Universal Healthcare

Dplear · Jul 14, 2001

Healthcare as a right or as a Privlege? At this point in time i would personally believe that healthcare is a privlege and not a right . I am privleged to be able to live in a society that has great healthcare, despite what anyone may think, the US system does provide the best care in the world. I am privleged that i can acces this system through MANY different means, whether it is through insurance or private pay or through the exchange of goods or service i.e bartering, which is alive and well.

As for being a Right, there are RESPONSIBILTIES along with rights and I see that this is being left out of the discussion. I Have the right to seek access to healthcare, yes but I alsio have the right to take care of my self to the best of MY ability. I have the responsibity to take care of myself and my family. I have to responsibility to not intentionally do any harm to myself or anyone else. (drugs, alchohol, smoking...) It is the responisibity part that gets most people and they do not want to take responsibity for themselves.

Why should I be mandated through my taxes to pay for someone who gets lung cancer from smoking, when there has been proof for years that smoking can cause cancer? Why should i be responsible forsome who wraps their care around a tree after gettijng drunk and is now a non productive member of society? I did not make him drink I did not make him drive. He was not responsible for himself. Now before you think me a heartless bastard, I do feel a responsibility to take care of those that cannot take care of them selves through no fault of their own. The old person that falls and breaks their hip, or has a heart attack walking downm the street, the child born with birth defects or is injured somehow. Those people I have the RESPONSIBILTY to take care of and help...the others I do not since that responsibility was negated by their actions.

Under Universal healthcare I would be required to pay for them. That is not fair nor is it right .

Further more I am PRIVLEGED that I have the RIGHT to say theses things in our country.

JennieBSN · Jul 14, 2001

~sigh~

Cdn, Libertarianism is not the Green Party. It is not full of wanna be 'woodsman' who wish to live on compounds like Ruby Ridge or Waco. It is not extremism. The premise of the Libertarian party is simply this:

National Platform of the Libertarian Party

Adopted in Convention, July 2000, Anaheim, CA

I. Individual Rights and Civil Order

Freedom and Responsibility

We believe that individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. We must accept the right of others to choose for themselves if we are to have the same right. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

We believe people must accept personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Libertarian policies will promote a society where people are free to make and learn from their own decisions. Personal responsibility is discouraged by government denying individuals the opportunity to exercise it. In fact, the denial of freedom fosters irresponsibility.

This is straight off the Libertarian Party website: http://www.lp.org.

Taxation IS theft. I am MANDATED to pay taxes. I am not asked. My money is TAKEN from me without my consent through government use of force. Taking something from someone else by use of force is theft. Point blank.

People will still be addicts, abusers, rapists, and morons with or without government interference. The Libertarians belive that people should be personally responsible for their own lives and living situations, and that the government need not interfere with taxes, social programs, quotas, etc..

Libertarian, defined is: "Libertarians are self-governors in both personal and economic matters. They believe government's only purpose is to protect people from coercion and violence. They value individual responsibility, and tolerate economic and social diversity. " Meaning, government's responsibility is to protect its' citizens from crime and violence through policing and the judicial system. Specifically, policing and judicial systems WITHOUT things like plea bargains, immunity, or parole. You commit a crime, you get a sentence. No negotiating, no loopholes. You are behind bars. Period. Jails without television or weight rooms or cable t.v.. By 'tolerate economic and social diversity,' this means that making money in this country and becoming wealthy by the fruits of your labor should not be a 'crime,' nor should that wealth be re-distributed to those of lesser socioeconomic brackets in the name of 'equality.' No quotas, no mandates on hiring practices. In essence, no government regulation (force) on the social structure of the country. This is based on the premise that Americans should be granted freedom and opportunity. Not security. The government is not a parent.

I could go on, but this is not about Libertarian vs. Democrat vs. Socialism. Just had to clarify that.

By the way, yes, I'm a Libertarian. Proud to vote with my BRAIN as opposed to my EMOTIONS.

natalie · Jul 14, 2001

Dplear, I agree with you in principle, but the waters get muddied. I had read an article sometime back re: smokers. The article stated that these people were responsible for paying their fair share of healthcare and much more, done through the taxes they paid on each pack of cigarettes. It also when on to say that smokers really didn't contribute all that much to the dilemma because they die sooner than most! That's 20-30 years less healthcare that needed to be given to that person. Interesting. Also muddying the waters is, how do we define what's preventable? The individual needs to be responsible for their own health behavior and the drugs/alcohol part is easy. What about all the rest? - overweight, high cholesterol from poor diet, lack of exercise, etc. At the top of the healthcare spending is heart disease and diabetes. Not car crashes and smoker's disease.

In any event, here's an interesting article in that it states that our current private healthcare system skims 20-30% of every dollar for marketing, executive salaries and profits.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/13/kuttner-r.html

fiestynurse · Jul 14, 2001

This debate is a good example of the political problem in convincing those with health insurance to extend coverage to those without. This is notoriously difficult. However, at the present moment most Americans are less enamored about cutting taxes and more willing to consider solving some of our long term problems, such as health care. They want health security--universal, affordable, uninterrupted coverage, from cradle to grave. With our present surplus, it is the perfect time to inact universal health care legislature.

I make a passionate plea, that universal health care is worth paying for! If it takes a modest tax increase to provide universal insurance, it is the least we can do to have a decent society.

American's patchwork quilt of job-based medical benefits will continue to fray at the seams--imposing greater costs on millions, while providing poorer quality care. Meanwhile, the number of uninsured and underinsured will continue to increase. Do people have to be dying in the streets before we overhaul our health care system (not just tinker with it) Come on, we are nurses here!! Haven't you all experienced first hand what this present system is doing to our patients? Are you not as outraged as I am? Can you really continue debating whether health care is a right or a privilege!! Man, you guys are really pissing me off!! I have to go take a shower now--hopefully the light will go on in the bathroom and I'll have hot water. Our privatization of the electrical industry here in California has been such a BIG success--for various reasons, we now don't have enough electricity!!

RNed · Jul 14, 2001

To the question of - is healthcare a right. Excellent post and some articles have presented arguments supporting that healthcare does not constitute a "right" as defined within the Constitution.

This is assuming one accepts the criteria that the definition of a "right" does not and should not impose an action on others for an individual to exercise that right. (See Health Care is Not a Right , htttp:/www.capitalismmagazine.com/1998/jan/jan98_hcnoright_lp.htm or Chellyse66 excellent post)

If the Courts have clearly defined the difference between Liberty or Individual Rights and Welfare rights, we are somewhat stuck with the question of "Moral Obligation". If so, then the next question is:

Do we have a moral obligation to provide healthcare insurance?

Yes, I believe as a society, we do have a moral obligation to provide healthcare to those who are unable to access healthcare do to financial constraint. It is this moral obligation that provides shelter and food on a charitable basis. Why should healthcare be an exception? It shouldn't and in most cases it isn't! We do provide healthcare, however, we do not provide health insurance.

We have consciously and purposefully provided shelter and food as a benevolent act. Their use is defined as temporary and it is limited to specific need, time frame and cost constraint as defined by society. However, we do not provide health insurance, house insurance, auto insurance or life insurance as a benevolent act. Why ? The act of providing insurance is not the same as providing shelter or food.

In the event of a house fire or auto loss, insurance does not provide another house nor does it provide another car. Insurance provides reimbursement for financial loss. Health insurance operates the same. It reimburses those who have suffered a financial loss do to healthcare expenses. Insurance is a product sold to individual's who choose to purchase a policy to protect themselves from financial loss. It is acquired by individual choice. They have a right to spend their hard earned cash for it, but is not an obligation or mandate. Its' purchase places no obligation or burden on other individuals.

And, it is not a product designed to secure healthcare. It may facilitate healthcare access not by design, but because it represents pre-approval by a third party of individual accountability for payment. It serves no purpose for society to insure those who are unable to suffer financial loss, nor will it represent pre-approval of individual accountability for payment not covered by insurance.

The method currently used to provide individual subsidized healthcare is "coupons" or Medicaid. So in fact, we have moral obligation and are providing healthcare. It is not insurance. We are not reimbursing the individual for financial loss. There is not financial loss. Through direct government payments we are purchasing healthcare from the private sector of business for individual consumption.

Do we have a moral obligation to provide healthcare insurance

or

do we have a moral obligation to provide healthcare?

Cdn_Psych · Jul 15, 2001

>Cdn, Libertarianism is not the Green Party.

>It is not full of wanna be 'woodsman' who

>wish to live on compounds like Ruby Ridge or Waco.

~sigh~

Kday, please read what I wrote again. I was making the

point that the extreme emphasis on individualism

in the libertarian philosophy ignores the fact that

we are are social creatures and that we are

interdependent. IF THAT WERE NOT SO (as I wrote),

THEN WE WOULD BEHAVE IN THE MANNER I OUTLINED.

Given that most people do not behave in that manner,

it is clear there is something wrong with the

libertarian view of the world.

>It is not extremism. The premise of the Libertarian party is simply this:

~sigh~

I've read Harry Browne & Harry D. Schultz.

I have a good understanding of the Austrian

school of economics as laid out by Ludwig Von

Mises and his followers as well as some of

Ayn Rand's stuff which forms the philosophical

underpinnings of libertarianism.

Libertarians *ARE* dangerous extremists. They

remind me of the starry-eyed idealists who wrote

all sorts of fanciful reports of how wonderful

life was under Stalin as people within the USSR

were suffering and dying by the millions.

Ever read Solzhenitsyn? - I recommend it, it is

very enlightening.

Even a great mind like Shaw came back with glowing

remarks about the situation inside the USSR - he was

apparently genuinely unaware of the deliberate policy

of mass starvation in which millions died in Ukraine

during that time. Had he witnessed it, I am quite

convinced he would have been horrified.

Critics of the system who survived it called it "Red

Fascism" in their attempt to so precisely and

accurately describe it.

I have it on good authority that (while millions

perished) the Soviet constitution was a ringing

endorsement of human rights. Positively glowing

with meaningless words - something to bear in

mind when you read glowing words about freedom

on some libertarian website.

>National Platform of the Libertarian Party

>Adopted in Convention, July 2000, Anaheim, CA

>

>I. Individual Rights and Civil Order

>Freedom and Responsibility

>

>We believe that individuals should be free to

>make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for

>the consequences of the choices they make.

>We must accept the right of others to choose for themselves

>if we are to have the same right.

>Our support of an individual's right to make choices

>in life does not mean

>that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

~sigh~

Great stuff, who could argue? I like Motherhood & Apple Pie too.

>We believe people must accept personal responsibility

>for the consequences of their actions. Libertarian

>policies will promote a society where people are

>free to make and learn from their own decisions.

>

>Personal responsibility is discouraged by government

>denying individuals the opportunity to exercise it.

>

>This is straight off the Libertarian Party website: http://www.lp.org.

~sigh~

Government forbids other people from driving drunk

and placing my life and that of my child at risk.

I am pleased that I have been denied the "freedom"

to face more drunks on the road when I drive my

car. I am also glad that "freedom" has been

denied to my child.

I am glad that I am denied the "freedom" to rely

on the "private charity" of others if my house

catches fire. I am glad that the government

takes away my "freedom" and that it

"steals" my money in taxes so that I have a

professional & well-equipped fire department

to put out the fire and to rescue my family

and pets if necessary. I'm glad the government

"stole" my money through taxes so that the

firemen will have a road to travel on to get

to my burning house, and that there will be a

working fire hydrant to which to connect the

fire hose.

I am also glad that government denies me the

"freedom" to drink poison water by making sure the

water is free of deadly variants of E-coli.

Oops, pardon me, I forgot, the government *USED* to

provide that protection. Then a bunch of right-wing

radicals gained power here in Ontario and decided

to privatize water testing because that was what

their libertarian-compatible, free market ideology

dictated. They stripped away the "red tape" that

stood in the way of factory farms with a

"right to farm" law and cut the budget and

staff of the Ministry of the Environment to the point

that it was completely hamstrung (as intended).

The result was that the private lab which did the

water testing (at multiples of the amount that it

used to cost when government labs did the analysis)

was not required by law (freedom, right?) to report

to the medical officer of health that Walkerton's water

had been poisoned with deadly E-coli.

The result was that seven people died.

Thousands more were made critically ill and

suffered terrible health effects such as young

children with kidney damage. Helicopters were busy

for weeks airlifting sick & critically ill people to

remote hospitals because the local one was swamped.

Walkerton looked & sounded like a war zone.

But at least the people could be grateful for a $200

tax "rebate" cheque from the government and the

knowledge that they can never again take clean

drinking water for granted. Funny thing about it is

that I'll bet none of them are grateful for this

"freedom", or their now somewhat lower taxes.

You might like it here in low-tax Ontario. Just

don't breathe the air or drink the water, okay?

>In fact, the denial of freedom fosters irresponsibility.

~sigh~

Right. Walkerton residents will never again be

so irresponsible as to trust the drinking water.

But they drank it, so I guess it was their own

fault for not doing their own testing.

As a libertarian, you do accept responsibility

for your water testing, don't you?. Surely you

don't rely on the government to do it?

>Taxation IS theft. I am MANDATED to pay taxes.

>I am not asked. My money is TAKEN from me without

>my consent through government use of force.

>Taking something from someone else by use of

>force is theft. Point blank.

>

>People will still be addicts, abusers, rapists,

>and morons with or without government interference.

>The Libertarians belive that people should be

>personally responsible for their own lives and

>living situations, and that the government need

>not interfere with taxes, social programs, quotas,

>etc..

~sigh~

Try selling that in Walkerton - maybe you'll have

better luck there. I'm not buying.

>Libertarian, defined is: "Libertarians are

>self-governors in both personal and economic matters.

>They believe government's only purpose is to protect

>people from coercion and violence. They value individual

>responsibility, and tolerate economic and social

>diversity. " Meaning, government's responsibility

>is to protect its' citizens from crime and violence

>through policing and the judicial system. Specifically,

>policing and judicial systems WITHOUT things like

>plea bargains, immunity, or parole. You commit a crime,

>you get a sentence. No negotiating, no loopholes.

~sigh~

Now this is interesting. Now we learn that government

has the job of policing & enforcing laws, running courts,

having jails. Before there are laws to be enforced,

someone has to diminish your "freedom" by making a law.

Assuming that the people who provide these services

are not slaves, it would seem reasonable to assume that

they will be paid.

Unfortunately, as libertarians never tire of pointing out,

and you agree, taxation is theft and therefore out of the

question. So you can't pay for them by taxation. Perhaps

you propose to pay them through "private charity".

Well, as someone else here in another thread so eloquently

put it, pennies in the Salvation Army kettle won't do.

So how do libertarians pay for police, courts

and jails without resorting to taxes?

Now, I'll have to confess here that I don't have the

mental capacity to begin to resolve this apparent

fundamental contradiction in libertarian philosophy.

As a libertarian, perhaps you would help me to

understand by explaining it to me (assuming you're in

the mood for some "private charity" today). Just

remember to type slowly and not use any big words,

okay?

>You are behind bars. Period. Jails without television

>or weight rooms or cable t.v..

~sigh~

Right. Good place to put people who steal food to

feed their kids (like they do in Bolivia, for example).

On second thought, why not just kill them?

It'd eat up less tax money.

>By 'tolerate economic

>and social diversity,' this means that making money

>in this country and becoming wealthy by the fruits

>of your labor should not be a 'crime,' nor should

>that wealth be re-distributed to those of lesser

>socioeconomic brackets in the name of 'equality.'

>No quotas, no mandates on hiring practices.

>In essence, no government regulation (force) on

>the social structure of the country. This is

>based on the premise that Americans should be

>granted freedom and opportunity. Not security.

>The government is not a parent.

~sigh~

No child labour laws.

No limits on pollution.

No public health programs.

No public education.

People permitted to starve in the streets.

No limit on my freedom to buy the house next door to you & turn it into a toxic waste dump.

No limit on my freedom to give your kids crack cocaine or heroin.

And you won't mind if I defraud you out of your life savings, as long as I don't use violence or coercion.

Sounds wonderful. I'm *SO* reassured to learn that

libertarians are not extremists.

>I could go on, but this is not about Libertarian

>vs. Democrat vs. Socialism. Just had to clarify that.

>

>By the way, yes, I'm a Libertarian.

>Proud to vote with my BRAIN as opposed to my EMOTIONS.

~sigh~

I can only hope we never are blessed with the implementation of your philosophy.

JennieBSN · Jul 15, 2001

cdn:

wow, are you always this hostile??

natalie · Jul 15, 2001

I have not read any hostility into Cdn's reply to you, Kday. I have, however, had an earful of yours.

Perhaps you could respond to postings other than "don't give me this junk" or

>sigh

"Call me callous, call me whatever"

Mijourney · Jul 15, 2001

Hi. It is true that people, even those without insurance can receive health care, but what kind of health care? Is the health care in the right place, at the right level, and right for the condition?

It is well known that emergency rooms are frequented for nonemergency needs. A well-designed, executed universal health program funded by some type of insurance program with user friendly integrated information systems and highly trained and caring professionals and support staff would or should help reduce the unnecessary use of emergency rooms. Many people leave the emergency room without the tools to properly manage their condition which means poor outcomes and more unnecessary reliance on the system.

Also, a well-thought out universal program may reduce the probability that clinical research would only be for those considered worthy of having their health. For instance, the recent implant of a mechanical heart in a man who it was designed for is great if the plan is for future trials to include others.

Finally, I can't imagine that many nurses are taking care of patients in a consistently orthodox manner. I think what makes nursing practice special is that we use a little unorthodoxy to ensure that all of our patients get the best outcome possible from their care. My desire is that by helping others to get help for their health and see that they understand their responsibilities and accountabilities for their own health, this would decrease overreliance on the system, increase productivity, creativeness, wealth and put the person at an advantage to be competitive.

Cdn_Psych · Jul 15, 2001

>cdn:

>

>wow, are you always this hostile??

Kday, I note that you have not made even a feeble attempt to try to address any of the points I have made in my posts.

I think that is a significant observation.

Cdn_Psych · Jul 15, 2001

Originally posted by natalie

In any event, here's an interesting article in that it states that our current private healthcare system skims 20-30% of every dollar for marketing, executive salaries and profits.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/13/kuttner-r.html

Natalie, thank you for posting this excellent link. It validates much of what I've been saying about the value of public Vs. private health care services.

Perhaps kday will have some cogent and devastating analysis to offer which proves that the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine doesn't know what she is talking about when it comes to health care. Or proves that private funding is superior to public funding in a comprehensive universal single-payer system.

This particular portion especially caught my eye:

================================================

But though Democrats prevailed on the crucial and divisive issue of whether to allow patients to sue

HMOs that deny necessary care, the bill is pretty weak tea. It allows doctors to order expensive treatments, including drugs of choice that are not listed in managed-care companies' formularies. But

doctors can do that now. The problem not addressed in the bill is the nefarious system of physician

compensation that HMOs have devised to get doctors to do their bidding. Unapproved medicines,

tests, and procedures simply come out of physicians' paychecks. The patients-rights bill does not illegalize this perverse financial incentive, so not much will change in the end.

As our colleague Marcia Angell-- former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine--observed

in an op-ed article for The New York Times, what's really wrong with U.S. health care is the fact that insurance is private. The HMO industry takes 20 or 30 cents of every premium dollar for overhead, marketing, executive salaries, and profit. The system pressures insurance companies not to cover the sick but to contain costs at the expense of coverage, prevention, and treatment. Though a useful slap at insurers and a good tonic for Democrats, the patients-rights bill doesn't solve this problem. Only national health insurance does.

To have an eminent doctor such as Marcia Angell come out foursquare for universal health coverage

creates what psychologists call cognitive dissonance. If a serious person backs socialized insurance, either she's wrong or everyone else is. Every sensible politician knows without thinking about it that national coverage is out of the question: too expensive, too much big government, blah, blah, blah. Yet most liberals--like most voters--know that it's what we need. Is it too much to ask that the Democrats lead on this?

=================================================

Over to you, kday.

JennieBSN · Jul 15, 2001

Cdn-

First, in response to your example of being grateful that the government does not allow drunk driving, etc., I must say that you seem to have Libertarianism confused with Anarchy. Libertarians believe in law enforcement and a judicial system. Anarchy and Libertarianism are not interchangeable.

Second, yes, I do believe things like water-quality testing could be successfully privatized. Your one example of privatization failing is not enough to convince me that it should not be attempted again. People will be unscrupulous with or without government interference and control. In fact, the cherished government in this country is guilty of similar unscrupulous behavior. I cannot privately contract to have my water tested because of the 'red tape' imposed in my state, however, if it were an option, I would definitely be willing to do so. Just because something has failed before doesn't mean it should never be tried again. Democracy was once such a thing.

Third, what is so wrong with eliminating government schools? Private and charter schools overwhelmingly out-perform their government counterparts, and contrary to popular belief, not all charter schools and private schools are expensive and 'out of reach' to the poor. Many offer scholarships. An even better option is home schooling. Home schooled children repeatedly beat the pants off their government schooled counterparts in things like SAT testing and college grades. Government schools are expensive and inept. Throwing more money at them has proven to be ineffective at best.

Fourth, yes I have read Solzhenitsyn. When I was 15. Nice try at psuedo-intellectualism. Solzhenitsyn was an existentialist. Existentialism has absolutely nothing to do with Libertarianism. On that note, Communism and Libertarianism are not interchangeable either, as you have implied with your 'red fascism' example. Communists support the re-distribution of wealth an assets amongst its' citizens in the name of 'equality.' In essence, the Democratic/Leftist philosophy is much closer to Communism. Libertarianism and Communism are very different.

The example of locking up the poor souls who steal bread to 'feed their families' is a nice, touching story, however, not realistic in this country. People in this country do not steal to feed their families. They steal to buy rims for their cars, beepers, drugs, cell phones, and Tommy Hilfiger clothes. Even if they DID steal to feed their families, theft is theft. Period. Lock 'em up.

Finally, yes, I agree, human beings ARE interdependent. It is this that drives the Libertarian philosophy to some extent. People would not cease to be benevolent if the government did not mandate it. Church groups, sororities, fraternities, and private benevolent foundations do a wonderful job of assisting the poor and downtrodden in this country WITHOUT government funding or interference. To say that people would allow others to 'starve in the streets' and not assist their fellow man in need if the government was not there to step in shows an enormous lack of faith.

Unfortunately, I believe this debate has reached an impasse. Your arguments fall on deaf ears, as do mine. It is like pitting a pro-life activist against a pro-choice activist. Both are passionate about their philosophies and hold them near and dear. No amount of arguing or barb-throwing will change their minds. It is with this in mind that I have to say at this point we will simply have to agree to disagree.

It's been....interesting.

Universal Healthcare

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