Thinking about the consequences

Many people want our nation to have universal health care because they believe it is "free". They do not think about how our economy would be more damaged than it is right now. Even though not everyone has a medical insurance plan, they still get treated if it is an emergency. Nothing in life comes for free. Just like how students have to pay back their student loans because they can't afford to pay thousands of dollars out of their pockets, people have the choice of paying their medical bills in divided payments. Before we make a decision about something, I believe that we should look at what is happening to other countries and see how their decisions affected them, instead of repeating their mistake.
I thought these were interesting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/jun/03/politics.publicservices

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2753

Facts about healthcare

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

So many poeple to not have the service they need. Universal healthcare sytem will save so much money and save alot of lives.

An Inalienable Right

There are many issues that are constantly on the table when debating about should we or shouldn’t we have universal healthcare. It seems ridiculous to me that people would be opposed to it since having healthcare has never seemed like a bad thing to me. This is a topic I feel very strongly about, and although I am fully aware of the cons, the pros always outweigh each. My views were strengthened even more after reading Guinier’s, “The Tyranny of The Majority”.

I like Guinier’s turn taking philosophy. It allows the majority to rule some of the time and the minority to rule some of the time. In fact, I would even dare to take it a step further and want to appease both sides simultaneously. For the most part, private insurers and drug companies are a part of the bureaucracy, and the only word I can associate with bureaucracy fittingly is capitalist. To me, this means that most of these providers are only out for the buck. According to insurance.ca.gov, “Yes, Insurance companies usually look at your height and weight when they decide to offer insurance. They may offer you insurance at a higher premium rate or refuse to insure you if you are overweight or obese.” How can that possibly be a good thing?

There is only one logical answer. It is the implementation of a universal healthcare system. People often throw out there the cons of the universal healthcare in places like Europe and Canada, but why would we directly make the same mistakes they have made. Our goal should be to learn from their mistakes and try to be better. If what we have is obviously not the answer, than what could be so wrong with trying a new system that has and still is working in other parts of the world? A universal healthcare system would bridge that gap that divides the country with something that is supposed to be an “inalienable right”; the right to life, and not to mention the pursuit of happiness. Who has ever been happy being unhealthy?

“The Tyranny of the Majority” and thoughts

“The Tyranny of the Majority” talks about how the majority of a group always gets what they want while the minority is left in the dust. When looking at Universal healthcare statistics, it is clear that the majority of the people want a universal system. Most average to low income Americans would greatly benefit from this healthcare system. If the majority wants this healthcare system, why hasn’t it changed? Usually the majority has the power when it comes to a decision, but with American healthcare, it seems to be different. Most of the people who do not want to adapt this healthcare system (minority) consist of doctors, health insurance companies, and anyone involved with making a large profit. The minority in the healthcare system has all of the power, which is odd. If the United States switches to a universal healthcare system, the scam will be over. Too much profit is made when dealing with the lives of sick human beings. A simple ambulance ride can cost over three thousand dollars is one is not covered. Having service and care is something that all people should receive. The majority in universal healthcare is large, but powerless against the rule of the minority.

The taking turn’s method could work when it comes to healthcare. I think the majority should get what they want, which is a universal healthcare system. The minority should also have some say and get their “turn”. Maybe giving those who want private insurance more coverage is the way to go. Some may say this is just like how it was; some people get more than others. But while some may have more coverage, everyone will have the basic healthcare they deserve. No more people will get denied health insurance and go on living their life in fear of getting sick or hurt. Families can be ruined by one simple insurance bill. A compromise could and should be made during the switch to universal healthcare.

Socialized Medicine: A Good Plan?

One of the main topics that is being debated at this time is whether our nation should have universal healthcare or not. This is being brought up on a daily basis due to the presidential election coming up in November. Many politicians debate that if the United States gained this universal policy, everyone would have the same “great” coverage. They compare it to the benefits of England’s National Health Service, yet they do not show the cons of this plan. Many say that our nation should enforce this plan because the majority of our citizens are in favor of it, but what about the minority?
Reading Guinier’s “The Tyranny of the Majority” made me realize how much the majority population can hold control over the minority. When the government decides to side with the majority and take control of the healthcare aspect of our lives, our country will slowly become a socialist one. We are now a democracy where our ideas and beliefs are being represented by elected individuals. When the majority wins and the minority’s voice is suppressed, we will become more of a socialist country where social and political aspects of our life are being controlled primarily by the government.
Even though I believe that everyone should have a basic healthcare insurance policy in case of emergency, I still believe that everyone should have a right to choose whether or not they want a private healthcare policy. This is very similar when choosing between a community college, state university, and a private university. A person should be able to choose which college he or she wants to go to without having to be pressured by the government. Many can argue that a lot of people cannot afford private universities, but there are many alternatives such as loans and federal grants that help students pay for college. Also in the medical world, there are many charities and foundations that help people pay off their medical bills.
When the government becomes somehow like a tyrant when it takes control of everything. Healthcare in England is being dominated by the government, and it has many downfalls. It also has many benefits, but they are stated without having people look at the negatives also. For example, a study funded by the department of health in England shows that one in five patients that undergo a heart bypass surgery operation do not receive the best healthcare quality possible. Also, many patients die without having been told by their doctors that they were at risk of losing their life, or because they have been on the waiting list for too long.
Another report published by the National Audit Office and Commission states that the NHS is in a huge amount of debt. This is due to the financial management of the NHS. A balance must be put in place in order to manage the NHS financially. The United States is already in a huge amount of debt due to things such as the Iraqi war. For example, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the United States is in a $1.4 trillion deficit from 2004 to 2013. We do not need to put ourselves in a greater amount of debt at the time being.
Socialized medicine is not the best way to tackle the health care problem we have in our country. We do not need our government to be more involved in our daily lives, and we should look at England as a model for this plan and see how it is not good for our country. The majority should not always dominate because many others will have their opinions suppressed, and that is not democratic at all.




I found this article very interesting:

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukheartdelay2.html

Something to look at

http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0100-consumers/0070-health-issues/ind-health-insurance-underwriting-ab-356.cfm

some of the things health insurance companies deny people healthcare or make them spend more money. These are just the main things.

Kennedys Inaugural Adress

I think that the government should play a fair when deciding things for the country. A government should decide things for the good of the people and for the people’s concerns. Obviously views are different and the government needs to decide on what action to take. This can be solved by the majority/minority idea. If majority of the nation wants something, the government should do what they can to give the people that. While the majority is getting what they want, the minority should be able to have something they could agree on also.
In Kennedy’s Inaugural Address, he talks about working with other nations. Doing this can strengthen our government and make us stronger. He also talks about helping those in the huts and villages and the people who have no say in their government. America cannot become a better and strong government by itself. Intergrading other cultures and ideas will strengthen our government. We could also learn from other societies, and maybe adopt some of their beliefs. I believe the government should be based on the people’s feelings. Helping other nations is an example of that. We could help others and give them what they feel is right. Fairness and equality should be the main concern for every human being.
Having a Universal healthcare system will give the people their fairness. We can learn from other countries like Europe and Canada who have adopted this system. All people will be treated with the same treatment. This treatment will be available to the rich and the poor making a division in society obsolete. The government must do what is right for the people, not what will make more money. The healthcare system in America is making too much profit, which is why a change is hard for the government. So many people preach equality and fairness, but why do we still treat America’s health care system with inequality?

Kennedy's Address

Kennedy’s Inaugural Address

The question of how big a role a government should play in the lives of its citizens is always a hot topic. I think that the government should pretty much regulate and help the people with what they need. Citizens need laws, as well as to be protected by injustices. In the United States case, if a government is going to be built on the premise of equality, than that should be the primary goal of the government.

In Kennedy’s Inaugural Address, he suggests that the United States help those who cannot help themselves, as the case with those living under Communist rule. He also suggests that we work with other nations which will ultimately make us stronger as well as benefit the people. I think that these are all good bases to start with. People should help others that are willing to cooperate, and the ultimate goal of government should be to appease the people; the very people that they are elected to represent.

The same applies to the concept of universal healthcare. In order to achieve true equality, and appease ALL people and not just those who can afford it, a universal healthcare system should be implemented. Yes, I think everyone should be forced to have the system. The only reason that I feel this way is because if you allow those who do not want it, which will probably the rich, it will again provide a divide between the rich and the poor, which will in turn create poor medical conditions for the poor and better ones for those with private. If we make everyone get the same healthcare then no one will be in competition. However, I do think that people should be allowed to purchase extra coverage or stronger coverage. That idea can be tweaked, but in essence people should be forced to be under one with the option of purchasing a little extra for your own peace of mind and/or security.

Kennedy's Address

I believe that the government should play a large role in our country. However, I believe that we should not force people to do anything, or dominate in any aspect. The government is supposed to maintain peace and democracy for all. Our government also plays a large role because it maintains control, and we need control and balance to run a strong nation. In regards to universal healthcare I feel that whoever needs healthcare should be able to receive it. For the people who don't need it, it should not be forced upon them. No one should be forced to do something because this contradicts democracy. The government and citizens need to cooperate and come together to formulate a plan where both parties are catered.

Kennedy's Inaugural Address

The government plays a huge role in our lives daily, yet how much should it intervene? There are many times where the government’s interference is required to maintain control over people. I believe that the government should be in control, but it should cooperate with its citizens In order to function fairly.
In Kennedy’s Address, he mentions how the United States would work with other countries that are willing to cooperate with the government. Help would be provided if all nations stand together and the decisions made will be based on the benefit of all people. I believe that this should be true when our nation is facing with all kind of new law-making decisions.
The topic I have been researching along with a few of my classmates is universal healthcare. Our question is whether we should have universal healthcare or not. I believe that the government should intervene with medical matters, but it should not force people who oppose the universal plan to get it. Cooperation is the key for success and in order to have a successful democracy, the government should cooperate with its citizens. Force and the opinion of the majority should not always dominate people.
Kennedy mentioned how people that are governed by a communist government will be helped if they are willing to participate fully with the United States. Just like that situation, I believe that citizens in this country who are in need of medical help should be helped when they cooperate with the government. Others who do not want that kind of help should be left alone. There are many reasons to why they do not want that help, and they should be respected for their decision.
Our economy will benefit from this kind of cooperation much more because everyone will be left satisfied. When a nation is full of happy citizens, a democracy can be maintained. The most important thing to remember is that a person must able to choose what they prefer doing, instead of being forced into the acceptance if things they don’t like.

“The Tyranny of the Majority” and website

In the article “The Tyranny of the Majority”, the author suggests that today’s society may be ruled by the “majority”. When a decision has to be made by a group, the majority always has its way. Guineir states that in most cases this is unfair. What happens to the ideas of the minority? Just because the majority rules does not mean we cannot take into consideration the ideas and beliefs of the minority. It should not be winning or losing, there needs to be an alternative. This article talks about fairness and how everyone’s opinions should be taken into consideration.
Guineir relates the Majority rule problem to a story about a high school prom. Students took a vote to see what kind of theme the party was going to be, including music. Since the school was majority white, the vote was against the likes of the black students. Because of this, the black students had their own prom. This problem was settled by giving the minority an alternative. Instead of having one prom and having the minority unhappy, the black students got their own prom, settling the problem. Guineir makes a good point by giving an alternative when it comes to majority vote. It is unfair to the minority to be stuck with no say or power.
In some situations, the majority has too much power. Sometimes, the majority is unaffected and there are no checks on its ability to be overbearing. This causes a big problem. The majority now has total power, disregarding anything that happens to the minority. This problem gives too much power to a set majority which is something the government should get rid of. Fairness to all groups is how the government should handle shit situation. The minority always should be given a fair “turn” or opportunity. I agree with Guineir’s beliefs and his ideas on fairness.
This same process can be applied to universal healthcare. Both the majority and minority would benefit from a universal healthcare system. If the majority is the poor to low class, they would benefit from this healthcare system. If the minority is the rich and wealthy community, steps could be made to give them alternate choices, like additional healthcare insurance. Whatever the situation may be, both groups should be able to benefit from a universal healthcare system.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php
This website shows the benefits of having a national healthcare system. Some may think the taxes will be higher, but the article shows the healthcare system will cover more than just hospital bills. It would cover dental, vision, drug supplies and much more. So much money is spent on all types of insurance. With a national health care system, these bills will be eliminated for a minor increase in taxes. In the link there is a cartoon picture. This picture shows the scam that insurance companies are running. So much money is spent on insurance when it is a human right to receive care. America is too concerned with profit rather than the health and well being of people. A national healthcare system will benefit all people, allowing anyone to receive care while reducing money spent on insurance companies. Americans should not worry about what insurance company to pick, or how much money they will spend, or worry if they will get denied care. A universal healthcare system will take the worries away ensuring that everyone is treated with the care they need.

The Tyranny of the Majority

The Tyranny of the Majority

In reading Lani Guinier’s article, “The Tyranny of the Majority”, I found myself agreeing with the majority of her views. Guinier explains how often times those in the majority simply disregard and/or alienate all together the opinion of the minority. Things are looked at as winners and losers opposed to the better process of everyone wins. This thought process often plagues democracy’s as well as everyday life. I think that the concept of “winner takes all” is so deeply embedded in our minds that we often do not deflect from it. The majority is usually the one and only winner.

This article sort of instantly “turned on a light” for me. Many thought began to produce in my mind. Guinier used excellent examples such as, the child who thought it was fair and natural to play both games and not just the one that the majority of the class voted for. I thought this tied the concept together with the question of is the majority really a tyranny together very well. As I think of all the instances where the majority has come out on top, it seems pretty natural that they would. Isn’t that what a democracy is all about? But it isn’t. A reall democracy is about taking turns and coming to a common solution where the majority rules some of the time and the minority will rule the other times.

People often get so caught up in being the majority and upsetting the masses, that the opinion of the minority becomes irrelevant. This is seen in presidential election process. The president with the most votes as well as most electoral votes wins the election hands down. What about the Americans who voted for the other candidate? Were their votes irrelevant? I think if we followed the Golden Rule of reciprocity, one might even explore the idea of the other candidate maybe becoming the vice president. This is just a way that we, as a society, could explore the possibilities of a true democracy that both represent the views of the majority as well as the minority.

The concept of universal healthcare may seem like a radical idea to some, and some even argue that we are a democracy and the ideal of universal healthcare would be borderline socialism. I think that if we actually did put universal healthcare into place, it would be more democratic than the democracy we live in today. It would help both the rich and the poor, who act as the majority and minority in this case. To be even more “fair”, one could even pose the option of purchasing your own additional private coverage if you want more of a “safety net” of sorts. This way, the skeptics who believe the waiting times, the service, and anything else will be decreased due to universal healthcare will now have an alternative option that would best suit them.

Article

http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2007/06/universal_healt.html

This article, like many others also give the pros and the cons of the healthcare debate. As I continue to explore the argument of should we have universal healthcare or not, I do not think I’ve found any evidence that truly moved me one way or the other. I always personally thought that we should in fact transition to universal healthcare. After reading, “The Tyranny of the Majority, the thoughts and opinions that I produced from that article now pose as my strongest arguments in favor of universal healthcare. The concept of reciprocity is one I think would truly work, and a concept that I think should be more widely known and explored.

The Tyranny of the Majority

The Tyranny of the Majority

Lanni Guiner illustrates how in our society we are taught that the majority always rules however, he explains how in our democratic nation we should take into consideration even the minorities. Madisonian Majority is a majority that rules but does not dominate. It is a fair system that benefits both parties. I agree with this article and how it talks about how the minority needs protection against an overbearing majority. Everyone is going to have their own views and beliefs and neither is right nor wrong. It depends on one's situation and the lifestyle they are living. “Self government, fairness, deliberation, compromise, and consensus" is the principle in democracy. I also agree with Guiner's way of taking turns and cooperating and fulfilling the minority’s needs. Giving the minority a turn does not mean the minority gets to rule, but it allows them to influence and take part in decision making. The majority will always rule, but that does not mean the minorities' beliefs and views are wrong. A democracy should cater to everyone's needs.

In regards to universal healthcare, I feel that whoever needs it should be able to get it without question. However, people who are not in favor of universal healthcare should not be forced to enroll in it. Private practices should be able to choose what they want to do. I feel that our government is not a democracy if we are all forced to enroll in universal healthcare. Many people are in favor, but there are also those who oppose it for many different reasons. For example, many people feel that they should not be paying for someone else’s healthcare. Also, enforcing universal healthcare may cause many problems in our nation because of the overwhelming number of people who need it. In our democratic society I feel that the government should consider where both parties are coming from and not be one-sided to one particular party.

Internet Article:

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/09/universal_healthcare.html

I picked this article because it questions your beliefs and illustrates both the pros and cons of universal healthcare. It talks about the alarming rising costs of healthcare and whether or not universal healthcare will benefit or hurt our nation. "The public is not sure whether the government should make a major or a limited effort to provide health insurance to the uninsured. The last time this question was asked by Kaiser in May 2003, 42 percent said that there should be should be a major effort, 37 percent said that there should be a limited effort, and 13 percent said that things should be kept the way they are." In the end, no one is sure whether universal healthcare will benefit or hurt our nation. However, both parties should be taken into consideration, even if the majority rules

The Tyranny of the Majority and Article

The Tyranny of the Majority

Living in a democratic society has largely affected the way we perceive decision making. In our world, when two sides differ, we tend to lean towards the majority’s opinions. By doing so, we are not following the major principles of democracy. One of them is being equal and fair to everyone, but when majority rule overcomes the minority, are we being fair to all? This raises doubts about how our government should make decisions and to what extent it should depend on the majority vote.

In order to have a fair system where everyone is happy, the government must cooperate with its people, even if they vary opinions. Even if the majority vote gets a bigger piece of the compromise, the minority should also feel included. The majority vote can rule but it would not dominate everything. In order to be fair, a democracy must switch between varying “parties” to make everyone’s opinion known. Lani Guinier makes a very good point in his essay “The Tyranny of the Majority”. He says that a Madisonian Majority, a majority which rules but does not dominate, is the best system our democracy can follow and be fair.

A good way to keep decision making in a democracy fair is by allowing the “minority” group to somehow influence some of the laws and policies made. This way, people would be able to come together and agree on some ideas they have in common. Also, by taking turns and cooperating together, the democracy of the government will be much stronger.

I found Guinier’s essay very empowering because it shows how everyone’s ideas should matter. Even if a large part of a population favors a certain thing over another, they should still be able to listen to the opinions of others without being biased. I have been researching for days now about universal health care and how it will affect our country. Many people are in favor of having this program, while others are not. The majority of people are for this program, yet I still believe that our government should consider the explanation other people give. There are many pros and cons involved with this topic.

Before making any decisions, our government must analyze the facts carefully. I believe that in order to be fair to everyone, the government should have universal healthcare only for people who are willing to pay for it. Privately owned medical insurance companies should still be available to anyone who can afford it. This way, people who are against universal healthcare would not have to enroll in it, and people who are for it can. The government would be cooperating with people on both sides and letting them have their own space. The majority would not dominate our society this way, and everyone would be able to voice their opinions.

Health Care Article

Article: http://www.kqed.org/w/youdecide/healthcare/

As I was researching the pros and cons of universal healthcare, I found this website that argues your opinion whether you are for or against this plan. It gives you many reasons that will cause you to really think about this topic. It first asked whether I was for or against it, so I answered that I am for it. But then, it gave me many reasons why universal healthcare is not beneficiary. One of the most important things to me is keeping our government a democracy, but if we have universal healthcare, we would turn into a socialist country or a bureaucracy. For example, the healthcare system in Canada is breaking down because the waiting list of patients is very high. If we adopted the universal healthcare program, our country’s medical facilities would be the same.

I also wanted to see what the benefits of having a universal healthcare program are. One of the most striking ones is how the cost of hospitals, nursing homes, and doctor visits would be cheaper. According to a study conducted in 2005 by the National Coalition on Health Care, the US will be spending more than $3.8 trillion by 2015 compared to $2.1 trillion we are spending now. One of my main arguments used to be how people would be able to afford higher taxes if they can’t afford medical insurance. This research led me to change my belief because they will have to pay more money in the future anyways.

I believe that universal healthcare should be available to everyone, but it should not be enforced. If the government enforced it, we will become more of a socialist country instead of a democratic one. The benefits of this plan are very good, and the cons are also dangerous to our economy. It should be up to the citizens if they want to have this plan or not.