Universal Health Care - Should We?
- Thread starter VinBin
- Start date
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.-Ben Franklin, God helps them that help themselves. from Algernon Sidney (1622–1683), The king's cheese is half wasted in parings;but no matter, 'tis made of the people's milk.- Ben Franklin
Stevo
Forum Asst. Chief
- 885
- 3
- 18
the rethoric here usually is Squid
Myths & Facts About Single-Payer Universal Health Care might serve as more fat for the fire comparing the two eh?
MYTH: It would cost too much money.
FACT: A single-payer universal system would cost no more than we're already spending on health care, according to studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Lewin Group, and the Boston University School of Public Health. The GAO estimates if the United States changed to a universal single-payer system, it would save in the short run: $34 billion in insurance overhead and $33 billion in hospital and physician administrative costs. This savings would come from providing timely care to those who would otherwise delay care, thereby becoming sicker and more expensive to treat.
The cost of serving the newly insured would be about $18 billion. The cost of providing additional services to the currently insured-due to elimination of co-pays and deductibles-would be about $46 billion.
MYTH: It is socialized medicine.
FACT: A single-payer universal health plan is not socialized medicine. Under socialized medicine, the government owns the hospitals and clinics. Doctors and nurses are government employees. A single-payer universal health plan preserves private ownership and employment. It has no more in common with socialized medicine than does Medicare. What's unique about a single-payer universal health plan is that all health-care risks are placed in a universal risk pool covering everyone.
MYTH: Americans would pay more.
FACT: Several studies show costs for middle-class Americans would not increase. All but the poorest Americans would pay more income tax, but in most cases the tax would be equal to or less than what they currently pay for health insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles, which would largely be eliminated. Money to take care of the currently uninsured would come from money saved by eliminating private insurance overhead costs and by spending less on high-tech equipment that duplicates or exceeds what's needed in any geographic region.
MYTH: It would create a huge bureaucracy.
FACT: Experts say the employer-based managed-care system is already a huge bureaucracy. It consumes 9 to 15 cents of every health-care dollar. Medicare, a single-payer plan for seniors, spends only 2 to 3 cents of every dollar on bureaucracy.
MYTH: It would cost employers more, make them less competitive and force them to fire employees.
FACT: Experts say the employer tax would equal but not exceed what employers currently pay for health-care premiums and paperwork/billing overhead created by the current multipayer system.
MYTH: Medicine would be rationed.
FACT: Managed care already rations medicine. A single-payer universal health plan would ration services based on medical necessity. Managed care rations services based on profit. Under single-payer universal health care, no one would be denied care due to pre-existing conditions.
MYTH: Americans would have trouble getting in to see a doctor.
FACT: Canadians, who live in a single-payer system, see their primary care physicians more often than Americans do now. There are more doctors per capita in Canada than there are in the United States. Yet the cost of physician services in Canada is one-third less than it is in the United States. About half the cost savings in Canada comes not from offering less care but by reducing insurance overhead and paperwork. The rest of the savings comes from allocating money to pay for expensive equipment so there is less excess capacity and duplication. Ninety-six percent of Canadians prefer their health-care system to the U.S. model.
MYTH: Patients wouldn't be able to choose their own physician.
FACT: According to experts, a single-payer plan would give patients more choice than they currently have in most cases. The United States is the only developed country heading in the direction of less choice. Other countries are building more choice into their systems.
H: The United States has the best health care in the world.
FACT: The United States has higher infant mortality, higher surgical mortality and lower life expectancy than Canada. The United States has a much lower rate of access to primary care doctors than Canada. Canada has the same acute care bed-to-population ratio as the United States. Patient satisfaction, quality of care and outcome of care in Canada equal or exceed that in the United States, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office. For this lower quality, Americans pay 40 percent per capita more than Canadians do on health care.
MYTH: There would be waiting lists for surgeries and high-tech procedures, which is why Canadians come to the United States to get health services.
FACT: The United States has waiting lists for specialty care, too. Canadians rarely come to the United States for health care. Less than 1 percent of Canada's health budget goes to paying for care Canadians get in the United States. Canada's waiting-list problem stems largely from underfunding, which is being corrected now. Waiting times would likely be no longer in the United States than they are now, because we would still spend much more than other countries do on health care and still have many more specialists and capacity.
MYTH: Physician salaries would be lowered, as would standards for physician training. It would discourage the best and brightest from going into medicine.
FACT: Primary care doctors would see little or no change in their salaries. Some specialists would see a decline. All physicians would be paid more if they work in remote or underserved areas. Education, training and licensing policies are so similar for U.S. and Canadian physicians that their credentials are virtually interchangeable.
MYTH: Canadian physicians are unhappy with their system.
FACT: Nearly two-thirds are either "satisfied" or "very satisfied." About 500 Canadian doctors emigrate to the United States each year-representing about 1 percent of all Canadian doctors. Some return to Canada.
MYTH: U.S. physicians don't want a single-payer universal health plan.
FACT: Despite pervasive negative spin, 57.1 percent of U.S. physicians believe a single-payer system with universal coverage would be the best option for the United States, according to a 1999 New England Journal of Medicine survey.
~S~
Myths & Facts About Single-Payer Universal Health Care might serve as more fat for the fire comparing the two eh?
MYTH: It would cost too much money.
FACT: A single-payer universal system would cost no more than we're already spending on health care, according to studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Lewin Group, and the Boston University School of Public Health. The GAO estimates if the United States changed to a universal single-payer system, it would save in the short run: $34 billion in insurance overhead and $33 billion in hospital and physician administrative costs. This savings would come from providing timely care to those who would otherwise delay care, thereby becoming sicker and more expensive to treat.
The cost of serving the newly insured would be about $18 billion. The cost of providing additional services to the currently insured-due to elimination of co-pays and deductibles-would be about $46 billion.
MYTH: It is socialized medicine.
FACT: A single-payer universal health plan is not socialized medicine. Under socialized medicine, the government owns the hospitals and clinics. Doctors and nurses are government employees. A single-payer universal health plan preserves private ownership and employment. It has no more in common with socialized medicine than does Medicare. What's unique about a single-payer universal health plan is that all health-care risks are placed in a universal risk pool covering everyone.
MYTH: Americans would pay more.
FACT: Several studies show costs for middle-class Americans would not increase. All but the poorest Americans would pay more income tax, but in most cases the tax would be equal to or less than what they currently pay for health insurance premiums, co-pays and deductibles, which would largely be eliminated. Money to take care of the currently uninsured would come from money saved by eliminating private insurance overhead costs and by spending less on high-tech equipment that duplicates or exceeds what's needed in any geographic region.
MYTH: It would create a huge bureaucracy.
FACT: Experts say the employer-based managed-care system is already a huge bureaucracy. It consumes 9 to 15 cents of every health-care dollar. Medicare, a single-payer plan for seniors, spends only 2 to 3 cents of every dollar on bureaucracy.
MYTH: It would cost employers more, make them less competitive and force them to fire employees.
FACT: Experts say the employer tax would equal but not exceed what employers currently pay for health-care premiums and paperwork/billing overhead created by the current multipayer system.
MYTH: Medicine would be rationed.
FACT: Managed care already rations medicine. A single-payer universal health plan would ration services based on medical necessity. Managed care rations services based on profit. Under single-payer universal health care, no one would be denied care due to pre-existing conditions.
MYTH: Americans would have trouble getting in to see a doctor.
FACT: Canadians, who live in a single-payer system, see their primary care physicians more often than Americans do now. There are more doctors per capita in Canada than there are in the United States. Yet the cost of physician services in Canada is one-third less than it is in the United States. About half the cost savings in Canada comes not from offering less care but by reducing insurance overhead and paperwork. The rest of the savings comes from allocating money to pay for expensive equipment so there is less excess capacity and duplication. Ninety-six percent of Canadians prefer their health-care system to the U.S. model.
MYTH: Patients wouldn't be able to choose their own physician.
FACT: According to experts, a single-payer plan would give patients more choice than they currently have in most cases. The United States is the only developed country heading in the direction of less choice. Other countries are building more choice into their systems.
H: The United States has the best health care in the world.
FACT: The United States has higher infant mortality, higher surgical mortality and lower life expectancy than Canada. The United States has a much lower rate of access to primary care doctors than Canada. Canada has the same acute care bed-to-population ratio as the United States. Patient satisfaction, quality of care and outcome of care in Canada equal or exceed that in the United States, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office. For this lower quality, Americans pay 40 percent per capita more than Canadians do on health care.
MYTH: There would be waiting lists for surgeries and high-tech procedures, which is why Canadians come to the United States to get health services.
FACT: The United States has waiting lists for specialty care, too. Canadians rarely come to the United States for health care. Less than 1 percent of Canada's health budget goes to paying for care Canadians get in the United States. Canada's waiting-list problem stems largely from underfunding, which is being corrected now. Waiting times would likely be no longer in the United States than they are now, because we would still spend much more than other countries do on health care and still have many more specialists and capacity.
MYTH: Physician salaries would be lowered, as would standards for physician training. It would discourage the best and brightest from going into medicine.
FACT: Primary care doctors would see little or no change in their salaries. Some specialists would see a decline. All physicians would be paid more if they work in remote or underserved areas. Education, training and licensing policies are so similar for U.S. and Canadian physicians that their credentials are virtually interchangeable.
MYTH: Canadian physicians are unhappy with their system.
FACT: Nearly two-thirds are either "satisfied" or "very satisfied." About 500 Canadian doctors emigrate to the United States each year-representing about 1 percent of all Canadian doctors. Some return to Canada.
MYTH: U.S. physicians don't want a single-payer universal health plan.
FACT: Despite pervasive negative spin, 57.1 percent of U.S. physicians believe a single-payer system with universal coverage would be the best option for the United States, according to a 1999 New England Journal of Medicine survey.
~S~
- 11,032
- 1,479
- 113
But what would a single payer health care system do to medical research? After all, aren't most of the advances in medicine coming from the US?
- 5,523
- 404
- 83
ffemt8978 said:
Bingo!
- 11,032
- 1,479
- 113
Are you saying we should give up researching advances in medicine to take care of everyone or did I misuderstand you?
Also, in a single provider system, how do you motivate people to do any research at all? In the countries that have single provider system, I don't recall any significant advances in medical treatments in the past 30 years. Yet the one country that doesn't have a single provider system has also produced almost every significant advance in medicine, treatment, and technology in that same time frame. How is that insignificant?
Also, in a single provider system, how do you motivate people to do any research at all? In the countries that have single provider system, I don't recall any significant advances in medical treatments in the past 30 years. Yet the one country that doesn't have a single provider system has also produced almost every significant advance in medicine, treatment, and technology in that same time frame. How is that insignificant?
Stevo
Forum Asst. Chief
- 885
- 3
- 18
no ffemt8978
if you read the link i've provided you'll see what i mean.
also, you keep stating we are numero uno here in America...
link, cite, stat, or what have you please.
~S~
if you read the link i've provided you'll see what i mean.
also, you keep stating we are numero uno here in America...
link, cite, stat, or what have you please.
~S~
- 11,032
- 1,479
- 113
I never said we're numero uno. I said, from what I remembered over the past thirty years, I can not think of any other country that has come up with more advances in medicine, technology, or treatment. During that same time frame, I am unable to come up with any other country that has contributed as much to medicine as the U.S.
I did read the article, and agree that there is a gap between the advancement of healthcare, and the delivery of healthcare in this country. I'm just not convinced that a single provider is the solution.
Let me ask you this, are you willing to turn your healthcare over to the federal government?
I did read the article, and agree that there is a gap between the advancement of healthcare, and the delivery of healthcare in this country. I'm just not convinced that a single provider is the solution.
Let me ask you this, are you willing to turn your healthcare over to the federal government?
Stevo
Forum Asst. Chief
- 885
- 3
- 18
very well ,perhaps a list of The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine - Laureates would help then
i don't see any one prevelant country, yet on the other claw i would wager all the universities here wouldn't shut down research under NHC
the other countries listed seem to have consistently had winners in medicine under it
i would say the flip side of your question might be Do you think the federal goverment can save our present system of healthcare?
are you willing to deal with all the havenots that we will all face if they fail?
are you willing to deal with being a havenot yourself, or having a loved one become a havenot ?
~S~
Stevo
Forum Asst. Chief
- 885
- 3
- 18
a fav quote 422...
but there just isn't enough megabytes to discuss it here, else we would certainly burn a gapping hole in cyberspace
short version, we are not longer 'free', nor do we have 'freedom' when viewed as a common denominator in America
it's all be outsourced as far as i can tell....
~S~
I am perfectly willing to take the responsibility of my needs and those of my family. If I fail, I don't think you should have to pay for me, and it would be criminal for someone to force you to do so. Coddling the able is only reinforcing the constant decline of personal responsibility. The able should be willing, but this is no longer the case. Further removing the responsibility is no way to improve the standard of life, it only allows us a sense of contentment.
Caring for the elderly, dsiabled, and youth of America is in no way what I am talking about. We do have the responsibility of caring for those who are UNABLE to do so, but that responsibility does not extend to caring for those whose choices have prevented them from creating security for themselves.
Is it feasible to implement the government managing the payment of healthcare?- Certainly. Is it right for America to allow the government to manage the payment of healthcare?- No.
I believe that The United States Of America was once the greatest country in the world because it provided an opportunity to succeed. That opportunity has been dealt blow after blow by a bereaucracy that further burdens its subjects with nonsensical regulations and taxes and fees for every step of every process. Does the government have its place?- Most deifinitely. Does the government run things efficiently?- Somewhat. Should the government be more involved in the day to day life of the average person?- NO. America is, or at least was, unlike any other country in the world.
We are trying to define our humanity by our "compassion" to our fellow man, but in the meanwhile we are taking away their humanity. We should allow people to succeed or fail on their own, not kind of succeed or get bailed out when there is a problem. This country allowed opportunity, but never guaranteed success. We do not need to be like every other country, we need to be like the ideals the country was originally founded on.
We were a diverse culture of persons who wanted to succeed and were willing to work to do so. Failure is acceptable, but to overcome that failure you must force people to work through it. Now, in an attempt to promote harmony and contentment we are taking success, failure and individualism out of our culture and replacing it with apathy, dependancy, and integration. This is being done by a government that is so top heavy that we will eventually be crushed under its weight. Many see the government as a benevolant entity, but it is not. It is only the sum of its parts, and its parts are made up of crooks and ambitious persons that are allowed to thrive in a way that would normally be rooted out in the privates sector. Sure greed runs rampant in the private sector, but the furtherance of out civilization has been built on the contributions of the greedy.
There is no utopia, unless apathy and lethargy is included in your utopia. There is no perfect system that will fix all of our problems. So we need to allow America to stand on the principles it was founded on to be the greatest country in the world, not the pork barrel that it has become. http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2005Oinkers
Caring for the elderly, dsiabled, and youth of America is in no way what I am talking about. We do have the responsibility of caring for those who are UNABLE to do so, but that responsibility does not extend to caring for those whose choices have prevented them from creating security for themselves.
Is it feasible to implement the government managing the payment of healthcare?- Certainly. Is it right for America to allow the government to manage the payment of healthcare?- No.
I believe that The United States Of America was once the greatest country in the world because it provided an opportunity to succeed. That opportunity has been dealt blow after blow by a bereaucracy that further burdens its subjects with nonsensical regulations and taxes and fees for every step of every process. Does the government have its place?- Most deifinitely. Does the government run things efficiently?- Somewhat. Should the government be more involved in the day to day life of the average person?- NO. America is, or at least was, unlike any other country in the world.
We are trying to define our humanity by our "compassion" to our fellow man, but in the meanwhile we are taking away their humanity. We should allow people to succeed or fail on their own, not kind of succeed or get bailed out when there is a problem. This country allowed opportunity, but never guaranteed success. We do not need to be like every other country, we need to be like the ideals the country was originally founded on.
We were a diverse culture of persons who wanted to succeed and were willing to work to do so. Failure is acceptable, but to overcome that failure you must force people to work through it. Now, in an attempt to promote harmony and contentment we are taking success, failure and individualism out of our culture and replacing it with apathy, dependancy, and integration. This is being done by a government that is so top heavy that we will eventually be crushed under its weight. Many see the government as a benevolant entity, but it is not. It is only the sum of its parts, and its parts are made up of crooks and ambitious persons that are allowed to thrive in a way that would normally be rooted out in the privates sector. Sure greed runs rampant in the private sector, but the furtherance of out civilization has been built on the contributions of the greedy.
There is no utopia, unless apathy and lethargy is included in your utopia. There is no perfect system that will fix all of our problems. So we need to allow America to stand on the principles it was founded on to be the greatest country in the world, not the pork barrel that it has become. http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2005Oinkers
OP
OP
VinBin
Forum Captain
- 274
- 5
- 18
Squid, my portrayal of Canada isnt an all encompassing statement about every individual or even your opinion, those that feel that they should depend on others for healthcare have nothing to worry about...Even the American Medical Student Association(Same site that included http://www.amsa.org/uhc/myths.cfm from Stevo), (which seems to be an organization full of Bleeding Hearts), they even clearly address that the problems that I noted in Canada DO EXIST...for example:
There are coverage gaps in the healthcare system, particularly for outpatient prescription drugs and home care [2].
Waiting lists for certain elective procedures is a problem for some Canadians [1].
Except this article actually cited and wasnt a ridiculously biased report which only cites "Experts and random ideas" as FACT.
Take a look at the WRITERS of the article that apparently "debunks" the "MYTHS OF NHI": They are a group of Medical Students which have no doubt been bombarded for almost 8 years with Liberal cathphrases (as I am now in college almost everyday)...They view rich/sucess and individualism as "bad" and all the poor as "lost souls that need direction". Also note that they view, as many here do, that the low income/poor cannot take care of themselves or tell right from wrong...For example, The same Medical Student Group on Obesity...
What can we do?
Action is necessary at many levels. Federal and State policymakers must act now to stem this growing public health threat. Medical students must push for meaningful policy change, while simultaneously addressing the issue at the grass-roots level through community outreach and education.
See a problem here with the basic approach to the problem?
The rhetoric here isnt inaccurate Stevo, its just different opinions on the same matter...
)...Nobel Laureates and their location have nothing to do with America's rate of research and findings in the medical field...
hfdff422 is absolutely right...You have to put everything in perspective, yes there are poor, and there are rich. But individually, they are two different people with different life experiences, one owes nothing to the other...I dont owe nothing to you Stevo if you fall into hard times, and if I "fail" and become a havenot, as you put it (I would also ask in what sense) you have no moral obligation to pay for me. Will there be help, and charity? Absolutely, there always will be, its human nature to help those in real need but to force others to take care of everyone is, indeed criminal.
Here is an example: There is this flier statement that is put all across my univeristy by one of the BHL groups....I think it went something like this:
A person in the US has (something like) a 1:10,000 chance of being murdered, while a Transvestite has a 1:12 chance of being murdered, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
I usually say to myself...nothing, I have nothing to do with their lifestyle, its not my job to protect them. What those BHL dont see is that the person is capable of making choices for themselves (what they conveniently leave out is that Transvestites in general put themselves in high risk situaitons that include a ridiculous amount of sexual partners and high correlation of drug use). See if you can make the connection to HealthCare in terms of responsibility...
There are coverage gaps in the healthcare system, particularly for outpatient prescription drugs and home care [2].
There is significant tension between the federal and provincial governments over both financing and jurisdiction, which has resulted in several heated battles in recent years [2].
Waiting lists for certain elective procedures is a problem for some Canadians [1].
Except this article actually cited and wasnt a ridiculously biased report which only cites "Experts and random ideas" as FACT.
Take a look at the WRITERS of the article that apparently "debunks" the "MYTHS OF NHI": They are a group of Medical Students which have no doubt been bombarded for almost 8 years with Liberal cathphrases (as I am now in college almost everyday)...They view rich/sucess and individualism as "bad" and all the poor as "lost souls that need direction". Also note that they view, as many here do, that the low income/poor cannot take care of themselves or tell right from wrong...For example, The same Medical Student Group on Obesity...
What can we do?
Action is necessary at many levels. Federal and State policymakers must act now to stem this growing public health threat. Medical students must push for meaningful policy change, while simultaneously addressing the issue at the grass-roots level through community outreach and education.
See a problem here with the basic approach to the problem?
The rhetoric here isnt inaccurate Stevo, its just different opinions on the same matter...
Stevo said:
Stevo said:
I dont understand what this means...We are no longer free?? Based on what? We have no freedom? Based on what? And what does oursourcing have anything to do with it? These sound more like catchphrases than a definition of the situation in America...This isnt indicative at all about medical research and advancement as a whole, ffemt8978 is right, many of the innovations and products that are brought into the market, such as surgical techniques, treatements, and such arent traced back to an individual, but rather a research company or university (and if they are traced back to an individual, he wont get a Nobel Prize for it, unless he gives it free to everyone in the worldStevo said:
)...Nobel Laureates and their location have nothing to do with America's rate of research and findings in the medical field... hfdff422 is absolutely right...You have to put everything in perspective, yes there are poor, and there are rich. But individually, they are two different people with different life experiences, one owes nothing to the other...I dont owe nothing to you Stevo if you fall into hard times, and if I "fail" and become a havenot, as you put it (I would also ask in what sense) you have no moral obligation to pay for me. Will there be help, and charity? Absolutely, there always will be, its human nature to help those in real need but to force others to take care of everyone is, indeed criminal.
Here is an example: There is this flier statement that is put all across my univeristy by one of the BHL groups....I think it went something like this:
A person in the US has (something like) a 1:10,000 chance of being murdered, while a Transvestite has a 1:12 chance of being murdered, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
I usually say to myself...nothing, I have nothing to do with their lifestyle, its not my job to protect them. What those BHL dont see is that the person is capable of making choices for themselves (what they conveniently leave out is that Transvestites in general put themselves in high risk situaitons that include a ridiculous amount of sexual partners and high correlation of drug use). See if you can make the connection to HealthCare in terms of responsibility...
Stevo
Forum Asst. Chief
- 885
- 3
- 18
interesting replies.
we have issues such as personal responsibility, a mistrust for big goverment which is wieghed against the private sector, my source of comparrison to Canadian NHC has been approached as liberal, and i apparently need to explain my side track to Ben Franklins quote.
allow me to parse these out, and let's see what fruitful debate may follow..
first off, how does the concept of personal responsibility evaporate under NHC ?(or researsh for that matter) It would seem to me that i've transported many a crash victim merely for 'insurance reasons', with low to no MOI, and no real CC under the present system.
why?
well ,it seems they wish for someone else to pay for their problem, or potential problem. I seriously doubt i'm alone amongst my peers here in said scenario. In fact in quite sure the legal community could chime in and back me up
yes , i believe in personal responsibility,but i also beleive that any governance has a responsibility to it's citizens. In fact a good read ( and best seller) pursuant to this would be Jarad Diamonds Collapse.
why would i bring this up in relation to NHC ?
because every civilization within our rememeberance that had failed did so when they failed the masses. the very same signs and sympthoms are present now in America, examples such as this are not hard to find on the net, they are public knowledge.
part of the reason lies in our priorities here at this time.
(plug the #'s in and it becomes a little clearer)
Instead, we could have insured
137,154,959
children for one year.
I do beleive Eisenhower was right back when he forsaw the course we have taken.
as to mistrust of goverment, i'm no fan of liars, so hopefully that answers any queries there. however they do (allegedly) work for us, and the commonweal we enjoy is something we are billed for via our vote, thus the concept of personal responsibility for our roads, energy, water, or whatever resources we have are collective ideally rests in our Vote
the concept could easily extend itself to NHC
as to the Canadian link being painted liberal, there exists an entire internet of examples that are not so, take your pick.
myself i am an old world conservative, not to be confused with the current neo-con jaunta. One thing us conservatives like is things to stay the same, but as the world of health care is going bad quickly i find no conservation of the citizenship under present system available
It's changed, and it's done so radically in the last decade, give it another decade and a good % of the populance are just not going to cut the mustard here no matter how many jobs they may work in a week.
as to my return on B. Franklins quote (which i like) let me put it this way.
How does anyone expect the USA to carry the torch of freedom anywhere on this rock if we are trashing it at home
those of you who fail to grasp this might well take a peek at the Congressional order to trash the PA, (allbeit an 06' electoral is nearing )
it all ties in together, imho, the economy, our deficit, our priorities and NHC
~S~
we have issues such as personal responsibility, a mistrust for big goverment which is wieghed against the private sector, my source of comparrison to Canadian NHC has been approached as liberal, and i apparently need to explain my side track to Ben Franklins quote.
allow me to parse these out, and let's see what fruitful debate may follow..
first off, how does the concept of personal responsibility evaporate under NHC ?(or researsh for that matter) It would seem to me that i've transported many a crash victim merely for 'insurance reasons', with low to no MOI, and no real CC under the present system.
why?
well ,it seems they wish for someone else to pay for their problem, or potential problem. I seriously doubt i'm alone amongst my peers here in said scenario. In fact in quite sure the legal community could chime in and back me up
yes , i believe in personal responsibility,but i also beleive that any governance has a responsibility to it's citizens. In fact a good read ( and best seller) pursuant to this would be Jarad Diamonds Collapse.
why would i bring this up in relation to NHC ?
because every civilization within our rememeberance that had failed did so when they failed the masses. the very same signs and sympthoms are present now in America, examples such as this are not hard to find on the net, they are public knowledge.
part of the reason lies in our priorities here at this time.
(plug the #'s in and it becomes a little clearer)
Instead, we could have insured
137,154,959
children for one year.
I do beleive Eisenhower was right back when he forsaw the course we have taken.
as to mistrust of goverment, i'm no fan of liars, so hopefully that answers any queries there. however they do (allegedly) work for us, and the commonweal we enjoy is something we are billed for via our vote, thus the concept of personal responsibility for our roads, energy, water, or whatever resources we have are collective ideally rests in our Vote
the concept could easily extend itself to NHC
as to the Canadian link being painted liberal, there exists an entire internet of examples that are not so, take your pick.
myself i am an old world conservative, not to be confused with the current neo-con jaunta. One thing us conservatives like is things to stay the same, but as the world of health care is going bad quickly i find no conservation of the citizenship under present system available
It's changed, and it's done so radically in the last decade, give it another decade and a good % of the populance are just not going to cut the mustard here no matter how many jobs they may work in a week.
as to my return on B. Franklins quote (which i like) let me put it this way.
How does anyone expect the USA to carry the torch of freedom anywhere on this rock if we are trashing it at home
those of you who fail to grasp this might well take a peek at the Congressional order to trash the PA, (allbeit an 06' electoral is nearing )
it all ties in together, imho, the economy, our deficit, our priorities and NHC
~S~
The failure to our masses is no greater now than 100 years ago, the failure is just reported in a manner that it has never been before. There is no failing to the citizens if we stay out of their daily lives, only if we take from them, promise them something for it, then fail to give them a fair return. The government is ripe with examples of this. Almost every social security or pension fund is failing due to corruption or shortsightedness. The government itself is not so inept that it cannot administrate healthcare, but the people who are in charge of decision making are not as capable as the heads of many households in America. We need to be a country of self-made people, not governmentally controlled people. How can we have pride in ourselves if the governance of our lives is not our responsibility? How can we be individuals if we are forced to meld into the oneness of a monopoly? Microsoft is forced apart, but the Federal monopoly that is ever expanding without due regard to the principles it was founded on is the one that should redelegate the powers to the states in the same manner. True irony. We need to take every chance we get to stop giving power over to the steamrolling powerhouse.
The reasons Stevo has listed to start NHC are all good reasons, and he has done nothing but produce a compelling argument of feasibility and humanity. My belief that we should not do it is only based on the ideas that we need to staunch the bleeding of our self respect and personal responsibility and we need to be willing to expect our fellow man to take care of himself so that they can be the best they can be instead of a growing dependant class. The government has gone too far in insuring that we have all the safety nets to fall back on which has only insured mediocrity and complacence.
The reasons Stevo has listed to start NHC are all good reasons, and he has done nothing but produce a compelling argument of feasibility and humanity. My belief that we should not do it is only based on the ideas that we need to staunch the bleeding of our self respect and personal responsibility and we need to be willing to expect our fellow man to take care of himself so that they can be the best they can be instead of a growing dependant class. The government has gone too far in insuring that we have all the safety nets to fall back on which has only insured mediocrity and complacence.
Stevo
Forum Asst. Chief
- 885
- 3
- 18
and i do thank you for a sanguine debate hfdff422, in fact it bears repeating that i also fear a totaltarianistic rule here, in only in that the larger it is allowed to grow, the more functionally inept it becomes.
anyone whom can see past the glittering fodder big gov hands us realizes the path we are on isn't a good one.
in fact, recent news about raising the national debt limit is akin to a wild teen on a bing with his parents credit card.
however i would ask that we look past our present situation and view our country objectively (as we are all trained to do soap anyways)
from a purely unbiased political view, communism is taught to be a great system in it's pure form, the trouble is there's always some faction looking to get a leg up on everyone else, sans the concepts demise....
capatalist systems are also taught to be a great system, however the very same malady of it being overbearingly inequitable allows it the very same demise.
they are comparitively , no less an animal that eats itself , unless the governance installs checks and balances to prevent this from happening
you and i are no less a captive sharecropper under either system, the only difference really being a free society allows for it's minions to howl in the wilderness instead of being condemmed to a gulag
so if we view any country in simplistic terms being a good place to live, we need to rate ourselves objectively.
if in fact we come to the point where the average joe bag o' donuts can't assume a livable situation, can't sustain within his (or her) best efforts a family , i would put it to the group here that then they are not personally responsible for their demise
a good example might be the russians right now, i don't think many even live long enough to die of a disease other than alcoholism, their governance is a shambles, the peoples in various subsets revolting
i don't want to see that here, and the way to ensure this (stricktly imho) is to maintain the governace as being a serving entity to the people, instead of one that is serving it's top 1% on the backs of them
yrs....
~S~
Stevo
Forum Asst. Chief
- 885
- 3
- 18
health care concerns are moving to our legislative forefronts....
note my state's sunday headlines today
the issue grows directly proportional to what our citizenship can reasonalby claim as their personal responsibility within the median incomes scope of living standards in America at this time
unfortunately, i see this as an ecomonic juggernaut which i suspect many ems providers will be confronted in the field with.... i know i have, i'll assume many of my counterparts here are also...
~S~
note my state's sunday headlines today
the issue grows directly proportional to what our citizenship can reasonalby claim as their personal responsibility within the median incomes scope of living standards in America at this time
unfortunately, i see this as an ecomonic juggernaut which i suspect many ems providers will be confronted in the field with.... i know i have, i'll assume many of my counterparts here are also...
~S~