This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
"Something's wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries," said Dr. Christopher Murray, head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.
Researchers say the lack of health coverage for 45 million Americans is one big factor in our embarrassingly low life-expectancy ranking. But there are numerous other factors: obesity ("'The U.S. has the resources that allow people to get fat and lazy,' said Paul Terry, an assistant professor of epidemiology at Emory University in Atlanta. 'We have the luxury of choosing a bad lifestyle as opposed to having one imposed on us by hard times.'"), racial disparities, and relatively high infant mortality (oh yeah, that's the statistic where we now rank 41st, behind godless Communist Cuba).
Guaranteeing health care access could help us address the racial disparities (which often overlap with economic disparities) and the infant mortality rates. But make no mistake: universal health care is just one step toward better quality of life for all Americans. We still have to figure out how to change the "Everything I want, whenever I want it" attitude that feeds the obesity epidemic. Dr. Murray agrees that improving our performance in life expectancy and other health stats means not focusing solely on insurance and looking at actual health practices "to reduce cancer, heart disease, and lung disease" [Ohlemacher].
But as the Zaniya Project works on its recommendations for the 2008 Legislature, don't let them hide behind any rhetoric about the superiority of the US health care system and how we don't dare impose any radical reforms that could harm our excellent health care system. We have big problems, and we need to solve them. Says Dr. Murray, "The starting point is the recognition that the U.S. does not have the best health care system. There are still an awful lot of people who think it does." The US health care system should be the best in the world, but just saying it is won't make it so. We need to look at how we're failing, how other countries are succeeding, and be willing to make big changes. Change #1: universal health care.
Great Idea...let's all go to Cuba or Canada for health care. Clearly people from other countries go there when they need treatment and not to the U.S. Wait...Wait...they come here, to the U.S., hell they come to Minnesota!! You have once again proven your stupidity! Glad my kids aren't learning about Government from you.
ReplyDeleteAnon... did you see Michael Moore's SiCKO? Did you read either of the articles linked in my Saturday post or in the comments submitted by Leo Kallis? I guess you can keep up with the undocumented personal attacks if you want, but I would prefer a rational discussion based on evidence. And, more importantly, a majority of Republicans would prefer universal health care. [Just in case you don't know, Anon, you can click your mouse on those blue underlined parts, called hyperlinks, and find more actual evidence.]
ReplyDeleteSo let's see... me, Michael Moore, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, a majority of Republicans, the United Nations, and 29 out of 30 industrialized nations recognize health care as a universal right. Have we all proven our stupidity? (It's quite possible -- I just want to see if you'll take that position, Anon... and put your name to it.)
Health Care is not a universal right. It isn't even a right at all. It's a beautiful thing that benefits everyone. It is something that I believe should be the responsibility of every government to try to attain . When we speak of rights, we either speak of constitutional rights or human rights, health care is neither. So I would like to know why you and apparently everyone else you mentioned, have glommed onto the platitude of 'rights' to strengthen your argument. Should we feel guilty about depriving people of their rights if we think socialized medicine is a bad idea?
ReplyDeleteYou just wrote an insightful post on how a poll does not in any way determine if a law has been broken or not in the case of Hunt. So I hope you understand me when I say I don't care what 29 out of 30 countries think. I only care whether the 30th is right or not.
America is fat and wealthy, we are glued to our tv's and buried in fast food. I doubt if all the factors that set us apart were controlled for, that we would be 41st. And if we are to remodel our healthcare system, why would we pick at random from the middle of the pack? Japan demolishes France, Canada, and Cuba. We should pick from the top.
And I am quite happy to put my name by my words.
I'm with you, Phaedrus, in my willingness to buck the majority. 29 out of 30 countries can be wrong. I just would like to see some evidence from the various Anonymi rather than the trite and undocumented "We're #1! propaganda that keeps us mired in mediocrity.
ReplyDeleteGlomming onto platitudes about rights? I buy the rights talk, but universal health care wins on policy grounds as much as on LD/value-debate grounds. Other countries spend less and get more, as evidenced in many posts here. We could strip every mention of rights and morals from our debate and still come out voting for universal health care on purely pragmatic grounds: saves money, saves lives, decreases bankruptcies, protects families (oops -- slipping into moral talk, assuming families are valuable), and improves health so more workers can put in more hours and produce more GDP. Not that anyone has a right to such outcomes; they're just things we kind of like to have happen.
And if "rights" make you queasy, how about justifying universal health care on the grounds of responsibility? Along with personal responsibility, isn't there social responsibility, an obligation (within the social contract, within Christianity, take your pick) to help your neighbor?
How does being responsible for our neighbor translate into providing universal health care? You can expand on that same premise and say besides a right to health care, everyone has a right to a nice house and a decent car and the same food as his neighbor etc etc etc. And if he/she doesn't have those things, usually because of deiciosns he/she has made in his/her life, then in the scenario above, the gov't as a whole should provide it.
ReplyDeleteBaloney! I'm sorry if I believe that personal responsibility is more a component of what one has a "right" to than simply the fact of being.
There is a social net to catch the truly needy, and I do believe that some truly do need assistance, some thru their entire lives because of disability etc, but more just at certain times in their lives.
And personal responsibility is also a Christian virtue BTW!
I think most of us can agree that the government does have a greater role in people's welfare than Libertarians or the multitudes of the unthinking on the Right would like. In that respect and on all of the moral and pragmatic grounds you cite we agree. There is an incredible level of public interest in health. What that interest means is what we debate.
ReplyDeleteThere was a public interest that needed to be met when social security was created. It has become a political tool and a vast pit. It provides virtually no real security for the elderly and at the same time allowing society to develop in a way where they no longer depend on their children and their community as they did before. Social Security became all many of them have but not enough for their needs. I don't want well-meaning government involvement to become even more of a problem than SS.
I want the same objective as you, universal health care. The government covering everything would fail to give us that. It would not make us as good as Canada, it would degrade
our health care by removing our innovation and advanced technology while leaving us with all the real reasons for our low life expectancy. Still fat and lazy.
The government providing an absolute base level of service with innovations to the insurance industry would be so much better. Taxes paying for the preventative services that everyone should use and for the expected events in life. Everyone has children. Not everyone hemorrhages in childbirth or gives birth 40 days early. Taxes pay for the non-event, private insurance pays for the unforeseen event. Private insurance that bases premiums on broad profiles and the income level of the insured, but does not have a right to personal medical history. And everyone has to be enrolled....at least everyone here legally. Illegals get a free trip on a boat.