In my twenty five years as a healthcare provider, I have been a witness to everything that is both good and bad about our present system. The crux of the matter is the uneven distribution of quality care. I have therefore, come to the conclusion that it is a system in desperate need of reform. My proposal is based on the following:
1. Every citizen has the right of equal access to the highest quality healthcare, regardless of financial status;
2. Many people are needlessly suffering due to delays in care caused by a lack of healthcare coverage for even a brief length of time;
4. The poor generally receive substandard care and have fewer treatment options available to them;
5. Elected representatives of the people have proven to be unable or unwilling to create a just and equitable medical care delivery system that includes all citizens.
The present system is based on the accumulation, by a relative few, of enormous wealth garnered through the suffering of others. Profit takes precedence in every encounter a patient has in the delivery of medical care, and guides every decision from presentation, to diagnosis and treatment. This has led to the devaluation of human beings into exploitable commodities, with no value other than what they can contribute to someone else’s financial bottom line.
We need health care reform as a very high priority. Neither the conservative approach of treating the industry as a "market" nor the liberal approach of having the federal government run the enitre system are very good.
We need innovative thinking here. One approach is to start with unions, professional societies, and state & local governments act as super-groups in buying and distributing health benefits. Then letting people decide which super-group to join at some deadline for a nominal "membership" fee (maybe $100).
Get health care away from employmers without shifting the whole thing to Washington. Okay we can have a small 100 person staff regulate the process. Use a current department of the executive branch dont create a new department.
Universal health care but not federal health care!
I agree that health care is a vital issue. Every American should be covered. The link below will show one system I believe would work well here in America. I spoke to three doctors and they all agree this is a good system. It also points out the problem with drug companies who make billions on the backs of taxpayers.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.html#socialized
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
A new topic on health care has been created due to interest. Post moved.
-A
Thank you. Could you put the one about republicans in the same place. I will mark that one as well.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
I spent 24+ years working for for State government in multiple agencies after spending 20 years in priviate industry. The ideas for National Health Care scare the heck out of me! Federal, State, and local governments rarely do anything right, are not cost effective, and are slightly slower than slugs, if they move at all! I am now dealing with the Federal governments Medicare; great idea, disasterous implementation and operations.
Yes, I strongly want to provide health care coverage to those "legal" American that need it! However, good healthcare is very expensive for the masses. I think we can never afford to achieve this through the taxpayers! Second, if the governments gets involved, it will just be another governmental disaster. I do not know of good solutions, other than to keep government on the sidelines, perhaps overseeing it on a very high-level.
And what do we do with those who refuse to work and those who work and can afford health insurance, but refuse to pay for it, expecting the taxpayers to take care of them? I have very personal experience in this are with my cousin! I love him, but hate his actions and attitude. I am angry that he expects me (the taxpayer) to take care of him when he is able to do it himself, but chooses not to!
IMHO!
Unions are not very big in this country if you compare numbers who belong to unions and numbers of actual population.
Partisan Paralysis .. click on today's posting on ..
www.america-21stcentury.com It's already been read by key figures in news and politcs in the U.S. and four Foreign Counties in the past 2 hours ..
popo
I have read the post. It would be helpful if you start the conversation is one of the forums. I think it should be in government reform but would go to any forum you think is appropriate.
In addition to addressing the partisanship we will still need a platform, that is what will win an election. We need to address the issues that are close to peoples hearts. I don't disagree with you popo, we just to do more then that. Please, start a discussion. Express your views and let others reply with their views.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
government is for the people and therefore its main focus needs to be on the welfare of the people. Nothing is better for the people than their health.
that means the health should be the number one concern of the government as a service for the people. corporations and privitization in healthcare result in unneccessary profits and poor care for those in lower classes as well as the middle class. Healthcare needs to be universal, provided by the government, far, and of the best quality that medicine can provide. Anything less of the government is practically criminal and not in the interest of the majority of americans
The problem is paying for healthcare since absolutely plenty of it is out there in this country. The government and the citizen need a finance plan and a finance plan only that guarantees that every person injured or ill including chronic conditions get care and medications where ever they are and without restriction or onsite copayment. That does not make it free, it just makes cost not a precondition of treatment when treatment is needed. All VOLUNTARY medical and health services including birth, private nursing, routine physicals, surguries, dentistry,and cosmetics should remain with privately financed (commercial insurance) arrangements.
Politically we need to design that finance plan. I think as a combination of taxes and tax free savings accounts. I promise you you do not want to pay the amount of tax it would take to have government foot the whole bill. Don't forget that government agencies are not famous for keeping their administrative cost down.
But we can certainly make extremely better than it is today.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
So loganfirth where do you recommend we get this VERY LARGE amount of money needed to provide this? Does it just magically appear or fall from the sky? Wake up! As my graduate Economic professor stated: "There ain't no free lunch!" That is, what you get you have to take away from someone else! And I am not going to easily give up "that much" of my hard earned earnings for this!
50% of our taxes go to the military. We should just cut the overinflated military budget and use the money for universal health care.
And yes socialized health care IS a good idea.
Government means "for the people of the people" we pool all our money together into something called "taxes" and we use that for the benefit of the people.
We need to take France and Canada's approach on health care and socialize it
it works great and there are methods of having socialized health care thats still competitive so we get great service by the doctors.
litchlord: hyperbole such as your statement above that “50% of our taxes go to the military”, is false and ignorant. U08 is about a bipartisan approach to a presidency that will govern from the middle.
If you don’t like this country to spend money on national defense, than just say so. A short and cogent explanation as to why would be welcome.
The redacted amount this country spends on national defense is about 423 billon per year from FY2005. That is about 18% of that year’s budget.
In contrast to national defense here are the top two recipients of the federal budget pie. The Department of Health and Human Service’s budget is 542 billon per year (Health and Medicare combined) and the Social the Security Administration’s budget is 516 billon per year for FY2005 respectively (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process). Combined, the sum is about 45% of that year’s budget.
You can Google any federal department’s budget and get it in pdf. form.
http://www.ssa.gov/budget/2008bud.pdf
http://www.hhs.gov/budget/08budget/2008BudgetInBrief.pdf
Some people just dream up or are brain-washed to believe things that bear no relationship to the real facts. And then others have an agenda and make up "facts", repeating them long enough and loud enough resulting in many people believing them. Remember the figure used for homeless for so long, UNTIL it was factully proven to be much lower? I check out EVERYTHING people state as facts and find that very often they are wrong, often very wrong!
HAND! :-)
This site is so far left, it saddens me to think a good idea of a moderate ticket is being co-opted by the far left.
jtfraz; your sentiments are heard. However I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t expand on your thoughts.
At this thread the far-left is very out spoken. If you move over to a thread that discusses “Civil Liberties”, I think you will find it dominated by the far-right.
I think you will find that the far-right and far-left are well represented here in the “ShoutBox”. As always, those that hold ideas closer to a belief system rather than just business-as-usual tend to be more vocal. The good thing is, despite the silence of the middle we are listening.
It sure would be good if both the left & right coasts could discuss (debate if you prefer) in a civil, intellectual, and factual way all major / key issues that affect this country!
Got any ideas how to help this happen?
I hear you vamt!! One of the best sites for viable facts esp on budget, entitlements, and healtcare are the following:
http://www.facingup.org
and http://www.concordcoalition.org
They give the straight undaulterated non partisan facts without the fringe spin. Unity needs to get upfront on their site a list of links/descriptions to these types of great nonpartisan groups/sites that inform the debate and undergird an informed and effective New American Agenda.
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
Thanks John - great sites!
If you believe this, then do as I do and post challenges to what people post. This is the only way we Might get Balanced and Facatual information from which we can make decisions.
IMHO!
It seems to me, everyone agrees that all Americans have the right to equal access to quality healthcare. The main point of contention seems to be financial. Finding ways to contain costs in a humane and just manner should be the first priority! Example: studies that I and others have conducted have shown that an average of $14,000 in unnecessary costs are added to each patient per hospital stay. “Unnecessary” being defined as contributing nothing to patient outcome.
There are too many reasons these costs are incurred to list here, just suffice it to say it includes everything from Education to Litigation. By getting control of waste, fraud, and outright corruption in the present system, we could be well on our way to affordable medical services in this country.
Containing unnecessary costs (on health care)seems reasonable on the road to "universal health care". That would imply stripping many administrative, sales, accounting, marketing....etc jobs out of the process. I would guess that scares a lot of people whose jobs, careers are in those fields. Do we ask them to sacrifice their families well-being ? Somehow we need to provide these potentially displaced workers reasonable reliable alternatives.
We live in a Rebublic or democracy, if you prefer to use, not a socialist nation. It is the best working system this world has been able to develop and implement - not perfect, but none will be. Look at history. Socialism has never, and I think will never, work! Why? I am not an intellectual on this, but have some good old common sense. If socialism is so great, why has it failed everwhere it has been tried? And in socialism there is no incentive to work. If this was a socialistic country, I'd bet we'd still be riding horses and the telephone, much less the Internet and this discussion site would not even exist! IMHO! :-)
I absolutely agree with this post. Inefficiency and corruption of the system make it financially unfeasible for those who work hard to care for their families and afford medical care. Everyone knows that aspirin don't cost $100 a tablet! I don't think the solution comes from endorsing bad practices by saying a government program will pay for them. We need to reform the practices and then create a system that assists those in need.
It is important that all Americans have access to medical care but we should be careful not to inhibit the medical community from focusing on research and development of new and better treatments.
Where in our Constitution and Bill of Rights does it state that this right to equal quality healthcare exists and is the responsibility of government, that is us taxpayers? I looked but could not find it! Please post the quote from these two governing documents so I can become better informed! And if you cannot, shame on you! :-)
And by-the-way, I do not agree with you. And I know a few others who do not agree with you. So how can you make such an outlandish "statement of fact" that "everyone agrees"? If you had said virtually everyone "wishes" we could provide universal, quality healthcare to all "American citizens", then I and others can easily agree with you.
HAND!
Beyond the points already made against nationalizing healthcare, before makes a decision one way or another. One should get beyond the feel good demands and take a realistic look at other countries which have done the same. Of course there are our neighbors to the north, Canada. But don’t stop there, look to the east, across the pond call the Atlantic Ocean. There are a number of countries with different forms of nationalized healthcare. Look at them in detail, it isn’t difficult.
Some of the problems found in nationalized healthcare, in no specific order are:
Shortages of doctors and nurses.
Waiting time frames can be long, depending on the form of nationalized healthcare.
Large reductions in research and development of cures, medical techniques and technology.
Huge government outlays, which most governments are finding difficult to meet, no matter which reform technique used.
Shortage of specialized facilities.
Some other areas not mentioned, which should also be considered:
Of the medical and pharmaceutical professionals, do we really think the government will pay their current salaries if they take over? This is especially true for professionals specializing in specific fields. When these individuals decide they aren’t ready for salary cuts, and refuse to work in this country and/or for the government, and leave, what is the minimum number of these specialist we will require? Who will make this determination?
Of the publicly traded pharmaceuticals and other health related corporations, how will nationalization of these industries affect Middle Americans who have investments, such as 401Ks? Will these individuals just loose out on their investments should nationalization cause a negative reaction? Will the government reimburse them?
How will nationalization of this industry be paid? Raised taxes? Movement of funds from one program to another? A combination of the two? If so, which programs will suffer? If taxes are to be raised, what will be taxed?
The federal government already funds a plethora of R&D in the areas concerned, how much more are we willing to pay for them to completely take over this niche?
Lastly, I would point out that there are very few programs the federal government runs efficiently. Is one’s health something we are willing to completely place in the hands of the federal government? How many times have we read or heard of government paid doctors misdiagnosing? How many times have we heard and read of the low standard doctors people see?
While I see much which can be improved in the medical and pharmaceutical industries, with the information available, I don’t see where nationalization is the answer.
Every action has a consequence; sometimes the consequence is good, sometimes not. Prior to making such a judgment, it is always prudent to investigate all areas which will be affected, or could be affected prior to action. This is especially true when one considers the large number of people affected no matter what is done. Do you really think that nationalization of these industries is our only option remaining?
You are talking about socialized medicine. I have posted lower on this thread the reason for the fast rising cost of health care and have added a link explaining what a single payer system is about. I do no want socialized medicine. However, we already have a shortage of doctors and nurses and hospitals will soon be on that list if they are not already. The time to act is now.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
Thanks for your detailed list of valid issues, concerns, and problems that will actually happen! Those who want nationalized healthcare ignore or gloss over these as if they do not exist!
Amen!
Nothing will change re: healthcare in the US until the people take back our government. Big pharma simply can buy more Congressional votes and tv ads. About ten million people peacefully marching across the US would be enough to get the attention of the whores in office who presently feed off the big tit of pharmaceuticals. Only when they know we mean business will they limit the influence of faceless corporations. Until that time, keep your insurance, and don't get sick.
Some recent events here in northwest Florida might shed some light on the idea of taxpayer supported healthcare. Escambia county just held a Health Care Tax Referendum to fund a program that would offer basic health services to the county’s working uninsured. It would be funded by a half-cent sales tax. It went down in flames 65% to 35%.
On the other hand, voters in Gulf and Franklin counties passed a half-cent sales tax to help fund the building and operation of a 25 bed hospital that would serve all the citizens of that area. A significant portion of the building costs were also funded by a business consortium composed of that area’s largest employers.
The lesson learned for me is that, 1. Personal self-interest rules. Doing anything simply because it is the right thing to do will never succeed, and 2. A shared burden, between business and taxpayers, has the better chance of seeing fruition.
lnk to a summary of the proposed House bill # 676
http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr676.html
and current congressional supporters.......
Brief Summary of Legislation
The United States National Health Insurance Act establishes a unique American national universal health insurance program. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care system that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health care status. With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under- insured, the time has come to change our inefficient and costly fragmented non- health care system.
I would prefer that the legislation be amended to reflect USA legal citizens vs all residents living in US territories.
if we could define the universal value of a human being, yes.
(perhaps, similar to how they did it in the world trade center catastrophy)
if we could monitor doctors/hospitals etc....with more transparency, yes.
then damages be could be added, equal to the value of a life or less.
We do need tort reform, but with an understanding that long-term care can be a huge factor in judgement valuations.
If you had a family member who was hurt by malpractice, and you ended up supervising the around-the-clock long-term care for that person, it would be easier to justify some of the larger judgements against the medical profession.
Jeff C leikec@yahoo.com
Yeow, yes: the cost of a human life vs the value of a human life.
that indeed would challenge the great thinkers of any generation.
I'm thinking; universal health care might help mitigate tort $, in those cases of long term care.
I agree, tort reform must be part of any reform. However, we must contain cost as well. There is a article,(I will post it when I find it again) that states much of the fast rising cost is due to several things, 1. we continue to purchase expensive equipment that is no better or only slightly better then the equipment we already have and the makers give kickbacks to hospitals and doctors to order the newer test despite its higher cost, this is also true for new drugs. Those two things alone make up much of the cost in health care. Administrative cost make up about 30%, this must be reduced if there is any hope of health care coverage for every American. A single payer system would address these problems, it is not socialized medicine. With single payer, certain procedures would be approved, before they are approved they would need to be certified by knowledgeable professional that are not in the pockets of the health care and insurance industries, same would hold true for drugs and other forms of treatment. Doctors would no longer feel obliged to order more expensive test and drugs when they know that one of the older ones would work just as well and in some cases better. This way the cost would be contained, waste and fraud would be addressed as well as bringing down the cost of unnecessary administrative cost for doctors and hospitals since they would go to one place to get approval for any thing that is not already on the list. Decisions would be placed in the hands of the doctors and patients. That is not socialized medicine.
http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.html#socialized
I have posted this one before and describes what a single payer system is about.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
MadasHell I just saw the movie, Sicko, and walked away thunderstruck! I realize that the worst case scenarios were presented, but as an RN for the past 15 years, I can attest to the accuracy of the information presented. It is outrageous that we are the only western nation without universal healthcare, and that the insurance companies are the one of the most powerful special interest groups, along with the pharmaceutical industry, in Washington ( 4 lobbyists per congressman!). I am further astounded at Hillary Clinton's sell-out to the industry because they become campaign contributors. This country is no longer a democracy. It is an plutocracy. When we will wake-up to this fact!
If the licenses of the 3% of physicians who consistently produce 80% of litigation were yanked, that would be significant tort reform. Florida for example, is notorious for protecting, instead of removing bad doctors. The state Medical Board is useless for protecting consumers. Until that changes, legitimately injured patients and their families have no other recourse than working through the equally corrupt legal system.
I agree with both you post. The government has proven that it cannot be trusted with and funds, look at the SS trust fund, they raided it until it was gone. I prefer to fix the system we have and make drug companies, hospitals, insurance companies, etc. etc. accountable through independent entities. The displaced workers can be retrained to fill the many nursing and other medical field jobs that are now have shortages.
Betty McLeod
PA 06
Betty327@ptd.net
At it's most basic, the purpose of government in a democracy is to ensure just, fair, and equitable relations among the population and to protect them from aggression, either external or internal. The way that quality healthcare is distributed in this country violates the first of the above two principles.
Hogwash! How can you equate quality heathcare with protection from aggression? I wonder if you got your meds. mixed up! This is so rediculous it makes me smile & laugh! :-) Ha!
HAND!
Do you know the difference in a republic and a democracy; why our founders chose this form of government; and what authoriy a republic form of goverment gives the Federal goverment? I recommend you research and learn. Then you might join me in saying the Federal goverment has no authority to establish a national healthcare system. In addition, you just might conclude the lack of national healthcare is neither aggression nor neglect by our form of goverment! Please read the following article on our form of goverment with it's rights and restrictions. Dr. Williams can explain it so much better than I can.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Are We A Republic Or A Democracy?
by Walter E. Williams
We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.
The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution -- two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?
So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.
In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.
Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.
How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy? James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " ... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.
The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.
Here's my question. Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter.
Walter E. Williams
January 3, 2024
Comprehensive universal health care & funding for it ~ (my preferences)
1) roll Medicare, Medicaid, long-term nursing & private health care into "one payer system".
2) all providers would remain private.
3) all providers administrative / processing claims costs could be "universal"..economies of scale.
2) cover everyone ~ young, old & everyone in-between...preferably USA citizens only, tho.
3) i'm thinking if people didn't have to file bankruptcy due to catastrophic health problems is a good thing.
4) i'm thinking people wouldn't be so quick to sue doctors; if we knew we wouldn't go bankrupt trying to deal with errors/results of poor judgements (assuming the doctor is competent).
5) reduce the non-medical educational requirements of training an MD or DO.
6) fund this comprehensive universal health care by:
legalizing, taxing & managing all drugs (similar to prescription drugs, cigarettes & alcohol.)
and (as a bonus) take the criminals outta the game..heck, it might even bring back the family farm.
I think the claims part can be eliminated as an agency if merged with tax filing monthly by service providers and annually by individuals whereby payment comes as credit and/or refund against taxes on a monthly basis. Formulary costs would be claimed by service providers and nonformulary cost claimed by individuals. Nonessential voluntary medical services would not be covered.
The whole matter is a banking system attached to the treasury dept.(irs) only.
Such bank would also manage a Medical Liability Trust Fund (much like the recently develop Asbestos Liabilty Trust Fund) whereby claims of loss or injury by medical service providers are verified and reimbursed or compensated on an as needed basis.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net
This is the kind of discussion we need to be having in this country! I sincerely want to thank everyone at Unity08 and all the delegates for providing our nation with a forum and a real opportunity to change things for the better!
Just a few comments:
Betty327, I agree that handing our hard earned money over to politicians is like giving a live hand grenade to a three year old, you just know nothing good is going to come of it!
Germanicus, I agree with just about everything you said. Cover ALL American CITIZENS, yup I'm with you on that one! One out of three bankruptcies is due to catastrophic medical problems, been there, done that. Let's think/talk about legalization of drugs, I've seen too much tragedy in my ER to jump on that bandwagon right now!
Bill713, That's the kind of thinking outside of the box we need to see more of!
Keep up the good work everyone!
Eugene ~ about ~ a case for legalization of drugs to support the funding of a comprehensive universal health care policy..........
Instead of waring against drugs; try to turn this lemon into some kind of lemonade.
i'm hoping this ain't just about; the end justifying the means...but, hopefully, another road less combative to travel.
--------------------------
a rather long post, sorry...
a parallel could be drawn between issues of drug(s) vs oil to our country.
~ shades of the movie "Dune".
"The spice must flow!" is the cry repeated throughout this tale. Along with, "The one who controls the spice, controls the universe!" And in all the galaxy, there is only one spice source -- the desert wasteland planet named Dune.
1)~
lnk to an article out of The Economist "a case for the legalization of drugs" ~ http://www.masscann.org/PDF/case_for_legal.pdf
(the lnk takes you to The Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, Inc. (MASS CANN) pdf copy)
(on The Economist web page the article (circa 2024) is accessible for pay $ only, unless you are a subscriber.)
(note: The Economist has brought other good objective analysis(s) to weigh in on the subject.)
2)~
info out of wikipedia ~ the proponents' view (kinda cherry picked by me)
Drug addiction as a public health issue..........
If drugs were legalized, drug addiction and abuse would become a health issue, and public health would be enhanced. For one, cleaner drugs would lead to improved health. By selling drugs in state clinics or stores, the government would be able to maintain quality control over drug sales. As with alcohol, government agencies would guarantee purity and safety (Wink 111-113). Steven B. Duke and Albert C. Gross conclude that drug legalization would result in a reduced risk of drug poisoning or overdose. Producers and traffickers currently sell poisonously diluted drugs because they are cheaper and easier to import. Legalization would allow a control of the diluted form and extent.
A key component of this argument is that many of the health dangers associated with recreational drugs exist precisely because they are illegal. The government cannot enforce quality control on products sold and manufactured illegally. Examples would include: heroin/cocaine overdoses occurring as users don't know exactly how much they are taking, heroin users unintentionally injecting brick dust, quinine, or fentanyl with which their heroin had been cut, the more toxic (and easier to make) derivative MDA sold as MDMA.
The illegality of many recreational drugs may be dissuading research into new more effective and perhaps safer recreational drugs. For example it has been proposed that a safer substitute to alcohol with many of the same desired effects could be created imparting many health and safety benefits to society. Furthermore, the compensation received and knowledge gained in the creation of new recreational drugs might allow for more basic research into human biology, treatments for medical conditions such as depression, and general improvements in the functionality of humans. Also the illegality of recreational drugs may be hindering the ability of companies to discover and market drugs that could be used for recreation but could also be effective as medical treatments.
I am a big fan of "all things in moderation" and this goes to drugs. It should be a persons responsibility to keep their drug use from becoming abuse, however I don't think that this is realistic with all drugs. Cocaine, for example, goes directly to the part of the brain that remembers if it likes things or not, and cocaine definitely leaves a strong impression of LIKE! That is not to say that every one who tries cocaine becomes addicted (if I remember right, the number is closer to 30% and I know plenty of people that function fine while using drugs recreationaly), my point is that combating an addiction of the scale that would come about from cocaine and meth being legal would truly be a bain on society. If you are suggesting that the government could regulate the amount that any one person can get, then there will be people desperate to get more. This will not only cause violence, but will also keep the black market for drugs open. This is not even mentioning the drugs that cause the user to be a danger to society when on them. PCP comes to mind. Anyhow, while I think that there are some drugs that could be legalized without any detriment, we wouldn't want to legalize all drugs there are certainly some that need to remain illegal. You must remember that when a drug first came out, it wasn't illegal, it was made illegal for some reason and we need to decide the validity of the reason on a case by case basis.
On an aside, I wonder how much tax revenue Amsterdam makes off of its drug taxes?
While we can criticize universal health care in other countries, most of us have not used it. I have used emergency rooms in France and Australia, and I can honestly say I got treated as well, if not better, than I have in Emergency Rooms here. I never waited more than an hour to get in to the emergency room, whereas here I've had to wait upwards of 6 hours. The cost of an inhaler I needed to combat a severe case of Bronchitis in France was 7 euros. I checked with my family doctor when I came back, and the same inhaler, with insurance deducted, would have cost me $35. In Australia, my mother came down with a terrible stomach condition. Apparently, she had had some bad water. We went to the emergency room, and we were out in 2 hrs. with tests having been run, and a treatment plan prescribed. When she came back to the states, it took our doctor almost a week to verify what the hospital in Australia had said, and then had her continue on the same treatment plan. With insurance co-pay, the medicine in the U.S. was a little under $40.
When I recently had an appendectomy here in the states, I spent 4 hours being tested, and then waited another 4 hours while the hospital tried to find an emergency general surgeon to do the operation. I ended up having to be ambulanced to another hospital, where I had to wait another 6 hours before I had my surgery. Because I had waited so long to find a doctor, my surgeon didn't feel it was prudent to do the surgery lathroscopically, and instead just cut me open. I had to spend a total of three full days in the hospital, of which at least a day and a half could have been cut off if I had been able to receive timely and efficient care. When we finally got the bill, it was astronomical. We had to wrangle with BC/BS to pay for the whole bill, which was close to $40,000. My father is part of a large plan in BC/BS, so it wasn't too bad, but we still ended up paying almost $1000.
I guess I should make my point. All universal health care is not bad. Yes, I acknowledge that it would be a large shift for the American people. But we have been so brainwashed into thinking that health insurance and big drug companies actually care about us, that a majority of us can't even see that their only goal is to make money. A corporation should not be in charge of making life and death decisions, because they are too concerned with the bottom line. While I don't relish government control of health care, I would much rather see a group of people that is responsible to the U.S. voter making decisions on health care than a board of trustees.
I do not think we need the approach where government has any say in healthcare per se. I think we need a finance system with government underwriting to balance accounts as we go for matters illness and injury. No "insurance' company required just a federal banking operation. See other posts on this.
Bill"for what we are together"
bill713.unity08@sbcglobal.net