Jefferson on Obamacare

[maximus]

[Tamrin]

I admire much of what Jefferson had to say but not not all of what he said. Indeed, one would be perverse to slavishly follow whatever he said, in what ever context. After all, even he was fallible. Basically, it's not enough that so and so said this or that, it's also got to be sensible, now. Were this quote applied to those who cannot afford universal health care, out goes their right to, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Were I in their position, I would rather trust in the tyranny of government popularity-seeking than in the tyranny of insurers' profit-seeking. Universal health care works well here and in other developed nations.

For the context of the cartoon above, click on the image.

Appropriately, health and safety are often spoken of in the same breath: Just as our basic safety needs are addressed (defense forces, safety inspectors and police) with any additional needs (private security guards, etc.) being an individual's responsibility, so too might we consider our health needs (BTW, Jefferson was ideologically against maintaining a standing army which, I suggest, is no longer a practicable position).

Here, my basic medical needs are met by MediCare, under which I am treated by the doctor of my choice (albeit, mine charges a premium but others who bulk-bill are generally available) and in public hospitals. Additionally, I pay for private health insurance, which is both tax deductible and partially rebated (some employers pay for employees' private health insurance). This means I can opt for a private hospital and avoid elective surgery waiting lists in the public system (and, if otherwise liable, I would avoid paying the MediCare taxation levy). It also means my insurance company, though spared my basic health costs, has to provide me with something tangible on top of these, to keep my business. Whereas, I understand your present private system has many of the limitations and delays of our public system.

[Tamrin]

Apr 13, 2009 9:23:22 GMT 10 Tamrin said:

The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination
sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory


That government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part


Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe


So confident am I in the intentions, as well as wisdom,
of the government, that I shall always be satisfied
that what is not done, either cannot, or ought not to be done


Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind,
for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor


If God is just, I tremble for my country


I never considered a difference of opinion in politics,
in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend


Thomas Jefferson
(Born this day 1743)

Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us

[/center][/size][/quote]

[maximus]

Sept 20, 2009 13:15:27 GMT 10 Tamrin said:

I admire much of what Jefferson had to say but not not all of what he said. Indeed, one would be perverse to slavishly follow whatever he said, in what ever context. After all, even he was fallible. Basically, it's not enough that so and so said this or that, it's also got to be sensible, now. Were this quote applied to those who cannot afford universal health care, out goes their right to, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

One shouldn't follow any ideology slavishly, however, if the ideology makes sense it is worth considering. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" could be the subject of a seperate thread. I contend that the pursuit does not mean guarantee of happiness, but rather the freedom to do that which our natures are best suited for, free of government interference - as long as that pursuit does not involve the violation of anothers rights. This, too, could be another threat entirely - on the nature of government.

Were I in their position, I would rather trust in the tyranny of government popularity-seeking than in the tyranny of insurers' profit-seeking. Universal health care works well here and in other developed nations.

I would not. At the heart of the debate here is the unspoken, but key issue - control. The issue of "universal healthcare" was not even on the radar prior to the election of Obama and the progressive wing of the Democrat party's take-over of both houses of Congress - which in itself could be, again, the subject of another thread entirely, as in : "what is the role of the Senate and House in light of the Constitution?"

The notion of "universal heathcare" was soundly rejected during the Clinton administration - and a majority have rejected it today.

No doubt that your single payer healthcare system works well in your country, due to your population dynamics - aftr all, OZ has a population approximating that of our state of Texas, despite having the landmass of the continental US. Here, however, such a scheme would be unsustainable. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has already determined that we could not possiblly afford to provide medical care for 300,000,000 people. The costs would be in the trillions, and more and more people would be driven onto the government rolls as private insurers were eventually driven out of business. There is no way private companies can compete against a government system that can undercut real costs simply by raising taxes to fund ever increasing demands.

As to the context of the cartoon, government rationing is inevitable, as cost/benefit considerations will determine and override Doctor's decisions. This is eaisily demonstrated by looking at the UK's system, which denies treatment for easily curable condititons that here would be readily available.

Appropriately, health and safety are often spoken of in the same breath: Just as our basic safety needs are addressed (defense forces, safety inspectors and police) with any additional needs (private security guards, etc.) being an individual's responsibility, so too might we consider our health needs (BTW, Jefferson was ideologically against maintaining a standing army which, I suggest, is no longer a practicable position).

I see them as two seperate issues, also I, and the vast majority here see, that medical insurance is the personal responsibility of the insured, not the role of the federal government. We have this pesky old piece of paper that some old dead white guys handed down to us that limits the role of the federal government, a perusal of the constitution will show that nowhere is there enumerated within the "right" to universal healthcare.

As to standing armies, I think that we do not need them even today. The constitution calls for a standing Navy and our needs could be met through this branch - the functions of both the Air Force and Army ground forces (which could be handled by the Marines - which are a branch of the Navy) could be met with one integrated service, staying within constitutional limitations. In addition, did the US mind it's own business, there would be no need for massive deployments in areas of the world in which we have no direct interests - which, I would argue, is anywhere outside the territorial boundries of the US and this hemisphere.

Here, my basic medical needs are met by MediCare, under which I am treated by the doctor of my choice (albeit, mine charges a premium but others who bulk-bill are generally available) and in public hospitals. Additionally, I pay for private health insurance, which is both tax deductible and partially rebated (some employers pay for employees' private health insurance). This means I can opt for a private hospital and avoid elective surgery waiting lists in the public system (and, if otherwise liable, I would avoid paying the MediCare taxation levy). It also means my insurance company, though spared my basic health costs, has to provide me with something tangible on top of these, to keep my business. Whereas, I understand your present private system has many of the limitations and delays of our public system.

We have experienced no delays whatsoever in obtaining medical care, other than the normal dely of stting up an appointment to see a physician. My wife just underwnt surgery to have her gall bladder removed (it was 93% blocked with gallstones). She got right in in a matter of days - in a brand new same-day surgery clinic two miles from our home. She went in at 8:00 am and was back home by 3:00 that afternoon. She had the benefit of the most up-to-date endroscopic surgery, having only four small holes in her abdomen and is now back to work, fully recovered, although restricted in how much weight she can lift for a time.

I myself have type II diabites, a Doctor's vist to take an A-1C (blood glucose test) costs $20 co-pay, my medicines are $4.00 a piece, except for my test strips for my meter which are $35.

On the other hand, there is my wife's friend Traci, who lives not far from you in Newcastle. In the first instance, her 13 year old daughter was recently having abdominal pains, related to her reproducive system. The Doctor (a female, BTW) stated that she needed a cervical exam to determing the exact nature of the problem. However, she refused to do so. Her reason? The girl is a virgin. That's right, a virgin! The Doctor refused to perform a cervical exam on a virgin for fear of being sued!! This was a Gynocologist, for God's sake! The girl has never gotten the exam, after weeks.

Her Mom, Traci, recently had a problem with brusing on the upper thighs and pain in her pelvic area. The Doctor told her that she may have cervical cancer, but that they would wait to treat it for six months to a year to see if it would grow!!. He also said there is a possibility she may have lukiemia! This is absolutely asinine, my wife and I could not believe what we were hearing. Here, tests would be ran to determine the exact nature of the problem, treatment began ASAP on a disease this serious.

If that is "universal heathcare" - no thanks.

The fact is that no one is denied medical care or has it unavailable. All one needs to do is go to any clinic or emergency room anywhere in this nation, they are required to treat you regardless of ability to pay! Just ask the millions of illegal immigrants from South of the border - they use our emergency rooms as a free clinic for every little sniffle their anchor-babies have.

[Tamrin]

The relative cost ought to be even more affordable given your greater economies of scale. Plus, your health industry is already in place and being paid for one way or another, this measure would simply provide for the underprivileged few who aren't covered (it would reduce the relatively high level of inequity in the US).

Also, while your Constitution is irrelevant to me, if this measure is unconstitutional, there's your answer, (provided your interpretation of the law is correct): However, please don't confuse being unconstitutional with being unjust or immoral (I believe Jefferson also spoke about our position with regard to unjust laws).

While there is need for improvement here, I prefer our system: Every one receives basic health care, without going into debt. We have dealt with it our way. Ultimately, the current US proposal, while promising, is an issue for the US to decide and to be dealt with through your political and legal processes.