Please read this article that I found and argue your side.?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.
Men's Health - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Under capital, the motive is money. Unless we change our basic system, we cannot expect those in service industries to be different.
Read more discussion :
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Please read this article and argue your side. I have no opinion. Please help to clarify this confusing matter
Please read this article and argue your side. I have no opinion. Please help to clarify this confusing matter!?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good. Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
Current Events - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
In very few words, the bottom line is that we can't afford this health care bill. It is a lie that it will cost the country less money.
2 :
There is a lot of truth in this article. I too have friends in Canada, Norway, Sweden and England. They all work, have good jobs and would not dream of switching to our system. Do people really think we have a choice under our health care system? ..The only choice is how much money you can pay. HMO's have notoriously long wait times, multiple step approval and referral processes and they have been taken to task publicly for denying life saving procedures for patients. American are either to scared to lose what they have already (health coverage) or stand to lose monetarily (wealth investors in pharmaceutical and insurance companies)...Real change is still just dream because most Americans are to afraid to stand behind making a change.
Read more discussion :
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good. Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
Current Events - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
In very few words, the bottom line is that we can't afford this health care bill. It is a lie that it will cost the country less money.
2 :
There is a lot of truth in this article. I too have friends in Canada, Norway, Sweden and England. They all work, have good jobs and would not dream of switching to our system. Do people really think we have a choice under our health care system? ..The only choice is how much money you can pay. HMO's have notoriously long wait times, multiple step approval and referral processes and they have been taken to task publicly for denying life saving procedures for patients. American are either to scared to lose what they have already (health coverage) or stand to lose monetarily (wealth investors in pharmaceutical and insurance companies)...Real change is still just dream because most Americans are to afraid to stand behind making a change.
Read more discussion :
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good. Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
Government - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Sounds like a commie to me.
2 :
No he doesn't. For one thing there are plenty of other and better ways to measure the quality of health care than the way the WHO does it. One of those ways is to look at the outcome of people who do get sick. If you look at that data the conclusion is inescapable you've got a better chance of surviving in America than anywhere else. Does that mean we have the best health care, maybe but for sure it means that maybe those other programs are as good as claimed. The profit motive makes the consumer the king. Its why the cost of items that are produced in the free market go down and it forces manufacturers and distributors to meet consumer needs. Many grocery stores and gas stations are open 24 hrs a day, yet the post office is considering elimination of saturday delivery. The quality of cell phones and cell phone service has gone up while the cost has gone down. While the cost of postage is going up while service is being reduced, the cost of education is going up but I don't know anyone that says education is improving. Those who oppose the free market always like to through in the police and fire departments. But I say order a pizza and call 911 and see who gets there first the pizza or the police.
Read more discussion :
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good. Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
Government - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Sounds like a commie to me.
2 :
No he doesn't. For one thing there are plenty of other and better ways to measure the quality of health care than the way the WHO does it. One of those ways is to look at the outcome of people who do get sick. If you look at that data the conclusion is inescapable you've got a better chance of surviving in America than anywhere else. Does that mean we have the best health care, maybe but for sure it means that maybe those other programs are as good as claimed. The profit motive makes the consumer the king. Its why the cost of items that are produced in the free market go down and it forces manufacturers and distributors to meet consumer needs. Many grocery stores and gas stations are open 24 hrs a day, yet the post office is considering elimination of saturday delivery. The quality of cell phones and cell phone service has gone up while the cost has gone down. While the cost of postage is going up while service is being reduced, the cost of education is going up but I don't know anyone that says education is improving. Those who oppose the free market always like to through in the police and fire departments. But I say order a pizza and call 911 and see who gets there first the pizza or the police.
Read more discussion :
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Please read this article and argue your side. I have no opinion. Please help to clarify this confusing matter
Please read this article and argue your side. I have no opinion. Please help to clarify this confusing matter!?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good. Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
Politics - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Excellent article. Valid points. Important theme. Not ONE of the cons will read it. They are not the least interested in actually understanding the health care problem in America - they have feasted too long on a diet of soundbites and talking points. Even though doing so means that they are harming themselves, their loved ones, and their own family members. It's perverse.
2 :
i'm of the opinion that that was far too long and that the bits i did read were drearily poorly-written. i did, however, like the inclusion of the word 'hemorrhaging'
3 :
I agree. There is a reason for the Hippocratic Oath. The 'profit motive' is anti-thetical to the Hippocratic Oath. This is the fundamental problem with health care, not insurance companies or the malpractice lawsuits per say (they are 'instruments' of the fundamental problem)
4 :
Republicans could care less about this article, they just want more money for the giants of the insurance industry period.
5 :
Wow, he's right on the money. That's exactly how I feel about the every widening gap between rich and poor. Our republic is starting to come apart at the seams and we need to move away from strict ideology and look at reality. Thanks for posting this.
6 :
"America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent." In addition to this is the most important right accorded to the citizens of these countries: Every citizen is covered no matter how rich or poor, well or sick.
7 :
Interesting article. But it has holes. The US does not pay 17% in GDP it is only 5%. The US military that protects these other countries allowing them to put that money back into these health care systems. The US is the leader in development of cures and procedures for diseases and illnesses. If you are not profitable in medicine you will not have the funds to research new drugs and procedures to combat new illnesses. How much does it cost for a company to research a new drug to treat AIDS or Swine flu? The biggest problem in the US is preventative procedures. If you were to change the diet of the average American you would see the US leap beyond every country in the world. Our eating habits are the only reason we are behind in any category.
Read more discussion :
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good. Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
Politics - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Excellent article. Valid points. Important theme. Not ONE of the cons will read it. They are not the least interested in actually understanding the health care problem in America - they have feasted too long on a diet of soundbites and talking points. Even though doing so means that they are harming themselves, their loved ones, and their own family members. It's perverse.
2 :
i'm of the opinion that that was far too long and that the bits i did read were drearily poorly-written. i did, however, like the inclusion of the word 'hemorrhaging'
3 :
I agree. There is a reason for the Hippocratic Oath. The 'profit motive' is anti-thetical to the Hippocratic Oath. This is the fundamental problem with health care, not insurance companies or the malpractice lawsuits per say (they are 'instruments' of the fundamental problem)
4 :
Republicans could care less about this article, they just want more money for the giants of the insurance industry period.
5 :
Wow, he's right on the money. That's exactly how I feel about the every widening gap between rich and poor. Our republic is starting to come apart at the seams and we need to move away from strict ideology and look at reality. Thanks for posting this.
6 :
"America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent." In addition to this is the most important right accorded to the citizens of these countries: Every citizen is covered no matter how rich or poor, well or sick.
7 :
Interesting article. But it has holes. The US does not pay 17% in GDP it is only 5%. The US military that protects these other countries allowing them to put that money back into these health care systems. The US is the leader in development of cures and procedures for diseases and illnesses. If you are not profitable in medicine you will not have the funds to research new drugs and procedures to combat new illnesses. How much does it cost for a company to research a new drug to treat AIDS or Swine flu? The biggest problem in the US is preventative procedures. If you were to change the diet of the average American you would see the US leap beyond every country in the world. Our eating habits are the only reason we are behind in any category.
Read more discussion :
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)