Mr. Mapleleaf, isn't it ironic that none of the blogger's even mentioned the enormous CEO'S pay from these Health-care Providers. I guess they think someone else pays those enormous salaries. Or maybe they all have more money than sense or maybe they have that syndrome called "I've got mine have fun getting yours".

Nationalized Health-care will only be as good as those who set it up. It won't be perfect but with time it will be worked out to fit all. We have 50 million people with No health-care in this the most industrialized nation in the world, why is this? I think it is because of insurance company's, Pharmacutical Company's, greedy corporations and of course those CEO'S, that are taking from all of us.
I know of a few people that live in Eastern and Western Europe and they get excellent care on those Country's National Health-care systems. Maybe we should talk to those countries and choose the best of what works for them and most likely would work for us as well, with a bit of tweaking.

Medicare and Medicaid are Nationalized Health-care and I think they do a darn good, not perfect mind you, but they keeps costs down for all of us. Something has to be done and now is the time. As I said above it all depends on how and who sets up the system.

Here’s the rest of the information on the CEO compensation for the largest health care insurance companies in the USA. It comes from proxy statements available on the website of the U.S. Securities and Exchance Commission.

Humana, Inc. (HUM): CEO Michael McCallister received compensation of $10,312,557 in 2007.

Aetna, Inc. (AET): CEO Ronald Williams received compensation of $23,045,834 in 2007 and of $19,802,476 in 2006.

Cigna Corp. (CI): CEO Edward Hanway received compensation of $25,839,777 in 2007 and of $21,014,486.

If their compensation does not come from the premiums their customers pay for health insurance, I don’t know where it comes from.

My personal feeling is that only dumb, ignorant “little people” would support a health care system where so many people struggle to pay their insurance premiums and later to collect their benefits, while the BIG PEOPLE stuff themselves at their expense.

This week’s TIME magazine has an article on health care insurance problems.

I'm glad you brought up Medicare since some have forecasted its insolvency by 2019. So unless other programs are reduced in the Federal budget be prepared to pay more and hope it's around when you reach that age.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

There is no need to just hope medicare is around later!

Simply elect people who will see that it is.

It won't be here if hoping is the only action taken.

Part of the bailout program is money to help such as you on COBRA.

The government will pay 65% of your COBRA costs for nine months. That time limit probably will be extended since we are far from done with layoffs.

I realize that you prefer for the government not to be in this business but there always have been people for whatever reason that
should be helped with expenses---as long as it not not Prime Rib for dinner every day!

I would certainly take the help if I needed it and not begrudge others taking it. If my taxes eventually increase to pay all of the debt, so be it.

10% of our annual budget currently is for interest on our debt. That may increase due to our wars and health costs and this recession.
If we are to try and get more people onto the same plane of rights for obvious needs, then we need to find a better way to give more of them an incentive to take care of himself.

I don't know the percentage who will always be with us that can't help himself all of the time.

Philosophies of government are like philosophies of religion, the rules change all of the time from century to century.

Philosophies of government are like philosophies of religion, the rules change all of the time from century to century.

No they don't.

If the rules or standards themselves are subject to change, then it is impossible to say whether things are better or worse. Progress presupposes a fixed standard in virtue of which it can be measured. This is ironic, because many people who describe themselves as "progressives" think that this includes the denial of any absolutes. You cannot be a progressive unless you believe in absolutes.

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

Muddle just because those in the UK don't have a tip top Health-care system doesn't mean this Country won't have all that we have now. Those cancer centers will most likely still be here, after all, where are they going to go. We have the most industrialized Nation in the World. We should have the best Universal Health care system of all the Industrialized Countries. All these hospitals, Doctors, Insurance Companies, Big Corporations, and CEO'S are all going to have to live on less like the rest of us.

Who put these thoughts into our heads that we are not deserving of a a Good Universal Health-care system? Some of the above perhaps and yes, some of those that work for us that have some of the best socialized health-care money can buy, our money by the way, the Politicians. Are we not as deserving?

Are we not printing up money right and left to bail out the banks, AIG, on and on. Why is it we balk at spending money taking care of we the people? Are we not as important as a corporation? I believe we are and I and my family will be hopeful that the Obama administration can work out a good Universal Health-care system that will work for this Wonderful Country of ours and all of it's people.

"Further, is there a sound argument with the conclusion "People have a right to health care"? If so, I have yet to encounter it."

Do we have a right for a firetruck to respond when our homes are ablaze?
Do we have a right for an ambulance to arrive at our homes when we call 911? Do we have a right for a police car to respond when we call them? I didn't buy the ambulance. If I'm out of town, the fire or police response will not have benefited from a single penny of my tax money.

I would argue, however, that it is better to have public services and healthy citizens than no public (read social) services and unhealthy or unsafe citizens. I'm not much for the "I got mine, now you get yours" mentality which comes from people whom, I imagine, do not own their own ambulances, fire trucks, or personal security force.

As for the Sri Lanka story? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? If you can tie that into our debate here in America about how to get more Americans access to healthcare, go for it.

First, as should be clear from my post, it is not that I am necessarily hostile to the idea of universal health care. I just happen not to be convinced that it will work. Nor do I know how it can be justified. We really do invoke moral philosophy in this debate, wittingly or not, and that is the level on which it should be debated, not the emotive gushing back and forth that people often substitute for argument.

As for the "rights" issue, allow me to set my brief comment into a broader context.

We say that people have a right to life, which is something that I believe. But philosophers distinguish between negative rights and positive rights. If my right to life is (merely) a negative one, then this implies that, apart from certain special circumstances, I have a right not to be killed. If that right is also positive, then this implies that I also have a right to whatever is necessary for me to continue living.

Wherever someone has a right to something, someone else has a corresponding duty. Thus, my negative right to life entails your duty to refrain from killing me. This is a duty of justice: if you violate it then you will have done me an injustice.

If I also have a positive right to life, then someone, somewhere, has a corresponding duty to ensure that I have everything that I need to live. This, too, will be a duty of justice (and not mere benevolence). If it is violated, then I am positively wronged or done an injustice.

To suggest that people have a right to medical care is to suggest that it is a corollary of some fundamental positive right, such as the right to life. And it entails that someone, somewhere has the duty to provide that care, so that, in the event that it is not provided, the person is wronged or done an injustice.

This is the position for which I have never heard a sound argument. From what true premises does it validly follow that I have a right to a kidney transplant if needed? Or that I have a right to the only, and otherwise prohibitively expensive, treatment or medicine that will save me?

Suppose that you and I form a small nation of two. You are inventive and I am prone to illness. You have the blueprints for a machine that, once built, will cure me. I will die unless you build it and permit me to use it. It will certainly be very kind of you to follow through with your invention to save me. You will be a Good Samaritan in doing so. It might even be the case that this is something that a "Minimally Decent Samaritan" (Judith Jarvis Thomson's term) would do. But do I have a right to your doing so that would entail that you have a duty of justice to follow through?

Some unimaginative souls suppose that any opposition to universal health care (or to a welfare system) is evidence of a certain harshness or selfishness on the part of those opposed. But one might have nothing but love and beneficence overflowing from one's heart and nevertheless fail to see why it is the business of government to do certain things.

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

I would say it is the right of every American to have access to the same level of health care that is available to active members of congress and the qualifying former members. This is a matter of being treated equally; otherwise, the phrase "all people are equal but some are more equal than others" comes to mind.

There is potential longer term benefit to a universal health care system that is financed by the entire society, and that is the forced realization that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The abuse of tobacco and alcohol would be addressed as costs that are currently not covered by the taxes on them, as well as the negative health effects of excessive work related stress and unhealthy eating habits.

It's not easy being the carbonunit

I would say it is the right of every American to have access to the same level of health care that is available to active members of congress and the qualifying former members. This is a matter of being treated equally; otherwise, the phrase "all people are equal but some are more equal than others" comes to mind.

OK, that's interesting.

And I will repeat here that I am open to being convinced that universal health care is a good idea. I just still have yet to hear a convincing argument.

Consider a plausibly true principle of justice that I'll call the Principle of Equality. First, let me state what I think is a defective version of it:

(PE) All people should be treated equally.

The reason this is defective is that it is not sensitive to morally relevant differences that would justify differential treatment. (PE) as I've stated it, would entail that an employer does an employee an injustice by not paying him or her the same as everyone else. But perhaps others have better qualifications, or have been loyal to the company years longer, or make substantial contributions to the company, etc. And so what is needed to make (PE) more plausible is some additional clause that renders it more sensitive to such things:

(PE*) People should receive equal treatment unless there is a morally relevant difference between them that would justify differential treatment.

I think, by the way, the wrongness of racist hiring policies (and perhaps affirmative action policies as well) is seen in their violation of just this principle. The reason is that, except for certain special cases (e.g., you are casting for slave parts in Amistad so that white folk need not apply) race does not constitute a morally relevant difference that would justify differential treatment.

Now, what sort of principle is invoked if we say that every American has a right to access to the same health care that is afforded to members of congress? I'm not sure that there is necessarily a violation of anything like (PE*) where this is not the case.

Suppose I walk into the hardware store just as a man is wheeling out a beautiful new cany apple red Western Flyer bicycle. I want one, too, so I grab one, kick up the stand, and begin wheeling it out. The store owner stops me. "You can't just come in here and take that!" I point out into the parking lot where the other guy is loading up the bike. "You let him take that one. What's the difference between him and me?!" "He paid me for that one!" he replies.

The world is full of inequities, and sometimes this is tragic. And wealthy people have the means to acquire goods that are simply beyond the reach of the rest of us. I've wanted a substantial sailboat all my life, and I confess some envy when I see people enjoying theirs. But this is an instance of inequity that does not also amount to an injustice.

Now, of course you'll observe that sailboats are luxuries in a way that health care is not. But I still do not see where a positive injustice is done in the event that there are inequities in our access to care. For one thing, I suspect that a practical point to consider is that there will be inequities no matter what. Patrick Walsh at Johns Hopkins is the premier prostate cancer surgeon in the world. But even with socialized medicine, someone has to settle for the mediocre guy down the street.

And failing to see this that such inequities are unjust does not amount to failing to care about people--perhaps myself soon--who find that they do not have the means to get the best.

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

(PE) All people should be treated equally.

This is not my stance on this subject. Mine equals an if/then statement: if the individual members of congress give themselves access to the public tit of health care, then the individuals in the society should have the same or equal access.

I agree that under the current business system, universal health care will not work, since currently it is good for the business to have a sick populace, whereas with a universal health care system wellness would be the necessary goal. Obviously, we need a change in attitude regarding what role health care plays in America.

It's not easy being the carbonunit

OK. So you are urging a conditional: If X has access to H then Y should also have access to H."

You may be right. But there is still the question of what would justify that very conditional? Why think this is true? And are you sure that it isn't something like (PE)that is presupposed here?

You could employ (PE*) and argue that there is no justification for the differential treatment between members of congress and the rest of the populace. That would be interesting. How would that argument go?

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue

Some says "why?", some says "why not?".

Advice to myself:
Never buy a car from a man named "Sam", never play cards with a man named "Doc", and never get into a philosophical argument with a man named "muddle". None of them will go well for you.

It's not easy being the carbonunit

government run health care system in this country. If that is run trhe way other things are run by this government, we will really be in trouble. We have all heard (and in some cases, seen) the treatment our service personnel have received who came home injured. The condition of some VA hospitals. In many cases, these brave injured men and women were treated worse than third world and definitely third class citizens. It was only afrer an outcry from the public that improvements were made. Nothing that is run by our government could be considered to run efficiently. Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Now, with you paying a doctor/hospital directly or through your insurance, you may have to wait weeks for an appointment--what will happen when everyone is waiting for the same agency to look into your medical problems, make a decision regarding what should be done and then giving approval--in many cases you will probably be dead or your cancer or other disease too far advanced for any medical treatment to help. I know people with HMO insurance that have problems just getting by that cute young thing (with no medical degree or training) to make a decision about where and when you can get medical care. They have to see someone to refer them to someone who may then pass them on to someone else before they are treated--and that is with them paying for their insurance. What in the world will happen when government employees will be deciding who gets to the doctor/hospital and when. As with everything that involves the government, there will be snafu after snafu. Right now I am on Medicare (senior citizen) with a supplement I pay for out of my own pocket. I pay more to be able to choose my own doctor--I have to bite the bullet and do without some things but then I do that anyway--so that my mortgage is paid on time every month, my bills are up-to-date and I don't owe anyone anything. Of course, my car is 15 years old (still runs perfectly), my cable--very basic, my computer 11 years old and veeeery slooow, but so what. I do not wear overpriced clothes, do not have a designer purse or pair of shoes and have not gone to an overpriced movie or restaurant in years. I forgo those things so I can have the freedom to chose my doctor. I know there are some cases where people are in their position because of circumstances beyond their control but do not feel they would be better off with socialised medicine. Then we have those who expect the government to give the everything--and believe me there are many who know how to work the system and get it all when they are completely undeserving--and no, they are not really in the minority (and here I am not talking about minority race but minority of people). We need to get this country back to what it is supposed to be before it is too late--or maybe it is already too late.

First I want to say that I think of you, and of course others now, who are in trouble with employment and feel real empathy for you. I know that you would work at your profession if you could, but you may have to change gears until our treasonous treatment has subsided.

Once, a vice-President from Texas said that the VP job was worth about as much as a bucket of warm spit. I expect my sincere empathy will also do you little good.

My only question to you about your attitude against universal health care would be, why do you think it can't be planned and implemented in order to be fair to every human?

Surely you must now feel some sympathy for those several millions who have no insurance and all those millions recently who have lost their jobs? Now that you may end up being in such a situation also, why would you not?

Mrs. George Herbert Walker Bush just got a new pig valve for her heart. I've needed one for years but no doctor has recommended it since I don't have what you would call Presidential or Congressional Health Insurance! One of our greatest nasty talking comedians also this week needs a pig valve. He will of course get it instantly.

My only point is that there will always be those who do not provide for himself for many, many reasons. There will also be those who can afford Houston doctors when needed.

The fact that very hard work puts people like you into important positions with good health insurance (until recently) does not mean that we can possibly expect that of everyone else on earth.

Yes there will be clinic located locally, maybe by the block for emergency treatment. It will be up to us to control that fairly.

No longer though can we ignore a human right. Looks like the republicans would know that by now concerning many things they have ignored (banks for one) to ruin us.

My friend one's intelligence means diddly on their death bed, and not very much really in everyday commerce.

Be careful how you answer, if you do, due to censorship concerning strong opinions!

very eloquent...you make some great points and I totally agree with you.

(and I really hope you get your pig valve someday!! )

The US health care system amounts to 15.2% of our GDP or about $2.2 Trillion. According to the US Census, the population of the US is at 305 Million - some legal and some not legal. Doing the math, this equates to $7,244.82 per person.

Apply the same to France, 11.1% of its GDP to health care or $331.5 Billion spread out over a population of 62 Million comes to a total of $5,347.69 per person. (cost adj. to USD)

So if the health care system in France is so much better then how can they do it for less?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

The question to ask is why France's life expectancy and mortality rate is higher. Is it due to lifestyle? Are they gobbling down big macs and hot dogs, or are they eating healthier foods. Do the French simply get more exercise because they walk more. Why are their numbers better, Jeff. If you found the numbers for life expectency and mortality, surely you can find out why they are higher.

If the U.S. does adopt socialized medicine as you libs pray to Obama for every night before you go to bed, do you really think that a government run system can do better than the current private system.

If so, why?

The United States of America
July 4, 1776 - Jan 20, 2009
Rest in Peace

Anybody or anything can do better than having 50 million with no insurance!! Conservatives have fought this too many times---they are finally done for!

Also, we have created a monster: the health industry---our BIGGEST industry. If it weren't for them our unemployment rate would be far higher than our current 8-9%--maybe even 15-20%.

Threats about poor care will not fly. We can always change it if it comes to that.

Of the 50 million, how many are in the country illegally, and how many can afford health insurance but CHOOSE not to purchase it?

The United States of America
July 4, 1776 - Jan 20, 2009
Rest in Peace

I'm sure our fringe right wing brethren will try and dispute your numbers, but one simple fact they seem to conveniently overlook is this:

United States: 7 deaths under 1 year of age per 1000 live births. LINK
France: 4 deaths under 1 year of age per 1000 live births. LINK

if France actually counted the numbers like we do.. I will have to find the report, however the WHO's report had some inaccuracys built in.. One they (France) do not count into their mortality rates Infant deaths until after the age 3.. there were a number of other factors we count that they do not... Many Countries do not count any deaths until age 10 and then none after the age of 60.. Sort of affects the count does it not...
Now the real question you have to answer is who has a better survival rate for Cancer one of the largest factors in that mortalility rate.. The US has the best survival rate for Cancer over the rest of the world including ALL of the "Nationalized Health Systems". That is a better factor to look at then numbers that have not been calculated across the board evenly..

I will not lower my standards.. So UP YOURS..

You are going to get what you asked for.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.