Who are the Uninsured?

Nurses Activism

Published

Who are the Uninsured? October 16, 2003

Numbers Point to Problem Created When Legislation Driven by Headlines

By Chris Patterson

Another horrifying announcement from our newspapers a few weeks ago - millions of Americans are uninsured. It's so often repeated, we no longer have to ask what people are going without. This is about health insurance.

Most articles began with alarming statistics, as the Austin American-Statesman did: "The number of Americans who lack health insurance climbed by nearly 6 percent in 2002, to 43.6 million, the largest single increase in a decade, according to figures to be released today by the Census Bureau."

Such stories, and agitated editorials that followed, are geared to evoke cries of outrage for the victims. We are led to believe that this "crisis" is "growing" and, like random urban violence, not one of us may be spared.

Editorial pages have been calling on legislators - state and federal - to do something, and do it quickly. They call for more laws, more spending, more taxes, more government.

We need to breath deeply, calm down and look at the facts.

The National Center for Policy Analysis, based in Dallas, recently examined the numbers of "uninsured."

Almost three-fourths of the newly "uninsured" are people who are making over $50,000, according to the NCPA report, and simply choose not to purchase health insurance. While this decision says many things about the cost of medicine, it does not mean that people without health insurance are poor and desperate for help.

Since 1993 the number of uninsured in households with annual incomes above $75,000 increased 114 percent, according to the NCPA. On the other side of the economic divide, the study finds the number of uninsured with annual incomes below $25,000 fell by 17 percent.

The NCPA uncovered some facts that don't make it to the newspapers. For example, young adults are less likely than other age groups to have health insurance, while those over 65 are almost all insured. Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 make up some 41 percent of the "uninsured." This makes sense. We all remember the invincible years of the twenties - that is a healthy age and most young people are making the economic decision not to waste their money for insurance they do not need at the time.

Most interesting of NCPA's findings is the length of time people remain uninsured: just under a year in 75 percent of the cases.

The shrillness of many press releases and news stories disguise the fact that many without health insurance are making a rational choice. Trumping feelings over fact, the uninsured are portrayed as hapless victims of hard employers and greedy insurers.

While passing legislation to create more programs that spend more money might make for good politics, they do no good in the long run and often deflect resources from the truly needy.

Perhaps the only accurate conclusion we can draw from headlines is that a great many Americans are opting to take care of themselves in ways not reflected in insurance headcounts. Instead of creating more programs, lawmakers should search for ways to make it easier for us all to plan and pay for our individual health care needs. Rather than raising taxes to slay an illusionary dragon, legislators could reduce the mandates making health care - and health insurance - so expensive for every one.

Chris Patterson is director of research for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan research institution.

TexasPolicy.com

In this case, it isn't the government that is mostly responsible for our jobs going overseas, it is the usual greedy conservative business heads that are the cause. BTW, Walmart is a HUGE offender in this area. Companies have chosen to do this of their own accord, because the labor is cheaper for them elsewhere. Its business as usual--increase profits at all cost and who cares about the people (even in our own country). THAT is what is anti-american, yet these are often the same people that pretend to cherish the Constitution. The way I see it, if you protect the rights of everyone--that is american, if you protect the rights of only the greedy--that is anti-american! Whatever you want to call it--socialism, capitalism, or communism, they are merely tools to get us to where we want to go. They are economic systems to be used as we deem necessary, they are not codes to live by.

Similarly, our political systems and even the Constitution itself is really only a tool. As awesome a document as it is, it has amendments to it for a reason and I am sure there will be more. As we move forward, we willl continue to see how it needs to be changed since those who created it could not have forseen all that is to come. Hence, it seems inappropriate to think that someone is anti american if they don't agree with everything in it. How exactly did slavery fit into the Constitution?

Building a Culture of Character

by Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., Don Eberly, Samuel Gregg, and Joseph Loconte

Heritage Lecture #755

August 6, 2002 | |

Character and the Destiny of Free Government

Matthew Spalding

The remarkable generation that built this great nation led a daring revolution against the strongest military power in the world. They declared American independence based on self-evident truths, asserted a new ground of political rule in the sovereignty of the people, and launched an experiment in self-government. Through a carefully written constitution that limits power and secures rights while allowing for change through its own amendment, they created an enduring framework of republican government that allows their posterity to enjoy the many blessings of liberty. Yet for all of their accomplishments, they could not guarantee the success of their handiwork.

As he departed the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was asked if the framers had created a monarchy or a republic. "A republic," he famously replied, "if you can keep it." In the end, Franklin and the other founders knew full well that it would always be up to future generations to keep alive what they had created. "The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government," George Washington observed in his First Inaugural Address, "are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." The success of the American experiment in self-government ultimately depended not on the precision of our laws, the strength of our economy, or the extent of our military power but on the character of our citizenry.

The American Founders knew that one of the greatest bulwarks of our character as a self-governing people is our limited government. Limited government is necessary to protect liberty and what we today call civil society, what President Bush has called our communities of character--families, churches, volunteer organizations, schools. But they also knew, following political thinkers back to Plato and Aristotle, that law played a key role in the formation of character, as it shaped the habits and mores of citizens. As a result, although they recognized the need for government to take account of man's self-interest and not rely too much on virtue, they designed laws that would encourage certain virtues and good habits of government.

Consider the Constitution. The separation of powers and the system of checks and balances thwarts governmental despotism and promotes responsibility in public representatives. The legitimate constitutional amendment process allows democratic reform at the same time that it elevates the document above the popular passions of the moment, thereby encouraging deliberation and patience in the people. The law inspires caution and encourages mutual checks in our representatives and thereby confines them to their constitutional responsibilities and prevents a spirit of encroachment by government. The people learn from the law-making process to curb their own passions for immediate political change and abide by the legitimate legal process. The demands of good public policy cause the people to be moderate and circumspect. Good opinions in the people, and good government, have a complementary effect on politics.

Nevertheless, the Founders did not believe that the new institutional arrangements were sufficient by themselves to define and maintain the type of character necessary for republican government. They knew that a constitution, no matter how well constructed, did not remove the need for good citizens and sound morals. At the end of the American Revolution, James Madison wrote for Congress an Address to the States that concludes with a warning that still rings true:

[T]he citizens of the United States are responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society. If justice, good faith, honor, gratitude and all the other qualities which ennoble the character of a nation and fulfill the ends of government be the fruits of our establishments, the cause of liberty will acquire a dignity and lustre, which it has never yet enjoyed, and an example will be set, which cannot but have the most favourable influence on the rights of Mankind. If on the other side, our governments should be unfortunately blotted with the reverse of these cardinal virtues, the great cause which we have engaged to vindicate, will be dishonored and betrayed; the last and fairest experiment in favor of the rights of human nature will be turned against them; and their patrons and friends exposed to be insulted and silenced by the votaries of tyranny and usurpation.

Hence Franklin's second clause: a republic, if you can keep it. Republican government was possible only if the private virtues needed for civil society and self-government remained strong and effective. The civic responsibility and moderation of public passion also requires the moderation of private passion through the encouragement of individual morality. And the best way to encourage morality is through the flourishing of religion and the establishment of traditional moral habits. "Of all the disposition and habits which lead to political prosperity," Washington wrote in his Farewell Address, "Religion and morality are indispensable supports." Religion and morality aid good government by teaching men their moral obligations and creating the conditions for decent political life. Thomas Jefferson, the great defender of rights and liberty, put it bluntly when he said that the American people "are inherently independent of all but the moral law."

And when it came to politics proper, the demands of character are all the more challenging. George Washington, in his First Inaugural address, argued that the constitutional arrangements of republican government depended on virtue and character in the people in general and in our leaders in particular. Making only a passing reference to the Constitution, Washington focused instead on "the talents, the rectitude, and the patriotism"--that is, the character--of those selected to devise and adopt the laws. It is here--and not in the institutional arrangements or measures themselves--that he saw the "surest pledges" of wise policy. The individual character of the representative was the best guarantee that "the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality."

The simple lesson is that there was no radical distinction--as there is today--between private morality and public character. These realms, private and public, are fundamentally connected and intertwined. Only if we can govern ourselves--restraining our individual passions and wants--can we as a people be capable of self-government. Moral character--understood as the ability to restrain the passions and maintain good habits--is necessary for the preservation of free government, and hence the safety and happiness of the American people. It is this sense that self-government and the governing of one's own passions necessarily precedes free government.

At the same time, civil society requires free government (by which I mean the political process by which equal citizens rule and are ruled in turn) because it not only allows and encourages but also provides the stage for and spotlights the fully developed moral character. It is in the nature of man to be political, which is to say that the rational and communicative nature of man requires relationships with others--from families and friendships to active participation in the political community--for the perfection of the human virtues.

But it is the connection between limited, constitutional government and a thriving civil society that is key. Each needs the other, and neither can survive on its own. Together--and only together--is one able to build, or in our case rebuild, a culture of character.

This understanding of things, which is encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence, generally held from the time of the Founding through the 19th century. It was toward the end of the 19th century, during what is referred to as the Progressive Era, that it was replaced by a different view. In the minds of the new thinkers this shift marked the end of the old order and the birth of a new republic. The Constitution was alleged to be a reactionary document designed to thwart democratic principles and opinion; the progressives wanted to reinvent the old Constitution as "a living document" capable of change, growth, and adaptation. Their objective was to transform the old constitutional system into a genuine democratic instrument of liberal social reform.

What does this have to do with the question of character? The shift from a constitutional system of limited government to an administrative system for the sake of progressive social policy also entails a shift from an emphasis on the moral character of individual citizens to the evolving ideals of the social community. In the old system, character was needed to moderate the passions of human nature and dampen their influence, thereby allowing for deliberate self-government and the thriving of civil society.

But with the new system, there is little concern with moral character and little worry about emancipating the passions. This is for two reasons. First, progressive liberalism is built upon the philosophy of moral relativism and thus rejects distinctions between good and bad; the moral virtues--those habits and perfections that implied a distinction between virtue and vice, right and wrong--are relegated to the realm of private opinion and personal values. And second, the problems caused by "bad character" are to be solved--or more precisely overcome--by more democracy, more progress, and more government. It is no longer the purpose of government to restrain the passions and secure unalienable natural rights. Free government comes to mean the value-free pursuit of self-realization, and the new purpose of government is to assure an even expanding notion to civil rights and government entitlements.

The progressive argument in favor of replacing the old order (including the old morality) with a liberal state oriented toward social progress has been overwhelmingly successful, and has transformed our politics and our character. Governing has become obscure, incomprehensible, and at the same time petty and small-minded, inviting and encouraging interest groups instead of deliberation and responsibility. The current system encourages habits and forms a character incompatible with republican government by feeding entitlements rather than checking the narrowest passions of self-interest. More important is the effect the new view has had on our understanding of moral character. According to the new version, an unbreachable wall separates private character (which is personal, and value-laden) and public character (which is political, and socially oriented). And there are new value-neutral virtues, such as toleration, empathy, and sincerity.

There is a deeper problem as well. Not only does progressive liberalism deny a substantive role for morality in public life, but the extended reach of the state has forced traditional morality--the ground of the old idea of character--into a smaller and smaller private sphere. The sharp distinction between public and private, accompanied by the expansion of the governmental sphere points toward the privatization of morality. If all values are relative, and freedom now means liberation of the human will, it is hard to see any restraints on individual choice. The effect that this combination of things has had on education, religion, and the family--with the rise of illegitimacy and the breakdown of marriage--has been devastating.

All is not despair, however. There is reason for some optimism. Gertrude Himmelfarb and Charles Murray--our greatest social observers, who have been skeptical about our accomplishments to date in effecting moral recovery--both point to fragmentary evidence of moral improvement. Murray, for example, has pointed to what he calls "the partial restoration of traditional society" --that is, the return to traditional moral viewpoints that began to be rejected in the 1960s. Specifically, he has called attention to evidence pointing to a rise in educational standards, the onset of a religious revival, and a return to traditional sexual and marital behaviors. Himmelfarb agrees that a reaction is taking place against what she regards as the "dominant ethos" of moral permissiveness. And the reaction--the return toward more traditional, less permissive morality--is taking place "among young people who will shape the culture of the future."

The revival of a culture of character is assuredly the greatest task we face today. Looking ahead, if we wish to proactively rebuild a culture of character and not merely wait for trends to turn our way, we must reject the core principles and moral relativism of progressive liberalism. We must also restore the argument of the American Founders that it takes both the workings of limited government and the proper dispositions and habits of the people to form good government and good character. This means that we must break down the administrative state so as to rebuild constitutional government, on the one hand, and actively encourage the revival of the true institutions of civil society--families, churches, and schools--so as to rebuild the moral character of our citizens, on the other.

Although it was at a terrible cost, the events of September 11 dealt a significant blow to the philosophy of moral relativism. It is hard to deny that there is evil in the world, and that there is good. Perhaps this moment of resolve can be transformed into a new era of responsibility and the revival of the American character. We must never forget, especially at times like these, that the "preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government," as Washington reminds us, are staked on the experiment entrusted to our hands. How we proceed, as a people and as a nation, will largely determine our future and the fate of free government.

Matthew Spalding is the director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

The Role of Civil Society in shaping Character

Don Eberly

I think we're making a certain amount of headway in helping people understand again the animating first political principles of the American experiment. I don't know that we have made much headway in helping them appreciate the role that sentiments and mores and attitudes and habits had in the design of our Founders. In their minds it was not just important that we had a constitutional government; it was very, very important in their eyes that we had, and should continue to have, a thriving civil society focused on human freedom. But that freedom was understood to be fairly narrow. It wasn't something that came easy, and it took a tremendous amount of work. It was not a matter of debate during that time period: freedom required character and virtue. Hence, the famous reply of Benjamin Franklin: "A republic, if you can keep it." Now there's a message we should take to our generation. Wherever you're coming from politically in America, I think it's fair to say that people do care about freedom. But I think we ought to start talking about the demands and the obligations and the personal responsibilities that are required to preserve freedom. We must create, or perhaps we should say recreate, a culture of character.

John Adams once said that the Constitution was made for a moral and religious people and is wholly inadequate for any other. The question for our time is not only how do you sustain character but also how do you recover it if it is lost? From the very first American settlement, this work of maintaining character was done--and I maintain that the work of recovering this character will be done--by civil society.

America succeeded early on because it created a culture that expected, encouraged, and rewarded virtue and character. Indeed, the first institutions built on the frontier after the land was cleared were schools and churches. Mary Ann Glendon of Harvard often says that if history teaches us anything, it is that American constitutional government cannot be taken for granted. Our political order is dependent upon conditions that are more or less cultural in nature, having to do mostly with character. If we're concerned about character--and we certainly are--we must take a deep interest in character-shaping institutions. Character is not something simply that we inhale from the air. It is not something that we teach; it's not just about pedagogy.

Character must be cultivated through formative institutions. In fact, if we had time we could get into research on early child development having to do with conscience formation. We as a society are obsessed with freedom of conscience but we have very little idea about the cultivation of conscience. Conscience formation, for example, which requires real institutions to be functioning. Families. Fathers. Functioning schools. Places of worship. Neighborhood groups that care about safety and order and standards. Role models and moral exemplars in the culture and so on.

Alexis de Tocqueville is the person among many observers of American life who really did understand exactly the unique moral principles of America, the founding generation, and how they would be or were being, during his period of observation, carried forward on the American scene. He was also a great student of social history. His great observation was that Americans of all ages, all stages in life, and all types of dispositions are forever forming associations of a thousand different types: religious, moral, serious, futile, very general, very limited, immensely large, and very minute. Americans combined to found seminaries, build churches, distribute books. (He was even imagining at the time the Heritage Foundation being built someday!) Hospitals, prisons, and schools took shape this way. If they wanted to proclaim a truth or propagate some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, Americans formed an association. These associations, Tocqueville argued, were absolutely indispensable. All other forms of social and political progress depended upon these unique voluntary associations not only because they served to meet thousands of local practical and charitable needs and help moralize communities when such activity was encouraged, but also because they were little schools of citizenship, and thus helped in the formation of our democratic character. It was in the forming of voluntary associations that we developed our civic habits and defined our character.

This is an idea that Tocqueville borrowed in part at least from Edmund Burke, who said that the "little platoon" which we belong to in society is the first link in the chain by which we proceed toward a love of our country and of mankind generally. We start with our love and our loyalty to the little platoon, out of which grows our sense of service and our sense of duty toward persons in the immediate sphere of our lives--such as our own families and in our neighborhoods and local communities. This sense of duty extends to the love of mankind and love of country. These little associations and institutions literally cultivate the kind of habits and sentiments that I think the American Founders were talking about. Burke went on to say that these subdivisions are actually partnerships, not just between those who are living but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to come. They are the spiritual, moral, and political communities--the little transmission belts, if you will--that are absolutely essential to the preservation of our system.

I want to be practical about this. Far from being anti-politics, I understand politics as a very noble calling. Citizenship entails important formal political responsibilities. But in a well-ordered society, the lawmaking function is peripheral to much of the pulsing life of society. Too many in our generation have assumed that to improve society, one must first turn to politics, meaning parties, interest groups, coalitions, and the lawmaking process. I recognize that this is part of the answer. But if the big issues of our time have to do with values, attitudes, habits, and beliefs, we will be more concerned about the shape of our character-shaping institutions. In regard to the institutions of civil society, government should concern itself mostly with doing no harm, and where appropriate, empowering other non-governmental institutions to do their jobs better.

In my opinion, the greatest model of how civil society can be brought to bear upon one of the most difficult political problems of the time can be seen in the example of William Wilberforce, the British Member of Parliament who successfully campaigned over the course of 40 years to fully eradicate the slave trade. At the time, the slave trade traversed the globe and was as large as today's defense industry. It was ferociously defended by numerous economic sectors that profited from it and permitted by the general moral laxity of the time. The times were characterized by high rates of crime, drunkenness, and general disregard for standards. Public confidence in laws was at an all-time low, and there was widespread political corruption. Wilberforce knew that government action against slavery was impossible short of a massive shift in the moral attitudes and habits of the people, so he set forth two great objects: reforming the manners and morals of the people and abolishing the slave trade. A strategy for reformation that started with lawmaking was guaranteed to fail. Wilberforce was merely acknowledging what others in history had observed. Law has an instructive and very influential role in the course of a culture, but laws to a very large extent are a reflection of the culture.

Law, in the end, is downstream from the culture. When the mores shift, the laws almost inevitably shift along with them. Edmund Burke said that manners are more important than laws because upon manners in great measure the laws depend. Plato said, give me the songs of a nation--it matters not who writes the laws. We must conclude, as Wilberforce concluded, that if we are going to change law, we must go upstream to the tributaries of moral beliefs and conduct. In doing so we must understand that this work will not be done by the state but will be done by various voluntary associations within civil society. Over the course of three decades, William Wilberforce personally founded and participated in as many as 67 voluntary associations aimed at the reform of manners and morals. It was his work and the work of those like him that resulted in one of the most dynamic chapters in the history of voluntary reform societies.

The President in his campaign declared his desire to bring about changes in social policy grounded in the idea that, in dealing with poverty, we ought to go first to the neighborhood healers. We ought to learn first from those front-line anti-poverty workers who understand how to treat the poor--body, mind, and soul--and who understand how to use neighborhood-based solutions. These people understand that to experience genuine transformation, individuals must be restored as persons and restored once again in relationship to their family, neighborhood, community, and places of worship. Our goal is to reverse the pattern of the prior half century, moving away from the top-down rule-driven bureaucratic approach to one that actually learns from, and is instructed by, and which seeks to capture these transforming elements in the communities of America.

The Administration is now involved in the early stages of a major overhaul of how we promote international economic development by developing the fruits of civil society in other countries. For too long, our policies abroad were yielding the same failed dependency-producing results that our policies at home had been producing. Just two weeks ago the President unveiled something called the Millennium Compact, which will bring dramatically new terms and conditions for our programs abroad. First of all, we will withdraw aid from governments that are corrupt and simply refuse to reform themselves. In all too many cases, our own policies perpetuate rather than reverse corruption, and this is a very, very serious problem. We must also link economic progress to democratization and good governance. Our policies should encourage prosperity by increased trade, open markets, increased direct private investment, and expanded entrepreneurship, but they must also advocate American democratic values, the rule of law, open and accountable government, and human rights. In order to do this we need to bypass bureaucracies and international technocrats and work with citizens and local community-building groups--including faith-based organizations--to build local capacity around the world, shifting our emphasis away from what we can do for people to what people can and want to do for themselves. We must treat people as partners in their own development. Every person, every community and every country has untapped capacity--and transformative powers.

The rule of voluntary associations must guide our thinking as we look at social policy today, both at home and abroad. American history is filled with remarkable success stories, and this heritage of voluntary action offers important insights into how we might promote cultural renewal. Private voluntary organizations form the very basis of America's remarkable capacity to renew itself. Our policy should be to unleash that capacity to renew our country and revive freedom around the world.

Don Eberly is Senior Counselor for International Civil Society at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Liberty and Moral Ecology: The Nexus of Truth

Samuel Gregg

When it comes to reflecting upon questions such as culture and its implications for the political order, most contemporary commentators continue to be dwarfed by the perennial genius of the 19th century philosopher and French Catholic aristocrat, Count Alexis de Tocqueville. For much of the 20th century, the unique insight of Tocqueville into the importance of culture for a free society was overshadowed by those three great masters of the hermeneutics of suspicion: Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Sigmund Freud. In more recent years, however, more have begun to recognize that those who are genuinely interested in seeing freedom prevail would be wise to look to Tocqueville's writings on American democracy as well as his reflections on ancien régime France. In these works, we find more than just a sophisticated analysis of the particular problems confronting two quite different societies. Instead, we begin to recognize that it is culture rather than economics that will determine whether freedom will prevail or wither, for, as Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger of Paris once observed, it is culture rather than economics that rules the world.1

Perhaps the most telling evidence of the centrality of culture for a free society is provided by those societies that, for many years, were decidedly unfree. Between 1933 and 1939, Germany's moral culture was transformed from one profoundly marked by a Judeo-Christian ethic to one in which there was relatively little resistance to attempts to exterminate entire categories of people. The fact that German law actually forbade many of the actions of the Nazi regime--ranging from its deadly euthanasia and eugenics programs, to the infamous 1941 Commissar order, to the moral catastrophe of Auschwitz--did little to prevent the regime from pursuing such policies. The slow but gradual changes in the moral-cultural environment in which Germans moved, lived, and had their being made real the possibility of such barbarism.2

Likewise, we know that 70 years of Communism profoundly affected the moral ecology of many European nations. For the most damaging aspect of Communism was not economic. It was not even political. Instead, the greatest damage was moral. How do we know this? Part of the answer lies in reflecting upon some of the mistaken presumptions of those Westerners who traveled to Eastern Europe in the early 1990s, confident that the road to the free society lay in the rapid privatizing of industries, the protection of private property, and the establishment of rule of law.

In hindsight, we now know that such ideas reflected a certain blindness to Communism's damage to the moral ecology of these nations. The establishment of rule of law, private property, and market exchange are part of the way to the free society. But they cannot and do not suffice in themselves. Indeed, in several former Communist countries, it is not the free economy that reigns, but rather the black market. The rule of law is routinely flouted, organized crime flourishes, and private property rights remain uncertain. In no way can these be called free societies. They border, in fact, upon being kleptocracies.

The question thus arises: How do we develop a moral ecology appropriate for a free society? Do we simply expect it to evolve spontaneously from nowhere, or is a more pro-active role needed?

To finish reading this article:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL755.cfm

© 1995 - 2004 The Heritage Foundation

This reminds me of the a Supreme Court case where the court said:

"Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." Olmstead v. U.S

Specializes in ICU.
Originally posted by kitkat24

My point with the post from your Senate (?), is that these are problems currently identified in your system in Australia. You guys haven't worked out all the problems. How long have you had socialized medicine? Why trade our problems, which do not seem to be as bad, for socialized medicine problems?

The point is to have your tonsils removed is a problem in Australia. It is not here in the US. They would not treat you with antibiotics for a year (so you don't die of sepsis) while you wait on a list because your tonsils are not a priority.

I know that the post was because your country is trying to fix their PROBLEMS. It was actually an exerpt from a more liberal state of mind (Liberal in the US meaning left wing and not conservative), yet it still IDENTIFIES problems in your system.

The next step is they say, "MORE MONEY WILL FIX IT". So, more tax dollars get put into the system and it never does get fixed. More money never fixes the problem, yet liberals sream for more more more and more money.

kitkat

Kitkat - Please listen to someone who by virtue of the the fact that I LIVE in Australia knows more about the system than you do. You have the stick by the wrong end in several ways.

1) You do not have to wait to have an emergent or an urgent problem seen. The ONLY wait is if you wanted you tonsils removed "just because" Please believe me I work in the system. Every day we take urgent theatre cases in. If it is cancerous - there might be short (week or so) wait for an opening in the operating room theatre booking but it would NOT be longer than that urgent cases - THAT day and we pay overtime, triple time to theatre staff to stay on if need be.

2) That article is NOT from a liberal source it is the senate sub-committee the senate - mixed bag of yahoo's that are the second tier of goverment

3) They were looking for problems and believe me what they were looking for is NON-monetary ways of fixing the system.

4) Our system is not perfect but I believe it is equitable and if it is SOOOOOO wrong - why do so many Aussies keep voting for it??? We are not a stupid people. The Queensland election was on Saturday Peter Beattie won despite the fact that he had ministers resign in the middle of the campaign for bullying, despite announcing some very unpopular issues - why did he win??? He promised more nurses for the public hospitals and improvements.

Is it the case in the US that a paramedic company is fined by the hospital if they bring in a non-paying accident victim? That they check your wallet, then your pulse, in that order?

Is it true that each individual has a lifetime maximum insurance cover level, that when you reach it, cover stops?

Is it true that a mother of two congenitally ill children who had reached said maximum, on seeking further cover, was told; "Madam, we don't insure burning houses"?

Is it true that two women with indentical breast lumps were treated differently, one aggressively and the other conservatively, based on their insurance status?

These may or may not be accurate reflections of the reality of US healthcare, but are typical of the "horror" stories used when comparing our NHS with the US system. No system is perfect.

In our system, all wage earners pay to fund a service which is available to all, depending on CLINICAL need, regardless of ability to pay. People are free to use the independent sector if they choose to.

Specializes in ICU.

Actually Don - almost hesitate to post this but over here the US health care system is used as a "bad example". Whenever the government tries to dismantle Medicare (and believe me the Liberal Government has tried) there is a big outcry because we do not want to become "like America"

Now I am not saying that there is not good medicine happening in America neither am I saying that your system is no good but it is not perceived as "equitable" and that carries a LOT of weight here.

Kitkat,

Ofcourse I read your post--I would not have missed it for the world. Seriously, I read it and I am glad that you wrote it. I am glad you wrote it mainly because you demonstrated some degree of concern for people in general. And you are very knowledgeable when it comes to american history and civics---even if I remembered as much from history I think I might have expired before I was able to write that much! I agree with nearly everything you said and quoted and I certainly still agree with most of the constitution. As I mentioned earlier, I have been exposed to a few different religions and I am not so sure that christianity has all the answers. Actually, indian philosophy (I mean from India--not native american) is the most interesting for me because of one of their primary beliefs. They believe that if you reject anyone's philosophy that you will never know the truth, that you will never have all the pieces to the puzzle since there is at least a little truth in all beliefs. But I digress.

You mentioned that the Constitution promotes responsibility in our representatives. I am sure it is intended to, but our representatives are not particularly responsible since they fail often to represent us rather than money. The people who would have a significant impact on our lives and who might lead by example ( politicians, government, business heads) do not seem to have much moral character at all. There is still widespread political curruption just as there was during the "Progressive Era". Perhaps culture, rather than economics does determine if a free society prevails, But our culture and economics are being controlled by big business and the media--that is not good. Finally, toleration, empathy and sincerity are NOT "value neutral".

So your final question was "how do we develop a moral ecology appropriate for a free society?" I like this part--rather than feuling anger, we work on a solution. It seems to me that to influence our morality as had to be done before slavery was abolished as you mentioned, we would need to believe in those who sought to influence us. Since most of us consider those in power ( business or government) to be relatively devoid of moral character or the desire to do what is right rather than what is lucrative, this would prove to be impossible. I will not suggest that anyone is perfect or saintly, but it seems to me that the liberal way of thinking (or at least my way of thinking) is much closer to the virtues you spoke of and the ideals upheld in the Constitution than the line of thinking that many conservatives and nearly all business men follow. I whole heartedly agree with teaching a man to fish so that he may eat for a life time rather than giving a man a fish so that he may eat only for a day. If our own people keep dumping toxic waste into the water from which we fish, then man searches for a different type of food (or economic system). In this country we have allowed these greedy business men to become so wealthy and powerful that I sometimes fear that the only thing that will stop the pollution of the water would be some kind of revolt. Who wants that? So that is why many liberals try to convince conservatives that we think many of their ways of thinking are dangerous. This is why economics seems still as important as culture, because economics is being used against us by some very powerful people.

As long as we believe the lies that the free market such as it is with the players such as they are is the way to go, the things that you and I seek ( or seek to return to) will never be realized. I sometimes allow myself to believe that conservatives and liberals have the same goals, but approach them from two totally different angles--I don't allow myself to believe this too often!

Randy

Getting back to the original point of this thread, some people make the choice to buy health insurance, and some don't. Some cannot make that choice. I know all these are true. I am an RN but I also am a Registered Financial Counselor. I have seen nothing to dispute Kitkat's statistics, many of my clients do not buy insurance because they would rather spend the money on something else, even though I urge them to do so. I also have many clients that cannot afford health insurance if it were half as cheap. They are dire financial straits, but the question remains, how did they get there? Your financial status is a direct result of your choices. Your job, your marriage, your children, your education are choices. I have made some monumental bad choices in my life that is why I have chosen to become a financial counselor so I can help my fellow nurses make some better choices and get a little more better off financially.

Building a Culture of Character

by Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., Don Eberly, Samuel Gregg, and Joseph Loconte

Heritage Lecture #755

August 6, 2002 | |

Character and the Destiny of Free Government

Matthew Spalding

The remarkable generation that built this great nation led a daring revolution against the strongest military power in the world. They declared American independence based on self-evident truths, asserted a new ground of political rule in the sovereignty of the people, and launched an experiment in self-government. ...

All is not despair, however. There is reason for some optimism. Gertrude Himmelfarb and Charles Murray--our greatest social observers, who have been skeptical about our accomplishments to date in effecting moral recovery--both point to fragmentary evidence of moral improvement. Murray, for example, has pointed to what he calls "the partial restoration of traditional society" --that is, the return to traditional moral viewpoints that began to be rejected in the 1960s. ...

The revival of a culture of character is assuredly the greatest task we face today. Looking ahead, if we wish to proactively rebuild a culture of character and not merely wait for trends to turn our way, we must reject the core principles and moral relativism of progressive liberalism. Matthew Spalding is the director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

To finish reading this article:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL755.cfm

© 1995 - 2004 The Heritage Foundation

The "remarkable generation that built this great nation" owned slaves, some had children by their slaves while married, and did not allow women or men without land to vote.

The "traditional moral viewpoints that began to be rejected in the 1960s" that the writer advocates returning to included laws that restricted educational opportunities in schools paid for with their taxes, voting, housing, even the use of drinking fountains and restrooms by taxpayers because of the color of their skin.

I am proud of the change in the laws most Americans approved of and Americans of all races and creeds worked for and some died for in those 1960s.

The Role of Civil Society in shaping Character

Don Eberly

I think we're making a certain amount of headway in helping people understand again the animating first political principles of the American experiment.

Alexis de Tocqueville is the person among many observers of American life who really did understand exactly the unique moral principles of America, the founding generation, and how they would be or were being, during his period of observation, carried forward on the American scene. ...

...When it comes to reflecting upon questions such as culture and its implications for the political order, most contemporary commentators continue to be dwarfed by the perennial genius of the 19th century philosopher and French Catholic aristocrat, Count Alexis de Tocqueville. To finish reading this article:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL755.cfm

© 1995 - 2004 The Heritage Foundation

Alexis de Tocqueville

http://www.gradesaver.com/ClassicNotes/Authors/about_alexis_tocqueville.html

The "remarkable generation that built this great nation" owned slaves, some had children by their slaves while married, and did not allow women or men without land to vote.

Simplistic, to say the least. Like all nations, the U.S. history is a combinatin of greatness and shame. A very small percentage of Americans owned slaves, and a far smaller percentage abused them as seen in the movies. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died freeing the slaves. For every slave owner, there was someone risking his/her life in the Underground Railroad.

The Founders, in their genius, crafted to Constitution in such a way that the U.S. would evolve into a freer Republic. Many of them wanted to abolish slavery at the outset. In the culture and circumstances of the times, it wasn't possible. Many of the founders knew that it was, however, inevitable.

The evolution of the U.S. has often been painful, but the end product is a society in which all who are willing to work hard, regardless of race, creed, color, etc etc, can succeed and prosper.

All who put forth the Americans were/are bad viewpoint seems to forget that it is also Americans who brought about the changes that have made us the greatest nation on Earth.

Be well...

The Mellow One

Simplistic, to say the least. Like all nations, the U.S. history is a combinatin of greatness and shame. A very small percentage of Americans owned slaves, and a far smaller percentage abused them as seen in the movies. Hundreds of thousands of Americans died freeing the slaves. For every slave owner, there was someone risking his/her life in the Underground Railroad.

The Founders, in their genius, crafted to Constitution in such a way that the U.S. would evolve into a freer Republic. Many of them wanted to abolish slavery at the outset. In the culture and circumstances of the times, it wasn't possible. Many of the founders knew that it was, however, inevitable.

The evolution of the U.S. has often been painful, but the end product is a society in which all who are willing to work hard, regardless of race, creed, color, etc etc, can succeed and prosper.

All who put forth the Americans were/are bad viewpoint seems to forget that it is also Americans who brought about the changes that have made us the greatest nation on Earth.

Be well...

The Mellow One

Please let me make it even more simple. Perhaps I misunderstood the quote from a previous post, "Originally Posted by kitkat24

Building a Culture of Character

by Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., Don Eberly, Samuel Gregg, and Joseph Loconte

Heritage Lecture #755

August 6, 2002 | |

Character and the Destiny of Free Government

Matthew Spalding

The remarkable generation that built this great nation led a daring revolution against the strongest military power in the world. They declared American independence based on self-evident truths, asserted a new ground of political rule in the sovereignty of the people, and launched an experiment in self-government. ...

All is not despair, however. There is reason for some optimism. Gertrude Himmelfarb and Charles Murray--our greatest social observers, who have been skeptical about our accomplishments to date in effecting moral recovery--both point to fragmentary evidence of moral improvement. Murray, for example, has pointed to what he calls "the partial restoration of traditional society" --that is, the return to traditional moral viewpoints that began to be rejected in the 1960s. ...

The revival of a culture of character is assuredly the greatest task we face today. Looking ahead, if we wish to proactively rebuild a culture of character and not merely wait for trends to turn our way, we must reject the core principles and moral relativism of progressive liberalism. Matthew Spalding is the director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

To finish reading this article:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Po...sophy/HL755.cfm

1. The author SEEMED TO ME to compare the founders of this country, based it on "self evident truths" with the REJECTION OF TRADITIONAL MORAL VIEPOINTS IN THE 1960'S.

2. In the 1960's, IN MY SIMPLISTIC OPINION, advances in our founders self evident truths, "LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" and the traditional AMERICAN ideal of "LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL" were advanced in the 1960's.

See I happen to think God created us all. I worked for civil rights in MY beloved country. Had to drink out of the black fountain, go the the back door of a restaurant to pay the same for food I could not eat on the premises or even enter through the front door. I have literally been spat on for advocating for the right of Americans to rent an apartment or buy a home on "white Christian only" blocks while having the wrong skin color. These are no longer legal in my country.

So YES. I am SIMPLE The 1960's were a very complicated time. they were NOT the downfall of "traditional values" .

Please be kind to a poor simple minded woman and tell me what the traditional values we "lost" were.

PLEASE. How were the 1960's different than your statement on our history, "Like all nations, the U.S. history is a combination of greatness and shame."

Oh yes, with regard to the topic of this thread MEDICARE for the aged was a program started in the 1960's.

We are so complex that the very post that said, "The evolution of the U.S. has often been painful, but the end product is a society in which all who are willing to work hard, regardless of race, creed, color, etc etc, can succeed and prosper." also believed that to point out that the founders of our country owned slaves was forgetting the greatness of our country.

+ Add a Comment