So, I've been thinking about health insurance lately.
My head feels like it's about to explode from the insanity of it all, so I thought I'd squeeze out a post while I still have the power of coherent speech.
I don't know what the solution is - I'll just lay that right out. I've (of course) been scouring McCain and Obama's websites trying to find out their approximate positions on the issue, and I've even taken the perilous step of googling "Obama McCain healthcare plans" just to see what comes up. (This is hazardous because while I've heard of the Drudge Report and the Huffington Post, there's a looooot of internet out there and it's easy to be caught off guard by a neutral-looking site I've never heard of with a massive agenda. It seems every blowhard with a laptop nowadays has a website and a blog, and trying to find information that is honest, correct, and not wildly skewed in any one direction is harder than trying to formulate this post while watching House Hunters International at the same time).
I'm not too fussed about what the candidates specifically have planned for the healthcare system once they're in office, because it's not up to them. They just get to veto or not veto whatever version of their original plan Congress chews up and spits out, if indeed they can produce anything at all. What I want to see is their general goals for the system, and how firm a grasp they seem to have on reality - do they have good ideas, and do they seem to be surrounding themselves with people who have good ideas? And I'm trying to more firmly compose my own thoughts on the subject. Here's what I have come up with so far:
1) We need to start over. The insurance system as it is, I truly believe, is hopeless. I know this is not likely to ever be a view shared by any major political candidate, and I know it would be costly in the short-term to overhaul the whole enchilada as it were, but I just can't stand the thought of either mandating the current system onto every American citizen, or giving the insurance companies even *more* power to place profits over ethics. They do this now, because it's a business endeavor. Many insurance companies are publicly held, so they are "serving" their shareholders by maximizing profits - which of course, means paying out as little as possible while taking in as much money as they can.
2) So, to my mind, the way to fix that is to make insuring people a break-even type of operation, or a non-profit, or through the government, or something. I don't think insurance companies themselves should be in the business of making money. What do they do? They are middlemen. They should be involved as little as possible in the medical process - leave it to the doctors and the patients. Whoa! How about that? Letting doctors and patients decide together how to be healthy, instead of asking your insurance company permission to have this treatment or that. I have no problem with doctors being paid well: they dig themselves into a tremendous financial hole so they can go to school for literally decades and then work long hours trying to keep people healthy and give them a better quality of life. What could be more honorable? Insurance companies don't do any of those things - they shuffle papers, confuse the snot out of doctors and patients alike, and siphon profits away from the people who are earning them by the sweat of their brow. I don't blame them, per se, since the system as it is currently is set up so that insurance companies have incentive to be profitable, not to provide quality care. I just think that dynamic should be reversed.
3) Insurance should not be tied to place of employment. This is such a screwed-up idea I hardly know where to start. Right now, only 60% of companies provide health insurance for their employees. Those people are the "lucky" ones, because they get to reap the benefits of mass purchasing power. People who are have to seek out their own private insurance cannot possibly compete with this, especially if they have the audacity to actually *get sick*. But even those who are covered at their job don't have it easy: they still don't have much in the way of choice (if we're lucky, we get to choose between paying less for less coverage and paying more for more coverage). And there are millions of people who have good, steady jobs - prestigious jobs - who have achieved success and respect in their profession, and yet still either cannot afford insurance, or who pay astronomical amounts for pathetic coverage because they are self-employed, or their employment is of such a nature that employer-subsidized healthcare is not one of the benefits. Take my dad, for example - in a twist of delicious irony, he is an established PHYSICIAN who pays a monthly insurance premium that my family, with our very comfortable salary, could not begin to afford. His deductible is a mere $10,000 a year, never mind co-pays and mental health services, which are badly needed and often not covered at all.
4) I think insurance should be available to anyone who wants it. This "pre-existing condition" stuff is CRAP. Of course, the whole methodology of insurance requires that the risk be spread over a large population, so all these young healthy types who roll the dice and go without insurance are screwing the system just as badly as all the Boomers who are just now realizing that yes, their lifestyles are going to catch up with them. Additionally, there has got to be some way to differentiate between those who willfully eschew coverage when they are healthy, then go looking for it when they get sick, and those who have done their best to maintain coverage and are forced to switch because of a change in employment, for example. It seems to me that mandating coverage is the only way around this particular problem (as well as removing the tie between employment and coverage).
The more I think about it, the more it seems that universal, equal, mandatory insurance coverage is the best way to solve most of these issues. It removes the "insurance company as moneymaking industry" factor. It most effectively spreads the risk over the largest population, which would make it possible to cover even those people with pre-existing conditions, or - gasp! - actual health problems. It would maintain the mass-purchasing power that large companies currently have. It would take the burden off employers, who foot a tremendous bill to subsidize coverage for their employees.
I do not think that mandating coverage, as it is currently constituted, for everyone is a good solution. But I do think that reshaping the insurance "industry" from the bottom up and THEN making coverage universal is the way to go. I delivered Rick his cookies this afternoon for correctly sussing out my Monty Python quote, and I have another plate for everyone who made it through this marathon post and still finds it in their heart to offer me their own thoughts. I'm painfully aware that I don't have a comprehensive understanding of this yet, and I would love to get some other perspectives and points to ponder...
...tomorrow. Tonight, my brain is plum tuckered out.
I'm not too fussed about what the candidates specifically have planned for the healthcare system once they're in office, because it's not up to them. They just get to veto or not veto whatever version of their original plan Congress chews up and spits out, if indeed they can produce anything at all. What I want to see is their general goals for the system, and how firm a grasp they seem to have on reality - do they have good ideas, and do they seem to be surrounding themselves with people who have good ideas? And I'm trying to more firmly compose my own thoughts on the subject. Here's what I have come up with so far:
1) We need to start over. The insurance system as it is, I truly believe, is hopeless. I know this is not likely to ever be a view shared by any major political candidate, and I know it would be costly in the short-term to overhaul the whole enchilada as it were, but I just can't stand the thought of either mandating the current system onto every American citizen, or giving the insurance companies even *more* power to place profits over ethics. They do this now, because it's a business endeavor. Many insurance companies are publicly held, so they are "serving" their shareholders by maximizing profits - which of course, means paying out as little as possible while taking in as much money as they can.
2) So, to my mind, the way to fix that is to make insuring people a break-even type of operation, or a non-profit, or through the government, or something. I don't think insurance companies themselves should be in the business of making money. What do they do? They are middlemen. They should be involved as little as possible in the medical process - leave it to the doctors and the patients. Whoa! How about that? Letting doctors and patients decide together how to be healthy, instead of asking your insurance company permission to have this treatment or that. I have no problem with doctors being paid well: they dig themselves into a tremendous financial hole so they can go to school for literally decades and then work long hours trying to keep people healthy and give them a better quality of life. What could be more honorable? Insurance companies don't do any of those things - they shuffle papers, confuse the snot out of doctors and patients alike, and siphon profits away from the people who are earning them by the sweat of their brow. I don't blame them, per se, since the system as it is currently is set up so that insurance companies have incentive to be profitable, not to provide quality care. I just think that dynamic should be reversed.
3) Insurance should not be tied to place of employment. This is such a screwed-up idea I hardly know where to start. Right now, only 60% of companies provide health insurance for their employees. Those people are the "lucky" ones, because they get to reap the benefits of mass purchasing power. People who are have to seek out their own private insurance cannot possibly compete with this, especially if they have the audacity to actually *get sick*. But even those who are covered at their job don't have it easy: they still don't have much in the way of choice (if we're lucky, we get to choose between paying less for less coverage and paying more for more coverage). And there are millions of people who have good, steady jobs - prestigious jobs - who have achieved success and respect in their profession, and yet still either cannot afford insurance, or who pay astronomical amounts for pathetic coverage because they are self-employed, or their employment is of such a nature that employer-subsidized healthcare is not one of the benefits. Take my dad, for example - in a twist of delicious irony, he is an established PHYSICIAN who pays a monthly insurance premium that my family, with our very comfortable salary, could not begin to afford. His deductible is a mere $10,000 a year, never mind co-pays and mental health services, which are badly needed and often not covered at all.
4) I think insurance should be available to anyone who wants it. This "pre-existing condition" stuff is CRAP. Of course, the whole methodology of insurance requires that the risk be spread over a large population, so all these young healthy types who roll the dice and go without insurance are screwing the system just as badly as all the Boomers who are just now realizing that yes, their lifestyles are going to catch up with them. Additionally, there has got to be some way to differentiate between those who willfully eschew coverage when they are healthy, then go looking for it when they get sick, and those who have done their best to maintain coverage and are forced to switch because of a change in employment, for example. It seems to me that mandating coverage is the only way around this particular problem (as well as removing the tie between employment and coverage).
The more I think about it, the more it seems that universal, equal, mandatory insurance coverage is the best way to solve most of these issues. It removes the "insurance company as moneymaking industry" factor. It most effectively spreads the risk over the largest population, which would make it possible to cover even those people with pre-existing conditions, or - gasp! - actual health problems. It would maintain the mass-purchasing power that large companies currently have. It would take the burden off employers, who foot a tremendous bill to subsidize coverage for their employees.
I do not think that mandating coverage, as it is currently constituted, for everyone is a good solution. But I do think that reshaping the insurance "industry" from the bottom up and THEN making coverage universal is the way to go. I delivered Rick his cookies this afternoon for correctly sussing out my Monty Python quote, and I have another plate for everyone who made it through this marathon post and still finds it in their heart to offer me their own thoughts. I'm painfully aware that I don't have a comprehensive understanding of this yet, and I would love to get some other perspectives and points to ponder...
...tomorrow. Tonight, my brain is plum tuckered out.
116 comments:
Good post Wizzle. :)
Here is the problem with standardized or universal healthcare: it isn't guaranteeing you a standardized bedside manner. Just because your healthcare has been standardized doesn't mean the quality of healthcare professionals delivering the care will be high quality. In other words, your payment for services may land you a great physician or a dude who slid through medical school on a prayer.
I did my last rotation at Stanford Hospital, and I saw MANY people coming from Europe for care because their standardized healthcare back home just didn't cut it for them. The care providers in other countries just weren't interested in working with them because they got paid the same regardless of the outcome. And that defeats the whole purpose of standardization.
On another note, I just had a guest lecturer who talked about how she and other care providers used to go down to Mexico and get the babies/toddlers with conditions that were unable to be met, bring them across the border, operate on them in San Diego, and then take them back across the border when they were healed. Ah, the good ol' days. She said no one has been able to do that for a while now because of the fear of lawsuits and illegal immigration issues. And yet, if you have knowledge of healing, that is really the way the system should work...to heal those in need of it, regardless.
If you don't like the insurance companies, don't use them. If your fathers premiums are $10,000 a year, what is the likelyhood he will have some medical emergency costing more than $10,000. Save your money for such emergencies. I do, I don't have private insurance and I hope never to have it. I will just pay out of pocket for any such problems and in the long run will be saving a lot of money. Sure sometimes the unfortunate happens and you find yourself in large amounts of debt, they have payment programs for those who aren't bad with credit. As far as making the health care universal that is a terrible idea as AMY pointed out, it's not really free and it's not very good. My friend who served his mission in Toronto said he waited at the doctors office for 6 hours until he finaly was seen by the doctor. Once the doctor saw him it was for 5 seconds and then he said, "I can't give you any antibiotics because we have to ration them. That is the organization that comes from a government run program, long waits with no help. Read about the stats. http://www.nationalphysiciansurvey.ca/nps/news/PDF-e/National_Physician_Survey_Press_Release_Oct27.04_updated%20Nov.pdf
The doctors hands are tied not because of money but now they can't get supplies. Just save your money and use it when you need it.
Rachel - great job - you covered some very important points. I know that for many of the readers of this blog (we'll get that number up again, I have faith), Michael Moore is Satan, or at the very best, Satan's right hand-man - but I encourage everyone to watch SICKO - it really is a fantastic movie - and PG rated too. Moore is anything but impartial, but what political documentary is? HOwever, the points that he makes are valid. Maybe I feel that way because it was the same points I was making long before I ever saw the movie. It's a good place to start for people who don't know much about it.
Basically, my opinion is that Health Care is NOT a priviledge for the wealthy few, it is not a commodity to be bought and sold - - health care is our right as human beings. We deserve to have good care. the fear of not being able to get our family health care should not be the driving factor in choosing jobs, or anything else.
I am totally for socialized medicine (which, I realize is a bad word). This, for me is the biggest reason that I have no desire to stay in the states long term. Why be here when It's the only civilized country that I can't afford to have and take care of children.
I lived in Japan for a year, and I'm getting ready to go to S. Korea for a year - From my experience and the experience of my close friends - health care - from a visit to the clinic for a sniffle to Gallbladder surgery and child birth was not only sufficient, but much better than in the US. Some European countries might have that happen, Amy, but I'd say that most of the time it's not an issue of the Socialized health care, but rather, an issue of the state of the government.
Amy, part of the problem is fixing medical school/examinations. Doctors become well paid government employees.
Robert, that is a nice thought, but not a practical one. I grew up in a family with ten children. You can bet there was never a time when one of them didn't need some sort of medical attention. Just not using it is not an option. If it was such a "terrible idea" why does every other industrialized/ "first world" country on the planet use it? And don't fool yourself into thinking that those people coming here are a majority - Canada is a big place. So is Japan - England - France - Cuba - Korea - you name it - they all use it, and....they are all still alive, without paying insurance premiums. Insurance is the terrible idea. Not being covered and paying the rediculous premiums is a terrible idea too.
I think this is the most important political issue - more important than the economy, and more important than gas prices. I urge everyone to look into the concepts of Universal Health Coverage, and see what you can do to support it in our government.
By the way, I'm on a different computer, and that last post was Rick.
haha, Rick, I was beginning to wonder if everyone was headed to Korea this summer! Good to know it was you under a different name.
Rick, we lived in England for a bit. We have friends in other countries with universal health care still....and THERE ARE TONS OF PROBLEMS. Basically you have universal health coverage which is what you can get here in free clinics or with Kaiser, and then everyone who can afford to buys private insurance on top of the universal health coverage. Why? Because it is better. The universal coverage doesn't meet their needs. If you want good service you have to buy private. Which defeats the whole solution of creating universal health coverage to begin with.
Simply correcting the graduate exams isn't going to make people great doctors.
I'm up for making it easier for people to get the medical attention they require, but you have to remember in the end it is all a business in our world. Our government can't afford to have standardized health care. Who will pay all the employees at these businesses who provide health care? Taxes will get raised AGAIN to cover it, so in the end you'll be paying what you would have paid for basic insurance anyway. Right now it isn't a viable option to implement nationally.
oh yeah, and the people coming here to use our systems are the ones who are in dire need of help. ie special conditions that are too expensive to treat so the universal health coverage in their home country would rather have them die than treat them. Sounds like a GREAT solution, eh? Until it is you.
here's a novel idea - lets learn from the problems of other countries, and not repeat the same mistakes - As far as I can tell, the problem in the situation that you described is not a problem with universal health care - - rather, it is a problem with the fact that it is only the basic - In Japan, there is no such thing as private - Privatized Medicine is not an option - therefore, the govt. provided healthcare is all there is - and it works fantastically. Lets du Universal healthcare with that as the example we follow, rather than the U.K.
actually, none of the people I saw at Stanford were from the UK. I just know the UK standardized healthcare has issues from talking to people while we were there. Thats awesome japan has such a great system....I agree--we ought to look at that one more. Any chance Obama will?
Well, maybe it's a case of hearing what you want to hear, but since I have never *lived* in a any country - let alone all the countries with their myriad systems of universal health care - I am obliged to take the word of people who do and have actually lived in some of those places as to how they feel about their health care options. And in my experience, while of course no system is perfect and I don't expect it to be able to be, people who live in countries with universal health care are horrified at the thought of 6 weeks paid maternity leave (if you're lucky!) and having to weigh your emergency room copays against how sick you think you are and deciding whether or not you will seek help for a problem. They just go, and they know that it is paid for.
People in these countries also tend to see general practitioners for all but the most specific problems (broken bones, surgeries, etc) which is a much more cost-effective system than having everyone go to a specialist for every little problem.
And Robert - doctors here are suffering too. That's not just some construct of socialized health care. Under the current system, insurance companies dictate how much physicians are reimbursed for their services, which is why I advocate not just mandating the current system for everyone, but overhauling the entire thing so that doctors and patients are back in control instead of the paper pushers. Of course, I don't exactly know how to "do" this, but that's what I think needs to happen...
And I think I'm probably more familiar with my dad's situation that you are. My mom has had 3 years of very severe health problems and has required thyroid treatments, ongoing mental health services, and a hip replacement. I feel that the costs he has paid through his insurance have been exorbitant, and would have certainly been financially disastrous for a family making the "average" $35,000 a year a whatever it is, but it is much less than they would have had to pay if they were uninsured. I addressed some of the problems of going uninsured in my original post, but I'll give you another example.
I know a woman whose husband owned his own landscaping business for 20 years. Because he was self-employed and the current system is set up to put those people at a disadvantage from an insurance standpoint, their family chose to do exactly what you described. They weighed their options, and chose to pay for services as they needed them because that made better financial sense than buying insurance. Everything was going fine - the woman was diagnosed with Irritable Bowel syndrome, but it could be managed on an acute basis.
Then, she had a few very serious episodes and after a few CT scans at $1200 apiece (that's with the "cash pay" discount) it was determined her had Crohn's disease. The treatment required to manage her condition is much more costly and ongoing than it was before, and she is unable to get insurance to cover services related to her Crohn's disease because it is considered a "pre-existing condition" - something she had before she was insured, and reasonably, insurance companies do not want to cover people who only seek insurance once they discover they have a catastrophic health condition.
What do you do then? Her husband has sold his landscaping business, they have mortgaged their house so they can have cash reserves on hand so they can pay for services up front and take advantage of the "cash pay" discount, and her husband has gotten a job working at Home Depot or somewhere so they can get insurance to cover all bt her Crohn's disease, hoping that in some years they will be able to get those services covered as well if they have enough time under continuous coverage.
Half of me wants to say - let's just scrap the whole insurance idea altogether. People didn't used to have insurance, and fees for services were much more reasonable (largely I'm sure, because fees weren't inflated to cover all the paperwork and runaround that is inherent in the insurance process, and the fact that every insurance company reimburses at a different rate, etc). You just went to the doctor and paid him. End of story. But I guess the tradeoff is that back in the day, if you got cancer then you died. Now, you have the option of getting any number of potentially life-saving, very expensive therapies and living to tell about it - but it would be a rare person indeed who could afford those treatments without insurance assistance. What's the solution to that?
A couple of points:
1. Unless I missed something, no one has brought anything explicitly Mormon to this discussion. Are there LDS values that are relevant here? (I'll note in passing that the Church sees fit to take positions on issues such as gay marriage and the Equal Rights Amendment, but not on issues such as health care. Why is that?)
2. Some of the arguments I've seen (such as Robert's) seem to be arguments against insurance generally. Just save your money and pay for emergencies out of pocket! Yet when it comes to things like automobile insurance, homeowner's insurance, etc., that's obviously bogus--the principle of risk-sharing and the reduction of risk it affords makes all kinds of very good things (like widely available mortgages) possible. Why is health insurance any different? Instead of just talking about varying quality of care under different systems, maybe we should also be talking about some of the ancillary benefits of universal coverage.
--David
Well, Anonymous Dave, I didn't intend for this post to have a religious component since as far as I can see it really doesn't have anything to do with [our] religion, except on the general basis of serving the poor, etc. As I understand it, the purpose of the blog is to provide a place for LDS bloggers of all stripes to air their political thoughts: partially to demonstrate that Mormons do, in fact, come in all stripes, and partially to provide a forum where if there was a "Mormon" angle to a particular subject, that could be discussed openly with other interested parties.
As far as I know, the church has made no official stance on any political subject except gay marriage (and oh, how I struggle with the fact that they did!) and it seems, upon further examination, against the Equal Rights Amendment as well, although that was before my time ;) and I am not as familiar with the church stance on it. I have a feeling it's going to make for interesting afternoon baby-naptime reading though!
Darn it, darn it, darn it – you beat me to it. I have been mulling over a post like this. Surprisingly, it would have been very similar because I have come to a lot of the same conclusions as you.
First, we do need to start over. I think a huge part of the healthcare crisis is managed healthcare. The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 “gave HMOs greater access to the employer-based market, providing for the rapid expansion of HMOs”. (wikipedia)
Have you ever received a bill when you have an HMO? The “fee” the doctor charges is $100. With your insurance “discount”, the new charge is $50. Your co-pay is $30, and the insurance company pays the balance: $20. What if you don’t have insurance? Then, you are charged the whole $100, and since a lot of people who don’t have insurance can’t afford to pay the bill, it goes unpaid. What is the true cost of that service? My guess is that it is closer to the $50. My opinion is that HMOs are what have led to the rampant inflation in medical costs.
Interestingly, the law originally stated that HMOs were to be structured as non-profits. What happened to that? I agree that health insurance companies should be non-profit.
In its purest form, insurance is a pool of risk. Everyone puts into the pot so that when someone has an “accident” or needs it, the money is there to cover it. I think health insurance companies should be more like the credit unions of the banking world. We should go back to traditional indemnity insurance. Specifically, I prefer the combination of a Health Savings Account with a high-deductible insurance policy. This would give people more control over the decision-making of their healthcare.
Second, I also agree that insurance should be portable and not tied to employment (although companies should still be able to offer to pay the premium as an employee benefit).
Third, I actually am for some type of a universal provision, and here’s why. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act “requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay”. (wikipedia) This is already a universal provision in a way, and has had the following effects: emergency rooms are jam-packed and have long waiting lines, more than half of all emergency room care in the U.S. goes uncompensated, emergency rooms are actually closing down.
I don’t think the solution is to remove the mandate. I feel that would be inhumane, so I think we need to work within the framework. People who need care are going to get it. Did you know that the U.S. government currently pays 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S.?!?!? 44%! That is an insane number. What happens if someone like Robert who chooses not to have insurance has some catastrophic health complication that costs into the millions? Is he really going to pay that off? No. I never thought I would say this, but I do think we need a universal provision so that everyone is required to have health insurance. I think, however, that before we do that, we need to do away with HMOs.
Fourth, I agree with you on the pre-existing condition. I think we should have a system with one fixed rate for everyone, but possibly a reduction for low-risk (like how not smoking reduces your life insurance premium).
Um, so actually, it looks like I pretty much agree entirely with what you’ve said, wizzle. I’ve looked over both McCain’s and Obama’s health proposals. McCain’s is closer to what I would like to see – not perfect. He advocates the health savings accounts and proposes a “GAP” coverage for those who are falling through the cracks. If I had to choose an existing model to follow, I would go with The Netherlands, but I would use traditional insurance coupled with health savings accounts. Why? Because it puts the most control in the hands of the consumer to make decisions on how they want to spend their health care dollar. We would see less waste. This is what you were getting at in your comment about going back to where you just paid the doctor when you saw him. But, we need the insurance for things like cancer so that you aren’t wiped out financially.
The LAST thing I want to see is some huge government-run HMO (ie. Socialized healthcare).
Oh, and do I think what I've proposed will happen? No. I think that big HMOs are in bed with too many politicians. I think that likely what we'll see is exactly what I don't want to see: government-mandated participation in existing HMOs, subsidized by taxpayers. Then, when the HMOs say, "we need more money", government will just raise taxes, so we'll feel the pinch in two ways.
My misunderstanding, Wizzle--I thought the blog was not so much for Mormons to air their thoughts on the issues as it was to to discuss the LDS angle (I should say, angles) on the issues. FWIW, and correct me if I'm wrong, I believe the Church's policy on politics is "not to involve itself in political issues" only in the narrow sense of not officially endorsing political candidates. The Church has certainly practiced political advocacy in other ways (though never on anything even close to the scale of many evangelical churches, which do things like organize get-out-the-vote drives for favored candidates). If there's a misunderstanding about this, it might be because the policy that The Church doesn't endorse candidates is often presented as The Church does not involve itself in politics at all.
Getting back to health care, I think one difficulty in the debate is that universal health care works well in some societies and not so well in others. Which provides a better prediction of how well a given system would work here? Hard to say. America's political system and beliefs, our demographics, and our health habits are all unique. Also a problem is the difficulty of evaluating some of the potential tradeoffs. Which system is better--one that makes it easier and cheaper to obtain routine care but harder to obtain the sort of high-tech care that is rarely needed? Again, hard to say. Sometimes it seems the high-tech stuff winds up curing a condition that could have been cured much more easily and cheaply had it been caught earlier by better low-tech stuff, like more frequent screenings. Sometimes I think some of the objections to universal care might be met by private firms selling supplemental policies to individuals who particularly desire whatever kind of high-end care will get short shrift by the government program.
--David
Excellent post. We've missed you!!
Anonymous Robert, please get health insurance! What if you're in a car accident? What if you get cancer? You have some control over your health, certainly, and you are right, the likelihood of catastrophe occurring is low, but there is still a chance, and I hope you protect yourself and your family against the possibility. It's not hard for your "large amount of debt" to quickly overcome your ability to pay. My mother-in-law's medical bills approached $1,000,000.
I'm moderately pro-universal health care, but I suspect there's one thing we can all agree on: costs are too high. Now, I understand that as our ability to sustain life grows, people are going to live longer and it's going to cost increasingly more to keep them alive. But a big part of the problem is that people aren't doing enough to be healthy, and a big part of that is a lack of education.
Physical education should play a much more prominent role in the public schools. There are so many State interests in improving the health of its citizens. Some that come to mind immediately: a stronger economy (people would have more money due to lower health care costs), a stronger military (a larger pool of fit potential soldiers), a better environment (more bikes and walking).
I sure wish I'd had to take more PE. I got through high school with a semester of correspondence tennis and a semester of correspondence bowling. What a joke!
I personally need two surgeries I can't afford right now - left ankle ligament repair and a sinus procedure. The irony is that I have a very decent private insurance plan, and I am easily in the top 10% of income earners in the country. Quite depressing. Costs need to come down, and coverage for the neediest Americans needs to increase dramatically.
"Universal health care" is a phrase that is tossed around, but can range from completely government-controlled coverage to government-mandated private coverage. As others have pointed out, the goal of all of this is to spread the risk of catastrophic health issues across the entire population.
Contrary to popular belief, private insurers will NOT be pleased about government-mandated coverage, which on the surface is odd considering such a law would be a mandate for the purchase of their one and only product. But as it is now, insurance companies are allowed to cherry-pick the customers they want, specifically the healthy (no pre-existing conditions) and the wealthy (those who can afford the premiums and co-insurance).
I believe that some baseline level of health care is a basic human right, including regular preventative checkups, coverage for emergency/urgent/catastrophic incidents, etc. However, I also generally believe that the free market tends to produce higher-quality solutions than government programs.
I'm with David on this one - some baseline government coverage is probably the right approach, paired with optional private supplemental insurance to cover elective or bleeding-edge treatments that taxpayers shouldn't be liable for.
BBD, is what you are proposing( some baseline government coverage is probably the right approach) the same thing I am dreading (government-mandated participation in existing HMOs, subsidized by taxpayers)? And, if not, what is different?
Well, we could afford them if they were more urgent. As it is, they are in the "not that pressing" category and we are prioritizing other things ahead of them. Technically. But the point is that we are in a place where we need to choose between medical care and other bills. expenditures, etc. This is not the case in many countries.
I don't know if my dad is reading this blog (if he does, he doesn't tell me!) but he just emailed me a NY Times article that I thought was timely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/health/views/17essa.html?ex=1214366400&en=4c0530ed1578f12f&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Wizzel, three days ago, your dad told me, "So, Rick - I've been reading the blog..." in answer to your wondering. Stephanie, PLEASE - refering to socialized medicine as "a big government run HMO" is just silly. That's not what it is! I mean, from what we experienced, it was fair and well run - not anything like you are fearing. I think the public misconseption of that comes from our fear of the word "socialized" = it dredges up images of The soviet block - McCarthyism rearing it's ugly head, and anyone who advocates it appears to be the next Rosenbaums. It's just not the case - this isn't the same as "Communistic Healthcare" We need to stop letting the concept that some socialized - Govenrment run - programs are evil. What about Public Schools? Libraries? Police and Fire Stations? What if the fire truck pulled up to an emergency and stopped to check what home-owner's insurance the victim of the fire had - what if a bad spark plug was a "pre-existing condition" so the fire fighters wouldn't do anything about it, because the home owner's insurance wouldn't pay for the work. Silly, I know - but, I think, an apt example. Socialized does not mean evil - it means level and fair.
Anonymous David, you are absolutely right - This is, to me, anyways, a religious issue. I've written on this extensively on my own blog (which hasn't been updated in months) but that was my original thought - what could be a more severe moral issue than a country that fails to take care of it's poor and needy - to offer medical assistance to those who really need it. The book of Mormon warns that a society that is that cold and that controlled by greed and worldy ambitions is in the edge of distruction. I think it's interesting that more than Anything else, Jesus spent his time talking about helping the poor and needy - exalting their station. And we don't do that because of our Market Economy. Helping the poor just isn't profitable. HMOs - providing healthcare as a product - are the very opposite of what Jesus commanded of his followers.
I think, also, that it is interesting that when the gospel was restored, the first thing Joseph Smith did was try to institute some sort of communal existance among the saints - and that ideal was continually returned to through the first 80 years of the church's existance in some form or another. Even the Church's welfare system is set up in that manner - that is, if you pay your taxes (ten percent in our case) then you are elligable for help from the ward in whatever way you need it. So why would we be so opposed to a system that is so modeled after our own? Rachel, I can't see anything with MORE truely religous connotations than this issue, regardless of where one stands. The morality in question with "Gay Marriage" or "Abortion" or any of the other so-called "moral" issues in the political relm pale in comparison to healthcare. And the poor state of healthcare in our nation is reflective of the focus on greed, power and wealth that is the at the epicenter of the American Tragedy.
Good luck trying to convince the citizens of an increasingly agnostic world Rick.
Stephanie - in my perfect world, HMOs as we know them wouldn't exist. The federal government would be the single payer in providing a baseline level of care; those who are willing and able to obtain a higher level of coverage would do so at their own expense with private supplemental insurance.
Rick and Dave, help me out here, I am still confused. Rick says, "Stephanie, PLEASE - refering to socialized medicine as "a big government run HMO" is just silly. That's not what it is!" and Dave says, "The federal government would be the single payer in providing a baseline level of care". Dave, this sounds like a big government run HMO. How would it be different?
Rick, I've read about universal health care plans around the world (I'm no expert). There is a large range.
As I mentioned in my first comment, there is a large range of possibilities within the term "universal health care". Rick, perhaps you could clarify what you want to see, but I read your viewpoint as wanting a single-payer system for all coverage.
So Stephanie, if you want to call it a big, government-run HMO, that's fine. Rick was trying to demonstrate that the care in countries with single-payer systems is superior to that of a typical American HMO.
BTW, check out this fabulously funny article from The Onion on this topic.
Okay, then that is definitely NOT what I want to see. I think that is pretty much THE definition of socialized healthcare ("a single-payer system for all coverage").
Is there a happy medium? A meeting point? I feel like I've given a lot in saying that we need universal coverage (compulsory coverage and uniform premiums), but turning the management over to the government is just too much for me. Someone makes health care decisions. Currently, it seems to be the HMOs who make the most. What you are proposing would turn it to the government to make the most decisions. I would like a solution that turns it to the consumer to make the most (health savings accounts and high deductible insurance programs).
What is it about my proposal that you like/don't like?
Dave, that article is scary beyond belief. What is printed on April Fool's Day? This line is the worst:
For years, doctors have complained that the notion of practicing medicine with the patient's health as the number-one priority is not only outdated, but unfair. By putting the patient's welfare before cost considerations, doctors place themselves at risk of antagonizing HMOs, which pay for the bulk of medical bills under the current system. Every time a precautionary electrocardiogram is done on someone suffering from chest pain, it is the HMOs that truly suffer.
So, who should we keep happy here? The patients? Oh, no, that is outdated. The HMO!! Who is wielding power over what happens? The HMOs! We need to change that balance of power. The HMOs control what happens on both ends - they are calling the shots. We need to get rid of these HMOs and return decision-making to where it belongs (doctors and patients).
One comfort I take is that this article was written 10 years ago. But, still, do I think the HMOs are giving up or backing down? No, they have their tentacles in with congress.
I meant *was* it printed on April Fool's?
Stephanie, Stephanie, Stephanie... [shakes head]
You must not be familiar with The Onion - it's completely satirical. :)
What I don't like about your proposal is that it doesn't provide health care for people who can't afford health care. Like I wrote before, I believe some level of coverage, including preventative care and catastrophic coverage, is a basic human right that shouldn't be run by a for-profit entity.
Even the Church's welfare system is set up in that manner - that is, if you pay your taxes (ten percent in our case) then you are elligable for help from the ward in whatever way you need it.
No, no, no. This isn't how it works at all. Whether or not you get help from the church is not determined by whether you are a tithe-payer. In fact, I would venture to say that a LOT of people who receive help are not tithe-payers. The church helps people who aren't members, too.
It is not our tithing that helps us live the law of consecration. It is our fast offerings. That's where the "giving of our surplus" comes into play (IMO). The law of consecration basically says that you keep what you need and give your "surplus" to the church. Tithing is not a surplus - tithing is an obligation - one of the "needs".
Also, in saying that we need to impose our own moral code of Christianity on the government, then we take away the choice of others to decide whether they want to be charitable. Compulsory giving is not charity. It might be Christ-like for you to say that you want to give money to the government to take care of everyone, but the government taking my money to pay for other people's healthcare doesn't necessarily make me or you more Christ-like.
I think we need to vote with our own moral conscience in mind, but I think that is different from imposing our own morals on others.
Okay, sorry. I am not familiar with the Onion. And I don't have much of a sense of humor either. :)
Dave, what is missing from my proposal would be a provision similar to Medicaid. A safety net for those who fall below a certain income level (a low level since I believe premiums would be reduced to a level that would make them affordable to the average citizen/family).
Isn't that really what the health care crisis is? The crisis if for the people in the middle. The crisis is in the astronomical costs. The "poor" already qualify for Medicaid and get those services. The people who are in trouble are either 1. the people who make enough to live on without government assistance but who can't afford the high premiums of health insurance or 2. people who have insurance but can't afford health care they need beyond what insurance will pay for.
The problem is in the costs. I just don't think that a socialized program like you are proposing would solve the problem of the costs. It would just put more people into the pot.
Putting more people in the pot would go a long way towards lowering the costs! The risk would be spread out among a much larger pool, and therefore the premiums would be spread out as well.
Dave, given the safety net of Medicaid (or similar program for low-income people), what else don't you like about my proposal?
Your proposal still has a for-profit entity deciding who is and who is not covered for what, even for the basics. I essentially believe that health insurance should be eliminated except as supplemental coverage for elective, alternative, or bleeding-edge treatment.
Then I didn't make myself clear. I would like to see insurance companies like credit unions. A credit union is "a non-profit financial institution that is owned and operated entirely by its members". And the insurance company wouldn't decide care - individuals would decide care. With a high deductible insurance plan, individuals would make most of the decisions about what care they receive and from whom. No contracts, no special deals between insurance company and doctors. Just people paying out of pocket for what they want, and when it goes over the deductible, then the insurance company kicks in 100%. Of course someone would have to decide what is elective vs. necessary because it really isn't fair to ask everyone to pay for elective procedures. But, even a government insurance program would have the same issue. If an insurance company is truly run "by" its members (ie. the insurance company works for interests of the insured - not the interests of shareholders), I would think that people would be pretty happy overall.
So, with that out of the way, what is your concern?
So who is going to set up this non-profit entity if not the government? Your plan sounds very, very similar to mine - at this point it's just semantics. Either the government creates an "insurance credit union" that isn't run by the government but is mandated by the government, or the government runs the thing itself - what is the difference? After all, isn't a credit union essentially a representative democracy (just like the government)?
I would love it if our plans are similar. Compromise is what I am trying to get at. I think that with a problem as big as health care, either the right and left work together and compromise, or one side "wins" and have the nation is angry about it.
I think where we are different is that I prefer very low premiums for the high deductible insurance so that the majority of money that comes out of my pocket goes directly to the doctors/minute clinics/hospitals I choose. It sounds to me like you prefer higher premiums so that the "base care" for everyone is covered. Am I incorrect in that assumption?
*half*
From reading all the comments going back and forth about what kind of system to implement it all sounds like a bunch of work and a major pain to implement. Ugh.
You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see doctors do what their patients ask them to ie. remove a mole, instead of refusing to do it because it "isnt' covered" or saying "I'll remove that mole but it will cost $750.00 because it isn't cancerous so insurance won't cover the cost of removal." Give me a break! Its a stupid mole---slap on some lidocaine, pull out your jack knife and flick it off! This is just one example of non-life threatening care which is a hassle to deal with. If a mole is that much of a headache, imagine what open heart surgery is like.
I just wish care was affordable on a person-to-person basis so people could pay $15 straight to the doctor for mole removal, etc.
btw, I don't think that the health insurance companies are what drives up the cost of medical care: I think the liability insurance is what tips everything over. Wizzle, how much does your dad pay in liability insurance every year? I bet it is more than insurance premiums.
Or malpractice insurance, instead of liability....same thing.
Amy, then it sounds like you are in favor of high deductible traditional insurance - you pay what it costs for what you want, and in a big emergency (or bunch of small emergencies), the insurance kicks in.
BTW - I don't think mole removal would cost $15.
Here's McCain's proposal. It includes the following:
TORT REFORM: Passing Medical Liability Reform. We must pass medical liability reform that eliminates lawsuits directed at doctors who follow clinical guidelines and adhere to safety protocols. Every patient should have access to legal remedies in cases of bad medical practice but that should not be an invitation to endless, frivolous lawsuits.
Here's Obama's plan. It doesn't mention tort reform.
Interestingly, I think the lack of transparency in medical costs contributes to people thinking that things are really cheap. One of the HMOs I was with never sent a statement to tell me the cost of anything. I just paid $15 to see the doctor, something like $30 when my son was born. Do we really know the true costs? We think they are cheap, but I think that is because people other than us are footing the bill. When you have employee-based coverage and your premium is minimal and your co-pays are minimal, you don't realize how much of the cost is being paid by the employer. It's great. But, when you lose that coverage - ouch! To go to a fair universal coverage, if people actually pay for their own costs, would mean that a lot of people would be paying more for the little stuff.
Yes, I'd prefer a slightly higher premium (in the form of taxes to the government) to cover everyone, and to cover more procedures up to a point.
Honestly, Stephanie, help me see the difference between your insurance "credit union" idea and a government program. I'm hoping it's not a case of a Conservative despising a government program because it's a government program.
Unlike many liberals, I'm actually all about tort reform, so long as it is done in a way that protects patients that truly deserve compensation for neglect. Certainly malpractice insurance premiums have been a critical driver in the increased costs of health care.
For the record, I actually prefer Hillary's health care plan since it includes a coverage mandate for all Americans.
Dave, I think you are onto something: I do hate government programs because they are government programs. :)
BUT, you have enlightened me in this regard. If "the government" acts just as an entity that collects premiums and pays doctors like an insurance company would, I have no problem with that.
Here's where I'm leery. Originally, the social security pot was supposed to do the same thing. You put in money. When you retire, you take out money. The government acts as the clearinghouse. It was supposed to be an entirely separate account. Then, the government started "borrowing" that money to use for other things. That's one major reason why we have a social security crisis!
How can I be assured the government won't do the same thing if it is responsible for health insurance?
So, it sounds like you, Dave, and I agree that we need a universal mandate. That seems like it is only a compromise on my part. We vastly disagree on the rest. I don't want to pay a higher premium for a guaranteed base level of coverage for everyone. That IS socialized healthcare. I would like high deductible insurance (the health savings account is for tax deductible purposes).
The Social Security Trust Fund is not what you think it is. There does not need to be accumulated money in it for the Social Security program to be solvent. To quote Dubya himself, "Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust."
To think that borrowing against the "trust fund" is a problem is to misunderstand the whole structure of the Social Security program. The problem with Social Security is that we're going to have a lot of old people that are entitled to benefits, and a lot less young people to pay those benefits. SS is and always has been essentially a pay-as-you-go program. In its current state there will be an annual surplus until roughly 2042 (according to current estimates), after which benefits (payouts to seniors/disabled) will have to equal income (from wage-earners).
Well, this isn't the first time I have been unimpressed with Bush.
They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust.
Okay, this would be my fear if the government acts as the insurance company. Assuming this is the way social security is set up, I don't understand it and think it is an even more stupid idea than I thought it was before. You pay into it your whole life so that the money can be used for other government programs instead of putting your money into a savings account to save for retirement? Wasn't that the reason the Social Security Trust Fund was set up? As a "safety net" retirement fund? If not, what is the purpose?
Yes, my proposal is socialized health care, and that's not a bad thing in my opinion. Just like Social Security is a good program based on a very Socialist idea (income redistribution), so is universal health care. Just because it's a socialized system doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. :)
Well, with the mess that the socialist idea of social security has become, I believe that the socialist idea of socialized healthcare will become an even bigger mess. And I do believe it is a bad idea. But, I also believe it is where we are headed. (sigh)
Wizzle, what say you? Your post makes it sound like you are more in agreement with my proposal.
It's not perfect, but check out Wikipedia's entry on the Social Security Trust Fund - it might make a little more sense.
BBD, if we had your proposal of socialized medicine, and my proposal of traditional insurance with universal coverage, under which plan do you think you would pay more out of your own pocket?
Dave, I am even more confused now. Help. This link you directed me to sounds exactly like what I was saying:
The Social Security Trust Fund is the means by which the federal government of the United States accounts for excess paid-in contributions from workers and employers to the Social Security system that are not required to fund current benefit payments to retirees, survivors, and the disabled or to pay administrative expenses. More importantly, the trust fund also contains the securities that will be redeemed to make benefit payments in the future when contributions derived from payroll taxes and self-employment contributions no longer are sufficient to fully fund then-current benefit payments. Paid-in contributions that exceed the amount required to fully fund current payments to beneficiaries are invested in securities issued by the federal government. The securities issued under this scheme constitute the assets of the Social Security Trust Fund. Because under current federal law these securities represent future obligations that must be repaid, the federal government includes these securities within the overall national debt.
Let me make sure I get this straight. I pay money to social security. There is too much for the current need, so it goes into a trust fund. The money in that trust fund is then "invested" in government bonds. So, the "asset" is an IOU. When that money is needed, the trust fund cashes in its bond to pay its obligations.
On the flip side, when the government needs money, it issues a "bond" by borrowing money from social security to spend on other things.
So, the money that goes into the social security trust fund really does go to the government to fund other things. And when the government needs to pay that money back, where is that money going to come from? What goes the government do when it needs more money (besides issuing bonds)? Raise taxes. So, I will be hit twice? Once on the original social security tax I paid and once on the tax I will pay so that the government can give me my social security? Am I missing something here?
I'm still watching all this play out. Truthfully, I was always under the impression that Social Security was supposed to be left alone as well, and that it was being spent contrary to its original intention. I may well be mistaken, maybe my Big Bald Husband can clue me in when he gets home. :)
Basically, I think I'm kind of in the middle. I want everyone to have access to the same insurance. I want everyone to be required to be insured, like they are required to have auto insurance. I want whoever is the insurance middleman to be a not-for-profit entity. I don't care so much who is running it so long as they do it right.
I'm not real impressed with the way Medicare is being run (ie, continual lessening of doctor's reimbursement in spite of rising costs of living, etc) but I see no reason why it *couldn't* be run well, government entity or no. But there definitely needs to be some safety net for those persons who cannot afford to buy health insurance (for whom an HSA would be essentially useless as they couldn't pay their touted high deductible).
And I think health car costs are rising because of both insurance gobbledegook and malpractice nonsense. I'll have to ask my dad about his malpractice. Believe it or not, I am not privy to *all* the details of his personal finances. ;) Just the ones he complains about the most.
Wow, I think this site has been reborn!
I am in favor of a mandated private health care system. One where we are free to choose the quality and payments we want. I DO NOT want the govnmt telling me which doctor to see and how much I have to pay. I want the freedom to choose a company that has health care as it's first intrest. I am not in favor of paying into a system that covers everyone at the same rate and quality. The chain smoker better not have the same payments I do. I don't mind however paying into the same system as people with preexisting conditions.
Socialized Medicine= "balanced and fair", I think not. (it may be the utopian definition)
Socialized Medicine= I pay for people who don't want to make educated decisions about personal health care.
It seems as if some of you think universal health care is a right. Please show me where this is stated by our government. It is in no way a right. I am not opposed to some form of universal Health care as I stated previously but it is not a right.
Christ spent much of his time healing and helping the poor, but not because it was mandated by the government; this is the example we should follow. Couldn't I argue that because Christ didn't heal "everyone" that means he didn't care about "everyone"? He helped the poor because they were humble and would listen and had FAITH. Christ's purpose was to teach faith. It was not that everyone gets the same opportunity in life.
I don't mean to sound so negative but I don't think that the government has any right to make us all equal. We were CREATED equal, not, created EQUAL.
We as religious people should be helping with those in our congregations and communities. I.E. My cousins baby needs a liver transplant and so many people have come together to to yard sales, auctions, and other fund raisers to help with bills. We are able to grow through giving and helping those in need and this is the principal behind giving. Government mandated giving teaches nothing.
Here's the site for my cousin's son if you would like to help:
http://giftforgavin.org/
Anyway on a lighter note, It's great to see discussion once again.
Mike, the site is lookin' good!
Socialized Medicine= I pay for people who don't want to make educated decisions about personal health care
Exactly.
I am not in favor of paying into a system that covers everyone at the same rate and quality. The chain smoker better not have the same payments I do. I don't mind however paying into the same system as people with preexisting conditions.
Matt, what do you think about a flat rate, and then discounts for being a non-smoker, being under a certain BMI, etc. (Or, would the left call that "discriminatory"?) If you are not for a flat rate with discounts, then how would you ensure that people with pre-existing conditions aren't just priced out of insurance because of insanely high premiums?
The premium being affordable without regard to pre-exisiting conditions could be accomplished by proper regulation on a free market (kind of like the savings and loan industry BEFORE deregulation allowed lenders to charge all sorts of crazy sub-prime rates).
Matt, that site is very inspirational. Thanks for sharing.
Yeah Matt, thank for sharing that site. Maybe it's because I'm pregnant (or because I'm an admitted bleeding-heart softie of the first order) but that song is one that my son really loves and I associate it with him, so hearing it play and reading about that sweet little guy and just hoping he gets what he needs to be healthy...well, it makes me cry. But in a good way. :)
Amen, Matt. I agree with the nutshell of what you said. I just don't have time to spell it out like you did right now!
Yay Conservatives!
;-)
Grrrr.... Deep breath.... OK, just a quick patriotic discourse prompted by this deeply un-American statement: "It seems as if some of you think universal health care is a right. Please show me where this is stated by our government. It is in no way a right." (I presume this person meant to say, "Show me where this is stated by the CONSTITUTION....")
The idea seems to be that something is not a right if it is not explicitly called such by the Constitution. In this view, which is flat-out wrong, we DO have a right to freedom of speech, a right to freedom of religion, a right to keep and bear arms, a right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. because the Constitution explicitly says so (in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, respectively). But (again in this view) we DON'T have a right to (say) health care, because such a right is not stated explicitly by the Constitution.
This sort of thing has become a rather common conservative rhetorical claim, and as I said it is bogus. How so? Because the Constitution itself says, in the Ninth Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This "enumeration clause" means that the mere fact that the Constitution "enumerates" certain rights, but not others, may not be taken to mean that those other, unenumerated rights are not rights. Just because the Constitution does not explicitly call something a right does not in and of itself mean that the something in question is not a right. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but that determination cannot hinge on the mere fact that, in the terms used above, it is not "stated by our government."
Please note what I'm not saying here: I'm not saying that health care is a right. I'm saying that a certain contemporary conservative talking point is wrong. It might or might not be correct to say "Health care is not a right"--that's a separate question--but it is definitely incorrect to say "Health care is not a right BECAUSE it is not stated as such in the Constitution."
As I said, this form of bogus reasoning seems to be particularly popular with conservatives nowadays, who use it to create the appearance of an argument not only against universal health care but also against gay rights ("Nowhere does the Constitution guarantee a right to sodomy") and abortion rights ("Nowhere does the Constitution say a woman has a right to get an abortion"). (Liberals have bad habits of their own, but they tend to be different bad habits.) At times this sort of loose talk about rights is nothing more than a convenient shorthand (even the Founding Fathers spoke this way on occasion), but when it's used substantively it's simply obnoxious.
This is sad, because American conservatism--before it was corrupted by talk radio, military-industrial pork, and the like--used to have a lot more respect for the Constitution.
A broader point: The question of what is or is not a right is not really a Constitutional question at all. The Constitution purports to protect certain rights, and it explicitly enumerates several of those rights, but the rights themselves exist regardless of what the Constitution says. Notice the typical form of the wording. The Constitution typically says this: "The right of the people to X shall not be infringed." For example: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," or "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."
Such constructions make it clear that the Constitution assumes we already have the right in question. It does not presume to give us something we already have, merely to restrain the government from violating a right we already have. That's why the typical form is not something like this: "The people are hereby granted the right to X."
Ergo, the question of whether something is a right is a question that logically precedes any mention of the Constitution. The question is one of political philosophy, or of theology, or whatever, depending on your theory of where rights come from (God, Nature, whatever).
It's not just the health-care debate that makes this stuff important right now. Consider also the bloviation about the Supreme Court's recent Boumediene ruling on the habeus corpus rights of Guantanamo detainees. People betray a profound ignorance of the very American political philosophy they pretend to honor when they say things like, "The Court decided to give rights to terrorists."
This sort of talk is obviously wrong on many levels (perhaps beginning with the fact that at least some of the detainees are not terrorists). What I want to stress is the very, very un-American idea that rights are given to us by the courts (or the legislature, or any other institution). According to the political philosophy undergirding the Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence for that matter), rights are universal, inherent, and inalienable. If something is truly a fundamental human right, you always and already have it, merely by virtue of being human. No constitution can give you a human right; it can at best recognize that you have it and restrain a government from infringing it.
Do terrorists have rights? Absolutely! Do convicted murderers have right? Absolutely! What true American could possibly say otherwise? Note that I'm using the term "rights" here in the fundamental sense in which it is used in the Declaration when, nicely summarizing the best political philosophy of the Enlightenment, it says "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inherent and unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...."
Note that the Declaration says this is true of all men, including terrorists. Note also that it says governments are instituted not to "give" people rights (rights, rather, are "inherent," and come from a "Creator," that is, from something beyond any government), but to secure the rights they already have. Note also that, while it lists some of those fundamental rights that all people always and already have, it uses the phrase "among these are" to indicate that there are others that haven't been listed or "enumerated."
Note also that even if one lives in a total dictatorship one still has rights in this fundamental sense. One's rights might not be secured or respected, but one still has them. (This distinction is paralleled by one concerning the LDS conception of agency. I don't know how many times I've been told something like this: "The Church believes in democratic government because only in a free country can one freely exercise one's agency." Such statements misunderstand agency, which as the innate ability to make choices is an ability no one can ever take away. Under different political systems the consequences of this or that exercise of agency will obviously be quite different, but agency itself is innate and cannot be taken away by any government.)
But anyway, anyone who properly understands and accepts the Constitution, and the political philosophy on which it is based, understands that the Gitmo detainees do indeed have a right to habeus corpus. All people do. Period. The Supreme Court did not decide to give them this right. The Court did pass judgment on whether the Bush administration's special tribunals were sufficient to qualify as habeus corpus hearings, and on whether the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 suspended habeus corpus, and IIRC whether Congress even could suspend habeus corpus, given that the Constitution permits such a suspension only "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion."
But to say things like "the unelected liberal activist judges on the Court gave rights to terrorists" is just to betray oneself as deeply un-American. Ditto for anti-health-care arguments that demand to know "where this is stated by our government."
--David
Excellent post David. More on the Gitmo Supreme Court decision later today (new post coming) - thanks for stealing my thunder. :P
David, as odd as it sounds, I agree with you. It is wrong for me to say health care (technically speaking) isn't a right just as is so for the opposite. I was just responding to a claim that it is a right by the liberal side. However, I personally don't feel it is a right because we do not all have the same opportunities and luck in life, and that's life!
I'm sorry, but I have to chuckle after reading Robert's comment about "rationed" antibiotics in Toronto. Born and raised in Canada, I guess I'm lucky to have made it through all those childhood infections when antibiotics were in such short supply. :)
I shake my head every time I read postings like Robert's. Universal health care is a "terrible idea" because it's not free and you might someday have to wait 6 hours to see a doctor. Well, 6 hours sounds better to me than that lady who collapsed on the floor of some hospital in LA and died after waiting for hours and hours. As for universal health care not being free, well of course it's not. Who's paying for it? God? See, to all those against socialized health care, higher taxes = evil. OK, so those of us who live in "socialist" countries pay more taxes than you do. But it doesn't add up to the equivalent of $10,000 in insurance premiums, and it's not just guaranteed, unlimited health care that we're getting, but other social benefits that Americans can only dream about.
I will never claim that the socialist system is perfect. Yes, there are waiting lists. Yes, you might have to wait a few hours in an ER someday (though that would rarely be the case in a true, life-threatening emergency). Yes, the hospitals are perhaps less-posh than the private ones in the US. You probably won't find flat-screened TV's or necessarily get a private hospital room. But the system works wonders for the VAST MAJORITY of people, in contrast to the American system which only works for a VAST MINORITY.
I've always said that in America, you will get the world's best health care and most up-to-date technology -- IF you are one of those priviliged few who can afford it. So unless you're one of the elite, socialized health care is the way to make sure that Joe Blow is waiting 6 hours inside the ER instead of dying outside of the ER because he doesn't have insurance.
In response to Amy's comment, "I did my last rotation at Stanford Hospital, and I saw MANY people coming from Europe for care because their standardized healthcare back home just didn't cut it for them."
True, sometimes Europeans go to the US to get state-of-the-art medical attention that they can't get at home. But often it will be free or at a fraction of the cost that an American would pay because the home country of that European is paying for it. I have a friend who works for a hospital in Norway and arranges such trips. One couple went to the US to get their newborn baby some heart surgery that they couldn't do in Norway and the Norwegian gov't paid everything (over $200,000 US), including travel and hotel costs, and in the end the baby died.
Faithful dissident, I agree that we need some type of universal coverage provision. How come that has to be socialized medicine?
And how come that has to leap to all these other social benefits that Americans can only dream about. Besides the "safety nets" I believe we need in society for the few who need them, I have NO INTEREST in all these "other social benefits". As you acknowledged, someone is paying those benefits through taxes. If those benefits are greater than the amount I am paying in taxes, then it's not me. And that would be rather warped to want to live somewhere because I can get more than I give by living off of people wealthier than me.
The thing I dream about in America is "Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Not guaranteed happiness (or certain benefits or a guaranteed standard of living). But the right to pursue happiness if I choose. Besides a safety net for the truly poor, disabled, etc. I am so not interested in income redistribution so we can all have "benefits we can only dream about".
Out of curiosity, what are those benefits?
Here's just a short list of some of the main benefits:
-Maternity leave for up to a year with 80% of your wages, or 10 months @ 100%. The husband is also entitled to 2 weeks at the time of birth, with full wages, plus the year of maternity leave can be divided between the mother and father if desired. Your job is guaranteed for the duration of that year.
-Free health care for everyone (or a minimal user fee)
-Subsidized prescriptions, making them more affordable for the patient, or in some cases free (i.e. those in a care facility)
-Free dental for all children under 18 years old and seniors
-Guaranteed nursing home care and other institutional facilities for all who need them
-Free college and university tuition (private schools do exist, at a cost to the student)
-Subsidized daycare for families where both parents work, or a monthly support cheque from the gov't if the mother is a stay-at-home mom.
-If a child is sick, each parent can take up to 10 days of paid leave per year to take care of the child at home.
-If you get sick yourself, you can take up to a year off with 100% of your wages, after which you may have to probably rely on the gov't disability cheques, which can be considerably lower than your normal wage, but most people will buy supplemental disability insurance in case that ever happens.
-Vacation time does not depend on where you work. Everyone has a guaranteed standard vacation period of 5 weeks vacation, regardless of occupation. If you're over 60, it's 6 weeks. As well, 10% of your earnings in the previous year are paid out as "vacation pay." (Some employers will give you a litle more pay or even a little more time off.)
This is Norway, I know that Sweden is very similar, except their maternity package is slightly better. (Canada is very similar, except for college/university tuition, vacation time and paid sick leave, which are more up to the employer's discretion.) Yes, Scandinavia is an expensive place to live and people are heavily taxed. However, everyone benefits from it. You may see it as "living off the wealthy," but there are advantages to having a system where there is more equality, where there is less of a class system than in the US, less poverty and less crime. Sure, some Americans are living at a much higher standard than the typical Scandinavian. But why should a few enjoy the high life at the expense of everyone else? The average Scandinavian has a higher standard of living than the average American.
I'm not saying socialism is pefection. But I can't say I know anyone who doesn't "want" these benefits. Why do Americans fear the so-called "safety net?" Why is it a bad thing? Why don't Americans believe that all Americans are entitled to things like health care, having a roof over their heads, not risk losing their job if they get pregnant, not risking losing everything if they get sick or disabled? How is that "the pursuit of happiness" for the average American?
You may have some of these elements in the American system, but I often feel like Americans are critical of the Canadian and European systems simply because they don't know how they work or how they benefit people. Americans tend to hear the word "socialist" and immediately judge the system as a failure or as the gov't oppressing the people. If you could see how people around the world actually live in these systems, it may surprise you.
Why do Americans fear the so-called "safety net?"
What you are describing is not a safety net. It is a guaranteed minimal standard of living for everyone.
Sure, some Americans are living at a much higher standard than the typical Scandinavian. But why should a few enjoy the high life at the expense of everyone else? The average Scandinavian has a higher standard of living than the average American.
Three thoughts here. First, this is one huge place where liberals and conservatives part: Liberals are interested in the lowest common denominator - willing to take the highest standard of living for everyone, which reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator. Conservatives are interested in people having the opportunity to reap the rewards of their own individual initiative, which means that there will be inequality, but you as an individual are not limited by the abilities of others.
Second, um excuse me, since when did my lifestyle come at the "expense" of anyone else?
Third, Scandinavia is a much more homogenous society. The United States is a rapidly changing, diverse society. I am not sure it is fair to compare the two.
Why don't Americans believe that all Americans are entitled to things like health care, having a roof over their heads, not risk losing their job if they get pregnant, not risking losing everything if they get sick or disabled?
Because I don't believe in entitlements. In fact, as I read your list of "free, free, free" stuff, all I can think is, "Those things AREN'T free". If you are getting more "free" stuff than you are putting in, someone else is supporting you and your lifestyle, and I am not comfortable with that.
faithful dissident, I appreciate your point of view - unabashedly socialist. I don't think either of us are going to change the other's mind, so I will agree to disagree.
Second, um excuse me, since when did my lifestyle come at the "expense" of anyone else?
Of course your lifestyle comes at the expense of someone else. So does mine. The difference between you and me is that I would prefer that the government provide more help to the poor via income redistribution programs, while you (and most GOP faithful) are of the "what's mine is mine" mindset.
I'm not advocating a completely socialized system - I think the answer is somewhere in between.
Dude, BBD, I completely disagree with this last comment---except for where you say this is an issue that GOP faithful disagree with most liberals on.
The idea of our lifestyles coming at someone else's expense is completely a farce. People work hard to get where they are, whether that is a factory in Detroit or a swank apt on Park Avenue. Don't just assume that because some people have less $ for toys at Christmas than others the people who get to buy toys are doing it at the others' expense.
This is where personal charity can come into play---you see someone working as hard as they can, and you decide to help boost them a bit. I am totally fine with that. Give them a hand. Don't expect the government to swoop in and save the day by leveling the playing field with income redistribution. That is not a long-term answer. This is an economic puzzle that has gone on for centuries, trying to redistribute income won't solve anything---just look at the USSR and what happened there when they tried to do away with upper/lower classes and function without the option of working harder to get further in life.
Of course your lifestyle comes at the expense of someone else. So does mine. The difference between you and me is that I would prefer that the government provide more help to the poor via income redistribution programs, while you (and most GOP faithful) are of the "what's mine is mine" mindset.
Whoa, Dave. I think you are more of a socialist than you let on. Exactly who is my lifestyle coming at the expense of? My mother or brother I have been supporting for the past two and a half years? Or the people who my $X00 amount of fast offering helps out each month?
Between my husband and I, we have 15.5 years of college education. That level of education has a corresponding income that is the result of YEARS of work and sacrifice. So, exactly who is my lifestyle coming at the expense of?
The difference between you and me is that you "prefer that the government provide more help to the poor via income redistribution programs", and I prefer to retain the choice to give to whom, where, when, how much I want. Your comment on the "what's mine is mine" implies that I am selfish. I beg to differ. That argument gets old.
My apologies - I truly didn't mean to imply selfishness - not my intent at all. Different people have different ways of defining self-interest. I'm also not implying I'm more charitable than anyone else when I argue for government redistribution programs. I just think that it is a societal necessity for those that are able to help the poor, so I prefer that it be mandatory to a small degree.
Certainly I'm a lot closer to it than Amy or Stephanie, but I'm hardly a socialist. A free market, regulated when necessary, usually provides superior solutions to the toughest problems. But health care is not one of them - the private system is a failure in many, many ways.
But the free market, with its 'failing' private system offers many more opportunities for people to be charitable, on their own dime, on their own time.
Sadly, a lot of people don't take opportunities to give of themselves then the opportunity presents itself. This is a failure of humanity, not government.
Actually, this is a pretty fundamental difference that you pointed out correctly, BBD. You are correct that conservatives view what we earn as ours. I work for this money - it belongs to me. I have ownership of it.
Liberals view the world as more communal.
A conservative view of taxes is: I earn my money, and the government "takes" X amount from me in the form of taxes. A liberal view of taxes is: the money all belongs to the government, and I am "allowed" to keep Y amount. (Don't believe me? Check out feministmormonhousewives.com where I was admonished that I should "do the right thing" and not claim child tax credits because I wasn't paying my "fair" amount in taxes. WHAT!?!?!)
These are pretty fundamental differences.
Interesting to note is that the document Benjamin Franklin used as a model for the Declaration of Independence (John Locke's "Treatise on Government) says "Life, Liberty and Property":
In the Second Treatise, Locke claims that civil society was created for the protection of property. In saying this, he relies on the etymological root of "property," Latin proprius, or that which is one's own, including oneself (cf. French propre). Thus, by "property" he means "life, liberty, and estate." By saying that political society was established for the better protection of property, he claims that it serves the private (and non-political) interests of its constituent members: it does not promote some good which can be realized only in community with others (e.g., virtue). . .
He begins by asserting that each individual, at a minimum, "owns" himself; this is a corollary of each individual's being free and equal in the state of nature. As a result, each must also own his own labor: to deny him his labor would be to make him a slave. One can therefore take items from the common store of goods by mixing one's labor with them: an apple on the tree is of no use to anyone — it must be picked to be eaten — and the picking of that apple makes it one's own. In an alternate argument, Locke claims that we must allow it to become private property lest all mankind have starved, despite the bounty of the world. A man must be allowed to eat, and thus have what he has eaten be his own (such that he could deny others a right to use it). The apple is surely his when he swallows it, when he chews it, when he bites into it, when he brings it to his mouth, etc.: it became his as soon as he mixed his labor with it (by picking it from the tree). . .
In this way, Locke argues that a full economic system could, in principle, exist within the state of nature. Property could therefore predate the existence of government, and thus society can be dedicated to the protection of property.
In the Twentieth Century, Marxist scholars made Locke into the founder of bourgeois capitalism. Those who were opposed to communism accepted this reading of Locke, and celebrated him for it. He has therefore become associated with capitalism.
But health care is not one of them - the private system is a failure in many, many ways.
Okay, and I agree that the current system is failing. I agree we need a universal provision. But (as I said before), I don't think that solution should be socialized medicine. I want to work with free market solutions that will accomplish the same thing - possibly not give everyone "equality" in health care because we still need to be responsible for our own health care decisions, and everyone doesn't make decisions equally.
Amy wrote: Sadly, a lot of people don't take opportunities to give of themselves then the opportunity presents itself. This is a failure of humanity, not government.
Actually, I completely agree that this is a failure of humanity ... which is why the government has to do it! :)
Stephanie wrote: Check out feministmormonhousewives.com where I was admonished that I should "do the right thing" and not claim child tax credits because I wasn't paying my "fair" amount in taxes. WHAT!?!?!)
That's absolute crap - of course you should claim your child tax credit. On second thought, it is a government redistribution program, so maybe you shouldn't after all. I'm totally kidding of course. :)
To be perfectly honest, I happily cashed my $1800 stimulus check, and I happily take advantage of the child tax credit every chance I get. It's one redistribution program that works in my favor, along with my ability to write off mortgage interest, tithing, and fast offerings.
But then, I believe my Social Security and Medicare contributions work in my favor, too. Those redistribution programs improve society by helping the poor, children, and the elderly, and I believe that helps everyone.
Stephanie wrote: Okay, and I agree that the current system is failing. I agree we need a universal provision. But (as I said before), I don't think that solution should be socialized medicine. I want to work with free market solutions that will accomplish the same thing - possibly not give everyone "equality" in health care because we still need to be responsible for our own health care decisions, and everyone doesn't make decisions equally.
What private entity is going to insure poor, sick people that can't afford the premiums? Were I the boss man for an insurance company, I certainly wouldn't - it wouldn't be profitable! That's the trouble with the free market in cases that deal with human rights (I'm sure you'll recall that I define basic health care as a human right). If the company's obligation is to maximize profits for shareholders, as it absolutely should be in a free market system, then some consumers get left out. With respect to health care, I feel that is simply not acceptable. So, the government has to step in and provide for those that are left out of the free market system.
Honestly, I'd love to hear your pure free market solution to our health care issues. I've thought a lot about this, but I just doesn't see a plausible scenario that works without serious government intervention. Perhaps that is a failing of my liberal brain - certainly a possibility. :)
BBD - I never said I had a pure free market solution. I said I agree with you on the universal mandate (both that individuals must have insurance, and insurance companies must insure regardless of pre-existing conditions). And I don't think the insurance company should be for profit. I agree with wizzle that it should be a non-profit (of which good managers should get a nice salary and hefty bonus).
The free market comes in with the high deductible insurance so that people just buy what they need unless it's an emergency. And, of course, there is a safety net like Medicaid. If everyone was compelled to have high deductible insurance, the premium would be extremely low. That would put a lot of money into the pocket of the consumer. Then, with a perfectly open market of doctors, hospitals, minute clinics, etc. to choose from, the competition (free of HMO contracts and other manipulations) would bring the cost of health care itself down.
In fact, people could choose different levels of coverage under a univeral plan. Just like car insurance. You are required to have it. If you are "uninsurable", there is a state program you can purchase car insurance through. You can choose either the minimum care, or multiple levels up.
When we were poor students, we had the minimum liability, and a very low deductible (like $100-$200) on our collision/comprehensive. We knew that if we got in a wreck, we didn't have cash to get a new car. We paid a higher premium for that, but the trade-off was worth it. Now that we have more of a financial cushion, we do the opposite: high deductible with lower premium.
It could work the same with health care. Using me as an example, I currently spend about $5-7K on healthcare annually (premiums, out of pocket, deductible, etc.). So, I could do a $5K health savings account to spend on regular expenses. I also (am working on) a 6 month supply of emergency cash. I could get health insurance with maybe a $20K deductible. The premium would be SMALL. Most of the money I pay out would be to doctors themselves instead of an insurance company, and I wouldn't be wiped out in an emergency.
Someone else might need a smaller deductible. They could choose to pay a higher premium.
It's the decision-making that also saves money. When I realize that this care costs real money, I make better decisions.
As a safety net, Medicaid or something else is appropriate for the poor. But, the vast majority need to make decisions to afford healthcare. And if healthcare IS affordable (as I believe it would be under my plan), then people need to be responsible themselves to take care of it. We each need to live within our means, whatever those means are.
Actually, the more we talk about this, and the more I see that you who are in favor of universal coverage ARE indeed in favor of socialized medicine, I think I am going to retract from that. I support John McCain's GAP approach:
John McCain Will Work With States To Establish A Guaranteed Access Plan. As President, John McCain will work with governors to develop a best practice model that states can follow - a Guaranteed Access Plan or GAP - that would reflect the best experience of the states to ensure these patients have access to health coverage. One approach would establish a nonprofit corporation that would contract with insurers to cover patients who have been denied insurance and could join with other state plans to enlarge pools and lower overhead costs. There would be reasonable limits on premiums, and assistance would be available for Americans below a certain income level.
I think that if we (conservatives) give an inch with universal coverage, you will take a mile. So, I officially support John McCain's health care proposal.
"But the system works wonders for the VAST MAJORITY of people, in contrast to the American system which only works for a VAST MINORITY."
Faithful-D, you know who this vast minority is right? ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!! Being that you are a Canadian, maybe you don't quite understnd the impact this has. It's to the tune of BILLIONS every year.
Yes this IS a major problem with the current system
With that point that Matt brought up (illegal immigrants), how would that play into socialized medicine? If everyone is on a "plan", then would illegal immigrants be given access to that plan? Or would they still fall under the EMALTA, so we'd still deal with most of the same problems? If health care is a "universal right" as liberals believe, then I assume you would give all the same access to healthcare, which would mean putting illegal immigrants on the plan. And, if liberals are for open borders, which invite more and more illegal immigrants to come, then how do you propose all of that would be paid for? Taxes on those illegal immigrants? No, I would venture to say that most probably qualify for Earned Income Credit, so the government would actually be giving them more money in the form of income redistribution. So, what will happen? The "wealthy" few will continue to support the masses who come into the country? Is there a stopping point?
I find it odd that liberals are always saying that Republicans only care about themselves...uh huh. "Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household.
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood."
My money IS my money, I earned it, you didn't. If you need some, go WORK! Typically, the poor are poor for a reason, lack of work ethic and very poor money management. Don't get all bent out of shape, I'm saying this from experience.
I have seen it first hand from my employee and his girlfriend. She hasn't held a job for more than 3 weeks over the past seven months.
I'm all for more educational grants and things to help the "poor" move up in life, but handouts only produce government dependant
beggars. Let's give free money management classes instead of free health care, housing and everything else. There is a huge sense of accomplishment missed out on when people don't have to work...hard!
Stephanie, you said: "If those benefits are greater than the amount I am paying in taxes, then it's not me. And that would be rather warped to want to live somewhere because I can get more than I give by living off of people wealthier than me." I understood that to mean that you felt that socialism would be living at the expense of others. Sorry if I misinterpreted it.
I'm under no illusions that I'm going to "convert" anyone to the Canadian or Scandinavian systems. As you said, we can agree to disagree. But I felt I needed to clarify a few misleading portrayals of these systems. Some of the postings have made them sound communistic or dangerous.
I'm not sure why you can't compare the US to Scandinavia. OK, the Scandinavian countries have a fraction of the US population. Still, they are becoming more diverse as more and more immigrants come into the picture. Canada may only have a little over 30 million people, is perhaps even more diverse than the US, but is still culturally similar to America. Canada is a cultural mosaic and tries to retain that unique heritage. In both Canada and Scandinavia, you work hard, you can get rich. It's not like we live under communism. Some of the richest people in the world are Canadians and Norwegians. They just have to pay more taxes than you guys.
You said: "Liberals are interested in the lowest common denominator - willing to take the highest standard of living for everyone, which reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator. Conservatives are interested in people having the opportunity to reap the rewards of their own individual initiative, which means that there will be inequality, but you as an individual are not limited by the abilities of others."
The Scandinavian system tries to guarantee a minimum standard of living for everyone, not the highest. But when everyone has the minimum, it makes it easier for individuals to attain a higher standard. But how does this reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator? I just don't get that. Norway is not a communist society. The harder you work, the more you make. The greater education you have, the more it's going to benefit you. A doctor is going to make more than a dishwasher. That's only fair. But why should the dishwasher not have the things that Scandinavians regard as the minimum (i.e. health care and maternity leave security)? Because he's weaker or less-educated? I guess some people would say so, but socialists would say that he deserves at least that much. You would probably disagree.
Stephanie, I NEVER said that these benefits are free, free, free. Didn't you read my previous posting about how life in Scandinavia is expensive and that they are heavily taxed? Do you know how much the sales tax is in Norway? 25%! And a gallon of gas? Right now around $11 USD per gallon, despite the fact that Norway is an oil-producing nation. Yes, the Scandinavian system is very expensive and Norwegians will complain about taxes just like Americans do. But if you ask them whether they'd rather have the American system, most will say no. Why? Because despite the fact that they are "burdened" with high taxes, it works. Most Norwegians don't want to see people on the streets because they've been financially ruined by illness or disability and they want the peace of mind of that "minimum" that the system guarantees them.
So, in the end, it all comes down to, as you mentioned, entitlements. And that's where we differ. Yes, I believe that all human beings are entitled to certain things, at the "expense" of others via taxes. You don't believe in entitlements and you have the right to have that opinion. I like to know that the gov't system can save me from going into debt or losing everything if I get sick because I don't trust that charitable people will be there to pick up the pieces if that happens.
Matt, I agree that illegal immigration poses a problem. But why should it stop universal health care for Americans and legal residents of the US? I can only use the Canadian and Scandinavian systems as examples.
In Canada, you have your health card. It's scannable in the gov't system and it has your picture on it, so it's hard to defraud. (I don't say impossible because I know that fraudsters can be very smart.) Illegal immigrants would not be given such a health card, but asylum-seekers probably would. As long as they are legally residing in Canada while their request for asylum is being processed, they would be given the same health care. Yes, taxes are paying for that, and Canada gets a lot of immigrants, but Canadians would view that as the humanitarian thing to do.
In Norway, each person has a "personal number" which is registered in the gov't database. (I'm guessing that your US social security number in similar.) That number gives you health care. Personally, I would rather see a card system like in Canada because it would make it more difficult to defraud. As far as immigrants and asylum-seekers are concerned, they and their children are covered under the health plan. And yes, that's at the expense of the Norwegian tax payer. But once again, they view it as on humanitarian grounds.
There's a big difference between an immigrant/asylum seeker and an illegal immigrant. The former is legally in the country, while the latter isn't. Thus, the latter should not be entitled to any gov't benefits. But easier said than done, I know.
One more thing, some of you might be totally unimpressed by its significance, but others might find it interesting. Look at the UN HDI. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index)
I'll borrow the definition from Wikipedia, which is as follows:
"The Human Development Index (HDI) is an index combining normalized measures of life expectancy, literacy, educational attainment, and GDP per capita for countries worldwide. It is claimed as a standard means of measuring human development, a concept that, according to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) refers to the process of widening the options of persons, giving them greater opportunities for education, health care, income, employment, etc."
Now scroll down to see the countries which have been and are currently at or near the top.
From 1990-2000, Canada was #1, except for '91 and '93 when it was Japan. From 2000-2006, Norway was #1 and in '07 it was Iceland.
So, while none of these countries have perfect systems, apparently the UN recognizes that they're doing something right.
faithful dissident, if basic healthcare is a human "right", then why would illegal immigrants not qualify to receive a card? Are they not human?
And if they don't, then wouldn't we still have most of the problems we already have? Emergency rooms packed with illegal immigrants, passing the cost of that care to everyone else who pays for services (or the gov't, who passes it onto us in the form of taxes)? As Matt pointed out, the illegal immigrant situation in the U.S. is one thing that makes it so different from Scandinavian countries.
I have a friend who has depression issues. She is on 6 different medications and spends her life in and out of the doctor's office, adjusting her meds. She also has four children (the oldest of which does all the child care and housework). As far as I can tell, the kids seem perfectly normal, but she does the same thing with them - adjusts their meds all the time and has them in and out of the doctor's office. It seems that if they are not "perfect", there must be something wrong with them, so she calls the dr. and says "Adjust the meds" until they end up vegetables. (But, that is a threadjack). Anyways, she has been applying for disability for a while. She just got accepted - her and all her four kids. It is retroactive back three years, so she got a huge lump sum payment. So far they bought a huge plasma screen t.v. that cost $2100 after installation (so now they have 3). They bought a Playstation 3 to go along with it, and a stack of movies. She was telling me about all the clothes she bought for herself. Her husband and kids went on an expensive vacation. They are going to buy a new car and will still have a lot left over they want to use as their savings.
They are also going to get free prescriptions and doctor care for the rest of their lives, essentially. Honestly, she needs the prescriptions and doctor care. She really does. I have no problem with that. But, as I listen to her telling me about all the things she is buying, I can't help but think, "Wow, I can't afford that". (Granted, I could if I chose to spend my money like that, but it's not a priority. Instead, I budget tight so I can give a lot to charity).
Knowing that my tax dollars are buying her a big screen t.v. and playstation is just hard to stomach. Yes, she needs some assistance because the cost of prescriptions would bankrupt them. But, does she really need all that other money? That huge lump sum? Sounds like a whole lot of waste to me.
How would kids qualify for disability? They're minors, so they can't work. What country does your friend live in?
I don't know anything about your friend's situation, but I agree that people shouldn't be spending gov't money on a plasma TV. One would have to think it's coming at the expense of something else that the money is intended for, like food in the fridge or clothes for the kids. But, I guess the gov't can't always enforce how a disabled person uses their disability pension. Not even in a socialist regime. :)
There will ALWAYS be people who take advantage of the system. I've known some personally. So, unfortunately, a few bad apples will rip off the system that is helping those who really need it. Yes, it's a problem and it should be addressed, but it's not enough to scrap the programmes altogether.
I have an uncle who has had schizophrenia since age 16. He's about 50 now. He gets a disability pension and he's been on a million different type of meds. It literally took him about 30 years to find the right meds and get as stable as is possible for him. Without the gov't assistance, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be alive since he attempted suicide several times.
As far as illegal immigrants are concerned, no, I don't think they should be given a card. But yes, it should be a human right to get medical help in an emergency. You can't let someone die on the sidewalk because they're an illegal alien. But of course this poses a big problem in terms of cost and so the only way to eliminate it is to stop the influx of illegal immigrants in the first place. It's a whole other, issue -- a very complicated one.
I'm of Mexican heritage and I have witnessed US illegal immigration first-hand. I think it's wrong, and yet it doesn't surprise me that it happens because it's just so darn easy. (Or at least it was pre 9-11.) The other problem is that some Americans love illegal immigrants because they do the jobs Americans won't, for below minimum wage, and they have no benefits. I agree that this is a much bigger problem in the US than in Europe or Canada. It just always amazed me for so many years that it was so easy for illegal immigrants to get it, get established, and even make return trips in and out of the US. It's no wonder it's such a problem!
Wow, Matt, you know one whole poor person who got there by their own fault. I guess we can apply that to the entire human race.
Not everyone is poor because they're undeserving losers, and not everyone is poor because they are down on their luck with a heart of gold. Can we stop making sweeping generalizations please? It doesn't help. Conservatives tendf to generalize one way, because it jives with their worldview, and liberals tend to generalize the other way likewise. DOESN'T MAKE IT A FACT, and arguing one's point using these "facts" as backup is totally pointless since they are not proven and not believed by the "other side" who you are trying to convince.
The U.S. - Children can qualify for disability here. I'm not sure how it works.
It just doesn't seem right that I don't have the choice of how to spend my money (tax dollars that I am forced to give), but someone else does have the choice to spend that same money (to buy a plasma t.v.) You made good points. There just ought to be more accountability in the system.
Yikes--I go away for a bit and there are 91 comments! For once, I've got nothing to add.
--David
Wizzle, Unfortunately my sweeping generalization is fact. I don't say it just because it jives with my world view, I say it because it IS the truth. Sometimes the truth sucks, but the only way to solve problems is to deal with reality. Being politically correct doesn't solve problems, It only sounds nice.
There's a difference between politically correct and correct, yes, but what you are doing is just as bad. You're taking an observation of a small sample of a population and applying it to the whole. In formal debate, this is called a Fallacy of Hasty Generalization (emphasis on "fallacy"). :)
I admit I don't have any cold hard facts on hand, but c'mon, do you really think the majority of poor people are poor because they work 40 hours a week and just have really bad luck? I think not.
BBD, you said, "You're taking an observation of a small sample of a population and applying it to the whole." I beg to differ. I am taking an observation of the majority and applying to the majority. Again, just because it's not P.C. doesn't mean it's not fact.
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I do know many, many people who work just as long and hard hours as my husband, or my dad, or you, or anyone else I know, and they struggle to make ends meet. Someone has to work at Wal-Mart so you can shop there.
You do understand the definition of "majority", right?
Matt, either you haven't done any research on the topic, or you actually don't understand the definition of the word "majority". According to a scientific 2001 NPR survey, 65% of poor people (defined as members of households making twice the federal poverty level or less) work. This survey certainly isn't the be-all-end-all of poverty statistics, but 65% is a pretty clear majority.
The updated welfare legislation passed in 1996 makes it pretty hard to get a free ride for very long. It requires able-bodied welfare recipients to work within two years, and caps lifetime welfare benefits at five years for most people.
One of the most important (IMO) causes of poverty is a dramatic increase in single-parent families. If I were to shove off for whatever reason, my wife and 2.7 children would have the benefit of a decent life insurance policy, but more importantly, the support of strong immediate families that could at least provide some sort of safety net. Unfortunately, such a situation is increasingly rare in our society.
I can hardly fathom having to pay for full-time child care for 3 kids so I could work, even with a very decent income. It must be a nightmare for someone with limited education or marketable skills. Once someone is in that situation (whether it was their own fault or not), I can easily see how poverty becomes an endless cycle.
i haven't finished reading all of these (holy crap) but I had to comment here - Matt said: Christ spent much of his time healing and helping the poor, but not because it was mandated by the government; this is the example we should follow"
I respectfully disagree, Matt. Christ had every intention of establishing a government. He was a political Messiah as well as a spiritual one in his own mind. The government that he would establish was called "The Kingdom of God." In his government, he consistantly talked about Governmentally mandating that the poor and the needy - as a whole - have their station exalted. To show that he meant it, he went around healing people, regardless of their preexisting conditions, their coverage, or the severity of the issue. He (the head and essential backbone of the new government) did it personally and then commissioned his cabinet to do it (the 12) and he also commissioned his Congress (the 70) to do it. This is exactly what he was doing, and, the example that we should follow as much as possible.
Amy said: "The idea of our lifestyles coming at someone else's expense is completely a farce."
Not so, dear. I think it interesting that no one actually reads the scriptures - or at least they fail to see our system as that reflected by the scriptures - We live in an age and time where digging a pit for your neighbor isn't the half of it! Your shoes, clothes, household items etc - they all come at the expense of someone else - you eat well because someone else doesn't - the world does not produce enough to give everyone the lifestyle and "standard of living" that americans have -
Thankyou, Faithful Dissident, for enumerating those points - I am so thankful to finially be back in a country where this issue has been solved...by the way, I'm now in S. Korea for the next year, everyone - very exciting!
wow, guys - some powerful discussion here -
Matt - lets be honest, everything any of us say, we say because it jives with our world view. One man's trash is another man's fact. But I'm glad to see that you are immune to that problem - I'm glad to know that what you know, simply due to the fact that it is YOU who knows it - is undeniable, undisputeable fact. How brash. Yes, I really think that the majority of poor people are poor circumstancially - or are poor because their job pays crap. or are poor because they are part of a cycle - as wizzle mentioned - that engenders that. Could you imagine Jesus going to the collonades of the temple, looking at the lepers and the lame and the widows and saying, "oh, come on - get up - it's your own dang fault - do some work." No, i can't imagine it, because this concept is absolutely contrary to what christ taught.
Illegal immigration - what an interesting concept - FD put his finger on it with the card - I have a unique idea of this, because I was technically "illegal" for my first two months in Japan - that is, I didn't have the required work visa, but I was working - The work visa was obtained, but for a time, I was an illegal immigrant - until i got my immigrant card.
during that time, I got sick - I went to the doctor - I was taken care of. I didn't have my card - but they took care of me anyways. I had to pay more than the average person. but I got the care I needed. I don't know that this would work in America - I have two ideas about this. If we offered universal heathcare to all citizens and to all legal immigrants, but denied it to illegal immigrants - that would possibly solve the immigration issue - it would give illegals some drive to find a legal way of getting to this country.
Stephanie said: "faithful dissident, if basic healthcare is a human "right", then why would illegal immigrants not qualify to receive a card? Are they not human?" Yes, they are human, stephanie - and we won't let them die - but, they are not part of our country, therefore, we cannot be expected to treat them on the same level as those who are part - that would ruin us. That would be like us going into the world and just thowing out healthcare to everyone free of charge - as much as the US likes to fix everyone's problems, this is not the answer. As I mentioned before, Christ's government was the kingdom of God, and WITHIN that kingdom, the poor were exalted. He didn't talk about outside the kingdom. so, if they want to be part of our system, they get here legally.
And just because Stephanie asked a week ago - my ideal system is basically good old fassioned socialized healthcare - just as it was set out by FD - scandanavia,canada, japan, you name it - theya re all pretty good. Thanks FD for saving me the work of having to outline it.
Glad to spell it out, Rick. :) It was indeed an interesting discussion. I will never claim that the socialist health care systems are perfect. There is certainly room for improvement in all countries who use this system. And although I can understand that some Americans are hesitant to see more gov't involvement in health care, I get annoyed when they diss the system by deeming it a failure or making it sound like it's something to fear, like paying taxes is the end of the world. I don't know, perhaps it's a cultural thing about you guys, but I've noticed that Americans generally seem to loathe their gov't and regard it as a sort of enemy. That gov't involvement, gov't programmes are "bad." We complain about our governments and taxes too, but I think maybe we look more to the "system" as a protector and safety net, as opposed to something we need to fear.
By the way, Rick, I'm a "she," not a "he." :)
No Rick, you're wrong when you say there isn't enough food for everyone. There is, but people in power refuse to distribute it for their own selfish power-driven reasons. Similar with medical supplies in Africa: a lot of stuff that goes over there to help people gets stockpiled by power mongrels who refuse to dish it out because they know that healthy people would threaten their own style of living.
Also, you don't understand my comment. One person's meal is not a direct result of someone else's starvation. That is a farce, a fallacy. Because I am eating steak and potatoes it doesn't mean someone else is eating worms: I can change what I eat and it has no impact on that person's worms or otherwise.
Yes, people work in shoe factories; yes, people live in Indonesia making $3/week. Whose fault is that? The person buying the shoes for $15 or the person making a $12 profit? My decision to buy the $15 shoes helps pay the $3/week wages, and it also gives someone else profit. Your issue isn't with the consumer---its with the businessmen running the show behind the closed door.
We can give to charity and send money to Indonesia, etc but until the person holding the power changes their system, things won't change in regards to $3/week.
Thus my comment: my lifestyle doesn't cause someone else to starve. Some people may be starving, but not as a result of other people having food. Recent hurricanes, droughts, floods, famines, hailstorms have decreased crops around the world, true, but there is enough food to feed everyone, if the distribution process weren't being manipulated. But the manipulation happens very far away from the readership of this blog.
PS Rick, I am so glad you're finally in a country where you are happy. :) Have fun teaching English, the language of conquerers.
Lots and lots written and could be written on this topic. Two cents (if it's worth even that):
Mike, correspondence bowling is the best.
Rick, we were bound to collide on this issue. Some of what you have said sounds like you think we in America should be forced into a certain way of treating our health like how they do in Japan. Super for Japan, not so great for freedom. Funny that far lefties (I know you won't take this the wrong way, Rick ;P) want so much for women to be able to choose about their health, but would just as quickly remove health choices from the entire populace. Another of those political ironies.
Also, the argument that Jesus thought he was a political Messiah, and then failed in the attempt, is frankly... far-fetched. Even if that interpretation worked, it's not a good analogy to the United States; George Bush, not Jesus, is in charge. Worldly theocracies, too, are not good for the agency of man. I don't want to live in a theocracy until Jesus comes back!
I would like to see some changes made, but I don't have enough confidence in the government to capably fix health care, much less run it well for any length of time. Large scale government projects... have we not learned from Social Security? Great that Canada and Japan and whoever else seem to do it so swimmingly. But I also have concern about scale -- what is the population of Canada compared to that of the U.S.? 30 million to 300 million. As appealing as the idea is to some, I believe the application of Canada-style health care to the U.S. would be very, very challenging.
These two cents are too many now. Peace and love!
Kevin, I didn't mean to imply that he failed in his attempt. Jesus absolutely WAS a political messiah - At least that's what I found from my 5 year long forray into the early Christian Movement. I don't think he failed, however - I think he understood something that his followers did not - he understood his mission on an eternal scale, not solely a religious one. But much as in Joseph Smith's time, and others, if there had been faith on the part of the saints of that day, then the Kingdom of God would have been established. I'd urge you to do some research into that subject - but that is a tangent.
Congrats on the first post over 100 comments!
BBD, I agree that the single parent family is a huge part of the poverty cycle. I couldn't imagine having to do that. You have softened my heart on that one:)
Ok here's my stat, in 2005 66.6% of adults on TANF (temporary assistance for needy families) did not work. The average poor household runs on about 16 hours of work per week.
You don't have to believe me that the poor don't have a great work ethic, but you've gotta at least agree that poor money management is a huge factor.
Rick says, "Could you imagine Jesus going to the collonades of the temple, looking at the lepers and the lame and the widows and saying, "oh, come on - get up - it's your own dang fault - do some work." No, i can't imagine it, because this concept is absolutely contrary to what Christ taught."
It's interesting that the church has put such an emphasis on teaching children a strong work ethic. And I believe the scriptures read faith without WORKS is dead. We aren't just given things, we have to work for them.
Part of the problem is that we - most of us here - DO come from strong families, with good work ethics, and we are taught from a young age to work hard, avoid debt, live within our means, etc. We have strong, loving, supportive families who are able to help us when we need help. I would venture to say that sadly a large portion of, if not most (obviously there's no way to quantify this) people in the US do not have these benefits.
So, what's the solution? Say "tough cookies" and go about our way (after a generous fast offering, of course?) Support these people in some fashion via the "system"? How do we strengthen our families and help more people arrive at adulthood with an education, a trade, a support system, financial management skills? Rather than blame these people, how can we help each other avoid these problems in the first place?
Oh, and just a personal anecdote (as opposed to a Statement Regarding the Merits of All People In This Category)...
I know someone, and so do a lot of you I would venture, who probably does not read this blog and hence shall not be named since he's not here to defend himself. This person is a married father of two, in school for a career that will provide well for his family when he's done. Neither he nor his wife currently work, and they have not for the majority of his time in school (a few years). He used to work, and so did she, but between work and school and paying for child care, they were *barely* squeaking by and they never had any family time together. This friend of mine opted to use the government programs that were available to their family, for which they qualified, and they now live in government subsidized housing and live off "welfare" while she raises their children and he gets his degree. Their lifestyle is far from extravagant, but they are comfortable. And "I" am paying for all of it, via my taxes.
I could say that they should have waited to have children until after their finances and career were in order. I could say that, since they are able, they should eschew the assistance available to them and go out and get a damn job like the rest of us. I think my friend, had you asked him a few years ago, would have said something along those lines. But when you really see the intricacies of some of these situations, it opens your mind and you start to be able to imagine WHY it is that people are in these situations, instead of just seeing a statistic.
Oh, and also - YIPPEE! I win, I win, my topic has the most comments!
Rick, I just don't think it is fair to compare any government on earth with Christ's theocracy. Comparing the cabinet and congress to church leaders is a stretch.
I do read the scriptures, and this comment: they all come at the expense of someone else - you eat well because someone else doesn't - the world does not produce enough to give everyone the lifestyle and "standard of living" that americans have -
reminds me of this scripture (D&C 104:17):
For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.
Wizzle, in response to this statement:
Part of the problem is that we - most of us here - DO come from strong families, with good work ethics, and we are taught from a young age to work hard, avoid debt, live within our means, etc. We have strong, loving, supportive families who are able to help us when we need help.
Amy, feel free to disagree with me if you think I am wrong, but I feel that my siblings and I DON'T have this benefit. We knew from a young age that if we wanted or needed something, we had better get our butt out there and earn it because there is noone to fall on. Our parent calls us for help. In fact, I've often wondered if that's one reason why I am such a staunch conservative. I don't expect anyone to pick me up when I'm down. And I've looked around at liberals I know personally (noone on this site), and it seems that all of them have parents they go home to. I've wondered if it's easier to say that society should care for you if YOU are being cared for - if you aren't the last resort, but instead have a last resort to turn to.
Just to clarify - yes, our family received assistance from the church when I was a teen. And free school lunches. I am grateful for the assistance because we needed it. I am not opposed to the "safety net" functions of government. I AM opposed to income redistribution and socialized medicine.
Yeah--Steph, I would definitely agree that your experience does not fall within Wizzle's description.
In fact, I'd argue mine doesn't either. I was raised below the poverty line in a 1 parent household. There wasn't anyone around to "help out" which is why I started cleaning houses for cash when I was ten years old and continued working through jr high and high school: I knew that if I needed anything there wasn't anyone available to give me $30 and send me to the mall. I'd have to pay for new school clothes myself, or pay for movies myself, or group dates myself, etc. I worked hard in school because I knew a scholership was the only way I was going to get out of the vicious cycle of poverty. And then I got my associate's degree and transferred to BYU because I had a feeling that I needed a diploma from a private school. Why did I feel like that? No idea. But since I didn't have a scholarship there I worked close to full time while attending classes. And now I am in nursing school, again no scholarships, but I'm lucky enough to have a husband who is willing to sacrifice our savings to give me more skills. Skills that I am 100% certain I'll have to use to help support his parent(s) as well as mine since retirement isn't even an option. Having parents financially support their children sounds like a luxury.
So yeah, I do think that putting kids in childcare is expensive and working during school is hard, but it is doable. Its a short-term sacrifice with long-term benefits. Its possible to work your way out of the poverty line. Welfare is there for a reason, but there are so many people trying to 'work' the system that the system is just stretched too thin. And it isn't accomplishing what it was created for. I agree with Matt---more poor people need to work, or work harder, in school or in after-school jobs to pull themselves up.
This person is a married father of two, in school for a career that will provide well for his family when he's done. Neither he nor his wife currently work, and they have not for the majority of his time in school (a few years). He used to work, and so did she, but between work and school and paying for child care, they were *barely* squeaking by and they never had any family time together. This friend of mine opted to use the government programs that were available to their family, for which they qualified, and they now live in government subsidized housing and live off "welfare" while she raises their children and he gets his degree. Their lifestyle is far from extravagant, but they are comfortable. And "I" am paying for all of it, via my taxes.
I've been in this situation. I could have worked while my husband was doing his PhD, but we didn't feel it was the best thing for our family. The most self-reliant thing we could think of was to take out student loans (you can argue that subsidized student loans are a government handout, and I'll agree, but it's a handout that helps people learn to fish rather than giving them a fish). We didn't feel right about using welfare or food stamps or programs like that. We're paying our student loans off on a 30 year plan, but it feels like the right thing to do considering that my husband's "career provide(s) well for his family when he's done". When my mom was at BYU, she remembers church leaders saying that students should NOT use government programs to put themselves through school (besides student loans). I don't know if the counsel has changed. Anyways, I'm not making a judgement call on your friend - just pointing out that there ARE other options besides going to the government for support.
I understand that it is very hard to get out of the poverty cycle, and I'm sure I come off sounding very cold after all the things I have said but I am just trying to promote independence instead of government dependence. The "program" should be teaching classes on financial management etc. instead of just giving a service that doesn't promote self-reliance.
I was thinking the other day about how the church does not approve of bad habits ie. smoking, drinking, gambling. Is it because of the habit itself or the financial burden it places on the participator? Just think of how many people could rise above the poverty level if they put that $5 per pack of cigarettes and $20 per case of beer into bills and savings. It really all comes down to priorities.
The way to break out of the poverty cycle is education. It takes a sacrifice, but it is worth it. Anything we can do to promote education and learning new skills (Perpetual Education Fund!) will help people to help themselves.
Stories like this give me oh-so-much-faith in a goverment-run healthcare system.
Sellers of wheelchairs, drugs and other medical supplies collected as much as $93 million in fraudulent Medicare claims based on prescriptions from doctors who actually were dead, some for 10 years or more, a congressional investigation has found.
Do you think a for-profit company would allow that kind of waste? Or even just a non-profit that was actually accountable to anyone?
Do you think a for-profit company would allow that kind of waste? Or even just a non-profit that was actually accountable to anyone?
Yeah, I do. Corporations have a tendency to bloat and create bureaucracy just like governments do.
Check out this article.
Green and Berry document an enormous amount of waste, fraud and abuse in the corporate sector costing consumers an estimated $862 billion annually, a figure more than six times the size of the oft-cited Grace Commission estimate of governemnt waste.
That's right, six times the amount of waste, fraud and abuse in the private sector as compared to the government. I know some conservatives have a tendency to dislike government programs because they're government programs, but in many respects government spending receives a lot more scrutiny than a large corporation's.
Post a Comment