Page 1 of 2

A Professor's View

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 11:35 am
by Ceruis
Peaceful Greetings:

Students, I pray that your associates, family members and you are in the best of safety, health and prosperity. Before reading your responding to your response to the "National Health Care" inquiry, I offer the following statement.

There are 40 + million citizens without this essential procurement and worst still, the upward spiral of the trend that makes for this ratio is increasing at warp speed. No one is immune or secure from the political evils thats precipitating and propelling the momentum of this anomaly and the pace at which the traditional jobs are now sourced to other countries, leaves Americans more vulnerable. In the context of common sense, the call for a "National Health Plan", whether by Hillary or by another candidate, is not only one of social necessity, but one of mercy, too. If, on the one hand, howling against the success of this outcome is about the so-called uncertainty of the bureaucratic cost of implementing such a program, then on the other, this factor ought to be compared to that of invading and occupying another country against the will of its citizens.
To illustrate, "a new congressional analysis shows the Iraq war is now costing taxpayers almost $2 billion a week, nearly twice as much as in the first year of the conflict three years ago and 20 percent more than last year as the Pentagon spends more on establishing regional bases to support the extended deployment and scrambles to fix or replace equipment damaged in combat". Now, thats really an outlandish bureaucratic outlay and the so-called purpose that underlie its affects, violates all ethical, traditional and institutional conventions. In fact, to pursue this egregious undertaking, the document on which our 'sacred cow" breathes and stands, i.e., the Constitution had to be shredded. Oh! What an irony, for the unconventional act of violating the base and philosophy of liberty is at the same time an act of patriotism.
I offer these reflections, not as a democratic or as a republican sympathizer, but as a citizen of faith and truth and as a free thinker. A fraction of the $2 billion a week that tax payers are forced to pay for the insanity of the war powers and the accompanying carnages, is, in my humble and professional view, more than enough to afford the the cost of a national health care bureaucracy. The problem, however, is the thought that there is no capital or billions to be gained from this mode of moral, rational and humane sanity. It is high time, I think, for citizens to not only, stop allowing their emotions and sentiments to be exploited, but also, for allowing their rational expressions to be a moral force for those folks (whether democratic or republican), who continue to betray and breach their public trusts.
In conclusion, is it sane or insane, for example, for our government to hold it citizenry hostage, at the gas pump, with an ever increasing cost, while at the same time, it pains from its inability to afford the commodity? Or is it sane or insane, to afford a $2 billion a week expenditure to toast the ongoing music, swinging and finger popping of war lords, while on the domestic scene, the entire infrastructure is rapidly deteriorating and coming apart? For those who claim or pledge true allegiance to the ideals of America, we really ought to be concern about this ideal verses reality gap. America is and is still becoming to diverse for her citizenry to hide behind old fashion, outdated prejudices. It is time for each American to become intimately acquainted with the principles and ethics of the Country's ideals and to rise up, use the ballot, kick out and keep out of office regimes and officials who betray their public trusts. Where are the so-called weapons of mass destruction? Where are they! They are in the demented mindset of individuals who, for capital as opposed to social gains, are shredding the structure and meaning of our Constitution. I am not a palm's reader, prophet or rocket scientist, but albeit, I submit, that as America conceived, engaged and is now staying for all of the wrong reasons, it cannot possibly win the war in Iraq or for that matter, the so called war on terror. Winning these battles are akin to winning the war on drugs and so long as drugs are sold across the pharmacy's counter, they will be sold across neighborhoods, cities,, counties and national lines, too. Now, what progress has been made on this front?
It is time for our Government to do right by its citizenry and this outcome does not entail or include the usual wrangling, gridlock, and stalemates that elected and appointed officials of the democratic and republican regimes are accustom to exercising and getting away with.


Respectfully,

N.R. Professor


** I just left the initials of the name of the professor.

Personally I don't think the goverment has any business setting up free health care for anybody. I know if my daughters or wife were sick and needed help I would work until i couldn't work anymore to get the money. If someone could help me out if it was beyond my reach then great. What I don't expect is for someone to hand me the money or needed services on a silver platter without any expectation that they would be paid back. As far as I'm concerned, health care isn't a right no more than food is a right. It something that has to be earned, usually by somehow being a productive member of society.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 11:59 am
by Goofydoofy
They take and kill why not give something back. This is a topic nobody will agree on. I personally don't give a shit either way. I would prefer to see millions of people just drop dead in a instant. Would be a hell of a time cleaning up the mess though.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:10 pm
by Meso
At work I pay half of my health insurance - $400 every paycheck. and just got an increase because my family actually dared to use it.
Thats over $5000 a year that i can't afford and can't afford not to.

The health care "industry" is wayyy out of control and we all suffer for it.

The auto industry pays more for employee health care benefits than they do for the materials to make the cars.

I'd like to be able to see a doctor when i need to without putting it off because i can't afford to pay what my insurance company won't pay because i already paid them too much.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:29 pm
by Jimbop
Oerin nailed it there. The health care industry as a whole is demanding too much out of the population of this country. The health insurance at my job costs $10 a week, which isn't bad. If you're single. I feel sorry for those who pay for the family plan, which takes around $150 a week out of them. And a lot of these people are making only a little over $200 per week. Plus on top of that, the copay costs for all of our services is a minimum of $30, and we've been continually losing more and more coverage each year. How can anyone afford any of this is you have more than one person to support?

In many ways, I'm glad I don't have a family to support right now, and this is definitely one of them. There would be no way I could live and support a family paying that much for health insurance. But the government doesn't care about those rising costs affecting most Americans across the country. And it doesn't even help if you vote in someone campaigning to put new regulations on the health care industry. Chances are, they are just saying that to get your vote so they can replace random_idiot_congressman_01, and once they do, they turn into random_idiot_congressman_02. Seriously, how many people in this country actually have faith anymore that electing someone new to the government will actually have a positive effect on the country? I don't know many at all.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:41 pm
by Meso
heard some sad numbers on the way to work this morning.

presidential approval rating 31%
congressional approval rating 22%

Saddest part is that most of these boobs will get reelected.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:10 pm
by Serano
Jimbop wrote:But the government doesn't care about those rising costs affecting most Americans across the country. And it doesn't even help if you vote in someone campaigning to put new regulations on the health care industry.


Lets not confuse the Government not caring and the government not feeling responsible. It is a new concept that the government is responsible for the bills of its populace. And most of the decision makers in government are not from that generation and on top of that - the laws do not currently support that concept.

So the people vested in the administration of our government does not have buy in to the concept that it is their responsibility to pay the bills of the people - or have rules in place telling them to take that as their responsibility.

So far as the original guys pontification:
invading and occupying another country against the will of its citizens.


We liberated Iraq - the citizens supported that. What they are against is the occupation portion. 9 out of 10 Iraqi's do not understand why the US didn't leave the month (NOV 03) that we captured Hussein.

One thing I will go on record with - I do not believe the USA is set up for or has the stomach for being an occupation force. Especially not in a hostile environment. When we were occupiers in Japan and Germany the threat was SO Different because of culture.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 11:13 pm
by Jimbop
Serano wrote:
Jimbop wrote:But the government doesn't care about those rising costs affecting most Americans across the country. And it doesn't even help if you vote in someone campaigning to put new regulations on the health care industry.


Lets not confuse the Government not caring and the government not feeling responsible. It is a new concept that the government is responsible for the bills of its populace. And most of the decision makers in government are not from that generation and on top of that - the laws do not currently support that concept.

So the people vested in the administration of our government does not have buy in to the concept that it is their responsibility to pay the bills of the people - or have rules in place telling them to take that as their responsibility.


People that can afford to run for those congressional seats (and let's face it, people that don't come from money don't get the chance to run for seats efficiently compared to someone with lots of financial backing) don't have to worry about health care because they have the money to afford it. The way I see it is that the government has done nothing with the runaway train that the health care industry has become. Just as they haven't generally done much to help jobs stay in this country (though states have just as much to do with this, if not being more responsible like NY).

No response after long periods of time is pretty equivalent to not caring, since the idea of national health care has been floating around for nearly a century, if one has looked up the history of it. Teddy Roosevelt helped push for one of these in the early 1900s. For various reasons, the movement always gets shot down. Like the movement in the early 1900s got shot down because big money life insurance investors would have lost money because the national insurance would have covered it. Not pushing this because of a few people on top making money = greed = not caring about the public. Money has too much value in our society today, and it's scattered at such a range as to have billionaires not make the Forbes 400 list because too many billionaires are on the list. But people like us struggle to pay to go to the doctors? And we won't even go into dentistry, as I need a bunch of teeth work done but can't afford it because my health insurance dropped all dental coverage.

So I stick to my statement that they just don't care, because to solve this, some people with financial backing will lose money. And all that happens then is those people pay people to lobby their cause, and the congressman end up listening to the lobbyists instead of the people that elected them.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:55 am
by Antok
As far as I'm concerned, health care isn't a right no more than food is a right.

Most people consider food a human right, and the major human rights declarations in the last century put it as such as well. Food has been distributed for free or reduced charge to the needy by most governments in the last half dozen centuries as well as considerable numbers of social organizations.

I agree with you. Decent healthcare is a right no more than food is, which is to say it's a pretty fundamental one.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:46 am
by Ceruis
Antok wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, health care isn't a right no more than food is a right.

Most people consider food a human right, and the major human rights declarations in the last century put it as such as well. Food has been distributed for free or reduced charge to the needy by most governments in the last half dozen centuries as well as considerable numbers of social organizations.

I agree with you. Decent healthcare is a right no more than food is, which is to say it's a pretty fundamental one.


For the sake of argument, at what point in human history did food become a human right? I looked over our Bill of Rights and did not see where it said food was a human right there. In fact, unless I completely missed it I don't see where they mention food at all or healthcare for that matter as a basic human right anywhere in the constitution. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping people who need help putting food on the table or for getting the medical care they need, but only if they are trying to help themselves first. I'm not going to willing support deadbeats because of some liberal idea that all people are entitled to free healthcare, a roof over their heads, and food on the table.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 7:36 am
by Meso
inalienable rights : Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness

no food = no life

no health care = no life

no food = not happy

no health care= not happy

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:08 am
by Ceruis
Oerin wrote:inalienable rights : Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness

no food = no life

no health care = no life

no food = not happy

no health care= not happy


In our Declaration of Independence it does say that those are the inalienable rights. However, the man who penned those words probably had a different idea of what those words meant than we do. Oerin equates those words to mean that everybody deserves food and health care. I think those words mean I have the oppurtunity to have all those if I work hard enough to get them. Life, therefore food and health care to sustain it, if I work hard enough to get it. Liberty, if I am willing to fight to protect it and possibly die for it. Pursuit of happiness and attaining that happiness if I'm willing to strive hard enough for it.

But however we interpet those words, where does it say that government is responsible for providing it? Or are they suppose to set the conditions so that we can have all those things? Certainly, I think. But I do not believe it the government's job to provide it. Ultimately, it our paycheck that supports social programs that the U.S. now has. The biggest one's are seen on our paycheck stubs every time we get paid, Social Security and Medicare. We are in affect paying to provide other people with retirement funds and free medical already. The problem is that there are more people taking from those funds than there are people putting into them and that to me garbage.

So we have way too high cost of medical care. What the solution? Government controlled and ran health care system? I think not because the cost will be even more than the average man pays now and the system will eventually eat itself so that there nothing but substandard services left as the people who go into the medical field are forced to find other more fulfilling lines of work.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:41 am
by Goofydoofy
My health care plan is smoke Salvia and sit in my closet and cry. I'm still alive!

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 9:56 pm
by Serano
Well - I have a vested interest in protecting the proclaimed rights of our citizenry. In my private self - I do not actually believe that rights exist.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:58 pm
by Antok
For the sake of argument, at what point in human history did food become a human right? I looked over our Bill of Rights and did not see where it said food was a human right there. In fact, unless I completely missed it I don't see where they mention food at all or healthcare for that matter as a basic human right anywhere in the constitution. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping people who need help putting food on the table or for getting the medical care they need, but only if they are trying to help themselves first. I'm not going to willing support deadbeats because of some liberal idea that all people are entitled to free healthcare, a roof over their heads, and food on the table.

Can't answer exactly what point it became recognized as one generally, but I can tell you that the US officially acknowledged food as a basic human right in 1948.

Ceruis wrote:So we have way too high cost of medical care. What the solution? Government controlled and ran health care system? I think not because the cost will be even more than the average man pays now and the system will eventually eat itself so that there nothing but substandard services left as the people who go into the medical field are forced to find other more fulfilling lines of work.

I refuse to believe that paying an anesthesiologist $150,000 a year instead of $300,000 a year would mean that no one would be willing to become an anesthesiologist anymore.

if too many qualified doctors do leave the practice as a result of the implementation of some form of universal healthcare? no problem at all. ease up immigration restrictions for professionals. There are thousands of qualified people we could attract. iirc, graduates from AKU in Karachi that end up in the US pass their US boards at a rate higher than average for american-trained people, foreign-trained doesn't = incompetent or bad. (easing up restrictions for the immigration of people with professional level degrees is something already suggested very frequently by people on both sides of the aisle.)

if that doesn't make up the differential? Revamp the american medical education system. Most places in the world offer undergraduate medical degrees achievable in five years -- I know all commonwealth countries do, as well as pakistan and india. These degrees are recognized in the US, just not offered in the US. Offer similar degrees. offer governmental tuition subsidies and create incentives for universities to expand their medical programs similar to the land-grant schools a hundred years ago.

Expand the use of nurse practitioner's and PA's.

besides those? drug price caps, or alternatively simply reduce the amount of time drug patents last for. regulate drug advertising -- there's no reason for it to be 5-10x the amount put in the R&D.

I think not because the cost will be even more than the average man pays now

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/
"“It is pretty indisputable that we spend twice what other countries spend on average,” she said." (and, as the article states earlier, we receive less.)

So -- by no means should the cost of our medical care be expanding. We're already by a very large margin dead last, and there are relatively easy things to do to decrease that.

PostPosted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:05 am
by Offem
For the sake of argument, at what point in human history did food become a human right? I looked over our Bill of Rights and did not see where it said food was a human right there. In fact, unless I completely missed it I don't see where they mention food at all or healthcare for that matter as a basic human right anywhere in the constitution.


First of all, for the sake of argument of course, a basic human right is not the same as our Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence. Why? Because not all humans live in our country, meaning they all do not fall under our Bill of Rights or any other document penned by our forefathers. Instead these documents indicate citizen rights and freedoms. In a nutshell, basic human rights and citizen rights of a country should not be confused.

where does it say that government is responsible for providing it


Where does it say it doesn't? Naturally I suspect tax dollars would pay for it; however, I think it is certainly a viable option that the government of one of the greatest countries in the world should afford at the very least proper healthcare to its legal citizens.