Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby's 12th grade AP US Government class at Jefferson High School in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on the 2008 presidential campaign. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Presidential Campaign Blog
Objectives:
*To become proficient in the candidates & campaign methods in the 2008 presidential election
*To have an intelligent dialogue regarding the election with your peers
*To become more comfortable with an emerging technology in the field of political science (blogging)
Student Tasks:
*To have an email account to do this assignment. If you do not have one please see the instructor for help.
*Student will need to do their own independent research using online sources.
*To post a minimum of 4 times your own independent comment on the 4 questions/topics the teacher posts throughout the quarter. Your post should offer a unique contribution to the discussion. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*To post a minimum of 4 times in response to other students. Your post should either be a concurring opinion (add to the argument by offering relevant points & new sources to develop that argument) or you can dissent with a peer. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*A post should be a full paragraph and use correct grammar and spelling. Your posts should comment on or attack the argument of a peer – not the peer her or himself. There is an expectation by the instructor & the administration that the same standards for behavior & respect at school apply to the blog.
*To post online in a timely manner. The posts will be due on a series of due dates. Students need to post by the due date in order for the conversation to be able to continue on track. Late posts will not receive half credit.
*Students are not required to represent their own personal opinions. You can play “devil’s advocate” in order to challenge each other & move the conversation forward. It is the instructor’s belief that all sides of the argument be understood in order to appreciate the complexity of the issue.
* Students should not use text message language in their posts. This is an academic blog and should use formal language.
Site Recommendations (please pass on other sites you’d recommend!):
Washington Post (washingtonpost.com)
LA Times (latimes.com)
New York Times (nytimes.com)
BBC (bbc.co.uk)
The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)
Aljazeera (english.aljazeera.net/English)
Newspapers internationally & domestically (refdesk.com/paper.html)
The teacher will grade the student’s blog posts holistically. In addition, the individual student will choose which posts (1 original post & 1 response post) to submit for grading.
The criteria for evaluating includes: the organization of information, consideration of alternatives, disciplinary content, elaborated written communication, research, amount of contributions, & the quality of writing.
*To become proficient in the candidates & campaign methods in the 2008 presidential election
*To have an intelligent dialogue regarding the election with your peers
*To become more comfortable with an emerging technology in the field of political science (blogging)
Student Tasks:
*To have an email account to do this assignment. If you do not have one please see the instructor for help.
*Student will need to do their own independent research using online sources.
*To post a minimum of 4 times your own independent comment on the 4 questions/topics the teacher posts throughout the quarter. Your post should offer a unique contribution to the discussion. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*To post a minimum of 4 times in response to other students. Your post should either be a concurring opinion (add to the argument by offering relevant points & new sources to develop that argument) or you can dissent with a peer. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*A post should be a full paragraph and use correct grammar and spelling. Your posts should comment on or attack the argument of a peer – not the peer her or himself. There is an expectation by the instructor & the administration that the same standards for behavior & respect at school apply to the blog.
*To post online in a timely manner. The posts will be due on a series of due dates. Students need to post by the due date in order for the conversation to be able to continue on track. Late posts will not receive half credit.
*Students are not required to represent their own personal opinions. You can play “devil’s advocate” in order to challenge each other & move the conversation forward. It is the instructor’s belief that all sides of the argument be understood in order to appreciate the complexity of the issue.
* Students should not use text message language in their posts. This is an academic blog and should use formal language.
Site Recommendations (please pass on other sites you’d recommend!):
Washington Post (washingtonpost.com)
LA Times (latimes.com)
New York Times (nytimes.com)
BBC (bbc.co.uk)
The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)
Aljazeera (english.aljazeera.net/English)
Newspapers internationally & domestically (refdesk.com/paper.html)
The teacher will grade the student’s blog posts holistically. In addition, the individual student will choose which posts (1 original post & 1 response post) to submit for grading.
The criteria for evaluating includes: the organization of information, consideration of alternatives, disciplinary content, elaborated written communication, research, amount of contributions, & the quality of writing.
43 comments:
To heather
I disagree that universal health care is the best way to go about getting everyone health care. I believe that health care should come from the states. Some states such as Massachusetts are getting many more people insured for health care. This is through a mandate that requires individuals to purchase health care or receive a fine. So far, about half of those uninsured in Massachusetts have purchased health care (1). If more states implemented this plan, then the 47 million people without health care would drop down to about 23 million. This would be a big improvement. Though this could result in a higher cost of insurance, Massachusetts is limiting premiums to only a 5% increase so that insurance remains affordable (3). Health care is not a fundamental right. Health care is provided to you by someone else as an exchange, whereas a right is something that you naturally receive. Though I do agree that people should receive health care, I do not view it as something that you get for free.
One problem that you had not mentioned was that with employer covered health insurance, if someone loses a job, it is hard to find another source of insurance, especially if there is a previous health condition (4).
As for your point that most who are uninsured are nonwhites, I would like to add that minority groups often face language barriers and “subconscious bias” by doctors (2). Another thought to add is that 40% of the people who are not covered by insurance are young. This means that they are 18-34 and are much more likely to be healthy than elderly Americans (5).
Sources:
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701454_2.html
2. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/90860.php
3. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/90864.php
4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101201945.html
5. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/05/AR2007120502235.html
To Michelle Ludwig,
I enjoyed reading your analysis on why it's not effective for employers to provide healthcare for their employees. I think that the disparities between the income of companies (say a multi-billion dollar corporation versus a family owned business) would be equally represented as disparities in the quality of healthcare that employees would receive. For example, the multi billion dollar corporation would be able to provide quality care for all of its employees, whereas the family owned business would have trouble providing even the most basic insurance and care.
The only problem that I forecast for a state-operated system is a problem that even plagues an employer-based system. I believe that states that aren't as large and don't receive as much tax revenue will be forced to provide sub-standard care to their constituents. For example, the state of New Hampshire has no sales tax. As a result, their education system is already crumbling, and placing a requirement of mandatory healthcare on their government seems like an undue burden. Not only do they lack the financial resources to implement such a program, but the money could better be spent in a different area (such as education).
Although any program that requires healthcare, such as a state-sponsored or universal system, requires resources that our governments currently don't have, I agree with you that it is a necessary part of our future.
I am responding to Andy’s post. I agree with what you wrote, which is mainly that our current healthcare system does not help the poor, but a universal healthcare system is not the best solution to our problems. You brought up some valid problems with a universal healthcare system, which are long wait times for medical attention, less competition between medical practitioners to give the best care possible, and increased taxes.
I think the increased taxes to fund this system would be a problem, but I think the long wait times and quality of care given would be a bigger problem. The long wait times could lead to medical problems becoming worse, and they would impact almost everyone in America. However, sometimes people with connections like politicians or celebrities would be able to bypass the waiting. For example, an article from the Fraser Institute, which deals with statistics in Canada, noted that there are inequalities in the Canadian universal healthcare system, “Preferential access to cardiovascular surgery on the basis of nonclinical factors such as personal prominence or political connections is common” (1). Also, the wait times do not consider employment status, such as giving a shorter wait time to a person who is losing money because they can’t work (1).
Another point I would add to your argument is that many people who support a universal healthcare system look at the infant mortality rates and life expectancy in America, which are low compared to other countries. However, looking at a small number of statistics does not prove that countries with a universal healthcare system are having more success at fighting disease. For example, there are mortality rates that show countries with a universal healthcare system are worse than the U.S. in fighting some diseases. The mortality rate for breast cancer is 25%; while in Britain and New Zealand it’s 46% and Canada 28%. For prostate cancer, the mortality rate for America is 19%, while it is much higher in France with 49%, in Canada it’s 25% and in Britain it’s 57%, which means that over half the people in Britain diagnosed with prostate cancer die from it (2). Rates like these show that different countries have different amounts of success at treating medical problems, and you cannot look at just one statistic to determine that a system is totally effective.
Another point is that competition in the healthcare system leads to medical practitioners trying to give the best care possible to receive more patients and more money. When the competition is eliminated, there is less benefit for medical practitioners who give better quality services, and thus the incentive to do so is decreased. This would lead to a decrease in the quality of healthcare given to everyone in the U.S.
Although I think something needs to be done, I think a universal healthcare plan is not the most effective. I think it would have a negative impact on the quality of care given, and that would impact everyone in America. We can see universal healthcare systems being used around the world, and we can see where they have problems. We can also see where they have success, like in the much lower costs per person for healthcare. I think we should find a system that can incorporate the main idea of universal healthcare (healthcare for all), while avoiding the big problems in the universal healthcare system. I think under the current ideas of how a universal healthcare system should work, the wealthy will be able to buy great healthcare for themselves while the majority of Americans will suffer. I think the mandate in Massachusetts is a good idea that is having success, and more states adopting such plans could be beneficial to Americans.
(1) www.fraserinstitute.edu
(2) www.galegroup.com (Orient, Jane)
Responding to Elise Gale
I agree with you that a state-run health insurance program would not be the worst system for our country to adopt. Geography plays a much bigger role in a person’s health than one may think. You mentioned air pollution as your example, which is a huge part of it. A study done by Richard Mitchell concluded that “living in an area in which deindustrialisation has taken place will significantly increase an individual’s chance of reporting ill health” (3). Also other cultural factors, such as stress, economic status, and access to health care all play a significant role in disease onset (1). Poverty, more than anything, influences someone’s well-being. It is a relentlessly researched fact that lower income households have higher mortality, morbidity, and disability rates, usually due to a lack of access to adequate healthcare, but also due to exposure to toxic and hazardous living environments (2). Poverty puts U.S. citizens in situations where they are constantly given less than they need. Because of this, their health, above all else, suffers. Jeffrey Reiman, a political scientist, says “less money means less nutritious food, less heat in winter, less fresh air in summer, less distance from sick people, less knowledge about illness or medicine, fewer doctor visits, fewer dental visits, less preventative care, and above all else, less first-quality medical attention when all these other deprivations take their toll and a poor person finds himself seriously ill” (2). Poverty makes it almost impossible to avoid illness, and makes it much more difficult to separate from once adopted. A state run program would be better suited to address the needs of their specific location.
(1)http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0702/overview.html
(2)http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm
(3)http://www.geocomputation.org/1998/41/gc_41.htm
To Victor
I disagree with your preceptions of the governments responsibilities. I believe that in protecting americans life liberty and pursuit of happiness that the government has an inherent responsibility to provide citizens with adequate healthcare to protect them. You make an excellent point about the possible cost’s involved in instituting universal health care. Where Sweden employs universal health care and suffers no great loss of physicians or medical integrity.(1) I also believe that it is implied it the “social contract” implied in the constitution and declaration of independence that a person has the inherent right to be protected. I do not believe that it is constitutional to decern between class and socioeconomic status to protect certain citizen’s lives which is what the current policy effectively does.
(1)http://www.pnhp.org/facts/international_health_systems.php?page=all
My response is to Miss Elise Gale,
As I stated in my post earlier, equal acess to health care is a fundamental right that all Americans are entitle to, and it is a job of the governement to ensure this right. However I do not think the states should have a hand in creating equal acesss to healthcare.
Leaving the matter of healthcare up to the states would create room for unequal acess in many states. It is true that the United States have a very diverse population, but a healtcare provided by the national government do not neccesarily mean all people are going to recieve a universal treatment. It merely means the availability of health care will be equal to all. People are affected by different illnesses and so people receive treatment base on their illnesses
Also for the health care system to work effectively, the “middle man,” which are the states should be cut out. You argued that funds should be distributed according to how effective the states health care solution is. I see a problem in that because, states that might not come up with the best solution, might still need to provide for the people in need. Taken the money away because of that, creates a disadvantage for the people in these states. These are all unnecessary if the national government comes up with one plan to implement and fund. Nonetheless, all states are going to have a say in what works because congress will definitely have to pass it.
To: Katie Plasynski
You made several very good arguments for universal health care in your post. While many people also support universal health care, few are able to explain why with such detail from so many angles.
One statistic that I was interested to learn was that only 42% of those living below the poverty line actually qualify for Medicaid. I think many people just assume that everyone below that level receive health care. However, I think it is also important to remember that many people who are above the poverty line can still not afford health insurance and are therefore, left unprotected.
I also appreciated how you made a point of mentioning that even those who can afford health insurance are sometimes denied coverage because of preexisting conditions. Also, how you pointed out that the people who do have health insurance are still often denied necessary treatment.
However, I am not sure that the states would be best equipped to provide health care. While it is true, they would most likely have more knowledge of the needs of their constituents, I can not help but feel that things would end up very uneven from state to states, much like our education system.
Overall, I think universal health care is the best solution. You made several very good arguments that I had not previously considered. I do not necessarily agree with you one how universal health care should be carried out, but I definitely agree with your goal.
http://covertheuninsured.org/media/releases/index.php?ReleaseID=1004
http://americanhealthcarereform.org/
http://www.2facts.com/ICOF/temp/64137tempi0200960.asp
http://www.2facts.com/ICOF/temp/62363tempi1000510.asp
To: Melissa Nemcek
I do agree that something needs to be done to correct the major problems we have with healthcare in this country. The main problem with the private industry providing healthcare in this country is the lack of people that are insured by the ridiculous costs of premiums. There are about 45 million uninsured Americans today (1).
I disagree with your opinion on who holds the main responsibility for providing healthcare to citizens in this country. I think that the state governments should hold the main responsibility for providing healthcare to the citizens of the United States. States can provide much more specialized care and programs than the government. It is much easier to provide more specialized healthcare to maybe a few million people in one state versus 300 million people in an entire country. The United States is a very diverse country as a whole, but a state’s population is much more likely to be uniform. For instance, a state like Florida, in which 16.8% of the population is 65 years old and older (the national average is 12.4%), will require more specialized programs that address the needs of the elderly. On the other hand a state like Utah, in which 30.1% of the population is under 18 years old (the national average is 24.8%), will not need the same programs as Florida with its older population(2). Also states like Mississippi and Iowa have very high rates of heart disease, while Utah and Minnesota don’t (3). The national government would not be able to do this type of specialization to certain parts of the population because it would have to provide coverage to a huge number of people.
(1)http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics
/a/censusbadnews.htm
(2)http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html
(3)http://cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/factsheets/
ChronicDisease
To Shaun Fernandez:
I think that you bring up many good points about using a free market system and I agre that 28% of GDP is a startling number. I also agree with you that healthcare is a basic right that all people are entitled to. That said, I think that it is the responsibility of the government to provide healthcare for all people, rich or poor.
Healthcare today is outrageously expensive and has been increasing drastically in the past few years (1). The average healthcare premium is now $11,500 per family, increasing 7.7% in the past year (1). This is a significant increase, even for a family considered to be “middle class.” Moreover, today’s middle class is not as stable as it used to be. According to a study conducted at Brandeis University, 2 out of 3 middle class American families are considered to be on “shaky financial ground,” having significant debts and a lack of financial assets (2). Thus, increasing healthcare costs are a burden for most Americans, even those considered to be relatively well-off financially.
I also think that in order to keep a government sponsored healthcare system, especially one that could potentially eat up a significant portion of the nation’s GDP, the healthcare system should cover everyone. If not, I think that it would find many opponents and its funding could be cut in the future.
(1)http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtm
(2)http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/bu-too112807.php
To Shaun Fernandez:
I think that you bring up many good points about using a free market system and I agre that 28% of GDP is a startling number. I also agree with you that healthcare is a basic right that all people are entitled to. That said, I think that it is the responsibility of the government to provide healthcare for all people, rich or poor.
Healthcare today is outrageously expensive and has been increasing drastically in the past few years (1). The average healthcare premium is now $11,500 per family, increasing 7.7% in the past year (1). This is a significant increase, even for a family considered to be “middle class.” Moreover, today’s middle class is not as stable as it used to be. According to a study conducted at Brandeis University, 2 out of 3 middle class American families are considered to be on “shaky financial ground,” having significant debts and a lack of financial assets (2). Thus, increasing healthcare costs are a burden for most Americans, even those considered to be relatively well-off financially.
I also think that in order to keep a government sponsored healthcare system, especially one that could potentially eat up a significant portion of the nation’s GDP, the healthcare system should cover everyone. If not, I think that it would find many opponents and its funding could be cut in the future.
(1)http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtm
(2)http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/bu-too112807.php
Lauren V,
I completely agree with you that we must fight to maintain competition in the healthcare market. By removing competition, there is no incentive for healthcare agencies to maintain quality medical care. If the government were the sole provider of healthcare, it would discourage innovation and suppress the development of new medical technologies. (1) As a future surgeon (hopefully…), I am strongly opposed to any proposal that would hinder the development of better medical care. However, not many people today are proposing abolition of privatized health care in lieu of a single system. By merely having the government as well as the private sector provide health care, we are not eliminating the profit incentive for innovation or competition. If anything, it is increasing competition by adding a newcomer to the market. (2) True, government provided healthcare may be substandard to expensive private care, yet the government’s goal should be to ensure that all citizens have access to at least basic health care. If people are willing to pay more for top-of-the-line care, it is not the government’s right to tell them that they cannot do so.
-Silas Berkowitz
1. http://www.amsa.org/uhc/theories.cfm
2. http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/18/3/76.pdf
To Chelsea Jernberg
I agree with your analysis of the reasons why lack of coverage is a problem in the US and how it’s mostly tied to employment. I appreciate that you went more indepth on this topic than many of the other posters. You point to decentralization of the system as a key part of the problem; I would take that a step further and say that the reason why some people in the US are still uninsured is the fact that it’s currently no one’s responsibility to make sure that they are.
If either employers were required to insure employees and the government makes up the gap for the unemployed, or the entire healthcare system became a state enterprise, either one of those solutions would insure that all Americans were insured. The former alternative is a thornier choice though; there is the question of who would be insured-- would part-time employees receive the same benefits, and what about small businesses that can’t afford to pay for health insurance? A government-run healthcare system would sidestep most of those particular problems, but raises a few problems of its own, such as the issue of whether such a vast bureaucracy would create even greater inefficiencies than the ones that currently exist in our patchwork system. Whether or not this becomes a problem is largely based on how a government entity to manage the healthcare system would be organized.
To Shaun:
I agree with your post whole heartedly. I came across the same type of conflict when deciding what stance to take on the healthcare issue. I do think a combination Universal plan and free-market plan would be the best compromise on an issue so diverse at this one. Though I argue that it is not needed to take money from other areas in order to fund our healthcare, we have enough to cover a newly organized system using the money we annually put into our current set up. We actually spend nearly seventeen percent of the entire economy just on healthcare. This percent is expected to continue to rise (1). Although I proposed a similar plan (though vague and rather less intelligibly) I do have a problem. I don’t know how one would decide who the poorest people are, or who would be allowed protection by the government. Would the deciding factor be by income bracket? Would a government subsidized plan be given to whoever wanted one? Also (though this may be irrelevant) would there be separate clinics, those that offered the universal plan and those that were on the free market plan? According to a survey of physicians, thirty to forty percent of those surveyed said they would not choose to go into the medical field if they could choose their profession again. Working hours of physicians are getting longer and longer and their wages are decreasing (1). This may mean that without sufficient competition and correction of the market, there will be no medical profession to turn to.
I did a little more research to answer my own questions. I think the government should have to subsidize some health care. It should be judged on a number of levels. The homeless should receive help and those who cannot afford the healthcare prices in their area based on their income and family size filed on tax forms. For those who are still unable to make ends meet, I believe that with less government intervention on the whole, institutions will be more willing than they already are to donate. In 2003 pharmaceutical companies provided free drugs to around 6.2 million people and many hospitals provide free care to people injured in catastrophes and those who are severely injured (1). I don’t promote a universal plan because it infringes on the rights of doctors businesses and patients to make their own decisions about the kind of care they want to receive. I also don’t believe that a universal plan would be able to successfully support the U.S. population. The best option is the middle road if possible.
1. http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp
To: Andy O.
I agree with you when you say that the current system of privatized healthcare is inefficient. In the status quo, people get coverage only if they’re employed and even then, the coverage is minimal.
However, I disagree when you say the universal system is not the right answer. I don’t think it would be a radical shift for those of us who can already afford healthcare or for the health providers. However, it can be a lifesaver for those 50 million who currently live in the United States without it. This can easily be done if we eliminate insurance companies and replace it with the government. Instead of having the doctors file their claims with the insurance companies, they can do so with the government.
Also, I don’t believe that limited choice of doctors, waiting lists and the lack of enthusiasm are unique to a universalized system. Even with insurance, you have to choose from a list of doctors they provide for you. Also, the government can pay the doctor their current salary without a problem. Thus, the source of problems would not lie in a decreased income.
I believe it is morally wrong to sacrifice the lives of millions of Americans so that we can hold on to our ideals of a free market system. Besides, economists generally agree that a market is not efficient when there are external benefits (the insurance companies.)
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701454_2.html
In response to Shannon McEvoy:
I find the statistics you provide really interesting. Something the article you used pointed out that I think is really interesting is that a major factor in the high cost of American health insurance is the sheer number of people who actually aren’t insured.
Actually, I find it to be quite backwards that the United States is literally the only developed country in the world excluding South Africa that does not provide health care to all of its citizens. Millions of Americans are left without health care within our current system. In fact, the US places as one of the worst countries in the world in addressing health care of its citizens. (1) I think Switzerland definitely has an interesting and effective health care system. I also think I agree with the basis that the government tackled the issue. It includes a federal mandate of basic health insurance with optional supplements at more local areas. (2) In my previous post I articulated that this would probably be the most effective way for our national government and our state governments to address health care for American citizens. I think that addressing it on the national level in a broad coverage system, and then supplements and benefits to health care should be left as an option regulated by the state governments or by the private sector.
(1) http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
(2) http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Switzerland.pdf
To:Mia
I disagree with your belief that our nation should have a universal healthcare system and that healthcare should be fundamental right. However, if the nation were to implement a universal system, I like your idea that the healthcare should be taken care of by state instead of the national government. This way, the states could tailor the healthcare system to the citizens of that specific state therefore possibly creating more effective healthcare.
Also, you said a universal healthcare system would cost $35-69 billion. what I'm wondering is is how the United States is going to pay that huge amount of money. With an already large amount of naitonal debt, I think it would greatly hurt the economy to put a universal healthcare system into place.
Another thing is that a universal system of healthcare decreases innovation in drug companies as well as competition amongst doctors etc. so although the healthcare may vary from state to state, it still wouldn't be as competitive as it is with the current system of healthcare.
To victorw:
I think your argument against a universal health care system is flawed for a couple of reasons. First, you seem to be confusing a single-payer system with government providing the actual health care itself. Under more systems advocated, care would still be provided by private practice; it would be the health insurance that is provided by the government. Doctors, hospitals, etc. will still getting the same amount of money, just from a different source.
Also, the system we currently have has astronomical costs as it is. If an uninsured goes into a hospital for something such as a heart attack, they still get treated and society has to pay the cost anyway. If they have health insurance and regular care, it could prevent them from having health problems in the first place, thereby lowering costs. (This is from an article in the most recent Newsweek...yeah..)
~This is Kendra
To Asia:
So I am taking a different position on my response than I did on my original blog: a universal healthcare system would not be a beneficial solution to our current problem. I would like to question part of your argument when you said that no Americans should be denied health care for any reason. Theoretically this is an admirable and optimistic point of view; in reality however, this makes it easy for people completely fit to work to choose not to because they live in a society where “the government will take care of me”. I know that I am playing devil’s advocate here, but, we are a nation founded on the principles of hard work—what kind of future are we creating where a citizens need contribute nothing to society and yet they still reaps the health benefits as though they were working. Our country also prides itself on being a free market in which competition is the driving force behind our entire economy. Do we really want to take away all competition in the health industry? You mention that this type of a system has been set up in Canada and is working relatively well. There is, however, a significant Canadian population that seeks health care in the United States and elsewhere outside of Canada because the Canadian government will not fund certain medical procedures (1). “Private hospital companies in India are seeing tens of thousands of patients a year from outside that country’s borders.” (1) Because the United States is not using a government-run health care system, we have the luxury of having advanced, specialized clinics and procedures because our system is run off of need, not what the government deems necessary. Health care is a complex issue and there are many proposed solutions; I just hope the United States moves in a direction that values and rewards work and continues to allow its citizens many options when it comes to their health.
(1)http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15034
To: Rachel
While you make some solid points concerning to the matter of universal health care, I still have to disagree with your overall premise that universal health care would be the best solution for the United States. While all industrialized nations may have a universal health care system in place, many are making changes to it because of the problems it has caused. Also, it is likely that politicians are overstating the number of Americans without health care (1). Taxes will also have to be raised to support a universal health care system. This will also be very unpopular, and the unpopularity could cancel out any net savings the US would receive. While you say that a universal system will entitle everyone the right to receive health care, a universal health care system would also cause hospitals to become more crowded and lines will grow. Patients, even those needing urgent care, will end up having to wait for a much longer amount of time to receive care (2). You also mention that privatization causes some individuals to worry because they feel they cannot afford such care. However, privatization and free markets give doctors and medical researchers incentive to develop new and advanced drugs. Without such incentive for innovation, developments in medicine will slow. This may also cause doctors to switch industries to somewhere with less regulated field (2). While I don’t think our current health care system is perfect, I do not feel that a universal health care system would be the best solution.
1. http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2007/11/14/Columns/Boris.Ryvkin.09.No.To.Universal.Health.Care-3099863.shtml
2. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=44064
To: Liana Bratton
I agreed with many things you said in your post, especially your point that preventative medicine will play a bigger role when people do not have to worry about the costs of getting a check up. I also agree that there are some people who will need more healthcare than others, like "the obese and smokers," but that the benefit to the country as a whole outweighs the cost of the healthy paying for some of the treatments for the sick.
Although I agreed with you on many of the general points, I have to disagree with you regarding a state or national system. You said the states should not run a universal program because "everyone needs healthcare." However, I believe that is exactly why we need a state run system. A state-by-state bureaucracy will be smaller and more efficient than a national agency that would have to look over everyone’s concerns. This would same taxpayer’s money and insure more personal care.
Sources:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/why-not-single-payer-par_b_75070.html
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18265
In response to Elise:
Elise, I thought definitely agreed with you on some points and disagreed with you on others. There is definitely a crisis going on in our country we have to find some way to insure the many that we are going without. 13% of our GDP is spent on healthcare and I find this to be a really frightening fact (1).
However the one thing that I disagree on is the comment that employers should not have to provide healthcare. If employers provide healthcare, that can take some of the monetary burden away from the government. If employers would be required to provide healthcare as in Hawaii, it might take some of the monetary burden away from the national government (2). Then more funds could be channeled into fixing Medicare and Medicaid, not creating an extremely costly universal health system.
Even though we did not agree on how we should get healthcare to American citizens, Elise, you and I did agree on one thing. The state will definitely be the best means to help their constituents with healthcare. Each state presents a unique set of health problems ranging from obesity to chemical spills to pollution to the elderly. States are the best to handle their individual needs.
I realize that your plan of taking away federal block grants within 5 to 10 years if the states have not created a comprehensive plan was intended to speed up the process. However, I believe that could be one of the worst possible things you could do. That would simply create states without funding, which could not only not provide for everyone in the states, they wouldn’t even be able to provide for Medicaid and Medicare. This is really troubling. I realize that this is not what is meant, but I would fear that this is what would end up happening.
Sources:
1) "Introduction to Health Care: Opposing Viewpoints." Opposing Viewpoints: Health Care. Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. JEFFERSON SR HIGH SCHOOL- MN. 2 Dec. 2007
2) http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/dhmaine.htm
for whatever reason the blog would not allow me to post the gale group html
To Shaun Fernandes:
I agree that while the poorest Americans should receive medical care provided by the government, it is not the right answer for everyone. But by splitting the healthcare system into two brackets, a bracket for the poor and a bracket for the middle to high-income, I believe there will be an awful disparity between the two. As I said in my previous post, the difference in quality between competitive healthcare and government funded healthcare would be great. Should the poorest people of our country receive the poorest medical treatment? Some people may answer yes, but that just doesn't seem morally right. It's an extremely difficult decision to make, and it goes back to the basic question: Is it a person's fault and responsibility if they're poor?
Sources:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-tanner5apr05,0,2227144.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
To: Lauren Vann
From: Michelle Ludwig
Although I am still a supporter of universal healthcare, some of the things in your post really got me thinking. The one thing that I don’t like about the idea of universal healthcare is that it is taking away the whole idea of capitalism that we have in our society today. I feel that it is this capitalism and this competition that we have that does keep people striving for things, and that the idea of capitalism is really what this country was founded on. At the same time however, I feel that the millions of people out there who are sick and suffering are much more important and deserve that care. I did think that it was interesting how you said that the quality of care might go down, because I agree with that, and that is another thing that worries me about universal healthcare. At the same time however, people may be more likely to go into the doctor with symptoms of something earlier because they can afford to go, therefore curing people earlier and avoiding more complicated procedures (1). The one thing that I did disagree with in your post was about the increase of taxes. Granted, no one is going to enjoy the increase, but personally, when you look at it, these people really need the money and the help, and I think that putting a few extra dollars to the government is completely worth it to save a life, especially if it is an increase for the wealthy people who have that money to share.
http://www.balancedpolitics.org
In response to Molly’s post:
I agree with the points you made and positions you held regarding health care. I appreciate that you included the general public’s opinion-that our system is in need of a great change. As this topic becomes more and more popular in politics, it remains crucial that our representative listen to the voices of the people. Along those lines, I agree that people should not have to avoid visiting the doctor because they are inadequately insured, yet fifty percent of people do (1). Furthermore, I agree with your position that health care should be a national responsibility and a localized program. Region to region needs are different, and this should be accounted for. A national program would allow all Americans the coverage they need and deserve. Proven successful in other developed nation, we too could thrive under this universal system.
Sources
1. http://www.ebri.org/publications/notes/index.cfm?fa=notesDisp&content_id=3857
Response to Michelle
I totally agree that a universal healthcare plan is not the best action to be taken at the current time. But that does not mean that we should not reform our policies to make healthcare more readily available. I know millions of Americans do not have health insurance, but I do not think it is the responsibility of the US government to cover these costs. The American Constitution does not say anywhere that the federal government is to have a major role in healthcare. Our government has the job to promise that there are rules in medicine and that it is enforced. Our government is supposed to prevent abuse, malpractice and corruption. The US government is $9 trillion in debt and I do not think spending billions and billions of more dollars is going to solve our deficit. We already spend the largest sum of our money on healthcare compared to any other foreign country. When the US is running a surplus and can appropriate large sums of money to healthcare, then we should make more drastic changes. Because let’s face it, no American, especially a wealthy one, wants to spend large sums of their own money to support everyone else to get healthcare by paying huge taxes.
Dennis Kucinich is the only presidential candidate who truly has a universal health care plan, and is he the frontrunner? I do not believe he is and I say this because at the present time his plan is not realistic. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are pushing forth "affordable quality health coverage for all." Yet their policies are not universal. None of their plans offer a realistic way of controlling the rising cost of health care. All of them will just add additional costs to an already way too expensive system. Basically every candidate plans to keep the private insurance system and create some way for parents/employers to subsidize and cover costs of everyone else. In other words consumers still have to purchase insurance and everyone fails to provide how much the insurance company is going to charge people. There is no simple way out of the private insurance system with its co-pays, deductibles, exclusions, and claims. To me nothing proposed is controlling the sky-rocketing costs, which is the main goal here. And none of these plans benefit those who already have insurance, so there is a big lack of support from the public, thus candidates plans are not likely to pass.
To me the reality is that a universal healthcare sounds good, but when you look into it and compare with countries that have it, as everyone says, the benefits are outweighed by the costs. Countries like Britain and Canada have universal healthcare and their patients must wait months or years to see a doctor to receive treatments for basic, not so serious problems. I see that it is hard to immediately change or end entitlements, like Medicare and Medicaid, especially because many people are dependent upon them. I think if we want to have better healthcare coverage we must start at the bottom with small changes before a big change can be made. Medicare and Medicaid will consume 17% of our GDP in the coming years and I think it is best if we start change there, since they are basically failing now.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071203/cm_thenation/7256484
http://www.newsmax.com/weyrich/healthcare/2007/12/07/55411.html
Sorry I meant to put Michelle R!!
Dear molly,
I totally agree with you! What a surprise right?
In my post I wrote about how the US fg spends almost 50% of every health care dollar. I mean the amount of money that is spent on health care is preposterous. i also agree that people should not be afraid to go to doctor because of the costs. I was surprised when I read about the poll in your post. If people really don't like the current system, shouldn't the government do something? I don't really agree with an individual state coverage because I think it would make things more complicated.
I think health care run by the national government would be the best idea just because the government can take responsibility of the people that can't afford to pay for it by themselves. As Tenzin said in her response to Andy, it would be very easy to change the current healthcare system. The government would pay the salaries and all of the expenses if people's taxes would go up a bit. Instead of paying for the war I bet many people would pay for their health care.
I was very surprised by Massachusetts passing that bill. That is really forward of them! I didn't know that they would do something like this. Maybe if it'll work for them then maybe the country will jump on board and maybe we can change the healthcare system.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/17/AR2007111701454.html
To: Sophie
I agree with your advocacy of the single-payer system. The single-payer system is the clear solution to the United State’s healthcare crisis.
The single-payer system creates many benefits from its implementation. Dr. David U. Himmelstein and Dr. Steffie Woolhandler of the Physicians for a National Health Program relayed the system would save substantial amounts of money, roughly $100 billion annually in administrative savings. The doctors claim that the savings “are enough to cover all of the uninsured, and virtually eliminate co-payments, deductibles and exclusions for those who now have inadequate plans - without any increase in total health spending.” (2) The American Medical Student Association listed several benefits from the single-payer system for patients, doctors, and business. Patients experience “improved health...free choice of provider...[and] portability of coverage.” Physicians see a “restoration of clinical autonomy...lower malpractice premiums...improved patient care...[and] simplified billing.” Similar to doctors, businesses see “decreased health care costs...equal playing field...[and] global competitiveness.” (5) The single-payer system is favorable to all affected by healthcare.
Your claim that the “private industry controls the health care system...[and] Americans run the risk of forgoing important medical procedures because of their inability to pay” is completely true (1). Himmelstein and Woolhandler agreed that “insurers are gutting mental health benefits, denying needed care, cutting payment rates, and insisting on the cheapest - and often not the best - form of therapy.” Regardless of the price, only fifty percent of every dollar spent on healthcare actually relates to healthcare (3). In addition, the private industry is becoming dominated by giant medical firms, and these medical corporations are giving patients few options. It is apparent that “the winners in the new medical marketplace are determined by financial clout, not medical quality.” (2)
Switzerland is a prime example of universal healthcare at a lower spending per capita (1). Canada is another superior example of lower spending per capita while providing better universal healthcare. As you stated, the US spends roughly fifteen percent of its GDP on healthcare (1). Canada, with a universal healthcare system, spends only around ten percent (4) and receives “more doctor visits and procedures, more hospital days, and even more bone marrow, liver and lung transplants than Americans.” (2)
The single-payer system for healthcare in the United States is the most logical and beneficial program to insure Americans with proper access to medical facilities and services.
Sources
1.Sophie’s Post
2.http://www.pnhp.org/facts/why_the_us_needs_a_single_payer_health_system.php
3.http://capa.pnhp.org/in_support_of_a_singlepayer_system.php
4.http://www.nupge.ca/news_2007/n06no07b.htm
5.http://www.amsa.org/pdf/model.pdf
Lauren- I disagree that healthcare should be completely privatized. Although we may have some of the greatest resources in the world and most innovative treatments, I think that the healthcare industry has catered to big drug companies and is simply a suckhole for money. While programs like Medicare and Medicaid may try to help those who are disabled or have low incomes, many people fail to qualify for the programs. People who should be receiving medical treatment for many ailments aren’t. I feel that this is a disgrace to America and that every single person has the right to live a happy healthy life. It simply doesn’t make sense that a person can’t receive adequate medical treatment solely because they do not have the money. I also think it is unfair to say that people won’t receive good treatment because their doctors no longer have the incentive to provide quality care. With well-thought regulation and new legislation, we could revamp the corrupt American Health System.
http://www.amsa.org/uhc/HealthCareSystemOverview.pdf
In response to victor w:
You made many arguments supporting the privatization of health care. First of all, you used the argument that a nationalized health care system would inhibit medical innovations because researchers would have less incentive to research and develop new drugs, with the belief that they would not be able to cover the costs because of loss in profits. The United States currently has the National Institutes of Health to fund the various life giving research that is conducted today. This institute is not only the largest in the nation, but in the world, bringing in well over $27 billion dollars to fund medical research.(Cohn) As argued by Johnathan Cohn of the New Republic, there is no reason why this money would have to disappear under a new nationalized heath care plan. The NIH research money is not raised by contributions from private health insurers or the profits on prescription drugs. It is a completely separate fund. Money could also be made by "cutting down on the need for so many insurance middle-men”(Cohn) which would leave more resources for actual medical careers and real medical innovation. So, the issue that a loss in profits and research would occur due to a universal heath care system is simply avoided because medical research can be funded independently of the profit made by private insurance and drug companies.
Secondly, you also argued that privatized health care would be the best option because the U.S. would otherwise suddenly lose its vast number of health care professionals, because they would feel the pressures of the the government always looking over their shoulder. Currently in the United States there is a shortage in medical doctors. It is estimated that in 2020 the nation could be short from 85,000 to 200, 000 ! (USA Today) Obviously your fear of professional shortages has already occurred in the system all established. Many Americans are advocates of some type of nationalized health care plan, and this may actually help sway some to join the medical profession. The fear that doctors would walk away from the health care world is unfounded. The average doctor (family physician) makes $147,516 after only three years in practice, with the maximum salary reaching close to $200.000.(Phys. Comp.) I highly doubt that a nationalized health care plan will cause doctors to walk away from $200,000 a year. After the long hard work those in the medical field put into receiving their education, it would be silly for them to “leave to a less regulated job field”(Wang) due to regulation.
I felt it necessary to address some of the reasoning provided against a nationalized health care plan. As the number of those uninsured continues to rise ($45.8 million in 2004).( Center on Budget) the United States must step in to make a difference in it's citizens lives. Privatized health care is not working. The national government must step in to make the change that is long overdue.
Physicians Compensation Survey. 10 December 2007
http://www.physicianssearch.com/physician/salary2.html>
The New Republic. “Does Universal Health Care suppress Innovation?”. Cohn, Jonathan 12 November, 2007
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “The number of Uninsured Americans continues to rise” 30 August 2005
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-03-02-doctor-shortage_x.htm>
To: Sophie
I agree that the US health care system needs to be changed, and that we seem to be falling behind compared to other countries’ progress. However, I think it is irrelevant to mention that Cuba is an enemy of the US when we are evaluating life-expectancy and healthcare systems. I did actually find data that says the US has higher life expectancy than Cuba, 78 years to 77.08 years (4).
According to the New York times, the healthcare systems of the Dutch and Swiss are becoming very popular. This fall, Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt visited Switzerland and the Netherlands to study their sytems. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton each used these models when forming their own healthcare plans. The Netherlands lead with the example of switching from an employer-based to individual-based system, while subsidizing for the poor. (5) I agree that the US system has become economically inefficient, Switzerland spends only about 11% of their GDP on healthcare and has better results than we do (2).
Switzerland’s system has three major parts: “compulsory basic health insurance; voluntary supplementary insurance; and sickness, old age and disability insurance (2).” The compulsory insurance is not too expensive and can be subsidized for the poor. Some people may find it attractive that Switzerland’s insurance companies (for the compulsory insurance), though they may charge different amounts, do not discriminate against different groups by charging different rates according to “age, sex or state of health (2).”
I believe that following a Dutch or Swiss model is the best option for the US in improving healthcare. This way we will ensure care for all.
Cited:
(2) http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/imr-ri.nsf/en/gr116905e.html
(4) http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=145&a=1912
(5) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/30/health/policy/30leavitt.html
Consulted:
(3) http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4025
To Lauren
I disagree with you when you say that you support privatized health care as the best option for our nation’s health care system. I have long been a supporter of universal health care, or sometimes called socialized medicine, because I believe that it is best for the people of the United States. All people should have a right to receive health care, regardless of their financial or social situations. Health care should be a fundamental right. Having a citizen status should automatically guarantee assesibilty to health care. There are so many uninsured people throughout this country. Many families aren’t able to get ahead financially because they are bogged down by enormous medical bills that can barely or can’t be paid for (1). Socialized medicine would be a solution to this problem. They key components of this system are that it is portable, universal, and accessible (2). In addition, many other countries operate under the universal health care system and are doing just fine (2). If other countries can thrive under this system, why can’t we? The United States has been declining in rank according to its overall health of the people (1).
Private health care is defined as “anything beyond what the public system will pay for” (2). The current system pays for so little, basically only a bed in a ward with as many as three people (2). Having to go to the hospital is becoming increasingly expensive. Many families are finding that they are unable to pay the costs of essential medical care (2). This current system has even led to some people delaying medical attention for themselves or their family members in hope that the ailments would disappear and they wouldn’t have to pay the bill (1). People are denying themselves the care they need in order to save themselves money, often times with drastic negative consequences on their health.
In all, a universal health care system would be what is best for the United States. All people have the right to health care; it should be a fundamental right upon attaining citizenship. People who don’t have the ability to pay for medical attention should be able to get the care they need and not worry about how they can save money by letting their symptoms disappear or having their conditions worsen. Universal health care would be the health care system that is most beneficial to the country and, most importantly, the people.
1. http://www.commondreams.org/view01/0213-01.htm
2. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/public_vs_private.html
Response to katrina:
Althought no one can really argue that the Canadian health care system is phenomenal, I disagree with the hastiness of the U.S. to switch to that program. As America has established its health care system (whether it's frowned upon or not) it has been a "working" system for many many years, and switching so quickly to a new program is not something the United States is ready for.
I believe in taking gradual steps to improve the current system. I do feel the American system is inadequet to the needs of the people. Heath care is an important issue to this country, as to many other countries.
Being the top medical program in the world, Canada's system is aspired by many countries. As it would be very benefitial to the United States, there needs to be a gradual introduction to a new system. If we move to fast, the system will be even more unreliable, and Americans will be very confused as to what is owed to them by the government.
www.canadian-healthcare.org/
To:alyssa g
I read your post in regards to healthcare and was blown away! I completely agree with your standpoint, immediate reform is needed due to the discrepancy in employment and healthcare. With 54% of Americans unfulfilled with the current state of the US healthcare system, its no doubt the the majority of America agrees. There is uneven quality distributed with the employer provided healthcare system, this being that larger companies at times supply better care than do that of lesser companies (if they offer it at all). Also, with the fact that if an employee quits or loses their occupation, they are no longer able to receive the benefits of healthcare from the company. However, I disagree with you that it should be state government to run healthcare, but rather a national system as its easier regulate. Lastly I would like to thank you for the chance to comment on your excellent blog!
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/
living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html
http://www.nchc.org/facts/ coverage.shtml
I would like to respond to Lauren Vann's post about privatized health care. There are a few problems with this system. Many people who have health insurance have health problems that are not covered by their health insurance. It is also a common misconception that the people that don’t have health insurance don’t have jobs so they shouldn’t recieve healthcare. This is actually not true. 80 percent of people without health insurance do have jobs, but they don’t provide any or enough health insurance to cover the health problems they have. Continuing with this system will cause problems for society in the future since people aren’t getting the healthcare they need. People will get injured more often, and they will begin retiring earlier because of health problems. More people will also need to depend on disability and social security payments. I think the only way to improve the healthcare system in the U.S. is to create a universal health care system.
http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf
To Victor:
At first I believe that the government was responsible for providing healthcare for citizens. I read your original post on this topic and noticed that you brought up many good points. I had not even taken into account the economic factors that would contribute to this issue. There is a substantial amount of money that would be necessary for healthcare to be provieded to the people. There are, as you stated, not as many people who need government provided healthcare (1). Even though government funded healthcare would help a large amount of people, the amount that taxes would increase would be too large to be good for the country. If taxes were not increased, the government would go further into debt, and the economy would implode. Many countries that currently use this healthcare, and people who have lived there, do not enjoy it as much as proponents make it sound like they do. It would not be economically feasible to spend this much money on the few people that would actually utilize this universal healthcare.
(1)http://media.www.browndailyherald.com/media/storage/paper472/news/2007/11/14/Columns/Boris.Ryvkin.09.No.To.Universal.Health.Care-3099863.shtml
(2) http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=44064
(3) http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaryvoices/2007/11/universal_health_care.html
To: Shannon
I found myself very interested in the statistics you cited, and I agree that Switzerland's system would be a good one to adopt in the United States. Though I am often wary of universal health care systems, the Swiss one is considered to be consumer-driven, which would prevent the elimination of competition in the medical field and would also solve the problem of income (in other words, the government would only subsidize care for low-income families) (1). According to WHO, Switzerland's system is very good, but costly (2). Since the government sets price controls on health insurance, the average family of four pays $680 per month (1). This ends up being less than current U.S. expenditures, but with a population of 300 million, the bureaucracy would probably still run up huge costs for the first few years after the change. In Switzerland, cost-effectiveness is already a problem, with total amount of expenditures rising 2.4% (GDP) between 1990 and 2004 (2). Also, there are too many options in terms of insurance, both in providers and packages offered, which has led to much confusion for consumers (1). No health care system is perfect, of course, and on the whole, it sounds like the citizens of Switzerland are happy about the health care they receive--as shown by the statistics you cited, it is very effective. However, I think it does bear mentioning that no matter what change is made to health care in the U.S., it is not going to solve all of our problems.
(1) www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37544.php
(2) http://www.oecd.org/document/47/0,2340,en_2649_201185_37562223_1_1_1_1,00.html
To: Chelsey
I agree with you about the United States Health Care system being one of the biggest issues in today’s society. It is easy to argue that since to U.S. spends more than any other country on health, our system should be flawless. This, however, is not the case. I also agree that basing health insurance coverage off employment is one of the largest flaws. Many ideas have been proposed as a means to “fix” the system and each person has there own opinion onto what would work best. Many factors need to be taken into consideration when determining how to reform the system including taxes, private v. public, the upcoming baby boom generation and much more.
Although I do not fully understand what you mean by “state based” coverage, I believe the most beneficial concept is universal health care. First of all I believe the United States has a duty to provide care for its citizens. By providing equal coverage for all people from taxes, a national database could form making it easier for medical professionals. Also, doctors could focus on healing their patients rather than insurance policies. In addition, people would seek more preventative care which would hopefully lower the amount of surgeries, post-treatment therapy, and deaths.
(http://www.balancedpolitics.org/universal_health_care.htm)
Dearest Victor,
The conservative side of my brain is inclined to agree with you here, however the common sense part of my brain is telling me that something needs to be done about the current state of health care. So much of America is unable to afford healthcare, and I feel that the government needs to help maintain the general wellness of America. You only compared either A) Doing nothing, or B) universal healthcare, and to be honest if it was between those 2 options I agree that doing nothing would be better. However, it is not just those 2 options. Those are the 2 extreme sides of the spectrum, and both are too extreme for me. Why not take more of a moderate route and just cheapen health care? Not fully pay for it, but make it more affordable so that at least a portion of those in poverty will be able to afford health care. Those countries that are making changes from their current universal health care are making them because universal health care might be a step too far, and I feel it would be several steps too far for America. However, that’s not saying that the government can’t at least cover a portion of health care for America. I could have responded to literally about 20 posts saying that they seem far too extreme for me. I actually feel a little worried that I missed something about health care, because to me it seems the answer is simple. Just raise taxes (moderately) and the government can help take the sting out of paying for healthcare.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=44064
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaryvoices/2007/11/universal_health_care.html
To Elise Gale:
I read your post and absolutely agree that as you said, "The 47 million uninsured Americans should not have to worry about being able to pay the next time they get sick or their child breaks their arm."
I think that there needs to be some major changes to reform health care.
I came to disagree with your statement about dismantling the private health insurance system. I think that indoing so it would hurt so many people who's jobs are in the private health insurance industry. I think it could cause real economic problems because of that.
Post a Comment