What role should governments play in the lives of their citizens? This has been a major theme for us in our early study of European history. We know that Locke believed that government should exist to protect life, liberty and property. Today in the United States we are facing another round of debate about the role of government, similar to how the European elite argued the merits of Absolutism over Constitutionalism. We know that Europe was shaken by the Protestant Reformation and the Scientific Revolution as much as it was by the Puritans and the Fronde. Are we being shaken? How should the government respond to the cry for nationalized health care? Should this be a right of all U.S. citizens? What role do you believe the government should have on this issue?
Please read the following article, use your understanding of European history, and your opinions about the role of government and offer your feedback on the issue at hand.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare30-2009sep30,0,2490541.story
You will never be graded on your opinions. You get full credit for participating twice. This blog is a way for us to know more about each other, to help us learn about what we value and care about, and to build our learning community. Please respond with your own view first – giving ample space to articulate your opinions. In your second post please respond to one of your peers, agreeing or disagreeing or offering what you learned from their response. I look forward to a wonderful dialogue.
You have 7 days to complete your two responses.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that there shouldn't be an issue on whether or not anybody receives health care. I think universal health care is a must but I do understand that there are differences in how people would like to accomplish that. I don't have an issue with government run health care as long as it stays regulated and still gives UNIVERSAL coverage no matter the person or situation.
ReplyDeleteI believe the government should not be responsible for nationalized health care because it should be each individual's duty to set up and plan his/her own health care coverage. This may sound heartless and unreasonable to MANY people, but in a sense it is very realistic. If the US does apply universal health care, then it will surely pose a negative impact on the economy. Rather than simply giving into the demands of the citizens, the government should find other ways to resolve the problem. One example would be find ways to cut the costs of treatments and rule out the unnecessary ones. By doing this, the government would save billions of dollars for not paying for universal health care and would also greatly ease off the costs of treatments for the citizens. This would be similar to the Duke of Sully laying out economic reforms for France. The Duke of Sully did not simply financially aid all the people in need but found ways to better the economy of France by building roads, bridges,etc. Sully was thinking long term rather than short term to help make France to prosper. The government of the US should do the same and have the regulation of the economy as its #1 priority.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the United States is constantly being "shaken", as our system of government hasn't drastically changed since it was founded. I think that every citizen deserves health care, so we should have nationalized health care, which seems to work fairly well in other countries. For this to happen, government involvement is inevitable, but because of our system of checks and balances, I do not believe that the government will become overly controlling.
ReplyDeleteI think it is obvious that a healthcare system in which people can't afford necessary treatments or in which insurers are refusing to pay for necessary treatments is one that needs to be ammended. The first way would be to create a national healthcare system run entirely by the government but that might be incredibly expensive. I believe if the government were to establish small co-ops all over the country which were not mandatory that would increase competition for the other private insurers to up the quality of care provided and lower the cost.
ReplyDeleteI feel that healthcare should be a universal right for Americans. Although it would mean the citizens paying for it with its taxes, people, regardless of their income, would be able to stay in good health, which I feel would overall benefit the greater good of the people. On the other hand, spreading the health care program that wide, may diminish the value or quality of the care. Besides the drawbacks, I think a universal program would more widely benefit us as a whole nation, not just separate classes.
ReplyDeleteWhile I 100% believe that all Americans should have a right to fairly priced healthcare, I have concerns at the same time. I am skeptical that by introducing government healthcare, the standards of health services that we pride ourselves on can stay the same. Currently we have the upper class receiving some of the best healthcare in the world, and at the same time we have the low class that cannot afford access to the private healthcare companies and is therefore getting subpar treatment. If government health care would truly raise the "worst case scenario" bar without lowering the "best case scenario" care, then this would be a revolution benefitting our whole nation.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, one of the governments responsibilities is to make sure that it's nation's citizens have the resources to properly take care of their health. Nationalizing healthcare is long overdue. It will definitely be a drastic change, but it is something that will improve the lives of millions of Americans. One of the major problems for those who lack adequate healthcare is that they can't afford to go to a doctor for a simple checkup. Therefore, the government can intervene by providing a way for these individuals to keep track of their health instead of running to the emergency room once they find out that they have a serious health issue. The government's intervention does not mean that the private sector of healthcare will be dissolved. Rather the government can find a means to provide affordable healthcare insurance for every citizen so that the choice of visiting a private doctor can be more accessible.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Daniel....
ReplyDeleteI believe it's very important - like you said- to think of the long term and economy when going about healthcare reform, which will help the economy in the long term. It will help the economy because when everyone has access to healthcare preventative care will be much more widely practiced and many diseases that are a function of life-long negligence will be lessened. So in that way allowing everyone to have healthcare could in the long-term eliminate "unnecessary" care. But to play devils advocate isn't thinking of the immediate economic price short sighted in itself? Also I argue (though this isn't the most fiscally responsible) should the economy come before meeting the basic needs of people especially in a democracy? In Europe we have seen many examples where the economy was revamped at the expense of the peasants which was acceptable then however when our government now is for the people I believe the basic rights of people should not be ignored just to protect the economy.
I believe that in the United States every citizen deserves health care. I think that it is unfair to cater only to the higher class and have people in the lower class suffer just because they can't afford heath care. It would be a major improvement to the country and obviously it works because we see it as a successful plan in other countries. When we study europe now we see that countries that favored the nobles and treated the lower class unequally were not as successful as a county as the ones that gave equal opportunities to all social classes like England.
ReplyDeleteI believe that government (legislative and executive branch) need to get their act together and figure out how to fix this problem. They need to forget about party obligations and remember their obligations to the american people. Instead of worry about how much money private companies will make, they need to forget about angry lobbyists. They should talk to real doctors and ask them what they need to treat their patients better. In 17th century Europe there wasn't healthcare, nobles used money to buy the services of doctors when they were sick, and peasants were completely on their own. We as Americans should recognize that we've evolved passed that and need to put our differences aside to fix this problem; we should have all or at least the vast majority of americans on a decent health care plan.
ReplyDeleteClearly this is an extremely complex issue. I am not so educated on the topic of healthcare, so I hadn't taken into consideration how the reforms would effect our economy. Some said that it would hurt our economy because of all the money going towards insurance instead of government projects, and others said that it would help our economy because it would eliminate preventable,costly care. Did I get that right Becca and Daniel?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Rebecca H...
ReplyDeleteTo clear things up I am not saying health care is an absolutely ridiculous idea but rather not the key of the problem. Basically the problem is lower class cannot afford hospital treatments and are calling out to the government to help fund for their treatments. The two main reasons why the lower class is not able to pay for their health care are because of the costly hospital fees, and the economy. The hospital fees of the United States are known to be very expensive. There are many unnecessary treatments and the cost for each treatment is unreasonable. The reason why we can see health care works in other countries such as England is because of its efficiency. Ours... not so efficient... Now the point of economy is that the economy basically created the extremes of the problems of health care. Health care was not a MAJOR CRISIS issue as it is now. Health care became such a huge topic because of the recession. The recession caused people to lose jobs which caused people to lose $ which caused them to not be able to afford many essentials one of which, health care. So by saying the economy/recession caused the problems of health care, we can't necessarily say having health care would improve the economy.
I feel many responses coming my way... But I'm done :D
I believe everyone should have health care but I don’t believe it should be distributed by the government. If we give people a cheap universal health care system we are taking away most of the incentive to become a Dr... Money. The educational requirements to become a Dr. exceed almost every other profession. If someone were to spend the time to educate themselves to the amount needed to become a Dr. than I respect that and am willing to pay them money, but if the people who become doctors have no reward for their work then the number of doctors would decrease significantly. And if we were giving health care to everyone than we would need more doctors. If you look in other countries who do provide universal health care like France and England, the people who need help almost always have to settle for private practice because the standards for an inexpensive universal system are so low, and yes it has helped people but it has made even more people struggle with insufficient care. I believe the government does have a right to step in on important issues like health care but I do not believe giving health care universally is a wise decision.
ReplyDeleteI think that all American citizens should have access to affordable health care. I don't think people in lower classes should suffer just because they cannot afford health care. As we saw in 17th century Europe, the nations that gave more power to the nobles and barely any power to peasants were not as successful compared to nations which gave nobles and peasants equal rights(think England). I liked Senator Kent Conrad's alternative idea in the article, which was to create nonprofit state-level cooperatives where consumers could come together to buy insurance. Even though I believe that health insurance for everyone is important, it would be a bad idea if the government found a solution for this problem that would hurt our country's economic situation even more.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that every American citizen deserves health care. The problem government has over “public option” is selfish. They want the power to control people. If the government chooses at plan that would benefit everyone, then I would be satisfied. Only, everyone has their own opinion and the issue would never be solved if people who don’t agree start to cause a commotion. So, government having control is not a smart idea because it would cause more problems, just like the peasant revolts did. The idea of having “public option”, in my opinion, is the best idea people have come up with so far. This would reduce some of the fights for power if everyone has a say in their own health care plan. Even though private companies will lose costumers and money, the people who can’t afford those plans will be able to pick a plan that best suits them. As long as everyone has access to some form of health care, then our nation will start to progress in the right direction of caring about the rights of the people.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Shana…
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your argument. Even though the improving the health care crisis would help Americans, it will take some time for everything to work out. Making a plan that benefits the people who don’t have the money would decrease the amount of people rushing to the emergency room. If they have a plan that helps them to get a checkup, then it would save a lot of people’s life because by the time that they find out that they have a serious medical problem it might be too late. So, yes government needs to figure out a way to have a health care plan affordable for everyone.
In response to Reba....
ReplyDeleteI believe with your judgement that it would be difficult to find a plan that would satisfy everyone, and that a public option is a good idea. While i personally feel that a universal plan would be challenging but is what is needed, I do agree that the public should have control over the situation rather than leaving it only up to the government.
In response to Andrew...
ReplyDeleteI agree that there would be less incentive for the people that are only interested in money to become doctors. I do believe; however, that health care for everyone, even if some of it may not be the best quality, is better than health care for only the upper classes. The US is a much larger nation than England and France, and we could try to set our healthcare standards higher than those countries. Although it may seem unfair for the upper classes to get better healthcare than lower classes, at least the poorer classes would have access to healthcare, and hopefully the US can find a way to eventually give high-quality care to everyone.
in response to reba...
ReplyDeletei agree with you completely about the fact that this is such a huge thing for the government to take on and that if the government were to assign the right health care plan it would work very well. I mean England has it now and it seems to work somewhat. And your public option idea about it being the best is a good point because therefor no one feels left out or unequal.
I think that Healthcare is a universal right and the government should have a hand in it. I think the public option is the best, because with the higher prices of private insurance companies, many of those uninsured by their work, cannot afford private health insurance even with their subsidies. The public option would allow for cheaper health insurance that the uninsured public could purchase with their subsidies/own funds. I feel it would allow for the government to provide healthcare that is cheaper and therefore more accessible. I think government should play a large role in facilitating the providing of health insurance to the uninsured. Even though the public option may not benefit private health insurance companies, it would benefit the masses overall and would be worth it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that healthcare is obviously a huge problem in the U.S, and that everyone seems to be entitled to it, yet I think the government has to think of different approaches to it. In our country, and in the world, healthcare is a neccessity to most, but the government needs to have an effective plan before they can make change. Futhermore, I think this plan has to be consistent with every person, and shouldn't come at the cost of others.
ReplyDeletein response to Mark...
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that the government needs to figure this out because their first priority should be the people and even though I personally think the public option is the best idea at the moment, I don't feel I know enough about the issue to say that is the only option that will work in the end. The one think I do know is that all Americans should have health insurance accessible to them. America should avoid repeating the past and the government should not leave the less fortunate without health insurance/ health care like in 17th c. Europe.
in response to danielles response to me
ReplyDeleteMany people who are considered lower class work good jobs that allow medicare benefits so its not just the upper class thats getting the current health care
in response to Tess...
ReplyDeleteYour opinions are completely logical, and I agree with them, yet there is always a question posed: Who is going to pay for the national health care? I too believe that having health care provided for every citizen is important and ideal, but it will be a huge change for our country as a whole. Your comment about catering to the rich is a sound observation, because the poor should be able to benefit from health care also.
in response to Reba...
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with you that our government needs to choose a plan that would benefit everyone. As soon as the U.S government starts to have affordable health care for all citizens, then our country will be heading on the right track to solving the rest of our big problems. Other countries in the world(including England) have health care available to all social classes, and it seems to work for them. Mabye if we tried a similar method of creating healthcare for everybody, we would have more success as a country.
I think that a government should ideally support its people, and that that is the purpose of a government. I think that the US should provide health care support for all of it's citizens, like the rest of the practically every industrial nation. The US health care system as it stands benefits only private companies, who make massive amounts of money from health care. This system does not even provide for most citizens, as in the event that something bad occurs, many people will still have to pay approximately 30% of the bill, which amounts to tens (sometimes even hundreds) of thousand sof dollars. It is possible to buy more expensive insurance, but the price of this is too high for an extremely large majority of the US to afford. The current health care system is only possible for the rich, and everyone else suffers from it. Some systems end up with people being left on the street, as the insurance will take all of your possessions away to pay for the bill, including your house. An unfortunate, and unforeseen incident could ruin a person's life completely. The system is quite obviously for making money, as age increases the price by large factors. In a more sensible system, the elderly (who have already fulfilled their duty to society) should be provided for by the government. Instead, the price of their health care increases, simply because he risk increases. In other words, health care is not made to benefit humanity, but to make money for a very small minority of the rich. Health care, like education is a basic right for all of humanity, especially so in modern times. The alternative to health care is quite simply death, therefore it should be made available to all.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Andrew...
ReplyDeleteI understand, and agree to a point that Doctors should be making more money, because of the skill and education that is required of them. However i don't think that it is acceptable that a government can allow smaller minorities of people (like private health care companies) to benefit at the huge expense of others. Accidents and sickness are not foreseeable, and in the event that something happens to someone who can only barely provide for themself, or their family, their entire life will be ruined by this. This does periodically occur, and many people suffer form it, which in return for their suffering, some doctors get excessive amounts of cash for it. Skill and difficulty does not necessarily mean a larger payroll, and doctors pay would not be cut by universal health care. Private companies make excessive amounts of cash from this, many times taking all of a person's basic personal belongings, including their house, away from them. The US standard for health care also has a lot of room for improvement, and instating universal health care can only only it to go upwards. Although a universal health care will take away some of the excessive and unnecessary cash from companies, the hundreds of thousands of people who would benefit, and be allowed to live a decent life definitely outweighs this. The needs of the majority of people greatly outweighs that of a rich minority.
In response to some ideas mentioned above....
ReplyDeleteWhether it is government controlled health care or publicly controlled health care, everyone will have opinions and disagree. The government needs to step in and help those who cannot help themselves and provide them with healthcare. (reba)
I dont know exactly how the health care standard effects the economy but clearly both are in a state of trouble right now. Yes, we're having trouble with this issue right now, butother countries have trouble too. Maybe not in the same ways, and clearly we do not hear about it as much as our health care problems, but universal health care/ other forms from other countries have their own pros and cons. Not that one is better than the other, they are different, and which one is used should depend on the needs of country (like a constitutional monarchy helped the needs of English parliment, but a absolute monarchy acquiesced to the needs of French rulers). (Daniel)
Furthermore, if someone has spent 4 years of undergrad, gone to med school, done their internships, residencies, whatever other training they need to do then they deserved to get paid for their services. Performing unnecessary tests though just for the sake of billing and becoming "Dr. Money" though is not ok. Doctors need to be able to distinguish between the necessary tests and the unnecessary ones even if their paycheck is reduced. (Andrew)
In response to Daniel and others...
ReplyDeleteI understand that reforms for unviersal health care would be very expensive and would maybe hurt the economy but on the other hand think of how it could HELP the economy. With universal coverage less people will be spending time away from work (which is company production and personal revenue) because they will be receiving better health care. This plan will help more people, especially lower class, get healthier faster and more efficiently. If less people are missing less work it simply boosts the economy. Also with a government established health care companies wouldn't have to provide health care themselves which would also save them more money.
$827 BILLION DOLLARS!! The US congress just passed a healthcare bill allotting that much money and it will only BEGIN to insure 20 million US citizens and illegal immigrants. So yes, I think that all Americans should have health care, but no, the United States government should not be involved. We are trillions of dollars in debt, our economy is on the brink of collapse, education standards are plummeting, unemployment is soaring, and our troops are spread far to thin fighting in multiple wars and stationed around the world. This is a huge problem and adding another burden to our government is just what could push us over the edge. If anything, NOW is not the time. So here is what is wrong with universal healthcare. First, there can be no "government corporation" in industry. What I mean by this is that the government can't control a portion of industry. Just like it would be foolish for the government to own a chain of grocery stores, controlling a portion of a billion dollar industry is ridiculous. We are a capitalist society and we are for a reason. Capitalism best promotes industry, best promotes growth, and best promotes a society in which individual GDPs are high. When the government controls a portion of industry they have an unfair say in how that industry works. When people take health care they don't realize what happens on the end of the doctors. Right now Medicare and Medicaid do not fully pay bills. In fact they pay less one fourth the cost of the service provided and the tools used in most cases. Which means the more people use government healthcare, the more doctors will start not accepting government health. This gives the government two choices. Either they can force doctors to take government insurance which will put hundreds and hundreds of doctors, hospitals, and other health professionals out of business. This would ruin the billion dollar medical industry inflating prices sky high, and it would ruin the billion dollar health insurance industry because there would be few doctors to cater to thus, you know people, inflating prices sky high. Or the other option for the government is that people will just go back to being uninsured or using other insurance. This means that the government will be wasting money and so they will have to make it compulsory to use government insurance. This will further destroy the entire health insurance industry and cause the same other problems that I have highlighted in the first reason. So, from a capitalistic standpoint, it would be ridiculous to have universal health care.
ReplyDeleteThe second reason, which I have already somewhat highlighted, is on the end of the doctors. Universal health care A) scares of potential doctors and B) causes current doctors to switch professions. Universal health care means less money for doctors. Even Democrats admit this and some even disagree with universal health care for that very reason; they have voted against it because it will harm the constituents of their states. Universal health care does not pay even close to enough to keep doctors in their jobs. People go through over twenty years of college, medical school, internships, and residency because being a doctor has a lot of benefits including a GOOD SALARY. Anesthesiologists can make up to $400,000 annually. Don't tell me that all doctors want to help people because the money is a huge factor. They are helping others and helping themselves. It sounds heartless but money is important in our society. And some may say that doctors will still make a reasonable salary they just won't be Dr. Money but this isn't true. It takes a lot to be a doctor and they expect a lot in return. Less doctors has another implication. The government will make it easier to become a doctor, which means that the quality of health care in the US will go down. Bad health care means more sick people, means more dead people, means more frivolous lawsuits. Frivolous lawsuits scare prospective doctors which feeds the entire problem. They also cause us to think less of great doctors who make one or two mistakes. But, let move on to a better solution. How about Education. Did you know that 27% of American public high school students drop out every year and this statistic is steadily rising. $819 billion dollars can help give Americans a better education. This leads to better jobs, more collegiate students, and yes its true, more people with healthcare. Of the people who drop out almost all of them go without health care for a large portion of their life. We need a better education and so we need to allot more money to education NOT HEALTHCARE!!!!!
ReplyDeleteMost of my comments also respond to what other people said; however, in response to anyone who thinks that there is not alternative universal health care, there is. When our economy gets back on track (we do this by using the money as stimulus and for education instead of health care) and even now, many jobs come with benefits. The truth is, and even I admit, the government might have to have some regulation on corporations, small companies, and small businesses giving benefits to their employes. Even a mere extra $1000 dollars in flex benefits helps people a lot. Yet, the answer is still NOT UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDaniel says that the government should not be responsible for nationalizing healthcare and they should not give in to every demand that citizens have. However, our government is a democracy which means that it gets its voice from the citizens. This is followed by the fact that most citizens need help with paying for healthcare; therefore, it is the government's responsibility to find a way to help these citizens. If the government stops listening to the requests of the majority of citizens, then it will be functioning as an Oligarchy instead of a democracy.
ReplyDeleteI know this is late, but i believe that the government should have a public option for health care. The lower classes in our nation (and yes i do mean classes) will be able to afford a more efficient and simple plan. By not having to deal with health insurance companies and their sometimes outrageous expenses and policies, those lower classes will have more money and time in their hands to be doing their jobs and spending more money, which is needed by our economy at the moment. This plan will serve useful to all those who cant afford regular care, and are suffering because of it. And who cares if we have to raise the taxes? At least its not going towards more guns and ammo...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ishan completely. The only way for an affordable health plan for the poor is to create this universal plan. The money is not an issue. Look at all of the people in our country and even our own society who flaunt their money like it is a toy. Why not put it to a good cause instead of flying in private jets...
ReplyDelete