Let's stop counting on charity to pay medical bills

Call me a mean person, but you also quote about the Golden Rule and social responsibility. Great Idea, I am for it. At the same time since we are going to use the Golden Rule to govern, lets not forget the other simple ten rules that God gave to Moses. The Ten Commandments. I am Christian, I believe in a small central government. As you probably guessed I am opposed to this universal health care on prinicipal.

I guess I am in favor of good reform to help those really need help to purchase decent health insurance. I dont believe the government should come in and take over an industry.

What a sad world we would live in if we failed to help those in need or accept the gracious assistance of others, and pass it on.

Why in the world would you trust these same people with trillions more of your dollars in the name of another bloated, inefficient program that will benefit no one?

Patrick,
Small, central government? Hard decisions? Because you earn more money do you have the right to more justice? Should we create a parallel judicial system for the rich? We should have only one health care plan for the same reason we have only one court system. One nation, one plan. The principal of equal treatment demands it.

Because you are the CEO of a giant drug company, for-profit insurance company, or hospital chain, should you be able to spend large sums of money to influence legislation that benefits you at the expense of all the other people living here? Most problems are complex, but there's nothing complex about simple equality and fairness.

In the preamble to the Constitution, the framers set forth the fundamentals and guiding principles which the Constitution is meant to serve. It is often referred to as evidence of what our founders hoped to achieve. What does "promote the general welfare" mean to you? To me, it is a legal guideline about how the government should operate. The government should undertake to solve important social dilemmas for the common good. The concepts of universal equality in "higher law" tend to be intrinsic and qualitative such as the dignity and worth of the individual.

Your arguments then, must be for a two-tiered system of government? Separate and unequal? One that benefits you if you have money, and fails to protect you from exploitation by the rich and powerful if you don't? And another one that exists in name only, just a bunch of nice words on a piece of parchment for the rest of us? Is that what you mean by small, central government? Sorry, Patrick, but I think the Supreme Court has over-ruled you on the separate and unequal.

In a democracy, we're all entitled to equal protection under the law. Since the government is supported by our taxes, it exists for the benefit and protection of us all. It's a shame we still have to fight for it. Sure, there's a few welfare cheats, but their numbers pale in comparison to the fraud perpetrated on the people by an insurance industry that can't be regulated. It should be eliminated. Profit has no place and provides no added value in health care. The perfect should not stand in the way of the good!

Are you aware that when Congress passed Medicare part D, the pharmaceutical companies who bought and paid for that law through huge campaign contributions, actually got a provision in the law that bans the government from using it's group purchasing power to get a volume discount on drug prices? And the elderly get to "choose" which plan is going to restrict their doctor's ability to prescribe the drug that's right for them? And, you've heard about the "donut hole"?

A so-called "beneficiary who reaches the initial coverage limit falls into the “doughnut hole” or coverage gap and becomes responsible for the total costs of all medications. The statutory standard initial coverage limit was $2400 for 2007. This amount is reached by taking into consideration the full cost of the drugs, not just the beneficiary’s out-of-pocket cost-sharing. For example, if a drug costs $150 and the beneficiary’s co-payment is $40, the full $150 counts towards the initial coverage limit. The second calculation is the beneficiary’s out-of-pocket expenses. A beneficiary who incurs $3,850 in out-of-pocket expenses (OOP) in 2007, which include any deductible, co-payment or co-insurance, will arise from the doughnut hole and become eligible for catastrophic coverage."

Wow! Cumbersome and confusing stuff, not to mention expensive. No wonder drugs are cheaper in Canada, and Britain, and every other civilized and indurstrialized country with a single-payer health care system. I hope that our newly elected President will be more progressive than the previous administration and urge the Congress, to repeal that mess. Then we need a fundamental change in our health care system. The Congress should pass H.R. 676!

I have a hard time believing that you, or any nurse would pass judgement and turn their back on a young girl, or anyone else who needs health care. In the meantime, even though I disagree with you, I will be working as a patient advocate to change a system that is unjust, for the benefit of all of us. Bake sales and raffles? Well intentioned acts of good people, but it shouldn't have to be that way. We can do better than that.

The tragedy of illness or injury shouldn't be compounded by financial ruin. By the way, the health care "tax" in a single payer system would be based on ability to pay; it would replace the current premiums, co-pays, and deductibles we now pay and it would be less than what we pay in most cases. Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has said that by eliminating insurance company waste and administrative overhead, we will have enough money to cover everyone with better benefits and be able to control costs.

For starters, here's some money that your "small government" could be spending on health care.
U.S. SPENDING IN IRAQ
Spent & Approved War-Spending - About $800 billion of US taxpayers' funds spent or approved for spending through mid-2009. U.S. Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion in 2008; U.S. Spending per Second - $5,000 in 2008 (per Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on May 5, 2008); Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported -$1.4 billion. It gets worse. Click on the hyperlink above if you dare. And, don't forget, it's been over 5 years since Bush declared "mission accomplished." It seems like there's a lot of "big government" benefitting a really small number of the corporate elite to me. Where's the government of the people, by the people and for the people?

So, what's your solution? Are you ready to go up against the likes of Paul Krugman? Or are you only going to be about shooting this messenger with blanks about religion and socialism?

The answer is a universal health care system, based on the single payer model. It will be genuinely therapeutic and correct the problem. Among the nineteen top industrialized countries, we rank last in deaths from preventable illnesses. And we're the only country without some form of single payer health care. Placebos are unethical so we will be vigilant.

Yes I am also opposed to corruption, since you mention about our new president to be, we only have to look at his state and where he represented to see how corrupt government can be.

Patrick,
So you agree corruption is shameful. But please, you should be more careful and stop to think about what you're saying. Your imply that the whole "government" of the state of Illinois is corrupt, but you simply don't support your contention.

I could "hazard" a guess as to what you meant to say. People that I know and care about who live in Illinois would probably be offended by your statement. Barack Obama and his wife Michelle and their children are people of integrity. Senator Obama was a professor of constitutional law before he entered the senate. He's been vetted and elected to serve as our next president. I'm sure there are many decent and hardworking legislators in the state.

My guess is that you meant to refer to the behavior of one individual, Governor Blagojevich, who's been tried and convicted in the media, for allegedly trying to "sell" the senate seat vacated by President-elect Obama?

First, I would agree that Governor Blagojevich has been careless with his words, according to what I've read in the papers. Although he's been indicted on serious charges, as far as I know he has not had the opportunity to face his accusor(s) in a court of law, nor has he been convicted of any wrong doing by a judge or jury of his peers. The man is innocent until proven guilty and he's entitled to due process.

As for Blagojevich's appointment of Roland Burris, so far there has been no charge of impropriety in the process through which Burris received the appointment. Roland Burris is the former attorney general of the state of Illinois and I don't see any evidence that he is anything but a good and decent man.

Our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln, was a lawyer and a legislator from the state of Illinois. So, I think we can look at the state he represented and see how good people can rise above humble circumstances and do incredibly wonderful things as an advocate for democracy and justice.

And I voted for Barack Obama because I believe and hope that he will do good for the nation. I hope he will come around to fully endorsing a single-payer system of health care and free us from the tyranny of for-profit insurance companies. They've taken our precious health care dollars and denied us the freedom to choose our own doctors and health care practitioners; they've denied us our choice of hospitals and clinics; they've denied us the opportunity to receive the medications and treatment recommended by our providers.

Abraham Lincoln once said, "The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities."

We need to exercise our responsibility to take care of ourselves, but in a democracy, we are interdependent and have a responsibility to support government policies that will provide for the common welfare. Most individuals with significant health care needs could not afford to fund personal accounts that would be adequate for their needs. We should accept the concept that we need to take care of those with needs by paying for their care out of a pool that we all fund on an equitable basis.

The sum total of these arguments is this: "I can't believe that a nurse would be so lacking in compassion as to oppose government mandated, tax-payer funded health care, despite the miserable failures of recently-implemented government programs such as Medicare Part D.

An equally invalid argument would be this: "I can't believe that a nurse would be so lacking in insight and knowledge of recent history as to support government mandated, tax-payer funded health care, despite the miserable failures of recently-implemented government programs such as Medicare Part D.

Why do you have so little faith in your fellow man as to believe that every need of very individual must be provided by government? I have great confidence in the ability of the individual (family) to meet their own needs when given the education, tools and motivation to do so.

You're a Christian, huh?...
If you or anyone else refuses to answer those points, then don't even bother replying, because delusional beliefs that have absolutely no basis in fact are already crowding the national conversation on this topic as it is.

Quote from RN4Mercy on previous page: "For me, it's a moral imperative, as a responsible individual member of this society to advocate for a single-payer system of universal health care. Simply stated, if you can, you should, because it's the right thing to do. And if you can't, we'll help you."

I was making a generalized statement of my interpretation of the opposing views on this topic, based in small part upon the statements I quoted above. Those are Mercy's and your opinions. Opinions I don't agree with.

And I don't need or want anyone's help in advocating for something that I believe to be not only unnecessary, but harmful to our country.

I have, in other threads, discussed at length my belief that health care will become affordable only when control of payment for most health care expenses is removed from the government, employers, insurers and other dis-interested, ineffective and inefficient 3rd parties and returned to the individual.

If you have any real interest in reading this viewpoint, please say so, and I will attempt to direct you to those threads. I have neither the time nor the inclination to repeat lengthy discussions here, in a thread that is loaded with emotion and judgment and lacking objectivity and respect for alternatives view points.