wade) doesn't mean that the problems of implementation have all of a sudden been solved.
 
Alternatively, the founders realized that you can't grant someone a right at the expense of someone else. In fact, most of the "rights" guaranteed by the constitution isn't so much a right as much as it's a limitation on the government. This is an important distinction. For example, there is a difference between "Congress shall make no law respecting... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" and "Citizens have a right to freedom of speech." One is a limitation on the government, the other is an affirmation. As a strict interpretation of the second one, shouting over someone could be considered a civil rights violation. Following a strict reading of the second phrasing, moderation on a message board would violate a person's civil rights.

In fact, in the US Bill of Rights, there's only one clause that requires the work of a citizen to meet the civil rights of another. After all, everyone loves jury duty.

Now, how does this go towards the discussion of if health care is a right or not. Simple, health care is based on the service provided by an individual. If health care is a right, would a physician who refuses to treat a patient in a non-emergent situation be violating that patient's right to health care? What if that patient can't pay, should the tax payers fit the bill or should the provider work for free? After all, it costs the citizens nothing to meet the rights set forth in the constitution outside of the right to a trial by jury. Furthermore, now that the tax payers are fitting the bill for health care, shouldn't the tax payers have a say in a person's health decisions? Should tax payers be required to fit the bill for cancer treatments for a patient that smokes? Alternatively, should society just ban smoking, alcohol, fast food, etc? Just because health care becomes a right (hey, I'm still looking for that "right to privacy" clause in the constitution that the supreme court found when ruling on Roe v Wade) doesn't mean that the problems of implementation have all of a sudden been solved.


These are all thorny questions for which I don't have answers.

I'd have to be honest and say I'm opening up a can of worms for myself by pretending to have any great insights into the US constitution or bill of rights.

Suffice it to say you could take an ideological position and venture interpretive arguments about what your forefathers meant or implied by the philosophical premises of the constitution. Perhaps you can infer nothing without making grandiose but unsubstantiated hypotheses about "rights".

But you can also take a pragmatic position and say; Look at the state of play currently. Is this situation acceptable? Without a doubt the current US health care system is off the mark by a fair margin. Is it "right" to see so many of your citizens in this position?

So, what are the alternatives?

Unfortunately one of the answers, universal health care, always gets tarred with a political brush by its opponents and has done so for decades. The concept of "Rights", who has control of the revenue streams of health care and the role of that big ogre, government are common themes.

I found this article from 1971 as an example of that point.

http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/sademcr.htm

Contrast the cerebral and I think supercilious attitude of this author with this article from the American Heart Association .

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/109/12/1460

What I think we see from this is an evolution of thought and philosophy.

It always urks me to hear vested interest groups whose sole intent is to protect their own turf and flow of money espouse self righteous attitudes about rights and morals and how the constitution is being undermined, its all about free choice. Its a service that one purchases so user pays is the best way to protect rights etc.

Their real argument in the end is about where the money goes and who gets it. But how many of those bellicose stakeholders will you get who readily admit this is their only interest?

There are plenty of parties with a stake in the process. This includes Doctors, hospitals and especially the insurance industry.

If we are to learn anything from your Presidential election it's this: people have gut instincts and a genuine sense of community when you cut to the chase - revealed most apparently when all the facades are stripped away as a result of crises.

In the end all the talk about rights and choice will be seen for what it is. A distraction from the truth.

A revolution in thought is what drives change and it will do the same with your health care system. And the US public will demand it because THEY think it it is right.

No; making health care a "right" for all citizens doesn't solve the implementation problems. But why is it so wrong to try?

After all you already have some universal health care systems in the US like the Veterans and Military Health care programmes.

Rights and choice are not necessarily opposing forces or immutable chemistry's.

People have a funny habit of being adaptable and supportive of change. They also have their own mind and a sense of both common purpose and what is "right" for the individual and society as a whole.

Obamas election proved this and demonstrated many things; remarkable, positive, exemplary, inspiring things about the US. One of those is who really controls the government - you do. The conscience of America was given a fair old shaking and your citizens rallied. Common sense can prevail, the greedy and self interested can be put in their place.

However difficult, complex and costly implementing and managing a large public health system will be, I'm sure the US will figure it out. You have the brains, the money and the flexibility built into your nation to do it.

But you have to believe it to make it happen.

I think you already do - you just haven't realised it yet.

MM
 
Clap, clap, clap...

One of, if not the best post I've ever read on any web forum ever.

The preamble to the U.S. constitution says it plainly;

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty, it doesn't take a constitutional scholar to know what that means. We can argue all day about the amendments and the rights granted vs rights restricted, the premise of the document is clear. The rest of it is simply the hows and the wherefores.

Ensuring that people have access to medical care regardless of their financial status is simply the right thing to do in a civilised world.

If there's a best of EMT Life collection, I nominate Melbourne Mica's contributions to this thread for inclusion.

John E.
 
Too bad the preamble is a window dressing, or else how would you explain court decisions like US v Lopez? I'm pretty sure that keeping guns out of school is a good way to promote the "general welfare" by keeping schools safe.
 
Promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty, it doesn't take a constitutional scholar to know what that means. We can argue all day about the amendments and the rights granted vs rights restricted, the premise of the document is clear. The rest of it is simply the hows and the wherefores.

Ensuring that people have access to medical care regardless of their financial status is simply the right thing to do in a civilised world.

But those are the most important parts. The Constitution was written at a time, and with the aim, of severely limiting and restricting what a government could do to it's citizens.

Since you brought it up, how does securing the blessings of liberty in any way pertain to health care? I can see the argument for the general welfare part, but I just don't see how liberty equates to health care.

As to your last statement, we've done a lot of things in this country simply because they are the "right thing to do in a civilized world" only to learn later that they have serious and unintended consequences. Personally, I don't think it's the right thing to do without violating other premises and intents of the Constitution. Our government should only be as large as needed to perform it's duties, not as large as it can be to take care of us.
 
Ensuring that people have access to medical care regardless of their financial status is simply the right thing to do in a civilised world.John E.

If I may humbly submit - I think you just summed up all my hot air in one sentence.

Democracy hurts don't it? But how bloody good is it too live in one!!!:blush:

Nick
 
If I may humbly submit - I think you just summed up all my hot air in one sentence.

Democracy hurts don't it? But how bloody good is it too live in one!!!:blush:

Nick


Even democracy still has to be in line with the frame that the government was constructed with. Democracy is not the same as consenting to mob rule.
 
Even democracy still has to be in line with the frame that the government was constructed with. Democracy is not the same as consenting to mob rule.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at JP. Could you elaborate?

MM
 
Even democracy still has to be in line with the frame that the government was constructed with. Democracy is not the same as consenting to mob rule.

To quote Senator Barbara Boxer -

"Elections have consequences"
 
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at JP. Could you elaborate?

MM

Citizens can not demand something from their government that the government is not empowered to provide by the constitution. It doesn't matter what the people demand if that demand is not constitutional. Now, yes, it is possible to adjust the constitution, but it is not easy and we've learned the hard way through prohibition that legislating via constitutional amendment is something that we shouldn't rush into.
 
Citizens can not demand something from their government that the government is not empowered to provide by the constitution. It doesn't matter what the people demand if that demand is not constitutional. Now, yes, it is possible to adjust the constitution, but it is not easy and we've learned the hard way through prohibition that legislating via constitutional amendment is something that we shouldn't rush into.

So are you saying that the introduction of a universal type health care scheme would require a constitutional amendment?

You've had 26 amedments to the constitution over the years have you not?

Maybe the legislators should think big for a change instead of tinkering at the edges?

And maybe now is the time with the impetus and goodwill created by Obamas' win. The republicans will be begging for their voters to come back and the democrats nervous about keeping control of both houses when the mid term elections next come around.

All these pollies need is a none too subtle nudge in the right direction from the public and as many knowledgeable advocates as can be mustered.

The realities of the mess are hard to ignore and with the patriotic fervour you all must be feeling right now it would be downright embarassing to face the next four years with the US still ranked at number 27 in the world for health care with some of the highest prices as well. (According to an article in Wiki from an analysis done in 2003 the US spends an average of $620/month on health care for each and every citizen).

Worth a try?

MM
 
So are you saying that the introduction of a universal type health care scheme would require a constitutional amendment?

You've had 26 amedments to the constitution over the years have you not?

Maybe the legislators should think big for a change instead of tinkering at the edges?

And maybe now is the time with the impetus and goodwill created by Obamas' win. The republicans will be begging for their voters to come back and the democrats nervous about keeping control of both houses when the mid term elections next come around.

All these pollies need is a none too subtle nudge in the right direction from the public and as many knowledgeable advocates as can be mustered.

The realities of the mess are hard to ignore and with the patriotic fervour you all must be feeling right now it would be downright embarassing to face the next four years with the US still ranked at number 27 in the world for health care with some of the highest prices as well. (According to an article in Wiki from an analysis done in 2003 the US spends an average of $620/month on health care for each and every citizen).

Worth a try?

MM

What is being said is that if our government is to get involved in something that is beyond it's powers as defined in the Constitution, it would require a Constitutional Amendment. Just because every one is all touchy feely with "the impetus and goodwill created by Obamas' win" doesn't mean that the Constitution can be ignored.

No one has come up with the answer to how to fund universal healthcare in this country without a major increase in taxes. I've got a suggestion...we'll stop spending billions of dollars every year on foreign aide to countries, regardless of what they need it for. That alone would pay for it and then some. The $34,360,000,000 (as of 2005 per this source) would then have to come from those countries that currently have socialized/universal healthcare. I wonder how effective their systems would be if they had to fork over this much money to other countries.
 
What is being said is that if our government is to get involved in something that is beyond it's powers as defined in the Constitution, it would require a Constitutional Amendment. Just because every one is all touchy feely with "the impetus and goodwill created by Obamas' win" doesn't mean that the Constitution can be ignored.

No one has come up with the answer to how to fund universal healthcare in this country without a major increase in taxes. I've got a suggestion...we'll stop spending billions of dollars every year on foreign aide to countries, regardless of what they need it for. That alone would pay for it and then some. The $34,360,000,000 (as of 2005 per this source) would then have to come from those countries that currently have socialized/universal healthcare. I wonder how effective their systems would be if they had to fork over this much money to other countries.

FF I'm still not sure whether you're saying it would definately require a change in your constitution to implement a universal health care scheme.

If it does why the hell not? What could be more important?

Given the amount of money our countries spend on weapons, gambling, meaningless throw away consumer goods, government waste, tax cuts for the rich, corporate greed, pollution etc where is the logic to not making access to health care for all an absolute priority?

As for how you pay for it - like the constitution I can claim no great knowledge. But from what I understand if tax was taken out of pay packets it would replace the insurance premiums you currently have deducted as one example.

In Australia we have a small levy ,1.5%, that is deducted when you fill out your tax return each year. You make a million dollars a year and you pay 1.5%of that towards the medicare levy.

At the other end, if you make a pittance you don't pay if below the level of taxable income. As for scrutiny - someone always asks why you haven't filled out a tax return. At the other end, those on welfare or receiving government support are on the books. All government benefits are means tested.

This system has been in operation continuously since 1973 without too many hickups. If you want the extras you pay for private health insurance packages that provide benefits to suit your needs. Most middle and upper class individuals have some level of cover to pay the dentists bills for the kids etc. The system isn't adhoc - its very specific. If you can pay something you pay one way or the other. It depends on your immediate (or longer term)needs (like people with disabled kids that get sick all the time) and the acuity of the situation.

How much do you fork out in each pay packet for insurance cover? If you had to pay a percentage levy each year (not each pay) and balanced to what you actually earned with the option to keep private cover based on your particular needs and income would you be better off?

And if you were an auto worker say and made redundant what happens to your private cover then? Here (and elsewhere) you can still get health care. It might not be Rolls Royce level but its there for everyone - always.

Alternately a 1% cut in your defense budget would yield what dividend that could be put towards health care subsidy?

Maybe being free of the last incumbents foreign policies will also yield fruit in goodwill from countries and regions where cooperation has been a vexatious issue adding exorbitant costs to your foreign affairs (and defense) budgets that could be better spent elsewhere.

Perhaps there is more to be gained in opportunities born of goodwill that will return dollars to US citizens where they should be than many realise. 349 college votes to 163 is valuable human capital that the US can now invest overseas to benefit those at home.

And if you need to change the constitution to do it is it an effort worth making? The last time it was changed back in 1992 (27th amendment) was to limit congressional pay rises.

MM
 
Again, I ask .. "Why I am responsible for your health care?" Why should I be responsible or even be asked to be taxed more?

Seriously, should I be responsible as well for you to be able to purchase a vehicle, purchase a home, obtain an education?

This is where the waters get muddied. Many ask why should it be even placed into a government role? Again, the difference is many in the U.S. want less government involvement not more! It should be a government of the people, by the people; not always a government to give to the people on just some services that only some need. Again, a hand up NOT a hand out, and again careful screening for those that truly need it not just one believes they deserve it because they simply exist in life.

Again, what many outside the U.S. do not understand in our differences in conservatism and liberalism. Less involvement and dependence from the government versus service from the government.

Are we going to require that to be covered that the government mandate yearly physical examinations and eat a healthy diet, exercise, and compliance to medications? If not, should they not be required to meet such obligations? Would we want the government to be so involved and again should it not have some obligations attached to it? Should it be a free reign for all? Should those that can afford private health care be able to receive that CABG and neurosurgeons in a timely manner versus those that cannot be places in line? Where is the fairness and the best medical care there... and still everyone will be paying for it. Would it be fair to say if you want excellent care, you must pay twice? The government then an additional private insurance.

I am truly playing devils advocate. I do understand the needs for those that cannot afford healthcare. Yet, to be able to defend and to be able to justify; one has to be able to answer such questions.

R/r 911
 
Again, I ask .. "Why I am responsible for your health care?" Why should I be responsible or even be asked to be taxed more?

Seriously, should I be responsible as well for you to be able to purchase a vehicle, purchase a home, obtain an education?

This is where the waters get muddied. Many ask why should it be even placed into a government role? Again, the difference is many in the U.S. want less government involvement not more! It should be a government of the people, by the people; not always a government to give to the people on just some services that only some need. Again, a hand up NOT a hand out, and again careful screening for those that truly need it not just one believes they deserve it because they simply exist in life.

Again, what many outside the U.S. do not understand in our differences in conservatism and liberalism. Less involvement and dependence from the government versus service from the government.

Are we going to require that to be covered that the government mandate yearly physical examinations and eat a healthy diet, exercise, and compliance to medications? If not, should they not be required to meet such obligations? Would we want the government to be so involved and again should it not have some obligations attached to it? Should it be a free reign for all? Should those that can afford private health care be able to receive that CABG and neurosurgeons in a timely manner versus those that cannot be places in line? Where is the fairness and the best medical care there... and still everyone will be paying for it. Would it be fair to say if you want excellent care, you must pay twice? The government then an additional private insurance.

I am truly playing devils advocate. I do understand the needs for those that cannot afford healthcare. Yet, to be able to defend and to be able to justify; one has to be able to answer such questions.

R/r 911

The question is always asked about the perceived incumberence of "paying for someone else". I don't think anyone here could answer those questions about the whys and hows.

The idea of reciprocity is common to all societies even one steeped in the rights and position of the "individual' like the US. Often the reciprocity, that is, everyone giving as well as taking from the common wealth, seems unbalanced or unfair. Sometimes even outrageous.

How your taxpayer dollars are used to fund the military and then employed for less than legitimate, even immoral purposes not in keeping with the belief systems of your kin is perhaps the most glaring example of this.

For all the "inalienable rights" we might think we have there are issues that require we forego some individual liberties or assets for the common good and as a measure and expression of our values. And there are times when the need becomes paramount.

Another way to look at how your money is spent on others is to say, well if I must I would rather have it spent on the most important things. Your political parties, like ours, have been arguing these issues for decades.

The left and right of politics, liberals and conservatives, are, however, little different no matter which western democracy you live in. And there are all shades of red and blue within those parties.So I don't know that what you say is necessarily correct about the US being so different.

But as for the role or size of government - you can't really have a small government delivering large amounts of services and little regulation. Services require a bureaucracy. Lots of services, lots of public servants.
Ours is about 4.5/1000 head of population.

Why do we have them and what do we expect of them? How much do or should our governments reflect the ideals upon which our particular brand of society is based? And which ideals are the most important. Or are they simply there to be administrators and accountants.

Well for me the most important measure of society is the level of its compassion. If you want to go out of the political and into the religious, compassion is also a fundamental tenet of the christian faith and clearly one implied and expressed in the constitution and bill of rights.

Lets not forget that all it takes is an unfortunate turn of events (or perhaps a huge financial crisis) to turn the tables on your life. Economists say that the average wage earner is but 4 or 5 pay cheques away from the poor house.

So if you want to know why you should or would contribute to the well being of someone else your reasoning should be because America is a compassionate society and one day you may need someone elses compassion even if it comes in the form of a taxpayer funded service.

As for the how, there is no point us attempting to figure out economic problems because I for one don't know all that much about economics.

There is every conceivable type of expertise within government (and from the private sector) to achieve these ends - and the funding as well. We don't need to fret about how - thats what we pay for and expect them to do with our taxes. And do it well they must.

With the state the US is in at the moment there is going to be greater need for compassion than ever before and your country will change for the better because of it. This is natural. And the US has to evolve.

The fact that universal care is even being talked about is I think an expression of a dawning evolution in America. The obsession with money often expressed through the notion of individulaism has come badly unstuck and your'e all suffering for it.

Things have to change - In health care and elsewhere. There's 47million of your countrymen who are really hoping it will I'm sure.

MM
 
So are you saying that the introduction of a universal type health care scheme would require a constitutional amendment?

You've had 26 amendments to the constitution over the years have you not?

Maybe the legislators should think big for a change instead of tinkering at the edges?
I can almost guarantee that there would not be a constitutional amendment any time soon regarding health care. For a constitutional amendment to succeed, it would need approval to be proposed by either 2/3rds of both houses of the federal legislature or 2/3rds of the individual state legislatures and then passed by 3/4s of the states either through the legislature or through state convention. It's not designed to be an easy process to undertake. If anything, it's much more likely that any sort of health care plan would simply not be taken up by the supreme court.


And maybe now is the time with the impetus and goodwill created by Obamas' win. The republicans will be begging for their voters to come back and the democrats nervous about keeping control of both houses when the mid term elections next come around.
The republicans are not going to win votes by going against the limited government banner that they claim to hold.
The realities of the mess are hard to ignore and with the patriotic fervour you all must be feeling right now it would be downright embarassing to face the next four years with the US still ranked at number 27 in the world for health care with some of the highest prices as well. (According to an article in Wiki from an analysis done in 2003 the US spends an average of $620/month on health care for each and every citizen).

Worth a try?

MM

As I stated earlier, I find it funny when people throw out rankings in life expectancy since the field is so packed? What level would be good, then? The United States is ranked 30 in the Wiki article (going by member UN nations and not by countries plus territories) with eight countries being within a year and 20 within 2 years. Furthermore, you have to look at the size of the country. Ironically, actually, the closest country in population size to the US is Japan, the number one country by life expectancy. The US has a little over twice the population as Japan.

Now here's the kicker, we have 30 times the land area as Japan. If health care is a right, shouldn't people in the less populated areas have the same access to health care as people in the cities? Well, you can't just go around plopping tertiary health care centers in the middle of no where to insure a town of 5000 has equal access to health care.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top