America's health care system is second only to Japan ... Canada, Sweden, Great Britain ... well, all of Europe. But you can thank your lucky stars we don't live in Paraguay! Homer Simpson
Healthcare is a right. It is not a privilege. If we are so unlucky as to be mauled in a car accident, one hopes they are not to be asked who they are before they receive any sort of medical attention. Can you imagine an ambulance driving away without you because you were not the correct member of society? As a society, we believe that we must help each and every one of us. We know this is true because we would expect the help if we were the one mauled in that car accident. If this premise is accepted, (and frankly it is only a recently perceived right compared to the ancient rights of speech, public assembly, habeus corpus, etc…), then one must demand that our self-elected gov’t guarantees that right. For is that not what our gov’t must do? to protect our rights? is not that what our Founding Fathers fought for? that the great ideals of freedom, liberty and democracy would guarantee these rights?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Thomas Jefferson The Declaration of Independence 1776
The idea that someone is making enormous amounts of fat money off of my sick and dying family and neighbors is intolerable. It is immoral. And it really angers me. While people scream about keeping gov’t out of our healthcare, gov’t programs are quietly working for us everyday: Medicare, Medicaid, the VA system and here in Vermont we have Dr. Dynosaur which keeps 98% of children insured. Gov’t programs work. Private industry has failed to guarantee health care for every citizen. They have proven to be notoriously unreliable, intrusive and self-interested. Our healthcare model is horrible. According to the CIA World Factbook, we rank 47th in infant mortality. Why does Iceland have a three times better rate than we do? Almost any reform is good reform.
The persistent difficulty is how do we afford it? This is only going to become more difficult as the baby boomer generation continues to age. Once we realize that public health care is a basic human right (why do we guarantee education but not health care?) we then will figure it out. Our society is not going to abandon healthcare because we are going to add another trillion over ten years to our national debt. It will not make our national gov’t go bankrupt (see chrismartenson.com’s crash course to see why we are going to go bankrupt!). There are many better models around the world from Switzerland to Singapore where the average citizen is getting better health care than here in the USA.
I believe that Washington DC will fail to bring meaningful reform to our healthcare system. They will not be able to recognize that healthcare is a basic human right. The rich will continue to get richer and the poor will be saddled with overworked primary care staff or emergency room-only visits (which, by the way, was George W. Bush’s version of universal healthcare). Insurers will continue to drop clients and they will continue to heavily influence the decisions made in the doctors office. Truly it is time we stop looking to Washington DC for the answers but begin to look to ourselves for the solution. As climate change and global restructuring takes place, it is only ourselves that will be able to create the answers. This is why I believe we must separate from the cancer that is the home to our global empire, Washington DC. This is why I believe we must secede and once again become independent.
I will close with the very next sentence after the above quote from the Declaration of Independence:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness".
thevermontpatriot
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I want to start off by saying i would like to offer healthcare to every american at a much lower cost and believe reform has to be to take place. But healthcare is not right unless you yourself would like to make a new amendment to the constitution.According to the constitution our "rights" are rights to take action not "rights" to receive healthcare.
ReplyDeletefurthermore,nationalized healthcare although noble is impractical. Let"s examine Canada for example. The cancer death rate in canada is 18% higher than in the us, the cardiac death rate is 5% higher and the colorectal death rate is much higher. The average waiting time the patients first saw their family physican and the time they actually got treated is now 18.3 weeks.... good luck if it's an emergency you may not make to your tx. phase. I could go on but won't. Why does the above take place if a natoinalied health care system like canada's is superior??? The answer is it's not.With government running the show we get a failing system and perphaps the worst of will be the eldery.
Perhaps the issue given the least attention is the lack of primary care doctors presently in the us. The number has not risen in several years and this has led to overrun hospitals and difficulty finding doctors. By insuring 47 new americans the end result will be rationed health, much much more alamrming than some say we have by private insurers. The elderly will be the ones most widely affected as they will be denied certain procedures as they will be deemed "too old" as compared to a younger person who needs the same procedure. this is why in a recent poll 56% of people older than 65 opposed the plan. They want to live can u blame them???? Massachusetts adopted a similar plan to obama's in 2006. while it decreased the number of uninsured, it led to the newly inusured unable to find primary care doctors. Instead they went to the emergency room for non-emergent care and the hospitals are overrun. Furthmore, the state is now in so much debt they don't know what to do.
I could go on but won't as you get the point. the answer is not nationalized health care. Instead it is a hybrid of sorts. the government need to regulate and reform not take over. NHC is a noble thought but can'
t work and quite frankly doesn't work
I have two questions, on restated from the previous post - Why does the above (referring to Canada) take place if a natoinalied health care system like canada's is superior? Someone, or all of us, are way off in our assessment of our system.
ReplyDeleteI understand the concern over a lack of pcp's, but you also said your objective was to cover all Americans? Doesn't that also create the same problem?
One more comment about statistics. Random facts about infant mortality in Iceland and colorectal death rates in Canada do not constitute information. They are not evidence of the overall success or failure of our current or future systems. They are presented here as if there is direct cause and effect between system and outcome. Do you know that to be true? Are there other factors at work in those nations? What about the overall level of services there?
ReplyDeleteWhat about the other 34 countries ahead of us in the WHO list, a list btw that is intended to be a comprehensive ranking, not hand-picked factoids from a single country that suit one’s argument. I am not familiar with how the WHO compiles its rankings, but it seems to me the overall success of the system is what we should be talking about. Regardless of how precise those rankings are, surely they, along with the forms of nationalized care currently operating in the US, demonstrate that nationalized health care can work? Furthermore, no one is suggesting we copy Canada.
Anonymous - your thesis seems to be as follows; please correct me where I am wrong:
ReplyDeleteThere are real problems with the Canadian system that need fixing (accepting Canada as the gold standard for nationalized health care and the model upon which we will base our solution – which I understand in both cases no one is advocating). There are also problems with the American-private system that need fixing, particularly revolving around affordable access to care. By virtue of the Canadian system being nationalized, their problems are irreconcilable, while the problems with our system, by virtue of its connection to the profit-motive, can be solved solved through reform.
Is this an accurate reflection of your opinion? It seems to be a reasonable summation of your posts. Clearly you feel both systems are imperfect, but only one has a chance of actually working.
Mine thesis, in the spirit of offering solutions not just being the critic who pokes holes in the ideas of others, is as follows:
The problem is the incompatibility of the profit-motive vs access and delivery of quality health care services. Successful reform cannot be achieved until this core issues is resolved. As a result, reform needs to be systemic, not a la carte. We need an overhaul not a tweak. We need some form of significant oversight from a governing body whose primary focus is on the delivery of quality service, not the maximizing profits. Nationalized health care, in one form or another, works around the globe and in this country on a national, state, and local level. It is in fact a viable solution with working models we can learn from. Let’s move in that direction.
red raider, i agree with many of your thoughts in the last paragraph regarding a systematic reform. However you missed so many of the points i made that are indeed valid. NHC i would argue does not work although you are right to point out most have. but lets move on thats another arguement.we still have to few primary care to implement it effectively, we seriously don't have the money to fund it so to me that idea is a moot point. Also, how does it work on the state level??? look at what its done in massachusetts it's been a wreck. Research this please! Thomas Jefferson was extremley worried about government intervention on many levels but i'm not going to bore u with quote from him. In fact, if you were to research health care as a global whole, you would find out that those nationalized systems u talk about rely on technologies and advances in the us as they don't have the money to do it themselves. Although, I agree we need much much better access the doctors we have are the best in the world. People come from all over the world to have complicated care performed here. why??
ReplyDeleteFinally, we live in a captilistic society, the greatest in the world. You cannot separate money from health completely. i think it does need to be regulated. But if you want to take it out of the equation completely than the best and the brightest are not going into medicine. I'm sorry to tell you this but a factor (no matter how small) to get into the field is money. to eliminate would be a mistake. The answer lies somewhere in between as it usually does
Isn't Japan also a capilaist society? How do they successfully balance nationalized health care and economics? It appears they have found a way - proving that is IS possible. Furthermore, a nationalized system does not mecesarily mean doctors will be poorly compensated.
ReplyDeleteAs for the state level programs, it DOES work in NH. We have a healthy kids program (CHIP) that covers thousands of NH children through age 18, including those from families that are 300% above poverty level, and including services not covered by for-profit health inssurance companies such as eye glasses and routine dental services - even ortho. NH also covers virtually all nursing home care. Its all done with a balanced budget. VT too as the author pointed out. It fails in MA. What does that prove? Government run health care IS possible, even if the MA model is ineffective. Do you need more examples?
I don't get your point with regards to the shortage of pcps. The shortage is real, but if your goal is also to expand coverage, doesn't that issue persist? Is it really an problem unique to nationalized care?
Japan?? funny. they have been in a worse economic crisis than us! partly due to health care. vermont and nh is not nearly as extensive as mass. come on pour out the kool aid. My point is this is not an overnight solution. we first must intice more students to get into being doctors and that is where the money that we dont have should intially go. Doctors get out with over 200,000 dollars in debt!! 25% of the 47 million that are uninsured choose not to be thru the medicaid progam. another 1/6 are illegal immigrants and should not be covered under any policy. Furthermore, you make my point so well and i thank you, someone is finally listening! If there is a shortage of pcps how would it make since to increase a number of patients that wont get seen anyway??? think about it. To start with we need to make short and long term goals. the short term make it much more affordable thru government "regulation" the long term goal would be to make sure everyone would have it. Dont rush it thru like obama would like....... think about it and its consquences. Nationlized care is not a solution its a facade
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting that some form of nationalized health care simply cannot work period despite the 36 nations who rank higher than us on the WHO list who use government run systems, and recognizing all of whom also employ capitalist systems with an inferior economy? And MA is the iron-clad proof of such?
ReplyDeleteOf course its not an overnight solution. I'm not suggesting rushing through it or even that I am in favor of the Obama plan. I didn’t say we need the answer today. That doesn't mean its not the right solution in the long run though, and one we need to start working toward.
I AM with you that the shortage of pcp's as a real problem. My point is its a problem now, its a problem with your solution, and its a problem with a nationalized system. Don't act as though the issue is unique to nationalized care and if we drop the subject the problem will go away. You know there is a dramtic shortage and you are also advocating for wider coverage.
To me, the fundamental problem is the profit motive being incompatible with health care.
What a great discussion. Thank you all for providing thought-provoking commentary.
ReplyDeleteWhere to begin?
Our first difficulty is that we have no working definition of "nationalized health care". There are many versions with all national versions combining some sort of public policy with private enterprise. Switzerland's model is especially compelling through its heavy regulation, compulsory enrollment, and its use of private insurance companies. Sounds just like anonymous' post
"To start with we need to make short and long term goals. the short term make it much more affordable thru government "regulation" the long term goal would be to make sure everyone would have it. Dont rush it thru like obama would like....... think about it and its consquences. Nationlized care is not a solution its a facade"
You in fact propose a form of nationalized healthcare and then call it a facade.
The "public option" is not nationalized healthcare anyways. Its really an addendum to the whole system. If the private industry was so efficient, then why would they be afraid of big, bad, inefficient gov't healthcare?
Canada is a fine model to look at. Anonymous, what is the source for all your numbers? I have been perusing the WHO's 2009 health Statistics report. You could spend a lot of time on this page:
http://apps.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select.cfm
Here are some interesting numbers:
Canada
Indicator Value (year)
Adult mortality rate (probability of dying between 15 to 60 years per 1000 population) both sexes ?
72 (2006)
Age-standardized mortality rate for cancer (per 100 000 population) ?
138.0 (2002)
Age-standardized mortality rate for cardiovascular diseases (per 100 000 population)
141.0 (2002)
United States of America
Indicator Value (year)
Adult mortality rate (probability of dying between 15 to 60 years per 1000 population) both sexes ?
109 (2006)
Age-standardized mortality rate for cancer (per 100 000 population) ?
134.0 (2002)
Age-standardized mortality rate for cardiovascular diseases (per 100 000 population) ?
188.0 (2002)
These numbers do not put Canada in a bad light. One must be careful throwing out random numbers and indications. I pointed out infant mortality since I see this stat as one compelling indication of the effectiveness of a system. Also, we endure long waits for treatment here in the us. From primary care to specialized care to treatment was a matter of 6 months to repair my torn meniscus. Not very fast.
anonymous says "But healthcare is not [a] right unless you yourself would like to make a new amendment to the constitution.According to the constitution our "rights" are rights to take action not "rights" to receive healthcare."
I quoted the Declaration of Independence as the founding ideal of our commitment to self-governance, not the Constitution. The Constitution is a living document and is designed to grow. I would love to make healthcare a constitutional right. If you believe that healthcare is a universal human right, then doesn't it follow that our constitution must guarentee that right like the secessionists declared in the Declaration of Independence? Actually, our constitution does not distinguish between rights of action and rights of non-action (healthcare being your example). It is difficult for me to make that distinction. How is habeus corpus a right of action and receiving health care a right of non-action? Your use of "receive" implies that the gov't gives us that right, while my point is that gov't must protect that right, that inalienable right. Isn't that what it is all about?
Ultimately, we all seem to agree that we have profound problems with our healthcare system. My argument is that Washington DC will fail to adequately deal with the situation and it is at the state and town level that we must find our solutions.
peace
vermont patriot. you have "spun" my words to support your arguement. You have interpreted them quite incorrectly. Furthermore, it's interesting how you neglect to adequately explain how we are going to get the money to pay for this and how are people going to be seen with the already lack of pcp's.
ReplyDeleteYou give the isolated example of your knee sugery. well if you think that is bad sir you ain't seen nothing yet. The average waiting time in canada where patients first saw their pcp and time they actually get treated is 18.3 weeks! This is the average not an isolated example! Several newly approved drugs are not approved by their government as they are deemed too expensive. You say this is a fine system to look at. Quite honestly, that is a joke. The canadian government even recognizes their system is failing. If you want quotes i will dig them up for u. Please don't mislead people about this sir.
Also, i did not imply anywhere i was in favor of a nationalized health care system as i am not. What was meant was that making it affordable for everyone would take time and could not happen over night.In the long run thru regulation i would like to see it reduced enough so everyone could "afford it" not have it given to them by the government.
Lastly, the public option will evolve into nhc and you know it. there are provisions in it that make it increasingly difficult for private insrances to stay in business past 2013. I could quote them but whats the sense, you will see it how you want to see it anyway.
the obama government has underestimated the deficit by 2 trillion dollars! still thinks it's a good idea to let them run our healthcare???? I hope not
ReplyDeleteI find it funny that you believe everyone else will see it as they want anyway. I’m not sure you’re the model for introspective reflection yourself.
ReplyDeleteI can’t follow your logic either. You want to help more people get covered, but worry about exactly the same thing happening with Obama’s plan because of the lack of PCPs. Can you please reconcile this for me? How do you plan to cover more people while escaping this issue?
I'd be interested to see where you get your info on wait times in Canada. The Canadian government reports the following from 2007:
The median wait time in Canada to see a physician is a little over four weeks
The median wait time for diagnostic services such as MRI and CAT scans is two weeks
The median wait time for surgery is four weeks
Are the wait times in US appreciably better? Or maybe Fox News is more a reliable and independent source?
I think its also important to note that waiting lists are a result of a prioritization process based on physician-determined medical urgency, rather than a patient's ability to pay. Is that a bad thing?
I can’t speak for the author, but I have an idea that would pay for health care for the whole planet. Stop the illegal war in Iraq!!!!!
rasputin or should i say mr. pelosi:) read slowly and you will follow my logic easliy sir. the obama plan wants to "nationalize' healthcare quickly and abrubtly which cannot and will not work. It will cause chaos in the already inadequate suuply of pcp's. Also we just don't have the money period.Right this minute that is. Although, im certainly not an expert, i would start by regulating the insurance companies that are getting away with murder.. literally. They are overinflating their prices,under paying physcians (leading to many going into specialties, thus the shortage of pcp's),and could care less about who has inurance and who doesn't. If we can start with this health care will be much more affordable and more people can more easily have it. Secondly, I would make it more affordable for aspiring doctors to get into the field thru loan reimbursement. The average doctor gets out of school with over 200,000 in debt. Many see that overwhelming and pursue other careers. Although some will still be uninsured it would help many on the way to getting all insured as soon as the siutation is stabilized. Remember under the current system about 25% of the 47 mil uninsured are elgible for medicaid but haven't applied. 1/6 are illegal aliens and i dont feel they should be covered under any plan. Is this perfect?? Hell no. But its a start. It took a long time to fuck this up and there is no overnight solution like messiah obama would want us to beleive.
ReplyDeleteAs far as my sources on canada let me share them with u sir. look on www.american.com/archive?2008/december-2008-12-08/the trouble-with-canadian-healthcare. this was a study done by breet skinner who is an independent authority in canada for examining their health care. google him and get educated on the topic.
lastly, the iraq war??? agree or disagree fine. but illegal. The man raped and killed people for no reason. he stole money and tortured countless people. Is that legal. come on.
fox news?? I pose a question. why is it the most watched new program for years running??? and yes i can get you those statistics also. have a great weekend!
Okay, I get it now. I never said I supported the Obama plan (in fact I think I said I did not support it). I totally agree with you that we need to approach the solution with caution and not push through poorly conceived reform – ie the Obama plan. What I am saying is I want to separate profit from health-care permanently. We can transition over time to a nationalized plan (of some sorts – not necessarily Canada’s) and mitigate the shortage of pcp’s in the same way you suggest with a regulated private system. Thus my point, the issue of the shortage is not unique to the concept of national health care, but rather a significant shortcoming of the plan on the table.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know what to say about the statistics. How can we tell who is right? Does a move toward national health care necessarily mean we will repeat the mistakes Canada may have made?
Yes, the Iraq War was illegal according to International Law and UN Resolutions, both agreed to by the United States, the latter of which, in the most relevant document, signed by Bush 1 after Gulf War 1.
As for Fox News, popular does not equal independent or accurate. I’m not saying the other news sources are better, they’re not, our media was ruined by the deregulations of the industry begun in the Reagan administration. Personally, I feel the lack of good information is one of the scariest problems the country faces. Fox is the most popular, btw, for the same reason American Idol wins its time slot, it’s the most entertaining.
Yes – you have a good weekend too! I will be away, visiting with an old friend and focusing on a fantasy football draft I’d like to continue this, or maybe move on to another subject, if the original author presents one.