I don't have a particular stance on the subject because it is still pretty vague to me. I think I am against the idea of universal healthcare, especially after reading that it may diminish and lower the quality of our health services. However I am in a argumentation class and will need to argue otherwise...I need to make a persuasive speech... especially since it seems majority is against as well. Got any ideas?
I was thinking I can talk about there being a domino affect? Perhaps saying... if we did not have universal health care our society would eventually deteriorate? or I can take a moral aspect to it and talk about how we all have a right to good health? lol I need help! Thanks for all those that felt the need to tell me the negative sides to UHC, however I am aware of many points that are already stated from my previous research. This is why I stated this question... bc I am looking for suggestions and view points that I could use for a Pro-UHC speech. FACT - the USA spends more money on health care per person than any other country in the world.
FACT - Child mortality in the US, due to its health system is one of the highest in the developed world
FACT - the poor do not get proper treatment for on going medical conditions in the USA compared to other western countries.
Click the links. Have a read.
Kids die in the USA that would have had a better chance of life if they were born in a Western European country with universal healthcare.
Those same problems with the health system means that people develop conditions that would have had a greater chance of being prevented abroad, which means that the workforce abroad is healthier. And as noted above, a healthy workforce is a lot more productive than an unhealthy one. There is simply no way to justify Government controlling Health Care! The have destroyed the Social Security System, because they have stolen the money we have paid in over the last 45 years.
They are now destroying the Medicare System by providing Services, paid for by the American Taxpayers, but paid out to Illegals, and others who contributed NOTHING TO THE SYSTEM.
They have ruined the U.S. Postal Service, Amtrak, and every out BUSINESS THAT THEY CONTROLLED.
Just look at the Airline Mess the FAA has allowed to Happen.
What about Air Traffic Control Problems.
I could go on, but I believe that sensible people get the idea! The benefits of universal health care are those with chronic illness, or debilitating diseases who previously could not get proper treatment now can, and are more likely too. Decreasing the numbers of people drawing disability benefits. Likewise, under a universal system a person is more likely to obtain treatment sooner as well as seek preventative therapies. Again reducing the number of long term disability cases, as well as reducing the number of sick days taken from the work place.
A healthy society is a productive society. Because sick people are expensive and the sicker they are when they first seek medical attention the more expensive their treatment will eventually become
Like 3000 mile oil changes it is far cheaper in the long run if people can see an MD early on in the game and get treated and hopefully cured.
Uninsured Americans that use public hospital ER's as their primary care venue are getting medical care in the most expensive way imaginable
A medically healthy society is a productive society and that is anything but detrimental
One thing however that really needs to addressed in all of this is tort reform: We really need to put the ambulance chasers [the John Edwards types ] out of work because the threat of being sued for malpractice forces a lot of MDs to use what's called the shotgun approach and order many unnecessary and expensive tests just to cover their azzes from some lawyer looking to make a buck for himself and his client. From a provider standpoint: Health Services are like military, fire, police, public works, highways, or whatever else. If our government started employing doctors and dentists to help kids who don't have a choice if their parents have insurance or not, it would be good. Kids tend to be healthier than adults and have less medical issues than old people, so a program for the young ones is quite feasible.
However, the provider is not the most expensive part of medicine. The most expensive part is research and development. Privatization means better R&D. Science takes money, period.
America also relies heavily on non-U.S. labor for it's strong agricultural backbone. Therefore, we have a relatively lax border policy. Scandanavian countries that have successful socialized medicine repell their borders with leathal force and have almost 0% immigration. On the other hand, America was founded by immigrants.
We can't just etch "come get your free health care here" in Lady Liberty and we can't just start shooting people who are a viable part of our agricultural backbone.
For now, I don't see how America could support social medicine.
______________________________________...
More Preventative Medice and Education are Desperately Needed!
______________________________________...
Here are some UHC Pros for your research:
Universal database with your medical records that can be accessed anywhere weather you are conscious or not.
Medical treatment at the onset of a condition for someone who can get treatment are much more effective and less expensive then letting it linger on until it has to be treated.
Universal healthcare protects children that can't choose if their parents buy medical insurance or not.
There is not an effective competition structure to purchase medical care. With other major purchases like homes and cars you have a choice and you can negotiate price - Insurance companies have created somewhat of an antitrust by restricting which doctors you see.
______________________________________...
I still haven't talked myself in to it. Realistically UHC won't work, but the info above should help you with your project. As in most situations, it is true that you get what you pay for, but think of this. In a society where not all can pay for health care, wouldn't it be better for all to have equal health care?No matter what your social class is? Today, in America, we've strayed from the view that we began with and that rests in the very name of our country...UNITY. We went from a "one for all and all for one" motto, to an "every man for himself" motto. We should embrace one another and make that sacrifice so that our brothers and sisters can have health care. Universal Health Care would inure that every man, woman, child, or senior citizen be granted proper medical attention. Nobody would be pushed away because their insurance didn't cover it or they couldn't fork out the doctor bill. Nobody should have to put a price on their body. Please, watch "Sicko" by Michael Moore. This coming from someone not very fond of the man. Frankly, there is NO good reason for UHC.
Canadian doc on it:
"...Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system鈥檚 problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. 鈥淭his is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,鈥?he fumed to the New York Times, 鈥渁nd in which humans can wait two to three years.鈥?br>
And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day鈥檚 clinic, for instance, handles workers鈥?compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital鈥檚 emergency room.
This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain鈥檚 government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party鈥攚hich originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as 鈥淎mericanization鈥濃€攏ow openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: 鈥淭he big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.鈥?Last year, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain鈥檚 nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at least one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.
Sweden鈥檚 government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm鈥檚 primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city鈥檚 largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control). It鈥檚 important to note that change in these countries is slow and gradual鈥攎arket reforms remain controversial. But if the United States was once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health care as essential, it is so no longer."
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_ca...
Hillarycare exists in Taxachusetts courtesy of Romney. For a mere 6.5 million folks in about 2 years, look how prices jacked UP:
"Massachusetts announced that spending on its health care plan would increase by $400 million in 2008, a cost expected to be borne largely by taxpayers."
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/200...
Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM
Article explains how CA could not even get it off the ground.
Medicare is touted by ignorant as great idea:
In the US, Medicare is going bankrupt. In 1998, Medicare premiums were $43.80 and in 2008 will be $96.40--up 120%. "Medigap" insurance is common because of the 20% co-pay required for service. Medicare HMOs are common because they reduce that burden without an extra charge in many cases. HOWEVER, many procedures which used to have no or a low co-pay NOW cost the full 20% for the HMO Medicare patient. ALSO the prescription coverage they tended to offer has been REDUCED in many cases to conform to the insane "donut hole" coverage of the feds. Doctors are leaving Medicare because of the low and slow pay AND because the crazy government wants to "balance" their Ponzi scheme on the backs of doctors.
"That dark cloud lurking over the shoulder of every Massachusetts physician is Medicare. If Congress does not act, doctors' payments from Medicare will be cut by about 5 percent annually, beginning next year through 2012, creating a financial hailstorm that would wreak havoc with already strained practices.
Cumulatively, the proposed cuts represent a 31 percent reduction in Medicare reimbursement. If the cuts are adjusted for practice-cost inflation, the American Medical Association says Medicare payment rates to physicians in 2013 would be less than half of what they were in 1991."
http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?S...
I could go on. The best thing I can do is explain that UHC is stupid BUT that it is NOT the only way to try to get affordable, quality health care out there. There is a plan that would work, but it's absolutely NOT UHC--it's free market based:
http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.htm...
Read the PDF, not the blurb, for the bulk of the plan. Book is searchable on Amazon.com
Cassandra Nathan's Save America, Save the World a healthy country is a productive country Look at the reasons why certain countries, instituted universal health care in the first place. I think you will find many arguments there... In my opinion, I think it is a good thing. Universal health care helps to establish a certain standard of societal health, which in turn, helps to stabilize our workforce/society. If you lose your insurance, you'll feel differently when you or a loved one gets sick. Well, here's one tack you can take: We don't treat the military, police services, fire services, or our water supply as for-profit enterprises that are only available to those who can afford it. So why is health care any different? |
