Universal Healthcare

Chellyse · Jul 12, 2001

Now here is an article from NursingWorld and the ANA, I believe orginated in 1991, that defines Health Care services related to Universal "core of care" for all:

http://www.nursingworld.org/readroom/rnagenda.htm

An excerpt:Nursing's plan envisions a new and bold approach to universal access to a standard package of essential health care services and the manner in which these services are delivered.

The federal government will delineate the essential services (core of care) which must be provided to all U.S. citizens and residents. This standard package will include defined levels of:

Primary health care services, hospital care, emergency treatment, inpatient and outpatient professional services, and home care services.

Prevention services, including prenatal and perinatal care; infant and well-child care; school-based disease prevention programs; speech therapy, hearing, dental, and eye care for children up to age 18; screening procedures; and other preventive services with proven effectiveness.

Prescription drugs, medical supplies and equipment, and laboratory and radiology services.

Mental health services and substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation. Hospice care.

Long-term care services of relatively short duration.

Restorative services determined to be essential to the prevention of long-term institutionalization.

By taking this approach, traditional illness services are balanced with provisions for health maintenance services which prevent illness, reduce cost, and avoid institutionalization. Thus, hospital coverage and emergency care are covered, as are such services as immunizations, physical examinations, and prenatal and perinatal care.

The creation of federal minimum standards for essential services will necessitate modifications in existing public programs. The ultimate goal will be, over time, to merge all government-sponsored health programs into a single public program.

Chellyse · Jul 12, 2001

Also bringing up the point of eliminating the third party and reestablishing the Patient / Doctor fee for service is an idea not discussed, so let's add that to the matrix.

I know some will bulk at the article from modern captilism magazine, but I think it reflects the fears and presents some of the realities of a government funded National Health Care or Health Coverage plan, in addition what we do not realize is that if the FTAA succeeds with it's plan by 2005 and we are opened wide for this international border trade, it will impact us...

The entire process is so much deeper than we know, we are only touching broad surface areas with this debate.

What happened to Charity anyway? and what happened to community based services and clinics?

Do our Docs now travel and provide volunteer services for third world nations? Can they do that at home? Can nurses (if not overburned by unreasonable workloads ect.,ect. volunteer in thier communities? Parish Nursing is thriving...

I am rambling in this post but remeber back when they brought up the idea of Volunteer Nursing Corps, how bout Docs? I believe a better alternative than government mandate, paid for by tax revenues.

Furthermore, I(I am digging my grave here) I happen to chose to smoke (I know it is not healthy ect.,ect.) but I chose to do it, just as somone choses sex out of wedlock, and to shoot herion, have unprotected sex-contract a disease, so why then is the government going to mandate me by taxing me fiurther in my pursuit of smoking happiness?

Ponder the principles here....

My husband and I both designate portions of our paychecks to the charities of our chosing, I already work half the year for taxes, now more because I am able bodied and can work?

Ok, I will go back to topic next post...........:)

RNed · Jul 12, 2001

Chellyse66 - agree this would be a great topic for debate. The Ground rules are good. We should remind each this is not open for personal attacks Facts or opinions on studies and published papers would be important. I will review your posting re: Healthcare is not A Right and the other Core Care.

I hate to be redundant but we truely need to identify the definitions of "insurance" and "healthcare delivered". Our legislators and publishers to often make this mistake and we "buy" into accepting one as the other.

Simply put

"Insurance = funding, money, etc."

"healthcare = medical services , procedures, office visits, etc."

"access = the receipt of/or availabilty to healthcare.

fiestynurse · Jul 13, 2001

Chellyse66--

Michael Tanner has produced many articles on the health care system for the Cato Institute, a libertarian organization. He does state well the issues from the perspective that government involvement does produce regulatory burdens, and makes collective decisions on use of our tax resources. What he fails to do is to provide a realistic alternative to meeting the problems of the underserved. The libertarian position is that we should depend on private charity to meet these needs. Throwing pennies into a Salvation Army bucket will never cut it.

The needs are too great. With the greater shift of wealth from the masses to the affluent, only a societal system will be able to assure that fundamental needs, such as health care, will be available to all. With that thought, you can dissect each of his premises. It all falls apart. The inconveniences of the tax system and government structure is a very small price to pay for the

great benefits received.

fiestynurse · Jul 13, 2001

A single payer system is not about settling for less so everyone has care - that seems to be the greatest fear for some people-that they may have to give something up. Single payer, would in fact, give us more benefits for the same dollars--wider coverage than most insured people currently enjoy, lower prescription drug costs, and increased access to home care services. Most importantly, patients would be free to choose their own health care providers and the latter would be freed from bureaucratic morass created by market-driven managed care. Both doctors and nurses would no longer be pressured--sometimes via financial incentives--to deny necessary tests and treatment or eject patients from hospitals before they are ready to leave.

The public, rather than private employers, will have the final say about the quantity and quality of services.

RNed--

Insurance=Access=Healthcare

RNed · Jul 13, 2001

Fiestynurse - I will not dispute your equation;

Insurance = Access = Healthcare

in today's atmosphere and definition.

One of the question's posed within that equation is where - is the correction to occur. Many support fixing the insurance problem with the assumption it will ultimately fix the healthcare problem. Is that true?

This is what I consider one of the ultimate decisions we need to come to grips with in this nation.

The article posted, "Health Care is Not A Right" presents some interesting concepts we should review. Do we have a moral obligation? I believe this nation does, however, I am "stumped" as to how much, how little and how regulated that obligation should be. The author clearly believes "healthcare" should not be characterised as a "right".

Another question posed is "moral obligation". Does society have a moral obligation to provide healthcare at whatever level is needed, even if it removes freedoms enjoyed by other parts of society. And if so, does it include the "right" to mandate all of society to participate in that moral obligation?

I tend to side with, "healthcare is not a right" concept. However, that does not deny the ability for our government to provide healthcare. Should there be a "core of healthcare services" as suggested in, "Nurses Agenda for Health Care Reform"? Probably so, but not necessarily at the level recommended.

"The public, rather than private employers, will have the final say about the quantity and quality of services."

As long as there are third party payors, "overseeing" patient healthcare services, those groups will determine quantity and quality of services. I believe it is the guy with the money, who has the power, that dictates the rules and therefore, he has the control. Currently, that is not the patient. We need to give control back to the patient, how do we do it ?

I have presented three points or questions:

1. Is providing healthcare a moral obligation of government and should it become a "right"?

2. Where do we fix the problem equation: Insurance = access=healthcare? or stated differently if we fix the insurance problem will we fix the heatlhcare problem?

3. Is the best overseer of healthcare services the patient or third party players?

Chellyse · Jul 13, 2001

Excellent, so I will begin with trying to express my sentiments to question number one,

1. Is providing healthcare a moral obligation of government and should it become a "right"?

This article reflects my opinions and I believe represents a concise definition of the difference between "liberty" rights and "welfare" rights. Especially, that these rights are imposing differing obligations.

Michele

Liberty vs. Welfare Rights

Let's begin by defining our terms. A right is a principle that specifies something which an individual should be free to have or do. A right is an entitlement, something you possess free and clear, something you can exercise without asking anyone else's permission. Because it is an entitlement, not a privilege or favor, we do not owe anyone else any gratitude for their recognition of our rights.

When we speak of rights, we invoke a concept that is fundamental to our political system. Our country was founded on the principle that individuals possess the "inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Along with the right to property, which the Founding Fathers also regarded as fundamental, these rights are known as liberty rights, because they protect the right to act freely. The wording of the Declaration of Independence is quite precise in this regard. It attributes to us the right to the pursuit of happiness, not to happiness per se. Society can't guarantee us happiness; that's our own responsibility. All it can guarantee is the freedom to pursue it. In the same way, the right to life is the right to act freely for one's self-preservation. It is not a right to be immune from death by natural causes, even an untimely death. And the right to property is the right to act freely in the effort to acquire wealth, the right to buy and sell and keep the fruits of one's labor. It is not a right to expect to be given wealth.

The purpose of liberty rights is to protect individual autonomy. They leave individuals responsible for their own lives, for meeting their own needs. But they provide us with the social conditions we need to carry out that responsibility: the freedom to act on the basis of our own judgment, in pursuit of our own ends; and the right to use and dispose of the material resources we have acquired by our efforts. These rights reflect the assumption that individuals are ends in themselves, who may not be used against their will for social purposes.

Let us consider what liberty rights mean in regard to medical care. If we implemented them fully, patients would be free to choose the type of care they want, and the particular health care providers they want to see, in accordance with their needs and resources. They would be free to choose whether they want health insurance, and if so, in what amounts. Doctors and other providers would be free to offer their services on whatever terms they choose. Prices would be governed not by government fiat, but by competition in a market. Since this is an imaginary state of affairs, no one can predict what mix of private practitioners, HMOs, and other sorts of health plans would emerge. But market forces would tend to ensure that patients have more choices than they do now, that they would act more responsibly than many do at present, and that they would pay actuarially fair prices for health insurance--prices that reflect the actual risks associated with their age, physical condition, and lifestyle. No one would be able to shift his costs onto someone else. In a truly free market, I might add, there would be no tax preference for obtaining health insurance through employers, so most people would probably buy health insurance the way they buy life insurance, auto insurance, or homeowners insurance--directly from insurance companies. They would not have to fear that losing their job, or changing the job, would mean losing their coverage.

So that is what liberty rights--the classical rights to life, liberty, and property--would mean in practice. The so-called "right" to medical care is quite different. It is not merely the right to act--i.e., to seek medical care, and engage in exchanges with providers, free from third party interference. It is a right to a good: actual care, regardless of whether one can pay for it. The alleged right to medical care is one instance of a broader category known as welfare rights. Welfare rights in general are rights to goods: for example, a right to food, shelter, education, a job, etc. This is one basic way in which they are quite different from liberty rights, which are rights to freedom of action, but don't guarantee that one will succeed in obtaining any particular good one may be seeking.

Another difference has to do with the obligations imposed on other people. Every right imposes some obligation on others. Liberty rights impose negative obligations: the obligation not to interfere with one's liberty. Such rights are secured by laws that prohibit murder, theft, rape, fraud, and other crimes. But welfare rights impose on others the positive obligation to provide the goods in question.

Health care does not grow on trees or fall from the sky. The assertion of a right to medical care does not guarantee that there is going to be any health care to distribute. The partisans of these rights demand, with air of moral righteousness, that everyone have access to this good. But a demand does not create anything. Health care has to be produced by someone, and paid for by someone. One of the major arguments offered by supporters of a right to health care is that health care is an essential need. What good are our other liberties, they ask, if we cannot get medical treatment for illness? But we must ask, in return: why does need give someone a right? Fifty years ago, people whose kidneys were failing needed dialysis every bit as much as they do today, but there were no dialysis machines. Did they have a right to protection against kidney failure? Was Mother Nature violating their rights by making their kidneys fail without a remedy? It makes no sense to say that need itself confers a right unless someone else has the ability to meet that need. So any "right" to medical care imposes on someone the obligation to provide care to those who cannot provide it for themselves.

If I have such a right, some other person or group has the involuntary, unchosen obligation to provide it. I stress the word "involuntary." A right is an entitlement. If I have a right to medical care, then I am entitled to the time, the effort, the ability, the wealth, of whoever is going to be forced to provide that care. In other words, I own a piece of the taxpayers who subsidize me. I own a piece of the doctors who tend to me. The notion of a right to medical care goes far beyond any notion of charity. A doctor who waives his bill because I am indigent is offering a free gift; he retains his autonomy, and I owe him gratitude. But if I have a right to care, then he is merely giving me my due, and I owe him nothing. If others are forced to serve me in the name of my right to care, then they are being used regardless of their will as a means to my welfare. I am stressing this point because many people do not appreciate that the very concept of welfare rights, including the right to health care, is incompatible with the view of individuals as ends in themselves.

I might add that the difference between charity and rights is very well understood by the advocates of a right to health care. One of their main arguments for using the language of rights is that it removes the stigma associated with charity. A right is something for which you don't owe anyone any gratitude. But notice the contradiction. The reason for proposing such a right in the first place is the claim that certain people cannot provide for themselves, and are thus dependent on other people for their medical care. The advocates of a right to health care then turn around and insist on using the concept of rights to disguise the fact of dependence, to allow the recipients of government subsidies to pretend that they are getting something they earned.

It is also worth noting that the Supreme Court has never recognized a constitutional basis for any welfare right, including the right to medical care. The Court recognizes that the concept of rights embodied in our legal system is the concept of liberty rights. Welfare rights are a product of later movements to expand the role of government beyond the original conception of its role. In our constitutional system, there is no requirement that the federal government provide health care. Health care entitlements, unlike fundamental rights like freedom of speech, have to be invented by legislators

The entire article can be read here:

http://ios.org/pubs/Article3.asp

Chellyse · Jul 13, 2001

Lastly I came across this defintion in an Act from the State of Illinios, I thought it might be interesting for some to read this decleration entitlted:

Health Care

Right of Conscience Act.

Sec. 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Health Care

Right of Conscience Act.

(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/2)

Sec. 2. Findings and policy. The General Assembly finds and

declares that people and organizations hold different beliefs about

whether certain health care services are morally acceptable. It is the

public policy of the State of Illinois to respect and protect the right

of conscience of all persons who refuse to obtain, receive or accept, or

who are engaged in, the delivery of, arrangement for, or payment of

health care services and medical care whether acting individually,

corporately, or in association with other persons; and to prohibit all

forms of discrimination, disqualification, coercion, disability or

imposition of liability upon such persons or entities by reason of their

refusing to act contrary to their conscience or conscientious

convictions in refusing to obtain, receive, accept, deliver, pay for, or

arrange for the payment of health care services and medical care.

(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/3)

Sec. 3. Definitions. As used in this Act, unless the context

clearly otherwise requires:

(a) "Health care" means any phase of patient care, including but

not limited to, testing; diagnosis; prognosis; ancillary research;

instructions; family planning, counselling, referrals, or any other

advice in connection with the use or procurement of contraceptives and

sterilization or abortion procedures; medication; or surgery or other

care or treatment rendered by a physician or physicians, nurses,

paraprofessionals or health care facility, intended for the physical,

emotional, and mental well-being of persons;

(b) "Physician" means any person who is licensed by the State of

Illinois under the Medical Practice Act of 1987;

school student, professional, paraprofessional or any other person who

furnishes, or assists in the furnishing of, health care services;

(d) "Health care facility" means any public or private hospital,

clinic, center, medical school, medical training institution, laboratory

or diagnostic facility, physician's office, infirmary, dispensary,

ambulatory surgical treatment center or other institution or location

wherein health care services are provided to any person, including

physician organizations and associations, networks, joint ventures, and

all other combinations of those organizations;

(e) "Conscience" means a sincerely held set of moral convictions

arising from belief in and relation to God, or which, though not so

derived, arises from a place in the life of its possessor parallel to

that filled by God among adherents to religious faiths; and

(f) "Health care payer" means a health maintenance organization,

insurance company, management services organization, or any other entity

that pays for or arranges for the payment of any health care or medical

care service, procedure, or product.

The above definitions include not only the traditional combinations

and forms of these persons and organizations but also all new and

emerging forms and combinations of these persons and organizations.

(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/4)

Sec. 4. Liability. No physician or health care personnel shall be

civilly or criminally liable to any person, estate, public or private

entity or public official by reason of his or her refusal to perform,

assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in

any particular form of health care service which is contrary to the

conscience of such physician or health care personnel.

(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/5)

Sec. 5. Discrimination. It shall be unlawful for any person,

public or private institution, or public official to discriminate

against any person in any manner, including but not limited to,

licensing, hiring, promotion, transfer, staff appointment, hospital,

managed care entity, or any other privileges, because of such person's

conscientious refusal to receive, obtain, accept, perform, assist,

counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any

particular form of health care services contrary to his or her

conscience.

(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/6)

Sec. 6. Duty of physicians and other health care personnel.

Nothing in this Act shall relieve a physician from any duty, which may

exist under any laws concerning current standards, of normal medical

practices and procedures, to inform his or her patient of the patient's

condition, prognosis and risks, provided, however, that such physician

shall be under no duty to perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend,

refer or participate in any way in any form of medical practice or

health care service that is contrary to his or her conscience.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to relieve a physician

or other health care personnel from obligations under the law of

providing emergency medical care.

(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/7)

Sec. 7. Discrimination by employers or institutions. It shall be

unlawful for any public or private employer, entity, agency,

institution, official or person, including but not limited to, a

medical, nursing or other medical training institution, to deny

admission because of, to place any reference in its application form

concerning, to orally question about, to impose any burdens in terms or

conditions of employment on, or to otherwise discriminate against, any

applicant, in terms of employment, admission to or participation in any

programs for which the applicant is eligible, or to discriminate in

relation thereto, in any other manner, on account of the applicant's

refusal to receive, obtain, accept, perform, counsel, suggest,

recommend, refer, assist or participate in any way in any forms of

health care services contrary to his or her conscience.

(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/8)

Sec. 8. Denial of aid or benefits. It shall be unlawful for any

public official, guardian, agency, institution or entity to deny any

form of aid, assistance or benefits, or to condition the reception in

any way of any form of aid, assistance or benefits, or in any other

manner to coerce, disqualify or discriminate against any person,

otherwise entitled to such aid, assistance or benefits, because that

person refuses to obtain, receive, accept, perform, assist, counsel,

suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any form of

health care services contrary to his or her conscience.

(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/9)

Sec. 9. Liability. No person, association, or corporation, which

owns, operates, supervises, or manages a health care facility shall be

civilly or criminally liable to any person, estate, or public or private

entity by reason of refusal of the health care facility to permit or

provide any particular form of health care service which violates the

facility's conscience as documented in its ethical guidelines, mission

statement, constitution, bylaws, articles of incorporation, regulations,

or other governing documents.

Nothing in this act shall be construed so as to relieve a physician

or other health care personnel from obligations under the law of

providing emergency medical care.

(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/10)

Sec. 10. Discrimination against facility. It shall be unlawful for

any person, public or private institution or public official to

discriminate against any person, association or corporation attempting

to establish a new health care facility or operating an existing health

care facility, in any manner, including but not limited to, denial,

deprivation or disqualification in licensing, granting of

authorizations, aids, assistance, benefits, medical staff or any other

privileges, and granting authorization to expand, improve, or create any

health care facility, by reason of the refusal of such person,

association or corporation planning, proposing or operating a health

care facility, to permit or perform any particular form of health care

service which violates the health care facility's conscience as

documented in its existing or proposed ethical guidelines, mission

statement, constitution, bylaws, articles of incorporation, regulations,

or other governing documents.

(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/11)

Sec. 11. Denial of aid or benefit to a facility. It shall be

unlawful for any public official, agency, institution or entity to deny

any form of aid, assistance, grants or benefits; or in any other manner

to coerce, disqualify or discriminate against any person, association or

corporation attempting to establish a new health care facility or

operating an existing health care facility which otherwise would be

entitled to the aid, assistance, grant or benefit because the existing

or proposed health care facility refuses to perform, assist, counsel,

suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any form of

health care services contrary to the health care facility's conscience

as documented in its existing or proposed ethical guidelines, mission

statement, constitution, bylaws, articles of incorporation, regulations,

or other governing documents.

(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/11.2)

Sec. 11.2. Liability of health care payer. No health care payer

and no person, association, or corporation that owns, operates,

supervises, or manages a health care payer shall be civilly or

criminally liable to any person, estate, or public or private entity by

reason of refusal of the health care payer to pay for or arrange for the

payment of any particular form of health care services that violate the

health care payer's conscience as documented in its ethical guidelines,

mission statement, constitution, bylaws, articles of incorporation,

regulations, or other governing documents.

(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/11.3)

Sec. 11.3. Discrimination against health care payer in licensing.

It shall be unlawful for any person, public or private institution, or

public official to discriminate against any person, association, or

corporation (i) attempting to establish a new health care payer or (ii)

operating an existing health care payer, in any manner, including but

not limited to, denial, deprivation, or disqualification in licensing;

granting of authorizations, aids, assistance, benefits, or any other

privileges; and granting authorization to expand, improve, or create any

health care payer, because the person, association, or corporation

planning, proposing, or operating a health care payer refuses to pay for

or arrange for the payment of any particular form of health care

services that violates the health care payer's conscience as documented

in the existing or proposed ethical guidelines, mission statement,

constitution, bylaws, articles of incorporation, regulations or other

governing documents.

(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/11.4)

Sec. 11.4. Denial of aid or benefits to health care payer for

refusal to participate in certain health care. It shall be unlawful for

any public official, agency, institution, or entity to deny any form of

aid, assistance, grants, or benefits; or in any other manner to coerce,

disqualify, or discriminate against any person, association, or

corporation attempting to establish a new health care payer or operating

an existing health care payer that otherwise would be entitled to the

aid, assistance, grant, or benefit because the existing or proposed

health care payer refuses to pay for, arrange for the payment of, or

participate in any way in any form of health care services contrary to

the health care payer's conscience as documented in its existing or

proposed ethical guidelines, mission statement, constitution, bylaws,

articles of incorporation, regulations, or other governing documents.

(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/12)

Sec. 12. Actions; damages. Any person, association, corporation,

entity or health care facility injured by any public or private person,

association, agency, entity or corporation by reason of any action

prohibited by this Act may commence a suit therefor, and shall recover

threefold the actual damages, including pain and suffering, sustained by

such person, association, corporation, entity or health care facility,

the costs of the suit and reasonable attorney's fees; but in no case

shall recovery be less than $2,500 for each violation in addition to

costs of the suit and reasonable attorney's fees. These damage remedies

shall be cumulative, and not exclusive of other remedies afforded under

any other state or federal law.

(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/13)

Sec. 13. Liability for refusal to provide certain health care.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as excusing any person, public or

private institution, or public official from liability for refusal to

permit or provide a particular form of health care service if:

(a) the person, public or private institution or public official

has entered into a contract specifically to provide that particular form

of health care service; or

(b) the person, public or private institution or public official

has accepted federal or state funds for the sole purpose of, and

specifically conditioned upon, permitting or providing that particular

form of health care service.

(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

(745 ILCS 70/14)

Sec. 14. Supersedes other Acts. This Act shall supersede all other

Acts or parts of Acts to the extent that any Acts or parts of Acts are

inconsistent with the terms or operation of this Act.

(Source: P.A. 90-246, eff. 1-1-98.)

Cdn_Psych · Jul 13, 2001

>Excellent, so I will begin with trying

>to express my sentiments to question

>number one,

>1. Is providing healthcare a moral

>obligation of government and should it

>become a "right"?

>

>This article reflects my opinions

>and I believe represents a concise

>definition of the difference between

>"liberty" rights and "welfare" rights.

>Especially, that these rights are

>imposing differing obligations.

>Michele

This is a good summary of the libertarian position.

Conservatives need to realize that libertarianism

is an extreme view that is no more compatible with

conservative ideals than Stalinist collectivism is

compatible with the ideals of social democrats.

Libertarianism suggests that we are all nothing more than

a collection of rational individuals whose interactions

with one another is governed solely by economics and our

own self-interest. It views government as the antithesis

of liberty, and government itself as illegitimate because

it "interferes" with voluntary interactions between

rational self-interested individuals. It views taxation

as "theft".

It is an extremist position.

The fact is that we are all social creatures as well as

economic creatures. We are interdependent and our

relationships with one another allow for the specialization

of labour which has served to enrich us all. If that were

not the case, we would all do things in isolation from one

another. We would make our own axe so we could chop down

our own tree, plane our own lumber, make our own nails and

build our own houses, hunt and grow our own food using the

agricultural tools we made with our own hands.

We would pay no taxes and without government, there would be

no laws, no courts and no police. No fire department, no

public health department.

We would owe nothing to anyone else - they are responsible

for their own lives.

If private charity were not provided, they would starve if

they were unwilling (or unable) to work for themselves.

Children, being unable to be self-sufficient, would rely on

the private charity of their parents for their needs. Their

parents, being not compelled by the illegitimate, vile

creature called government, would be free to choose not to

provide that charity.

I believe most people would consider such ideas shocking and

incompatible with conservative values.

Can you imagine Father standing up at the dinner table to

announce to his wife & children "Times have been tough lately,

so I'm going to have to let some of you go."?

The article suggests that market forces would create competition.

This is a questionable assumption. Experience indicates that

market forces can also lead to monopolies - Microsoft being

a contemporary example, the Robber Barons of the past being

another example. Opening up the market was supposed to create

more competition in the pharmaceutical field. Instead,

the opposite has occurred, with mergers and takeovers & higher

prices. The market has led not to greater diversity, but

rather to consolidation and monopoly. The same phenomenon

is taking place with media conglomerates (AOL-Time-Warner

being an obvious example).

The article talks about people not shifting costs onto others,

suggesting that this occurs when health care is provided with

government funding.

Yet what is insurance if not shifting costs? The insured party

seeks insurance against huge expenses by shifting the costs to

the insurer (and ultimately to those who pay premiums but do

not make claims). The insurer seeks to extract maximum profit

by obtaining the highest premiums it can from the insured, while

paying as little as it can in benefits.

If insurance was not for shifting costs, then people would

just pay it from their savings directly, without an insurance

company.

People who oppose publicly funded insurance for fear that they

will get less because costs have been shifted are making the

erroneous assumption that this does not occur in private insurance.

Why paying health care premiums to private corporations is somehow

superior to paying health care premiums to government is beyond my

understanding. If it is a public service, it is not being run to

extract as much profit as possible.

Some things are too important to be left to the market. Health

care is one of them.

Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society.

People don't generally seem to feel that publicly funded education

has been the ruination of the USA (in fact, some people believe

publicly funded education has enriched it). I think you will

find that single payer publicly funded health care, as the

Canadian experience has shown, will prove cheaper and better

if it is ever given the chance.

Mijourney · Jul 14, 2001

Hi. While I would never suggest there should not be debate, I wonder whether health care should even be debated as a right or priviledge which is really what this topic is about. What is the underlying reasons that some people feel that health is a right and others feel it is a priviledge? For those of us living in the states, is the rights vs. priviledge debate fueled in part by the great disparity in socioeconomic status? The possibility that we may have to care for someone that we despise? The fact that we may have stereotypes about a certain class of people? Because we feel guilty about having knowledge of a underclass of people? Because we want to sleep without worrying if Johnny will be able to get his medicine?

I think there is more to this rights vs priviledge debate than politics and law.

I don't have anything to offer for a formal debate. I believe that as time goes forward, we will find that debating and competing over rights and priviledges will diminish our country as a world power. My interest in seeing all people get good health care is to see this nation and its people be as strong as can be. Should this be debated too?

Chellyse · Jul 14, 2001

I have to take time to digest the last post, I will and I appreciate the input.

I would like to comment that I do not necessarily agree that the article or directives were specifically Libertarian, and thus extremist. I in fact know very little about the Libertarian platform. I do consider myself to be Conservative (Republican) however.

Our society has a great number of oopportunists the Insurance companies, HMO's,Docs,corporations, conglomerates and individuals. Do we have some stats on the abuses of social security and the disability system? How about Medicare fraud from individuals? When welfare iniatives commenced with reform morbidity rates decreased?

The point being, there will be those that fraud the system, I read a recent article out of Canada claiming the system was in fact "two tier" not single payor, with the wealthier recieving services differently than the lower working class. (this from a Canadian online publication)

So many points have been risen in this thread.Your input is very welcomed.

fergus51 · Jul 14, 2001

I have to agree that our system is 2 tiered, because there can never be true equality in health care. The rich can't butt in line or anything, but they can pay to get MRIs sooner and to get private rooms and can afford to access health care services which are often only situated in larger centers, etc. Still I prefer this to the libertarian system.

I believe health is a right Mijourney because it is essential for life and anything that is essential for life should not be only for the rich. Life is worth more than money in my opinion. With all the money our gov't wastes on crap I don't see why there is a problem with funding health care.

Universal Healthcare

Do you think the USA should switch to government run universal healthcare?