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.
If you use this argument to keep any changes from occurring then free market can't work either. Free market depends upon competition which means that certain companies and industries will sooner or later "lose" in the competition and anyone employed there will lose their jobs.
But there is a significant difference. In a free market economy, if a company fails to be competitive, consumers may choose other companies to provide the same goods or services, and the one uncompetitive company goes out of business. The same free market economy provides the best opportunity to be able to absorb and reemploy the employees of the one company that has folded. With a nationalized health care plan, we are talking about the wholesale closure of the entire industry. That is a different matter entirely.
And by the way, I don't believe I've proposed any slippery slope arguments. I don't care for that (or any other) logical fallacy.
Spacenurse, the election of either of those people to public office has nothing to do with my original point. My point was that should I reference Limbaugh or Hannity, you probably would feel little need to go to their sites, because you already know what they are going to say. They will spout the conservative line, paragraph and verse. As such, you would likely give them little credibility. The same holds true for Franken. His points are the straight party line. Frankly, I have yet to see Franken have an original thought.
Constitution? What Constitution? The one being walked all over upon by the current "conservative" administration? Yeah, okay. (Not criticizing you UK, but it's funny when people start pointing to the constitution to try to solidify their points, yet ignore what the constitution states when it goes against what they want to see happen).
I did not strictly marshall the Constitution to support my point of view; rather, I defended against the claim that universal healthcare is a 'Constitutional' right. But to the point, ANY major change in which the gov't denies individual rights by assuming prohibitive powers is directly on point to the legal underpinnings of such a change.
Your other arguments, that the current 'conservatives' are 'walking all over the Constitution' is not only specious (it fits your political mindset without the need or obligation to supply proof), it also contains logical fallacies, a red herring argument and a circular argument, to wit: since no conservatives can be right, they must therefore all be wrong.
In reality, I deny the claim that conservatives 'walk all over the Constitution'. For example, with the issue of wire-tapping, there is ample federal law, with ample Constitutional background expressed by all Branches of gov't of all stripes for the duration of our history, to support such action. That however is off topic and I've discussed it at length in threads on topic.
However, EVEN setting that aside, were we to presume your logic, there still contains a fatal flaw, to wit: the assertion that, since evil conservatives can ignore the Constitution, so can we. The import of such an assertion is that the Constitution is not valid and so, no debate regarding the Constitution can be on point. That reasoning merely serves as an excuse, not to debate the Constitutional legality of universal healthcare, but to set that legality completely aside. In the process, such an assertion would itself remove any moral highground from the claim, "THEY walk all over the Constitution"; used as justification to do the same, it would serve to make the claimant equally guilty of the claim.
Specializes in burn, geriatric, rehab, wound care, ER.
"In a free market economy, if a company fails to be competitive, consumers may choose other companies to provide the same goods or services, and the one uncompetitive company goes out of business." passgasser
I believe the reason that we can't choose the universal health care option is because of the current system of financing of political campaigns. Until we change that it will be business as usual and the interests of the corporations will continue to supercede the interests of the country as a whole. Get the money out of politics and we might be able to make some progress.
"My point was that should I reference Limbaugh or Hannity, you probably would feel little need to go to their sites, because you already know what they are going to say." passgasser
I believe that Rush Limbaugh is responsible ( if not wholly, at least in part) for the bipartisanship atmosphere and political inertia we see today in the US. I have on several occasions listened to Limbaugh for as long as I could tolerate and that has only served to reaffirm my beliefs. He spews hatred and negativity with each broadcast.
"Frankly, I have yet to see Franken have an original thought." passgasser
I saw his announcement to run for senate on youtube. I liked what I saw, however I cannot bring myself to move to Minnesota in order to vote for him -which is a pity, because I like his style - credible and very refreshing!
"However, EVEN setting that aside, were we to presume your logic, there still contains a fatal flaw, to wit: the assertion that, since evil conservatives can ignore the Constitution, so can we." kashalga
I have to agree with you on that one Timothy - even if I can't beat them, I definitely won't be joining them.
I have posted links in "Nursing News" when Sean Hannity was "reporting".
I have posted links to audio from Rush too but most of his site costs money to join. I would rather be a Premium member of ALLNURSES.COM.
MY point was this issue. I am glad to have my tax money pay surviver benefits to widows and children, for college loans and Pell grants, and for healthcare.
I think having a health educated population promotes the general welfare.
I think the President agrees. He just wants to keep the for profit corporations as the middlemen.
"There is no question in my mind that a proper role for the federal government is to help the poor and the elderly and the diseased get health care. We'll do that. And to the extent that these important programs need to be reformed and strengthened, we will do that, as well. ... And so we will do our duty at the federal level, and when we find deficiencies in federal programs we will work to correct them, for the good of the citizens and the taxpayers. ... The second aspect of our responsibility is to work to make health care available and affordable for all our citizens, and the best way to do that is through private health insurance."
I did not strictly marshall the Constitution to support my point of view; rather, I defended against the claim that universal healthcare is a 'Constitutional' right. But to the point, ANY major change in which the gov't denies individual rights by assuming prohibitive powers is directly on point to the legal underpinnings of such a change.
Timothy.
I know this argument is becoming circular, but again, was it unconstitutional to take away the right to own slaves? Was it unconstitutional to give women and black Americans the right to vote? There was a huge backlash when these changes were made and we became a better Nation for it.Sometimes if we as a people do a wrong to other people the government has stepped in and righted this wrong. These were CHANGES to better our society, we retained our Democratic form of government.
MY point was this issue. I am glad to have my tax money pay surviver benefits to widows and children, for college loans and Pell grants, and for healthcare.
I think having a health educated population promotes the general welfare.
I think the President agrees. He just wants to keep the for profit corporations as the middlemen.
I guess it does come down to who we are as a society, are we the "Ugly American"? How about all those wasted dollars and using them for the general good? I choose to believe that we as a people will continue to see the nessesity for the social programs we have in place and CHANGE the ones that are not working the way they were originally meant to.We are intelligent enough to CREATE ones that fit the needs of the populace, all of us, not just the 15% uninsured.This past 6 years has been devastating to the physche of this country, such negativity and mistrust.Hate mongers, like Limbaugh and others have perpetuated this, my opinion. Its time to vote in a government we can trust, we need to demand EXCELLENCE, from those candidates . I think we are SICK of a government that does not reflect the peoples choice. It is time for the PEOPLE to speak LOUDER than the CORPORATIONS.
Specializes in burn, geriatric, rehab, wound care, ER.
How about all those wasted dollars and using them for the general good? I choose to believe that we as a people will continue to see the nessesity for the social programs we have in place and CHANGE the ones that are not working the way they were originally meant to.We are intelligent enough to CREATE ones that fit the needs of the populace, all of us, not just the 15% uninsured.This past 6 years has been devastating to the physche of this country, such negativity and mistrust.Hate mongers, like Limbaugh and others have perpetuated this, my opinion. Its time to vote in a government we can trust, we need to demand EXCELLENCE, from those candidates . I think we are SICK of a government that does not reflect the peoples choice. It is time for the PEOPLE to speak LOUDER than the CORPORATIONS.
Specializes in burn, geriatric, rehab, wound care, ER.
Bush is starting to catch on:
"President George W. Bush said on Saturday it was crucial to rein in U.S. health care costs that are surging at twice the rate of wages and urged the Democratic-led Congress to work with him on the issue.
"I am confident that if we put politics aside, we can find practical ways to improve our private health care system," Bush said in his weekly radio address.
He called health care an "urgent priority" and said rising costs were putting a burden on families and businesses."
I personally think that Mr. Franken will make a great Senator unlike Nimrod Norm Coleman. Read the book for a refreshing take on how the right wing agenda is harming America.
In fact, Social Security is in better financial shape than ever, holding vast stocks of Treasury bonds on which interest can and will be paid. No economic or budget imperative requires that Social Security be cut, now or later. In private discussion Hamilton leaders let on that they understand this. But they are prepared, nevertheless, to include Social Security cuts--pension cuts for America's elderly, many of whom would otherwise be poor--in some sort of grand deficit bargain. Progressives must be absolutely categorical in rejecting any such deal.
Healthcare costs are a big problem. But they are a problem affecting both public and private healthcare, not Medicare and Medicaid alone. And it's highly unlikely that the problem of rising healthcare costs will extend to the point projected by Bernanke and Walker, who imply that healthcare will absorb one-third of the GDP within a generation--two or three times as much as in any other country. If that happens, as Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, has pointed out, we could cost-effectively contract out medical care to the Canadians and the French.
I personally think that Mr. Franken will make a great Senator unlike Nimrod Norm Coleman. Read the book for a refreshing take on how the right wing agenda is harming America.
I listened to Mr. Franken's candidacy speech, found it to be refreshing, honest and speaks to the heart of the poor and middle class American.
I know this argument is becoming circular, but again, was it unconstitutional to take away the right to own slaves? Was it unconstitutional to give women and black Americans the right to vote? There was a huge backlash when these changes were made and we became a better Nation for it.Sometimes if we as a people do a wrong to other people the government has stepped in and righted this wrong. These were CHANGES to better our society, we retained our Democratic form of government.
These were also changes that did not happen just because we disagreed with the Constitution on these issues, but rather, happened because we CHANGED the very nature of the Constitution by the Amendment process.
Universal Healthcare is NOT a power that the gov't can assume away from its citizens under our current Constitution. IF you feel compelled that universal healthcare is as valid a change as the ones you have cited, then the Amendment process lay open as still a valid venue to institute such changes.
In the meantime, the gov't is strictly limited in the rights it may take away from the people, and rightly so.
But to answer your question directly, none of the changes you cited to the Constitution could be considered 'unConstitutional' because the very nature of the Constitution was specifically amended to include these concepts.
By citing these specific changes to the Constitution, you have merely validated the Amendment process as the only legitimate venue to make such changes.
And I assure you, if universal healthcare could not muster simple majority support in 1992 with a willing President and his party's control of both Houses of Congress, it will not in any near term attain the requisite 2/3rds majority of both Houses to send the issue to the States. Even THEN, the States have had enough of dictation from the Federal Gov't; it would be difficult to envision 3/4ths of the States signing off on giving yet another power over to Federal control.
.thumb.gif.041bac93584716f6dc9882dcd8cf500a.gif){kind=small}
:yelclap: :thankya:
passgasser
88 Posts
But there is a significant difference. In a free market economy, if a company fails to be competitive, consumers may choose other companies to provide the same goods or services, and the one uncompetitive company goes out of business. The same free market economy provides the best opportunity to be able to absorb and reemploy the employees of the one company that has folded. With a nationalized health care plan, we are talking about the wholesale closure of the entire industry. That is a different matter entirely.
And by the way, I don't believe I've proposed any slippery slope arguments. I don't care for that (or any other) logical fallacy.
Spacenurse, the election of either of those people to public office has nothing to do with my original point. My point was that should I reference Limbaugh or Hannity, you probably would feel little need to go to their sites, because you already know what they are going to say. They will spout the conservative line, paragraph and verse. As such, you would likely give them little credibility. The same holds true for Franken. His points are the straight party line. Frankly, I have yet to see Franken have an original thought.