What would Jefferson do?
“…that they are endowed by the creator with certain unalienable rights. Among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
With these words, the American experiment was underway. Jefferson’s vision was simple: Any nation that calls itself free must accept the basic principle that rights come from God, not from men. Every person is entitled not just to freedom, but also to the opportunity for prosperity and the ability to live peacefully. These rights are unalienable. They are ours because we are humans.
More than two hundred years have elapsed since the publication of these words. Have we fulfilled the promise of our birth certificate? Would Jefferson be proud of the most prosperous nation in the world?
According to the 2005 U.S. Census Bureau, the number of Americans without health insurance has reached a staggering 46 million people. That is nearly 15 percent of the population. In 2005, the uninsured rate amongst children rose 11.5 percent to more than eight million. Many experts believe that the situation is worsening as children’s health insurance programs in 17 states face federal funding shortfalls totaling an estimated $800 million, equal to the cost of covering more than 500,000 low-income children. Congress has known about the shortfall since last year, when the Administration took note of it and proposed a measure to address it, but Congress has so far failed to act.
This raises an important question: Is health care an unalienable right? Does it fall under Jefferson’s guarantee of “life”? Perhaps the “pursuit of happiness”?
John Edwards certainly thinks so. On Sunday’s Meet the Press program, the Democratic hopeful from North Carolina proposed a 120 billon dollar per year program designed at covering all those that are uninsured.
How does he plan to pay for this program? Higher taxes for the wealthy. Edwards proposed rolling back President Bush’s tax cuts for families earning over two hundred thousand dollars per year.
It’s worth noting that as a First Lady, Hillary Clinton’s proposal of universal health care was seen as a calamitous growth of the federal government. It saddled the Democratic Party with a “raise your taxes” reputation, stunted President Clinton’s power as Chief Legislator, and led to the Gingrich led Republican Revolution/Contract with America in 1994. To say that plan backfired would be an understatement. It failed spectacularly.
Political experts say that in order to win primaries, candidates must appeal to the base. Democrats are mostly middle class Americans who care deeply about social issues such as the health care crisis. In a competitive Democratic field, could Edwards shock the world?
Patriot of 76 has a more overarching question: If all Americans are entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, are they in turn entitled to health insurance paid for by the richest Americans? If your answer is no, what is your solution to our health care crisis?
posted by CitizenPatriot at 7:40:00 PM
21 Comments:
Ugh.
My answer is no, but I have no alternative proposal.
Healthcare for all would be amazing; however, the simple truth is that some unalienable rights have price tags. Is it fair? No.
But will taxing the rich in order to support the poor assist our economy? Not a chance. Cold-hearted, callous, but inevitably true.
Hmmm...where oh where can we find that 120 billion dollars?
...Mr. President Bush Sir?
7:56 PM
The answer is YES YES YES. 46 million uninsured. As Mr. Elbaum says, "holy cats!". Taxes are what pays for everything (roads, schools, police, defense). All of these things benefit society...why should health care be any different?
Way to bring attention to this issue Mr. E
8:03 PM
Just in the past few days Bush came out with his agenda for spending in the coming year. He plans to cut even more on the domestic front. Richer people should feel like it is their duty to help pay for the less fortunate so one day these poor people can rise up and achieve their goals. Why should millionaires keep making more money when they can help others? That just doesn't make sense. We are a country that is suppose to help everyone else, but we should also focus on helping those less fortunate inside our country.
10:41 PM
It was Andrew Jackson who said, "when the laws undertake... to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society... have a right to complain of the injustice to their Government." Well do they? Do our laws promote the rich to gain at the expense of the poor? The statistics in the original post would make you think so wouldn't they? Well, I did a little bit of research on my own about the stats. This exerpt taken from a complilation of information that I found while browsing wikipedia.
Note: Preceeding this quote was the exact information Mr. Elbaum provided from the U.S Census Bureau.
"Therefore, those statistics do not necessarily reflect people who don't have health insurance, but rather did not have it at one point during the year. For example, many of these may have been in between jobs for part of the year. Moreover, not having health insurance is not equivalent to not being able to afford it; some of these may be young and healthy with low risk of serious illness and therefore choosing to not to purchase it. In fact, approximately one-third of these 46.6 million who did not have health insurance for at least part of the year live in households with an income over $50,000, with half of these having an income of over $75,000. It is has been estimated that nearly one fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, almost one quarter is eligible for public coverage, and that the remaining 56% need financial assistance.
So if 56% is the number that still need financial assistance we are looking at needing to publicly cover about 24 million people or about 1/12 of our population. When you look at it this way it doesn't see so bad. What that means thought is that there are 24 million living people in our great country that are living in fear of becoming ill because if they do, they can't afford to pay the bills.
I say we tax the rich more, but not at a higher rate. We tax all at a flat rate maxing the tax neither progressive or regressive. What that rate is I do not know.
The issue I am more concerned with however is the prices of United States patented drugs. Patented drugs are the newer drugs for which no generic equivalents are available, giving the patent-holder a monopoly on that drug while the patent endures. Meaning these drugs are extremely expensive to any Americans, let alone to those who have no health care. My question is, we know that we can import these drugs from elsewhere outside the U.S to make them cheaper for Americans. Should we do so and assume the drugs are safe, or are we putting too many Americans at risk by trustiing these drugs?
4:19 PM
Ok so i spent an hour writing an extremely long answer to this, but i've decided no one would read it.
The answer is no.
This isnt a question of social class. Its a question of mentality. The country's insurance companies are always dealing out so much money to pay malpractice insurance costs, especially in Illinois, that the have to raise their cost. This forces doctors to raise their prices. This screws over the average working man and the poor. This causes them to expect nothing but perfection. This causes them to be more prone to lawsuits if something doesnt go right. WHICH CAUSES MALPRACTICE INSURANCE TO INCREASE IN PRICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I worked in a hospital and a cardiologist office all summer. I mentioned once that i might consider being a lawyer. They banned me from the room until lunch.
My Solution: Impose a ceiling on insurance companies' prices to ease pressure on medical proffesionals and hospitals.
10:39 PM
So i already tried to post this so i hope it shows up this time.
I worked in a Hospital and a Cardiologist office over the summer.
The answer is no. The reason healthcare is so unaffordable isnt social class but America's mentality. The United States' hospitals and medical professionals are being held hostage by malpractice insurance. Insurance companies charge them extremely high rates, especially for specialists like cardiologists, surgeons, and neurologists. They are therefore forced to increase their prices to compensate. This screws over the working class and poor. This causes the working class and poor to demand perfection. If there are complications they become very upset and sue the pants off the medical professionals. This causes the insurance companies to dole out wads of cash which forces them to increase prices. The cycle will continue.
My Solution: Place price cielings on the insurance companies. This will lower pressure on the medical field. This will lower costs. That will allow more access to healthcare.
Not to mention with more revenue going to the hospital, hospitals will be more inclined to provide free or discounted service (not to mention more innovative more cost efficient service)
11:00 PM
Many people say that socialized medicine will not work, but the facts show otherwise. The HDI measures the standard of living of countries, and on this ranking the US ranks number 7. The seven countries that rank higher than the US (Norway, Iceland, Australia, Ireland, Sweden, Canada, and Japan)all have one thing in common, that is they all have some form of socialized medicine.
Under socialized medicine the rich may not get quite as good care, but the poor will be much better off. Socialized medicine will lead to the best for the most people, not only the best for the few richest.
11:28 PM
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little".
-FDR
6:45 AM
I agree with John.
"I worked in a hospital and a cardiologist office all summer. I mentioned once that i might consider being a lawyer. They banned me from the room until lunch."
Haha. But honestly, many doctors live in fear of being sued for malpractice. Costing healthcare a ton of money. Leads to higher prices for medical care.
But doctors hold so much power over a human life. If a doctor commited malpractice, is it not fear to charge them?
I'm not sure. On the one hand, someone screwed up --- perhaps sacrificing a human life in the process. On the other hand, a doctor works extremely hard to save lives. One mistake...should that retract all that the doctor has accomplished?
Further adding to the specific question at hand...
I lean on the left side of the political spectrum; however, one common theme that I am more conservative with is our economy. Taxing the rich will cost them production in major corporations and businesses; that being said, if homeless or jobless people are actually searching for jobs, there will be less availability to achieve. The one fault that I find in economic welfare is that we are providing sufficient funds to live on (without extravagancies, perhaps, but nonetheless). Will this undeniable fact propel the jobless to seek self-support? Not to all. Like Mr. Elbaum says, the Declaration of Independence classifies America as having citizens that are entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Why is it the wealthy class's obligation to ensure this? In fact, many wealthy families work exhaustively to achieve happiness and support. True, economic oppurtunities vary between families, but this is an inevitable, albeit unfortunate fact.
But not everything in life is fair. Not everything is balanced evenly. It is not our job to achieve equilibrium. It will simply never happen.
7:48 AM
Just a quick comment. You'll notice also that according to the HDI Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom are significantly lower than the United States as far as standard of living.
They all have one thing in common.... Universal Healthcare
Sorry bud, your facts just don't pan out.
9:10 PM
The fact that you are overlooking is America has the strongest economy in the world. All things equal, with this economy America should have the highest standard of living. Since America has the strongest economy and is not number one there must be something else that is making us lower than that. To determine this we must look at all the countries ahead of us and find something in common. And the thing in common is socialized healthcare along with some other socialized programs. I did not say all countries with socialized healthcare are higher than America, I said that all the countries that are higher than America have socialized healthcare. So if you take another look at it the facts do pan out.
If you think that there is an Alternative explanation for why these countries are ahead of us then that may poke some holes in my point, but the fact that some countries below America have socialized healthcare does not.
Now my response to hannah, you feel this way because you have the money so you do not have to suffer going to a public hospital and dealing with the terrible treatment these people deal with. I almost gurantee it that if you had very little you would not feel the same way. You wouldn't just say to bad i'm poor i should get bad treatment and its ok that the wealthy are getting all the benifits of this capitalistic society. I am not saying everything needs to be equal, I just believe that the gap between the rich and the poor should be made smaller. It is the highest its been since the Gilded Age.
2:58 PM
This is basically what it comes down to. Socialized healthcare will help most people of the country, but it will hurt the poor. It comes down to the best for the many versus the best to the wealthiest. I think our democracy is in a sad state when politicians use their power to widen the gap between the wealthy and the poor as opposed to closing it.
3:03 PM
I mistyped in my last post, when i said it will hurt the poor i meant it will hurt the rich.
9:04 PM
For someone who claims to be so open minded you seem pretty closed off.
You'll notice that the greatest common factor between all those countries isnt their healthcare plan, its thier population densities. Unlike the United States thier populations are mostly confined to larger cities not to mention they have significantly smaller populations which in turn would restrict their economies. The United States was founded as an agrarian nation and maintains much of that tradition. Our population is spread significantly which makes it kinda hard for certain areas to have large malls or in many cases plumbing that doesn't require a septic tank.
Norway has a population of 4.6 million people. Thats the Chicago land area.
Iceland 300,000 the United States has ball parks that seat more people
Australia has 20.2 million slightly more respectable; however, most of the population is in cities. half the population resides in the five largest cities.
Ireland has 4 million people living in a country half the size of Arkansas. It would be impossible not to maintain a high standard of living unless you spent most of your time blowing each other up.......oh wait the IRA .........
Sweden has about 10 million people of which 6% are out of work which is higher than the United States. Only 7% of the land is Arable, which would force people to live in cities.
Canada well who cares
#1 its Canada
#2 they only beat us by .002% and they rounded up
Japan's population is pretty much confined to cities and those living outside of the cities are in shouting distance of them.
The United States of America
has three times the population of any other country in the top ten, more land than any of the three countries, and provides more aid to other countries than any of the top ten nations.
geee, I wonder how a nation with three times the population spread out over the largest area while maintaining the greatest percentage of people not living near major industrial centers manages to not beat out nations whose populations are centered on industrial centers.
but you know what you're right the only common factor is universal healthcare.
ooo wait up almost forgot... they havent updated our literacy rate since 1979 and we're the youngest nation on the list of top 30
research is fun. you should try it
2:14 AM
Jefferson would be too busy with Sally Hemmings to care much
11:46 AM
First of all, you did nothing to refute canada, u just said its canada. Also, the United States is not the largest of any of those countries, its Canada. And, the only common factor within all of them is Socialized programs, not only healthcare. As you said most of those countries are small, but not Canada. Also most of those countries are small because pretty much every country in the modernized world is smaller than America.
Also, America is far from an agrarian nation,Nonmetro areas contain 17 percent of the U.S. population (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Population/). Non metro regions are the same thing as rural regions. So one can see from this that about 73 percent of Americans in fact do live in urbanized areas. America is not the country of small poor farmers trying to make a living off the land, "Just two percent of farms produce 50 percent of all agricultural products in the country" (http://www.oxfamamerica.org/whatwedo/where_we_work/united_states/news_publications/food_farm/art2563.html).
O yea and the literacy rates have been updated since 1979. In 2006 the UNDP made a list of the top countries literacy rates. The US is number 8, behind most of the same countries it was behind in the HDI. You can check it out at http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statistics/indicators/3.html Also, Australia is ahead of us they're a younger nation. Canada is also ahead of us and they to are younger than us. There are also other countries in the top 30 that are younger than America. New Zealand, Hong Kong, Israel, Singapore, Slovenia, Cyprus, and the Czech Republic are all younger than America.
I think you are the one that needs to do research, I may have said some opinionated stuff than many will not agree with, but I have not said anything that is false, one the other hand you have. I suggest next time before you act condecending and try talking down to someone you make sure you do what you are suggesting they do.
4:40 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
11:48 PM
With typing 73 instead of 83 i mistyped, sorry. Not that big of a deal. Also, you said nothing of substance.
First i'll adress what you said about Canada has a larger land mass. These four sites will show you this. 1.http://www.listsofbests.com/list/8694
2.http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_statistics_by_area.htm
3.http://www.cylist.com/List/400300113/
4.http://worldatlas.com/geoquiz/thelist.html
I did find one site saying that America had a larger land mass than Canada, that is probably the one you are quoting but a vast majority of the data out there shows that Canada has a larger land mass than America. Even if Canada does it is a tiny difference and that is not enough to say that is why America has a lower standard of living.
Why don't you have to refute Canada? Saying Canada is Canada means absolutely nothing. Also saying that it has the same government as England doesn't help you very much either because Great Britain has a lower standard of living than America, so there must be some other reason that Canada has a higher standard of living than America. Same goes for Australia.
Also, you're definition of a country seems to go around what America is. That is not by definition what a valid country is. Maybe this view that if its not done the way America does it then it doesn't count is part of the reason most of the world has such a dislike for Americans.
What you said about the Czech Republic has some validity, so maybe we should take a look at when Czechoslovakia became a nation, and the year is 1918. Even if you look at the year Czechoslovakia became independant it is still well over 100 years younger than America.
I can take this moment to insult you for mistyping and say you don't know math because you said 300,000,000*.17 is 510,000. But I will not, I would like to keep this civil and use facts instead of insults.
2:20 PM
Canada
Land area: 3,511,003 sq mi
United States of America
Land area: 3,537,418 sq mi
I dont have to refute Canada. Canada is Canada. Its our annoying
little brother on the top bunk who prays we dont beat him up.
Besides,
17% of Americas population is somewhere in the neighborhood of 510,000
thats larger than some of the nations ahead of us.
Did you really just state that 73% live in metropolitan areas?
100%-17%= 83%
next lesson basic arithmetic
Ok back to the whole research thing. You can NOT misquote people. They
don't like it.
That Literacy site
#1 was updated in 2004 not 2006
#2 The United States has 100% literacy according to the site. This
means that the United States isn't "8th" its only listed as such
because that's how the HDI lists it overall.
good try
When I said youngest country I meant the youngest country that is a
1. COUNTRY not military state that shoved the previous population out.
(Israel)
2. Country that established its own Government instead of merely
adopting the previous country's government and changed its name.(take
that Canada, still suckling on the Commonwealth teat i see)
3. The Czech Republic is not new they just cut the Czechs and Slovaks
in half.
4.New Zealand is Australia light. Half the fun
Half the taste
upon reflection that would put them under the same government rule.
9:30 PM
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
ok subtract the water from the land that will give the total amount of usable land, by this i mean land you can live and build on.
United States of America:8,497,216
Anoying little brother:8,202,344
Not to mention most of your sites listed don't even mention the number of sq. mi/km they simply order them, in fact one actually places China before the United States.
PLEASE CHECK YOUR SOURCES
dont bother responding. I'm not going to look at it. No offense to you, but i'm bored with this topic.
Thank you for checking my math, you're right. I must have forgot a couple zeros when i wrote it out.
51,000,000 (although I think this actually helps my case)
O here's a fun fact in the generation behind us there are more men than women. Its the opposite for 14yo<
Did you know that the life expectancy of males is about 75 in the U.S. while women are expected to hit almost 81. Says something about marraige?
9:59 PM
While some people who don't have health care cannot afford it, some are just irresponsible.
My parents have an old aquaintance from college who bought herself an expensive house in Highland Park, wears fur coats, and eats caviar but doesn't have health insurance. Why should people's tax money go to support such blatant irresponsibility?
I know this isn't true for all people, but until we know how many are unable versus unwilling to get health insurance, i don't think we can make such a drastic change.
10:50 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home