After posting the piece about Nurses traveling to Germany and reading the feedback. I would like to open up a debate on this BB about "Universal Health Care" or "Single Payor Systems"
In doing this I hope to learn more about each side of the issue. I do not want to turn this into a heated horrific debate that ends in belittling one another as some other charged topics have ended, but a genuine debate about the Pros and Cons of proposed "Universal Health Care or Single Payor systems" I believe we can all agree to debate and we can all learn things we might not otherwise have the time to research.
I am going to begin by placing an article that discusses the cons of Universal Health Care with some statistics, and if anyone is willing please come in and try to debate some of the key points this brings up. With stats not hyped up words or hot air. I am truly interested in seeing the different sides of this issue. This effects us all, and in order to make an informed decision we need to see "all" sides of the issue. Thanks in advance for participating.
Michele
I am going to have to post the article in several pieces because the bulletin board only will allow 3000 characters.So see the next posts.
Name me just one citizen in this country barred by the gov't from the right to pursue healthcare?
You seriously err to confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. You compound that error by imposing that mistranslation upon the Constitution.
With rights come the responsibility to avail yourself of those rights. Anything less is something considerably less than a 'right'.
~faith,
Timothy.
Sometimes things just need to be put simply.The right to PURSUE healthcare and the right to HAVE healthcare are two different things.Some folks are not able to do the PURSUIT, due to NO FAULT of their own, back to square one, again.
Sometimes things just need to be put simply.The right to PURSUE healthcare and the right to HAVE healthcare are two different things.Some folks are not able to do the PURSUIT, due to NO FAULT of their own, back to square one, again.
Not back to square one. There is a distinct difference between protecting the outcomes of those that fail due to no fault of their own and those that fail due to lack of effort. And that is a world of difference again between the majority of the masses that have been able to succeed.
To attack that success by rewarding it with yet more restrictions and a rationing of care that denies effort simply serves to place us all in need.
85% of Americans have health coverage.
15% do not.
Of those 15 percent, a substantial plurality avoid healthcare because the CHOOSE to avoid the cost, not because they cannot adequately seek or obtain coverage.
Of the 85%, many are already "insured" by the gov't. Of them, many still do not seek adequate care. Are we to 'protect' their rights by mandating, at the threat of the power of the State, that they seek care? Many overuse such indulgences. Do we compel all to simply accept less care to intervene against that outcome?
How far do we go to ensure 'rights'? At what point is it coercive? At what point do granting 'rights' mean the denial of rights?
It is illogical to suggest that the gov't 'managing' your rights is still a right. The whole Consititution cries out against such a concept. Our founding fathers were people with a healthy contempt of gov't. They rightly considered it an imposition AGAINST rights.
When the gov't takes charge of your rights, it doesn't secure them; it confiscates them.
We've committed to revolution for less. At issue was the concept of taxation without representation. That is the issue with universal care: the goal is more taxation to ensure adequate representation to the few at the expense of the many.
NO, our founding fathers had first hand knowledge of the power of oppressive gov't. Their vision did not include the concept of a better all-powerful gov't. ANY gov't is as corrupt as it is powerful. ANY. NO more; NO less. The only solution our forefathers concluded was that the best gov't is one expressly stripped of such powers.
The Constitution simply does not support the concept that 'rights' extend from or through gov't. Indeed, our founding fathers proudly declared a novel concept: rights extend from God and nature. The Constitution is so successful precisely BECAUSE it turned that notion of rights granted by gov't on its head. Rights extend to the people, not through the interests of gov't, but at the expense TO gov't.
I don't believe that a better all-powerful gov't can be designed. Any all-powerful gov't is, by its very nature of usurping power, corrupt. And THAT is the issue here. This is not a debate about providing coverage to some, but granting the gov't power over all.
You forgot to put me in quotation for that. That's my quote from a different thread. That comment does not contradict my last comments in the slightest. Immunization is not about the rights of the individual but the rights of the community to be afforded herd immunity.
In order to secure those community goals, the rights of the individual are infringed upon.
In order to provide for the military, individual lives and combined dollars are expended at the expense of individual liberty.
etc. etc.
I didn't say the gov't should NEVER exercise power. What I said was that such power should be recognized for what it is: an imposition of gov't. And, such power should be recognized as an imposition against individual rights. That is INDEED how our founding fathers viewed such impositions.
That is not to say that our founding fathers NEVER secured community benefits of gov't at the expense of individual freedoms and efforts. It IS to say that our founding fathers justly feared such impositions.
In the case of immunization, there is a clear community benefit at minimal cost. In the case of healthcare, just the opposite: the greater community would NOT benefit from such a program and the costs could not be maintained - in ADDITION to the fact that the result of such an imposition is the complete denial of the 'right' of the individual to seek healthcare instead of being doled it out.
At issue here is this concept of individual 'rights'. In standing up for the concept of a universal 'right', too many have determined that the only way to do so is to remand those rights to gov't. Many have used the Constitution as justification.
I'm simply pointing out, as concerns our Constitution, the remanding of 'rights' to the gov't was AND SHOULD BE considered the removal of said rights.
I approve of a vaccine program EVEN AS I recognize that it is an imposition AGAINST any claim of individual 'rights' on the subject. That in no way reduces, and even supports my contention that if the gov't takes over healthcare, what is NOT at issue is the securing of rights, but rather the imposition against rights.
I agree that there's no "right" to health. Perhaps the debate on universal care is more about the right to "affordable" health care. We've decided as a society so far (and as many developed countries have decided) to grant the right to a "free" public education through grade 12. As a society, we could decide that we want to pool our resources to bring down the cost for certain services to the individual, or even to provide it "free." Free or subsidized services might include routine check-ups, vaccinations, routine screening tests. Certain prescription drugs might be subsized across the board such as generic diabetes meds.
While many people may not choose a healthier lifestyle and increase their risk for certain disease, it's not because "someone will pay for my meds if I get diabetes/emphysema/hypertension."
Of course, some businesses would lobby that their particular products should be government subsized in order to make them more "universally" affordable. But some businesses will always trying to take advantage of consumers one way or another. If they're not convincing the government to subsidize their product then they're relentlessly advertising to get individuals to buy their product. Vigilance is always in order.
As someone who is a naturalized citizen, I have felt beholden to this country for the opportunities and FREEDOMS it has given my family.My brother fought in Vietnam, my daughter is a Navy Nurse and has done extremely difficult battlefield training with the Marines. She is may end up in a war zone because of this training. Does the service my family has chosen to give this country mean nothing? IF our government is trying to take away our freedoms, WHY would or should anyone volunteer? Such blatent mistrust of this government of the country we choose to live in is dangerous, as dangerous as forms of socialism. The folks who voice these fears are probably good folks,dont get me wrong, I think they may be being misled. My humble opinion only, maybe Im foolish. If the advent of socialized medicine brings about such fear, good lord what will happen if we bring back the draft, or Marshall law has to be declared?I shudder to think.
Fear? Why is that always injected conveniently into the discussion? Phobia this, and fear of that.
I don't like Brussel Sprouts, but I don't fear them. I also don't like it when I have to stand in line at the grocery checkout, but I don't fear it.
I didn't get out of the military all that long ago, and I was a real combat trained medic with the USMC. I can assure you that RN's are in short supply in the military, and they are NOT being trained to serve in combat roles with the Marines.
Only one military RN has died in Iraq since the start of the war in 2003, and she had a heart attack working in a hospital. More civilian nurses have died stateside on the job just this year alone (let alone over the past three years), than have died in Iraq.
Specializes in burn, geriatric, rehab, wound care, ER.
dear conservative friends,
you keep going on and on about the constitution, the founding fathers etc etc etc. Although I have learned a lot, I would like to see some discussion on the economic effects of our current healthcare system vs universal health care. Pretty please.
Fear? Why is that always injected conveniently into the discussion? Phobia this, and fear of that.
I don't like Brussel Sprouts, but I don't fear them. I also don't like it when I have to stand in line at the grocery checkout, but I don't fear it.
I didn't get out of the military all that long ago, and I was a real combat trained medic with the USMC. I can assure you that RN's are in short supply in the military, and they are NOT being trained to serve in combat roles with the Marines.
Only one military RN has died in Iraq since the start of the war in 2003, and she had a heart attack working in a hospital. More civilian nurses have died stateside on the job just this year alone (let alone over the past three years), than have died in Iraq.
My daughter DID attend FMSO training in Camp Lejeune , North Carolina. The Marine's do not have their own medics, they use Navy Hospital Corpsman.I will not insult you by saying you were not in the Navy, dont insult my daughter or her role in the Navy.I misspelled Martial, I certainly hope you knew what I meant, I guess you used this as a reason to be rude. This is way off subject and I apologise to the OP.
My daughter DID attend FMSO training in Camp Lejeune , North Carolina. The Marine's do not have their own medics, they use Navy Hospital Corpsman.I will not insult you by saying you were not in the Navy, dont insult my daughter or her role in the Navy.I misspelled Martial, I certainly hope you knew what I meant, I guess you used this as a reason to be rude. This is way off subject and I apologise to the OP.
I was in the Navy...8404 Combat Medic. FMSO is a 10-day class designed to make officers 'familiar' with the USMC mission, and it is NOT an orientation to the combat zone; however, corpman like myself attended Field Medical Training for 6 weeks to truly learn how to function in real-time combat. Thank God I never had to apply this training, but I am proud enough of my preparation to be disturbed by the way people misrepresent themselves.
I'm not intending to be insultive at all of your daughter's service, but as a former corpsman, I am offended in the way you present her role; it was insulting to those of us who actually went through the training to be placed in a combat zone as opposed to a 10-day indoc which was not in any way a combat familiarization class. Navy Nurses are not placed in combat roles, especially females. And military people in generally don't take kindly to the misrepresentation of roles.
Let me tell you how many Navy Corpsman have died in Iraq; 23. The number of Navy Nurses casualties; Zero.
I was in the Navy...8404 Combat Medic. FMSO is a 10-day class designed to make officers 'familiar' with the USMC mission, and it is NOT an orientation to the combat zone; however, corpman like myself attended Field Medical Training for 6 weeks to truly learn how to function in real-time combat. Thank God I never had to apply this training, but I am proud enough of my preparation to be disturbed by the way people misrepresent themselves.
I'm not intending to be insultive at all of your daughter's service, but as a former corpsman, I am offended in the way you present her role; it was insulting to those of us who actually went through the training to be placed in a combat zone as opposed to a 10-day indoc which was not in any way a combat familiarization class. Navy Nurses are not placed in combat roles, especially females. And military people in generally don't take kindly to the misrepresentation of roles.
Let me tell you how many Navy Corpsman have died in Iraq; 23. The number of Navy Nurses casualties; Zero.
Sharmira, you DO NOT know what you are talking about. There were and are nurses in the combat zone. This is the last I will speak to you about this, because the next time you insult my daughter, the post will probably be pulled for use of profanity.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "
A number of people, here and elsewhere, use this amendment to try to tell us that there is a right to healthcare regardless of ability to pay, it’s just not specifically spelled out in the constitution. However, there are a couple of fundamental flaws in that argument.
First, this argument could be extended to almost anything. A few examples: The people have a right to transportation, regardless of ability to pay. Therefore, the automobile manufacturing industry must be nationalized so that every person can be provided with a reliable automobile. Those who can afford automobiles will continue to pay for them, but through taxation, they will also pay for autos for those who cannot afford them. Further, the companies that produce and sell fuel for those automobiles must be nationalized, and those who cannot afford fuel will have it provided to them at no charge, again on the backs of those who can afford fuel.
People have the right to wholesome, nourishing food. Therefore, the farming, food transportation, and grocery industries must be nationalized, and the government must provide food to those who cannot afford it, again on the backs of those who can. Premium brands and choices can not exist, because it is unfair that some can afford those premium brands, while others cannot.
There are few things that could not be included under this umbrella. The problem is that such nationalization of industry has been tried before. So far, if that experience has taught us anything, it has taught us that complete governmental control of industry is a recipe for certain economic disaster. But more to the point, the argument can be extended from the sublime to the ridiculous. Suppose I have an acquaintance, let’s call him Fred. I find Fred to be annoying to the extreme. So annoying, in fact, that I decide to kill him. After all, I have the right to do so, because the Ninth Amendment says so. Though the right to kill those I find annoying isn’t specifically spelled out in the constitution, neither does the constitution deny me that right. Therefore, it is allowed under the blanket protections of the Ninth Amendment. This exercise in the ridiculous more than adequately highlights my real point, which so far is unanswered:
The constitution guarantees NO right in which the mere exercise of that right somehow places a burden or infringes on the rights of others. If an action can only allow a benefit to one group by placing a burden on others, then that action cannot be considered to be a right. Hence, there is no fundamental right to healthcare, regardless of ability to pay. Guaranteeing such provides a benefit on one group of people only at the expense of another group. Your rights end where the rights of another begin.
By the way, the XIII Amendment abolished slavery. The XIX Amendment guaranteed women’s right to vote. The Ninth Amendment had nothing to do with either of those issues.
As to the speech of Roosevelt, posted by HM2Viking, it makes interesting reading. However, what I found most revealing in that speech was the contradiction it contained:
"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;"
You claim we all have a right to health care, and in the same post, you highlight Roosevelt’s conviction that businesses have the right to fair competition, free from domination by monopolies. Yet you propose to set up perhaps the largest monopoly that has ever been seen. So, are monopolies only fair when you judge them to be just? Or are all monopolies prohibited? And while we are at it, are you suggesting that Roosevelt also intended that the government had the responsibility to provide homes to all Americans, again at taxpayer expense? Is that the next fight? Because, again, I just want to know when I have given enough. When are my taxes, taken to support those "less fortunate" than me high enough?
Finally, Spacenurse, you cannot really be serious. Al Franken? I’ll make you a deal. I won’t quote Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or any of the other conservative talking heads. I’d rather think for myself anyway. But please, don’t ask me to accept that a failed comedian is in any way qualified to tell me how to think.
.thumb.gif.041bac93584716f6dc9882dcd8cf500a.gif){kind=small}
Simplepleasures
1,355 Posts