The Constitution Daily Challenge

• Wednesday, May 6, 2009, 10:50
• Constitution Daily
• 475 views
• 12 comments

• Share
  Delicious Digg Design Float Mixx Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati
• Printable version

About the Author

12 Comments on “The Constitution Daily Challenge”

• 
  steve right wrote on 6 May, 2009, 11:05

  ” I believe there isn’t a problem when compared to all other countries on this planet. ”

  You can’t be serious. I mean, I read your blog so I know you’re out of touch, but that statement shows you’re out of your mind.

  Our health care system was ranked 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health by the World Health Organization. The CIA World Factbook ranked the United States 41st in the world for lowest infant mortality rate[80] and 46th for highest total life expectancy. A recent study found that between 1997 and 2003, preventable deaths declined more slowly in the United States than in 18 other industrialized nations (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/1/58?ijkey=05uD000683MNE&keytype=ref&siteid=healthaff).

  There are things our system does well (we have the highest cancer survival rate in the world), but to say that our country isn’t WAY WAY WAY overdue for a health care overhaul is simply ridiculous. This is why your party has entered into a stage of permanent minority. Because you won’t take your head out of…. the sand and try to solve the problems our country faces.
• 
  Constitution Daily wrote on 6 May, 2009, 11:10

  Did you read the article? I’m calling for reform throughtout 90 percent of the article. And your statistics are junk. I can pull a few random stats out and prove about anything. The real question is, where do people from all over the world go to get the best health care?

  And all of that is beside the point. I’m asking for solutions to reform our health care system. What’s yours?
• 
  steve right wrote on 6 May, 2009, 11:20

  There not my statistics. They are the statistics of organizations like the WHO and experts in the field who have spent years studying the subject.

  And you are calling for reform IN SPITE of your claim that the system is honky dory. And who gives a s**t if people from all over the world come here for the “best health care” when a large segment of our population can’t get access to it? Like I said in my comment, we do some things right, but overall we need to revamp it to ensure our population has access to quality care. It is in everybody’s best interests, including anonymous troglodyte bloggers.

  My solution is to study what’s working and not working around the world and use that knowledge to make our system better.

  In Japan, which has the best health statistics in the world, all citizens are required to have health insurance, either through their work or purchased from a nonprofit, community-based plan. Those who can’t afford the premiums receive public assistance. Most health insurance is private; doctors and almost all hospitals are in the private sector. Every two years the Ministry of Health negotiates with physicians to set the price for every procedure. This helps keeps costs down. But many hospitals aren’t bringing in enough profit to stay afloat (prices are kept WAY down).

  In Switzerland, all citizens are required to have coverage; those not covered were automatically assigned to a company. The government provides assistance to those who can’t afford the premiums. Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on basic care and are prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants. They can make money on supplemental insurance, however. Drug prices are set by the government.

  The Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world — but it’s still far cheaper than U.S. health care.

  I’m not saying I have all the answers, but other countries do a better job than we do, so why not learn from their successes and failures and make our system the best in the world?
• 
  LoboSolo wrote on 6 May, 2009, 11:36

  maybe the GOP should talk to one of their members who is a doctor, he may have some idea what is wrong. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/
• 
  Deace voted for Obama wrote on 6 May, 2009, 12:14

  Steve Wrong, fix it. What would you do?

  Do you advocate “free” health care for everyone? That is what the ignorant masses are expecting. They expect they should be able to go to a doctor anytime they want and everything will be “free”. Anything less than that and you’re going to have discontent.
• 
  Jeff wrote on 6 May, 2009, 12:40

  @Steve
  >The CIA World Factbook ranked the United States 41st in the world for lowest infant mortality rate[80] and 46th for highest total life expectancy

  Your logic is faulty here. Correlation does not imply causation. You are saying that we have low life expectancy and high infant mortality, so the problem is the quality and access of health care.

  Or, could it be our diets? Our way of life? We traditionally consume high fat, high protein diets of processed foods. Why do Japanese men live 3 years longer, and women live 5 years longer than Americans? Could it be what they put in their bodies every day? I won’t even speculate, I’d argue that’s exactly the problem.

  The Japanese diet is vastly different than the American diet. I’d argue that is the reason for the difference in these numbers, not quality of care.
• 
  Jeff wrote on 6 May, 2009, 12:45

  > There not my statistics. They are the statistics of organizations like the WHO and experts in the field who have spent years studying the subject.

  Yes, but you are not objectively interpreting them. You already had the conclusion that quality of health care and the fact that some Americans don’t have access to it as our problem. You read the statistics and used them to support your belief, however the statistics don’t give or imply a reason.

  You are purely speculating. The numbers don’t lie, but they also don’t explain *why*. If you are going to persuade me, you will need to prove to me that poor quality health care or lack of access to health care is the *reason* for our poor showing in the CIA Factbook. Otherwise, you’re just guessing.

  Here’s some of my speculation:

  Who do you think will be healthier? The poor person that eats a healthy diet of mostly natural food, low in fat, and adequate (not excessive) amounts of protein….or the person that eats fast food because it is cheap, has a diet high in sodium, fat, and excessive amounts of protein and red meat?

  Then you say that the poor person with the bad diet is sick because they don’t have health care? No, they are sick because they weren’t using their brain and ate crap food. Don’t tell me you can’t eat healthy with little money because it’s a lie. You just have to resist the temptation to buy $1 double cheeseburgers every day.
• 
  Jeff wrote on 6 May, 2009, 13:04

  > Share your ideas on practical, meaningful healthcare reform

  Alright, so in the spirit of not just being a complainer that offers no alternatives, here I go.

  Problem:
  (1) All Americans don’t have access to health care.
  (2) I don’t want to pay for health care for people that don’t take care of themselves
  (3) I especially don’t want to pay for working age adults (18-65) that don’t contribute financially to the health care system.

  Jeff’s Solution:
  =================
  (1)
  Create tax incentives for private insurance providers to offer lower-cost health insurance to those that can prove they do not have access to low cost healthcare elsewhere (e.g. through a spouse’s job or their own job)

  However, the insurance provider will *not* be required to give anyone health care. Why? Because they’ve got a lot of algorithms for determining who is a risky bet and who isn’t. We don’t want the government telling private industry what to do. They did that with Fannie and Freddie and look what happened. Common sense went out the window.

  This will likely take care of health care for young adults, and the rather healthy American’s without easy access to Health Care.

  (2)
  For the remainder of American’s that are unable to obtain health care from #1 (which means they have pre-existing conditions, poor genetics, are older Americans, or simply don’t take very good care of themselves), we would offer them government-subsidized health care.

  However, I see this similar to offering unemployment checks. You need to demonstrate that you are working to keep yourself in good health and following your doctors instructions.

  If after periodic intervals (say every 6 months) a physician determines that you simply are not taking care of yourself and following doctor’s instruction, you get dropped until you can demonstrate that you are committed to doing your part to improve your health. No more free cheese for you and it’s back to the free market for your health care.

  I’d allow them back on the government system after they again demonstrated 3 to 6-months worth of effort towards improving their health.

  Alright, that’s my plan. Feel free to point out the flaws….I’m sure they are there, but I like this a whole lot better than *guaranteed* health care. There is no incentive to stay healthy if you are just gonna take care of me cradle to grave.
• 
  steve right wrote on 6 May, 2009, 13:32

  Jeff, the statistics are there to prove a point: the system is broken and doesn’t work for everyone (or for that matter anyone without money). I understand poor folks or people who don’t take care of themselves are at more risk to poor health and early death, but for whatever reason you fail to realize the correlation between poverty and unhealthy lifestyle. Am I giving them a pass? No, but to ignore sociological reasons is to put your head in the sand.

  So, while you think the statistics have no place in the discussion, I would argue that poor health of the populace and the inability to access quality health care are locked arm in arm.

  The problem with our system is it is a sick care system, not a health care system. We do need to spend more money and effort on preventative care, but when decisions are made by insurance companies in order to maximize profits at the expense of individuals, it makes that more difficult. For example, many people avoid regular check ups for fear that any condition that is discovered would end up as a “pre-existing” condition, and thus not be covered.

  The employer-based insurance system in America constitutes a tremendous drain on businesses, as skyrocketing health insurance premiums dig further into profit margins and undermine the ability of businesses to invest in expansion. Health insurance premiums in 2005 grew approximately 2-3 times the rate of overall inflation (3.5%) and wage increases (2.7%).

  General Motors reports that every car it makes is $1,500 more expensive because of health care costs, far more than what Japanese and German automakers have to pay.

  Even if one were to assume that universal health care would entail a large outlay of money with no economic return, the amount of money it costs to cover all is literally a drop in the bucket of the U.S. economy. In the end, universal health care is a matter of budgetary priorities, and therefore of moral priorities. As the world-famous Princeton health economist Uwe Reinhardt put it, “The issue of universal coverage is not a matter of economics. Little more than 1% of GDP assigned to health could cover all. It is a matter of soul.”
• 
  Timmy wrote on 6 May, 2009, 13:38

  ARRRGH!!! I had a post all written out and this site lost it! I will try again, I believe a big problem started with tying insuarance to employment. 30-40 years ago, people went to work for a company and stayed until retirement. This is no longer the case, between changing careers and companies laying off employees this make no sense. Also if you do lose your job, not only do you have a drastic reduction in income, but you are also on the hook paying for COBRA coverage which isn’t cheap(I’m currently in this situation so I know of what I speak). Just how many people do you know that are working jobs mainly for the benefits? I personally know of several wives that have jobs with better coverage than the husband who either works for a lesser paying job or is self-employed(ther are a lot of farmers in this category). When I first went on my own after H.S., I was able to afford my own health insurance and I was only working part time! by the late 1980’s, the costs had skyrocketed to the point where you couldn’t afford coverage even with a good paying job. Auto, etc. insurance companies have to compete for business, why can’t this be done with health insurance? Why not let the free market work and if they had to compete the prices would become more manageable. For those that can’t afford it, have some kind of either nationwide or statewide pool coverage(similar to Hawk-i) that could be funded either by a modest increase in witholding or some other method. It wouldn’t necessarily need to be oporated by government, SR coverage comes from many carriers “pooling” coverage, why wouldn’t this work here? Think about how many who would like to start a business, etc. but can’t afford to quit their current job because they would lose their coverage. Just my 2 cents….
• 
  Timmy wrote on 6 May, 2009, 13:40

  Sorry about the spelling errors, I need a new keyboard!
• 
  Constitution Daily wrote on 6 May, 2009, 14:13

  All good ideas and need to be thought through. I agree we need to ditch the employer based health insurance. It has become almost expected and isn’t actually paid for by employers – the customers and employees are paying for it.

  And we do need to focus on preventative measures. Sadly, our kids are fatter than ever and will cause this problem to get much worse. Without government mandates, which I would be against, how do we get our population and especially our kids healthier? Parenting is always a start.

Write a Comment

Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!

You must be logged in to post a comment.