Groups > Tough Questions & Answers

Hey Larry, I enjoy your posts and appreciate your respect and consideration of others:) The thing about leaving it to the states though, isn't that how we ended up with Jim Crow laws in the south? You might argue that if you were unhappy with your state government move elsewhere. But so many can't.

One of the problems we have in the US spins around the concept of political accountability. When decisions are made in Washington DC there seems to be minimal accountability to the people. We as a people have become accustomed to this, to having our national treasure spent at the highest common denominator rather than at the lowest.

We feel disconnected from the political process and so many don't vote because they feel as if they have no voice.

It's not just Jim Crow laws but the concept of "separate but equal education" (Brown vs Board of Education, Topeka Kansas) which was outside the Jim Crow laws per se. 'Separate but equal is inherently unequal'. I grant you that can be a powerful argument for health care - but where should those decisions be made?

In our efforts to homogenize the States we create unequal treatment as well. The Supreme Court is there to insure that the laws made by the states or by Congress are in accordance with the Constitution. The Court ultimately must decide if things are out of control. By assuming that the individual states can't do an equal job, you presume that all Americans want the same thing from government. We obviously do not because we have states and our elected representatives there carry out the will of the voters. State laws vary widely in how they treat taxation, the Justice System (regular in Minnesota, extra crispy in Texas) and a host of other issues that compel us. Why can't they also handle health care?

Many can't move. It's true. Maybe they can move the world with their votes?

Ghandi is a personal hero of mine. He moved a nation from subjugation by an imperial power to independence through courage. There are thousands of Ghandis in localities throughout America who move the will of their areas through courage and exemplary behavior. Whether or not you like Sarah Palin or feel that she should be the Vice President of the United States, she is an example of a "hockey mom" who rose to be Governor of Alaska not through the patronage of a political machine, but by energizing a voting block.

George Bernard Shaw was a smart man and of the many things he said, I recall this one best, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." Maybe it's time to trust the people (the unreasonable people) in the states to promote government health care. What would Ghandi have done if he felt passionate about health care? How would he have mobilized the public? Contrast Ghandi with Obama and McCain.

The feds want a massive bureaucracy that will spend vast amounts of treasure to do what the states can do for far less, structuring it to meet the needs of their citizens. In rural areas, maybe free clinics set here and there are what people need, in urban areas it will clearly be different. Some will want HMO style managed care and others will want something that fits their needs better.

If a WORKABLE solution is found it will be found locally rather than in Washington - when we speak of health care. At least that's how I see it.

Really well said! Gandhi is one of my personal hereos and I really appreciated your quote from George Bernard Shaw. It echoes a philosophy I try to follow. The thing that I see though is that vulnerable members of society will not recieve the help they need on a state level unless there are serious consequences for not providing the services. In Georgia, the mentally ill have received substandard care and there are over 100 cases of death by neglect cited in the state run hospitals. Millions have been levied in fines against the state system and yet little concern has been shown by state leaders, (a disapointment being that I voted for Sonny Perdue) I'm not sure that the answer lies within state or national political control. I'm thinking Gandhi would seek to change public opinion amoung as many people he possible could, without considereing state or even national borders. If Gandhi were alive today, would he be seeking global change? working to raise the consciousness of all people? I don't know; but it seems a reasonable possibility.

The standard of living in this country has fallen significantly behind that of our European allies - especially France, United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Italy and you can also include Japan.

As someone who has had to use the health care systems of Germany, the UK and Sweden - I can categorically state that their systems are head and shoulders above ours. And they use prevention as a major component of their health care philosophies.

I think health care should be a right for citizens of all developed countries as it takes care of the main resource of any nation - it's people!

Hi Rick – I’ve been away for a few days but I haven’t forgotten about ya! Couple of things. First I want to respond to part of your answer to PanDan. I think it’s great that you are able to bargain with your pharmacy and physicians, but please consider that in most cases an ill person needs immediate care and that kind of vulnerability makes him/her particularly disadvantaged at the bargaining table. (Imagine a mother bringing her screaming, feverish infant to pediatrics and trying to negotiate a price with the doctor. Catastrophic illness can result from seemingly minor complaints, particularly in children, so quick response is critical). I have known a few dear doctors who have offered services for little or nothing, but usually full payment is expected at the time of service, particularly for the uninsured.

In regard to the ALA and ACLU, both are supported by voluntary contributions. I mentioned the ACLU because some years back during Michael Dukakis’ run, his membership in this organization was paralleled with his liberal (the dirty L word) position on many issues and harshly criticized, hence the association with “more government.”

I completely share your cynicism about the government not having our best interest in mind, but, as I believe Larry Lambert pointed out, this is because we have over the last two centuries dissociated ourselves from government. At some point this discussion dissolves into a semantic one – if we define government as the corrupt individuals who seek to control the will of the people for political or personal gain, then of course I am wary. However, we can also define government as the original document (Bill of Rights and amendments included) that should act as the sole directive in representing “the people.” In this case, then yes, I believe the government does have our best interest in mind – it was written exactly for that purpose. We should seek to eliminate corruption in government, by all means, but how does one quantify government anyway? What is more, and what is too much?

As for corporations, I definitely do NOT relinquish my best interest to them!! Give me my shoes and pretty clothes – just like the next girl, I love my retail! But I’d hate to think my good health depends upon last year’s profits or next year’s projections.

The constitution does not grant free healthcare to the people, unless you interpret the right to life and the pursuit of happiness as suggesting this, but again, that’s a matter of semantics. Free education is one of those rights reserved for state powers, but I don’t think anyone will dispute that, at least theoretically, it is in the best interest of children and that we should strive to improve it. (I wonder what would happen if one state decided to do away with the public school system in order to save taxpayers money). I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, but I happen to think a non-profit healthcare program is also in the best interest of citizens, and for the good of all, something I am definitely willing to pay for in additional taxes. (And when you consider my health insurance premium, that’s a bargain!)

I think the differences between us here are actually quite small. Most of us believe that it would be a good thing to have some sort of healthcare system if we could pay for it and if we could guarantee QUALITY.

The fear is that a socialized/collective healthcare system usually means that it won't be as good. We could argue whether a degree from Harvard or Yale is as valued as a degree from your run-of-the-mill State University, but we all know the answer. One is private, the other is funded publicly.

Once somebody comes up with a workable plan to maintain high quality and has a plan to pay for it without simply printing more money to make up the shortfall, it will happen and there we go.

"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. So it was a statement of principles, not a foundation of law. (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) But I don't take issue with what Julie said or with what is desirable. Taking the desires of the people and translating them into a workable plan is far more difficult -- made nearly impossible in the near term with the declining economy.

I agree that simply sinking more money into a program without a plan would be foolish, but let's hope the planners know what they're doing. The fear may be there, granted, but it is unfounded. The empirical data already exists that points to the efficacy of socialized healthcare in our European neighbors. Anyone who has jitters over the prospect of this change should simply look at World Health Organization stats, as others have pointed out here. Private enterprise control does not guarantee quality, as has been the essence of this entire discussion, and whether our degrees are from Harvard or U of I, Scientific Method 101 should have taught all of us that if we want to evaluate quality, we identify quantitative measures and look at the data. In the case of socialized healthcare, the numbers are favorable. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.