Printer-Friendly
Email this Story
Post a Comment (5)
Healthcare: Is it can we, or should we?
As the health care debate drones on in congress, so to does the increasingly misleading rhetoric opposing universal health care. In a letter to the Washington Post that the Democrats must have found particularly galling, a woman said that it was a congress controlled by the Democrats that defeated Bill Clinton’s health care proposal back in the 90’s. This is a brazen half-truth. True, the Democrats controlled congress, but they only had a simple majority in the Senate; not enough votes to invoke cloture, and the Republican Minority Leader, Robert Dole killed the bill by promising a filibuster.
Another curious argument that keeps cropping up is that many of those lacking health insurance in this country are without it by choice. I’m not sure what point is being made, but I can say that under the universal coverage favored by President Obama, these people who can afford it will be compelled by law to purchase insurance, and I think this is the right thing to do. People who choose not to have health coverage aren’t only affecting themselves. They put their children at risk and place a burden on society if they are financially ruined by illness or accident. Simply put, universal health care will put an end to this sort of irresponsibility, protect the innocent and at the same time finally bring health care to those who truly can’t afford it.
But why risk a new system when we’re number one in the world in health care? Simply put, it’s because we’re not. We may be number one in cost, but depending on how you measure outcomes, we’re somewhere between 17th and 37th among industrialized nations in quality of care. Universal health care works throughout the world, and an overwhelming majority of the people that have it say it’s worth the trouble.
Is this something the Government should be doing? Judging by the egregious behavior of insurance companies who place the highest priority on denying coverage, the answer is a resounding yes. Let’s face it. Despite the incessant nay saying by the Republicans in congress, programs like Social Security, which has kept retired Americans out of penury for seven decades and Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP, which have brought quality care to the old, the poorest and most the vulnerable in this country, work just fine and will continue to do so as long as we choose to be committed to them.
Keep in mind that while the Republicans have offered up criticism of universal healthcare, they’ve offered no solutions of their own, which leads to the inescapable conclusion that their solution is to let those who can’t afford insurance languish with minimal care. The ultimate question isn’t really whether or not universal care is good, practical or even whether we can afford it. The real question is what kind of people we want to be. Should we take responsibility for the care of our children, our old, our needy, or not? I think we should.
Personally, I'm sick of everything being a Republican vs Democrat idea or issue. It seems to me there are very few in Congress who are actually willing to think for themselves. I know it's a pipe dream, but I think we'd be much better off if we got rid of parties and party affiliation so those elected to could simply work to find the best solution to our problems. Though, I guess that would mean the public would have to actually try to educate themselves on the candidates rather than just pick a party.
Posted by chug0lug
Report Offensive Content
Universal health care may be favored by the President for you and me, but not for himself. The same goes for members of Congress. If the public option is good enough for us, doesn’t it make you wonder why the President and Congress are opting to exempt themselves from the public option?
Regarding Americans who can afford, but choose not to purchase health care, you say that “…universal health care will put an end to this sort of irresponsibility, protect the innocent and at the same time finally bring health care to those who truly can’t afford it.” The real irresponsibility is the health of Americans, not their insurance coverage or lack thereof. Smoking and obesity is what’s overburdening the health care system. Universal health care does absolutely nothing to address these two problems.
Rather than trying to completely overhaul health care in the United States, why doesn’t Congress address the actual problems individually…you know, just fix what’s wrong? If there’s a plumbing problem in a house, you don’t demolish the house and rebuild – you find the problem and fix it. If insurance companies denying coverage for pre-existing conditions is a problem, pass legislation to prohibit it. What about allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines? Wouldn’t that in itself increase competition? Perhaps tort reform is called for to reduce the cost of medical liability insurance and thus reduce the cost of care. Oh, that’s right, Obama doesn’t want to touch that with a ten-foot pole. (Hmmm…doesn’t he have a degree in law? Oh, well, I’m sure that has nothing to do with it.)
Medical outcomes in countries with nationalized care are not better, they are often catastrophically worse. Take breast cancer. According to the Heritage Foundation, breast cancer mortality in Germany is 52% higher than in the U.S.; the U.K.'s rate is 88% higher. For prostate cancer, mortality is 604% higher in the U.K. and 457% higher in Norway. Colorectal cancer? Forty percent higher in the U.K. And, Americans have almost uniformly better outcomes and lower mortality rates than Canada, where breast cancer mortality is 9% higher, prostate cancer 184% higher and colon cancer 10% higher.
Not to mention the waiting lists. With a population just under that of California, 830,000 Canadians are waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment. In England, the list is 1.8 million deep.
Before you sign up for universal health care, you might want to check with people in countries that have the kind of system the President and Congress have in mind. Recent polls show that more than 70% of Germans, Australians, Britons, Canadians and New Zealanders think their systems need “complete rebuilding” or “fundamental change.”
Oh, in case you haven’t heard, Medicare doesn’t work “just fine” – it’s bankrupt.
Posted by LJ
Report Offensive Content
Medicare is paying my bills just like it paid my Father's so I think what LJ meant is that it will go bankrupt if we decide not to pay what it costs which is just what the blogger is saying.
LJ should may also not realize that the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. That doesn't mean they aren't telling the truth, but he should probably check some other sources like the Government Accounting Office and the World Health organization just to make sure the Heritage bias isn't showing. I think he'll find that Heritage is indulging in a little cherry picking.
Here's a couple of facts that got left out.
We spend more on health care than all the other developed nations.
What do we get for that? U.S. ranks LOWEST on overall life expectancy compared to England, Germany, France, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Japan. They may think their systems need overhauling, but they all want to keep universal health care.
There's no question people in other countries go on waiting lists based on criticality of need. I wonder if everyone who can't afford medical care in the US would mind going on a waiting list.
In America we have a waiting list too. It's based on how much money you have, and that's why we have a shorter average life expectancy here.
Posted by RussLimbaugh
Report Offensive Content
Let's take a look at those countries mentioned by Russ for a second. The average obesity rates for those countries is 10.7% and in the US its 30.6%. Hmmm....I'm sorry to say, but no one is going to convince me our current healthcare system is to blame for us being 3 times as fat as everyone else. In fact, there was only 1 country (England) with an obesity rate above 15%.
Posted by chug0lug
Report Offensive Content
Yes, Russ, I do realize that The Heritage Foundation is a conservative public policy research institute. I fully support their mission, which is “to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.” I agree with you about bias, which is why I like to research a variety of conservative and liberal information sources.
U.S. life expectancy in 2006 was 78.1 years, ranking behind 30 other countries. So if our health care is so good, why don't we live as long as those in other countries?
Three reasons. One, our homicide rate is two to three times higher than other countries. Two, because we drive so much, we have a higher fatality rate on our roads — 14.24 fatalities per 100,000 people vs. 6.19 in Germany, 7.4 in France and 9.25 in Canada. Three, Americans eat far more than those in other nations, contributing to higher levels of heart disease, diabetes and some cancers.
These are diseases of wealth, not the fault of the health care system. A study by Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa found that if you subtract our higher death rates from accidents and homicide, Americans actually live longer than people in other countries.
Infant mortality rates are often cited as a reason socialized medicine and a single-payer system is better than what we have in the U.S. But according to Dr. Linda Halderman, a policy adviser in the California State Senate, these comparisons are bogus.
As she points out, in the U.S., low birth-weight babies are still babies. In Canada, Germany and Austria, a premature baby weighing less than 500 grams (1.1 pounds) is not considered a living child and is not counted in such statistics. They're considered "unsalvageable" and therefore never alive. Norway boasts one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world – until you factor in weight at birth, and then its rate is no better than in the U.S. In other countries babies that survive less than 24 hours are also excluded and are classified as "stillborn." In the U.S. any infant that shows any sign of life for any length of time is considered a live birth. A child born in Hong Kong or Japan that lives less than a day is reported as a "miscarriage" and not counted. In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby is not counted as a baby if it is less than 30 centimeters (11.8 inches) in length.
In 2007, there were at least 40 mothers and their babies who were airlifted from British Columbia alone to the U.S. because Canadian hospitals didn't have room. It's also worth noting that since 2000, 42 of the world's 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 pounds) were born in the U.S. Where will Canada send its preemies and other critical patients when we adopt their health care system?
Posted by LJ
Report Offensive Content
You must be logged in to post a comment.