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)
So I suppose I'll go first
ReplyDelete--------------
Our country was built on the principle of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, at least according to Thomas Jefferson, and that’s the ideal that was infused into the writing of the Declaration of Independence, and subsequently the Constitution. As long as we are looking for individual rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it seems like our answer to this health care debate is over, and the debate over the role of government is over.
-----
If a government, bound by our Constitution, is supposed to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then its job is not to govern us. Their job is to supplement parts of society that are missing. For example, a society without leadership is incapable of any foreign relations, be it democracy or war. Therefore, a government steps in to fill in that gap, and does that it needs to build an army, and our government does what it feels is best for America abroad. A society without leadership has no way to enforce rules and regulations that are necessary for the continuation of the society, so for the preservation of America, our government has law enforcement.
----
The thing about the health care reform that makes it such a thorny issue is that we don’t know if it is something that is preserving society, or something that is beyond what the government is asked to do in the Constitution.
----
Under the current framework of our government, there are no provisions that require the government to supply every citizen with health care, or even to give us the option. There is no reason as to why the government should be allowed to take taxpayer’s money to fund a program that does not directly help them or is necessary for society. If we just look at the status quo, we can see that our society is not falling apart. Obviously, health care is not a necessary part of society.
----
Another important thing to consider is the fact that providing a health care option to everyone is untested. If we were to provide this option, it would be a largely untested theoretical plan. If we look to another country, like Canada, or even Denmark, two countries with universal health care provided to their citizens, we can clearly see that the system doesn’t work nearly as well as it should, as both systems are ridiculously slow and a lot of people just come to the US for health care. Congress has to contend with figuring out a system that they know will work for 300 million people. The system will end up being much less ineffective than they think it will be, even if only for the single reason we don’t currently have an infrastructure put in place that would answer the demands of such a huge system effectively enough.
----
If that isn’t enough reason for you to reject the current proposal for a universal health care system, consider this. The money for this health care system is not going to be grown on trees. I don’t know what the current proposal says about funding, but if one thing can be certain, it’s that a lot of this money will be most likely drawn from taxpayer pockets. That just brings us back to the issue of: is the taxpayer supposed to be responsible for paying for health care that they might not see? It just doesn’t make sense to do something like this, especially when we have things like the global recession, which *does* directly affect your average citizen, especially when 1 out of every 10 American’s don’t even have an income to pay these taxes that would fund this lucrative program that only looks good on paper, but we haven’t the foggiest idea whether or not it will work when applied to 300 million people.
----
In conclusion, Congress has better things to do than to be spending this much political capital and this many resources to be pushing and debating over an idea that they were never asked nor required to ever even consider in the first place.
-----
Thanks for reading this far...
~Justin
The ongoing debate about universal health care can be broadened to the topic: what is the true role of government? How involved should the government be in our (the people's) day-to-day life?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Locke, government exists to protect life, liberty, and property, and our Declaration of Independence states that government will protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But how far should government be allowed to go towards that endeavor? Shouldn't the people themselves also protect their own life, liberty, property, and happiness? True, government should help the people attain this goal, but not to such an extreme extent as universal health care for all people. In addition, the government wouldn't be able to handle the work required for universal health care. Just look at our current Medical/Medicare system.
I think universal health care should be an option for U.S. citizens, but not the only option. However, the health care system as it is right now is not perfect either. For example, there are too few major health care companies in California that are viable and logical options for citizens. The people (from now on this term is going to refer to the citizens. Disregard illegal aliens, they shouldn't have rights to our health care...) need to be able to choose what health care plan they want and not have to pay ridiculous sums of money just to find that, let's say, a blood test isn't covered. The market for health care should be opened to competitors so that health care becomes more affordable and offers more benefits. Then, the government should regulate the competitors to make sure that the companies are doing what they say. This way, the people can choose their options and pay a reasonable price for what they want, and get it in a timely manner.
Universal health care requires more governmental infrastructure than currently exists to work well. This is what I meant when I said that the government can't handle universal health care. For instance, Canada has a universal health care program, but Canadians have to wait a year for a simple surgery. Instead of waiting, they come down to the United States for their medical needs. What does this say about universal health care? It doesn't work very well. In addition, before universal health care is put into action (if it ever passes Congress), every detail needs to be worked out so that it runs perfectly. We don't want lines like the ones in the DMV in our hospitals.
We need to know where the funds for health care will come from/what they’ll be taken out of. The U.S. Treasury keeps printing money, but that is just decreasing the value of the dollar. Plus, the United States is already in a recession and has been in debt for quite a while. Higher taxes don’t solve the problem. The government needs to focus on stabilizing the economy and maximizing how the people and the country benefit from every dollar spent by the government, then consider the costly venture of universal health care.
It may be a solution to the health care debate, but it is not the best solution.
We are most definitely being shaken. We are being forced to consider how large a role government should play in our lives. In my opinion, those crying for universal health care have not thought out how it will actually work today. Universal really is a good idea in theory, but not in current practice. It would be a burden in today’s government. If it is to be implemented, universal needs to be refined and organized correctly so that the government isn’t overwhelmed, and thus actually do its job of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I forgot to mention that taxpayers shouldn't be expected to hold up the nation by themselves. Taxpayers worked hard for their money, (or at least most did and do) and they shouldn't be expected to distribute it freely. People who work hard should reap the benefits of what they sow.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Justin:
ReplyDeleteYou state "As long as we are looking for individual rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it seems like our answer to this health care debate is over, and the debate over the role of government is over." How can it ever be over? If government is supposed to secure individual rights, how far can the government go? How is it supposed to go about securing individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? How about privacy? This will *always* be debated.
"The thing about the health care reform that makes it such a thorny issue is that we don’t know if it is something that is preserving society, or something that is beyond what the government is asked to do in the Constitution." I couldn't agree with you more on this point.
"There is no reason as to why the government should be allowed to take taxpayer’s money to fund a program that does not directly help them or is necessary for society. If we just look at the status quo, we can see that our society is not falling apart. Obviously, health care is not a necessary part of society." I'll play devil's advocate here, you say a program that does not directly help society. You haven't exactly proven yet that society *wouldn't* benefit from universal health care. It really is possible that, done correctly, universal would be a great idea. I just don't think it will be done well if executed.
"The system will end up being much less ineffective than they think it will be..." Just noting, don't you mean much less effective?
IN response to Arielle:
ReplyDeleteI’m just going to play devil’s advocate for the sake of it, and try to refute Arielle’s points.
----
Arielle starts off by talking about how Locke argues that government exists to protect life, liberty, and property, and these principles are put into our Declaration of Independence. But there’s a subtle difference in what Arielle argues Locke says and what Locke actually says. Locke is arguing for his social contract theory. That’s what his Second Treatise was all about, the people giving up part of their sovereignty for mutual protection and benefit from the government. There is no reason as to why an additional option of universal health care is not a good idea, as long as it fulfills the objectives given to the government by its people.
----
Arielle keeps citing the current Medical/Medicare system as being an example of how universal health care will not work. But the reason it doesn’t work is unrelated to it being a universal health care program, which incidentally, neither are. Medi-cal is part of the Medicaid program started in 1965 by President Roosevelt and only helps low-income adults and their children. By all means, not universal. Medicare only applies to qualifying seniors who are aged 65 and above, and doesn’t always cover all medical costs. But more on point, the reason that neither system is working right now is because health care as a system is self defeating. As more and more people get health care, and better coverage, which seems like a good thing, in the long run the system has more and more people to cover and take care of, since this better health care and better coverage is keeping more and more people alive, in addition to all those who are new to the program. Add onto this the fact that the generation of baby boomers are becoming eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, that means that there are many times more people than ever expected by this system, so obviously the system will not work as well as expected.
----
Arielle’s next argument about California also makes very little sense. I do believe that the health care market in California *is* regulated, and that the market is *not* closed. Also, simple rules of supply and demand dictate that if the prices get too high, the demand goes down, so health care prices will go down to increase demand. It’s self enforcing. Also, there is no proof that government regulation ensures that we get health insurance at a timely manner.
----
Sure, universal health care may require more governmental infrastructure, but by all means, we’re not arguing for instant universal health care. I’m not sure what the bill says, but it would seem ridiculous to try to fit such a program into a system that is the complete opposite of it. Just try putting an apple in a banana skin, and the skin breaks. Just that simple. The simple matter is that the current infrastructure would need to be changed and modified, but if in the long run it pays off and is better, then it is worth doing. Any infrastructure programs can always be modified so that a universal health care system will fit right into it, and mesh with what is already there. Using Canada as an example doesn’t work since we don’t know what kind of preparation they did for their universal health care system. We can always learn from their mistakes and figure out a better way to do things.
----
In terms of funding, I believe President Obama has solved that problem by deciding to propose reining back funding for Medicare and Medicaid, and drawing funds from there to fund this health care reform, in addition to saving money across the budget. This should give him about 950 billion dollars to work with to provide America with health insurance. So no, not everything will be derived from taxes.
And I suppose I should defend my own original views as well...
ReplyDelete----
"How can it ever be over? If government is supposed to secure individual rights, how far can the government go? How is it supposed to go about securing individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? How about privacy? This will *always* be debated."
My whole argument and first couple paragraphs was to try to prove why the debate is over… But that’s beside the point.
----
"I'll play devil's advocate here, you say a program that does not directly help society. You haven't exactly proven yet that society *wouldn't* benefit from universal health care. It really is possible that, done correctly, universal would be a great idea. I just don't think it will be done well if executed."
I don’t need to prove that society wouldn’t benefit from universal health care. I’m making the argument that the government is only asked to do what is necessary for the preservation of society, and that if we don’t need it and America as we know it isn’t collapsing, then it’s not the government’s job to provide it.
to comment on that last point, I fully agree with what is being said here. I feel that universal health care could potentially solve many problems that American's face when dealing with the health care we have now. But I personally believe that it would be impossible to implement because you would have of the upper middle class going against it, and then the lower middle class with the people that can't afford healthcare supporting it. It would divide the country and take to much tax money to put into effect, and to keep running. I don't believe it is a smart move for our government to take.
ReplyDelete@ cameron:
ReplyDeletesee the problem is, universal health care won't solve anything. nothing like it is evenly remotely supported on our current infrastructure, and so much more would need to be spent that it makes the whole endeavor pointless.
universal health care is shown to be too slow to be effective at all, even on a much smaller scale than the US. Canada, Denmark, they all don't have efficient health care systems, as it is too slow.
~Justin
Realistically the U.S. government as of now only has enough time and money for a minimal form of health care.
ReplyDeleteTo me the idea of national health care simply isn't feasible in United States economy of today. I believe that the best thing the government can do as of now would be to implement a health care system similar to both Medicare and welfare. This new system would be for the people on the bottom end of the financial spectrum. Essentially for people who can't afford the private health care much of America uses. It would put more public hospitals in poorer neighborhoods and operate much like a Veteran's hospital. The program would cover medium to severe health threats and a parameter for qualifying would be to live a healthy lifestyle. Such as to qualify one must do x amount of hours of exercise a week and maybe even pass a routine physical test. This would motivate people to maybe be a little healthier that why they wouldn't need the health care in the first place and make them less of a liability for the government. Of course this idea is very speculative and I do see the apparent holes in it. One of the main ones being the money for this program would come from taxpayers in the upper classes who would probably never see any of the benefits of the program. My only answer to this is that many citizens pay for welfare they never see and that maybe there wouldn't be too much of an outcry if this was implemented as well. Once again the idea is rough around the edges, but I think its good food for thought.
~Steven
@Steven: I think you're talking about Medicaid...
ReplyDelete~Justin
My personal belief is that the government is there to support the citizens, and help them along, as well as create rules, laws, and guidelines to our lives. But to me, the government is not something that should have a right to say that if you dont have enough money, you arent allowed to be taken care of. I think the government should have as much health care as they can have for families, and citizens that are not wealthy enough to pay for their own insurance. Of course, the ideal medical insurance for U.S. citizens would be free, because thats why we pay taxes isn't it? But unfortuneately, the U.S. can not just tax the people more to pay for all medical insurance for everyone. My idea of the better thing to do would be for the more wealthy citizens to pay for their own insurance, and for unwealthy people to not pay. The wealthy citizens that could pay, could pay for a better form of insurance, while the unwealthy would only be able to have the bare minimum of what is available because they are not paying.
ReplyDelete-Sami
I think a government should play the role of "parents" of its citizens. It needs to be responsible for making the people safe, and treat them as a parent would treat their child. When children are being raised well, they are better off and are happier than when they are not. When the people of a nation are getting what they want, they are comfortable and feel cared for. On the other hand, when they are missing something or have something taken away, things don't go as well. This can be seen in the effect of the Edict of Nantes. Bringing religious freedom to the people, it made them comfortable and eased tension. When it was revoked, however, people got angry and things weren't going as smoothly.
ReplyDeleteWhen there is something important that the people need, the government should do its best to provide it. In our democracy, the power of the government comes from the people. The ones in the government that have the power to provide nationalize health care have that power because citizens gave it to them. They need to support those who supported them. John Locke said that the citizens are entitled to their rights for life, liberty, and property. Healthcare is necessary for the right of life to be fulfilled.
-Jake-
@ steven
ReplyDeleteyour ideas about the physical tests and exercise hours are great. the motivation to get health insurance by being healthy has to be good in the long run. i think that its an origional idea that is a great way to get people healthy. But wouldnt the upper class tax payers refuse something like that? (not that they wouldnt refuse what i had said in my argument).
sami
I believe that health care is a necessity for everyday citizens. Locke describes a government’s purpose is to protect its citizen’s life, liberty, and property. I don’t believe there is an apparent solution to satisfy every person’s needs, but public healthcare will provide the reassurance for the people that they are protected. Our existing government’s main job is to serve the people it governs. They have to make sure everybody is protected, not just the people who can afford to be covered by healthcare. In order to satisfy the people who can’t afford healthcare, money has to be taken out of the people. who can afford it’s pockets and the owners of the larger healthcare corporations. To the people who can afford this, this does not seem like a viable option because they lose money, only to go into the pockets of other people. I can not see anyway for public healthcare to work without upsetting a lot of people.
ReplyDelete-spencer
At Jake:
ReplyDeleteI think the parent analogy hit it spot on. The people elected for government were chosen to best lead their people. And to best lead them, they have to provide proper assurance to the people that they are being protected by the people who govern them. Buuuut, you said the government has to give the feeling of safety and assurance to all the people, and I don't think that is probable. To satisfy one class of people's needs, usually the other classes become upset with it. I just don't know a way to satisfy everybody and I don't think there is a way, something's gotta give.
-Super spencer
@ everyone who talked about the parent/protectionism analogy of the government:
ReplyDeleteif your argument is that the government needs to protect it's citizens, just like a parent to it's child, then at what point do we step back and say to ourselves, hey, i think we're done here. they are sufficiently protected. Should we ask the national guard to patrol the streets, guarding each and everyone one of us from criminals? who would protect the guards?
the only problem with your logic is that using the exact same logic, we can justify things that may seem out of control and unreasonable, but still follow the same logical thought process.
Also, since when was health care a fundamental right of life? A national system of health care is fundamentally against one's liberty since if we accept that it has to be funded by taxpayer money, then we are essentially forcing people to pay for services they might not receive or need.
Also, the first thing you guys all forgot to prove is why the role of government is to be a parent to it's people. Why should the role of government be to take care of the people in it?
Our rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness inherently implies that it is a personal pursuit. A government cannot give me liberty. They can give me the option of liberty, and it is up to me to take it. We can't force everyone to express themselves in a vote, but we give everyone the option.
Applying this to the health care debate: We cannot force "life" or health, onto the people. At most, the government can only make sure that it is an option. But doing such a thing is impossible under the current national infrastructure, so instead we have programs like Medi-cal and Medicaid, where we guarantee those who cannot afford it health insurance.
Again, we can't force health insurance on people. But the government can provide it as an option, which they do, through the aforementioned programs and through a strict regulation of the health care system.
~Justin
Also, one more thing i just realized:
ReplyDeleteis health care really protecting one's right to life? is that something that is included in all your Locke-based analysis of the situation? When we have the right to life, does that also mean we have the right to extend our life by any means possible?
The question i'm asking here is: is health care part of the right to life? because if it isn't, then all your argumentation is flawed at it's core.
This is my response to the issue, not anyone's comments. That's going to come later.
ReplyDeleteI personally am quite appalled by the government's inefficiency to agree on the most straightforward of issues (should americans be healthy, have good medical care, and live longer? DUH!) because of this two-sided conservative vs. liberal feud that's been going on for a couple centuries.
It disgusts me that political issues almost aren't even about the issue at hand, it's more like "how can we bash the other party while making america think our stance is correct?"
Not to sound crazy, but I think a monarchic system (not this "democracy" crap that they call it, it's red vs. blue!) would be much more effective for our country.
I think that today's america would be more efficient than it is now by using Locke's method of the people pledging their support to the king (President Obama) and having checks to his power. This would eliminate the disagreement, political slander, blackmail, and just outright civil war between two separate parties who have almost never come together to get anything done.
-Gus
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Sami
ReplyDeleteSami, I think you're definitely on the right track here with the healthcare system by how much you can pay for it...
But isn't that kind of what we have already?!
Our problem here in america isn't the fact that people aren't being taken care of because they are poor, it's that they can't afford it to begin with!
My point here is that you're not far off from what the healthcare system is actually like. However, if the healthcare system was exactly like the one you mentioned, I believe america would be a lot better off.
-Gus
In my opinion, i believe that their should be healthcare for all americans. John Locke believed that government existed to protect life, liberty and property. But our government is not doing that. Now we all understand that we are in tough economic times but that doesnt mean that the less fortunate Americans should be excluded from having healthcare. In order to afford this, the government needs strict guidelines. As of now, alot of healtcare money is being spent on people near the end of their life. I know this is a tough decision but people who are terminally ill and have no chance of survival should not be the recipetent of the health care money. Im not saying that terminally ill people should recieve no healthcare, but they should recieve only enough to make them comftorable but not to extend their life. It should be spent on people with a higher chance of survival such as children and adults. The truth is that we can not just tell the government to pay for universal health care. They simply just don't have the money. For this fantastic goal to be reached, their needs to be some sacrifices.
ReplyDeleteAlan Dritley
Sami:
ReplyDeleteI think your ideas about how all americans should recieve healthcare is great. But the facts show that the upper 10% of americans pay in the high percentages like the high 80's or 90's so why should the just pay more for bare minimum. I think that the bare minimuk would be important but the rich americans should not have to pay for it, the government should.
alan
On this subject I am conflicted. However the need for a reform in the public health care system is apparent. The United States government was put in place to protect people's life, liberty, happiness, freedom ect. I believe life certainly includes people's health. But to me, the government's purpose is to serve its people, not in the sense of providing everything, but serving as in providing aid to those who need it. Of course, knowing the current economical difficulties, it is unrealistic that the government can implant such a system. But then again, how is the government managing to afford the reconstruction of countries in the Middle East, such as Afghanistan, when it cannot afford guaranteed health care for its own citizens?
ReplyDeleteIdeally, the government should have a system, which helps people to receive the adequate health care. I don’t think anyone would argue if there weren’t so many negative consequences. The funding for the system would come from American taxpayers. They would be paying X amount of dollars for a system that is untested. In rural areas, the plan would ruin hospitals, and many people believe a program run by the government would have an advantage over private insurance companies, which in turn would be bad for the economy.
I think that having an alternative, or at least something for poor families is what our country needs. I don’t think that a government-run system would replace private insurance companies, but simply be an alternative for those with lower incomes.
~Sam
In response to Gus:
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what you said about the government being inefficient in its decision making. But I don't think its as black and white as you say. The issue of health care is extremely complex and branches into other closely related arguments. Different people have different views of what is needed in our world and what we can afford to do. The people who do decide, will make a choice that will impact almost the entire nation. So I don't blame them for taking the time to make the best decision.
Also, in response to a monarchical government. Its an idea, but I think it would bring more discourse than unity. Even with a system of checks, it is much easier to have a Constitution that specifically states the rights of the people, than to rely on solely a human with natural emotions and aspirations.
I think that the people of our country want a change to the healthcare situation we have know. And since the government has proposed a solution, then they have no choice other than to act on their word. The government has been put in place to protect its people, and allow equality for all. Well we know that that is not fully possible, but I think that the government does have the power to change somethings to make medical care more available to more people in different situations. I think that the government should implement free health care, for the people who are in the most need, the people who make less than a certain amount of money a year. This would make taxes higher, but it would also allow for more people to have the privilege of health care. But there is a down side, there is no telling what the government would make the free healthcare like. It could be just as bad as not having health care at all, or it could work. We may never know.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I believe the government's job is to work for its citizens; after all, we are the ones who put the politicians and government officials in power in the first place. We vote to get them there, and we pay taxes to keep them there. The problem with our government is that it has become greedy; it's working for its own pocket and looking for its next paycheck. Politicians are more worried with keeping their financers (those who fill their treasuries) happy, than doing what is best for their country's citizens. If they just focus on doing what is best (for the most part anyway, because not everything is always right for everyone) for their citizens then they will stay in office and their treasuries will stay filled because they are effective people's advocates. Secondly, all the needless bickering and slandering that happens between political parties causes more problems than it ever solves. Obviously not everyone is always going to agree, but the government should focus on the problem at hand, and not the petty differences that can't help but surface in every single issue.
ReplyDeleteAs far as having a medical program goes, I think we should at least try. Doing something is better than doing nothing, and obviously what we are doing right now isn't working, it's better to try something than do nothing. We can't just be afraid of what might happen, unless we try something we won't know. If this new option doesn't work, well we'll try again, but at least we are working on the issue at hand. Also, alot (all) health care bills are unrealistically high for an economy like ours where the pay checks stay the same and the cost of everything else goes up. This is why so many people can't pay for their medical care in the first place, and the cause of our needing these programs. Other countries (Canada, Mexico, ect....) have universal healthcare programs and they aren't bankrupt. Also, this type of plan would put a little fire under the butts of insurance companies and would force them to keep their premiums down as a means of competition. Which brings up the fact that there are too few options when it comes to medical insurance and it does not help the cause of the less fortunate.
Lastly, if you can reasonably afford a health care plan without this proposed option then you should, I believe the "public option" should only be for those who literally have no other alternative. I think the government should meet the people half way, creating plans that are specific to each person’s income and wallet. Making our country safer and healthier should always seem like a viable option.
For what Gus said:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what you said about the political parties "bashing" each other, because it's like what I wrote. The government officials who are suppose to be promoting our best interests, are to busy attacking each other to prove why "they're right." In the end, however, it doesn't matter, because nothing gets done any way and we are still at square one-all be it more agitated and aggressive.
However, I'm not to keen on agreeing with your monarchic views. I rather like a democracy, though it is flawed. But then again, all forms of government are a bit (or a lot) flawed. I think having a voice in government is important, trying to further your parties "reputation" and add to its bank account, however, is not.
In response to both Alejandra and Sam:
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right, the chances of my suggested Locke-esque monarchic system happening in america are slim to none. Also, the chances of it being truly effective are virtually nil because of human mistakes, emotions, and biases. It was just a hypothetical situation, but I agree with both of you that it isn't executable at this particular moment in time.
-Gus
Also, in response to Alejandra:
ReplyDeleteI don't fully support a monarchic view (which is why it was a Locke-eque monarchy, not Hobbes-esque). Democracy is fine with me, but as you said, it's flawed.
The purpose of the government being styled in the visions of Locke would be to:
a. Have a king/President (I'll just say king) that can be impeached if the people disagree with his laws, decrees, or foreign affairs
b. Completely eliminate the party battle from the political scene, thus taking away the biases that sometimes cloud peoples' views of certain issues
In short, I don't disagree with democracy, but my ideal form of government would be this Locke-esque monarchy.
First of all, Justin, I think your right im talking about medicaid (I wasn't even aware that it existed) I just think it should be on a larger scale. Second @Gus,this will be playing the devil's advocate but I disagree with your statement about wheather of "should americans be healthy, have good medical care,and live longer? DUH!" Of course to the individual and from a social aspect this is entirely correct. But look at it from the point of view of the government, people living longer with government paid health care is just more money out of their pockets. Of course people want other people to live longer, but the government doesn't necessarily want to pay for it. It's similar to social security, social security was implemented at a time when not many people lived longer than 70, so the government could afford to give them 5 years pay. Now people live much longer and the government is in over its head with the amount of the money their required to pay. This is one of MANY systems in the U.S. government that need to be updated. In the health care issue I think the time we live in needs to have more of a say. People don't necessarily need doctors and payed hospital visits to find out what's wrong with them nowadays, and the amount of over the counter medicine is astonishing. Of course there are some things people need doctors for, but not as many as we used to and the government, and the people need to recognize this.
ReplyDelete~Steven
At first, the idea of universal health care seems as if it would be effective in helping the American people in many ways by helping them pay for coverage. However, while universal health care seems to be helpful, if our government were to implement any type of health care coverage, it would be much less effective than it looks to be on paper.
ReplyDeleteCurrently, there are many private options available to Americans for health care coverage. Some are more expensive than others, but there are many options to choose from. If the government were to get evolved and implement an alternative set of health care options, many people would likely switch to government coverage due to a decrease in cost. It is hard enough to deal with insurance claims now, and if the government got involved, there would only be several more layers of bureaucratic red tape to cut through whenever you attempted to get coverage.
The government is already in a dismal situation with how the economy is now. How will they get all this money? The taxpayers, the people that are already insured, would have to aid in paying for the insurance of others. This money would likely be squandered in a series of ineffective and experimental health care programs that end up causing even more problems in the U.S.
While the proposal of government health care seems effective—in theory—there is no way the government would be able to pull of a coordinated system that fits the needs of 304,059,724 people.
-Richard
@ Justin
ReplyDeletesorry one more thing to answer to Justin's question on what Locke meant by "right to life"
I interpret it as the right to not be killed. That a governed people should have no fear of annihilation. Not necessarily the right to be a vegetable in a government hospital eating up 50,000$ a year in medical expenses.
In response to Cameron's first comment-
ReplyDeleteI agree that if the upper middle class doesn’t support government health care, and the lower middle class does, it would divide our country. The upper middle class would end up paying for the health care of those who can’t afford it. This relates (not to the same degree but similar) to how nobles were in charge for the welfare of the serfs on their manor. In the end, the serfs begin to resent the nobles because the nobles place the serfs below them and treat them as their servants. If the government claims that it won’t raise taxes to fund government health care, then the money will come from other programs such as education. If the government doesn’t cut other programs, then the debt of the USA will increase even more and may affect our economy.
To Gus again:
ReplyDeleteI see your point, and it might eliminate the political power struggle between parties, (doubtful) but in our modern government it doesn't seem a feasible option. We know we can't get rid of the parties and that a democracy and government can never be perfect.The parties are there to introduce varied opinions, and the president (king) is there so that a decision can ultimately be reached (if they get that far). The problem is that the focus of these political officials is drawn to their own egos and wallets and issues, that a decision is hardly ever reached and the President can not act.
But yes Gus, I agree with you. ;)
To Richard:
ReplyDeleteYou make a really good point, and it made me think about the issue even more. The point you made about how it connects to the relationship the serfs and the nobles shared, and the nobles being in charge of the welfare of the serfs, was actually really interesting to me. It reminded me to put this situation in context along with what we've learned in class besides locke and hobbes. Also, I forgot to put this in my post and you reminded me:
The government already gets so much tax payer money, but where does it go? It also takes away a lot of school funding and we still don't see those dollars being put to good use. We're still waiting for the tax money all Americans pay to be put to use or to benefit us, but nothing is really being produced.
As a response to this matter:
ReplyDeleteI personally do not believe in the public option system and think that it was a good thing for it to be taken off the table.
If public option were really in place in society, then that would mean that government would have to intrude in the private lives of people and tell them, "we know how to use your money better than you do". If the government did this, it would go against all the principles that this country was founded upon. Our country was founded by people who were trying to detach themselves from another power dictating them (The English Church). If the government were to carry out public option, they would be contradicting the nation's basic principles.
Also, I believe that public option would make our nation too soft as a leading power in the world today. If public option were to be carried out, one's money would be used for another's benefit.
Say for example:
A family with 3 children. Public option would already help this particular family. However, if this family continues having children, there would be no end to how much money we would be spending on just one family out of many in our country. If we as a nation grow too soft over this matter, we will only end up squandering tax payer money for no good use. This waste would also be a detriment to our already collapsed economy. Therefore I believe that in cruel times such as these, the only way to overcome it is to become sort of cruel ourselves and deny public option.
As a response to Gus's first comment:
ReplyDeleteThough I agree that living longer is a priority, I believe that if had implemented public option, people would start taking advantage of it (as humans are naturally greedy). In addition, I also believe that public option would impose government intrusion into the private lives of its people. This intrusion is in a way dictating the people's lives to give their sovereignty to the leading figure (in this case the president). However, with the government "dictating" our lives and actions, I am afraid that we will not be able to put checks on his power since we are being indirectly controlled by the government. This type of structure follows Hobbes' type of government, not Locke's. Locke said that we would be able to put checks on the leader's power and that it was the government's job to protect life, liberty, and property. However, the implement of public option would just go against that since government intrusion would become the main concern.
just a thought.... :)
@ Sami 618(This is my second time writing this comment cause my internet messed up)
ReplyDeleteFirst, I like your idea of the government not providing everything, but helping out when it is needed. Going back to analogies, it could be more like a teacher or guidance counselor than a parent. It is there to help you and guide you, but not walk you through. However, I think the quality of that help and guidance should be very strong.
Our country also needs to get its priorities straight. your right that maybe the government isn't putting all the money it spends into the right place.
Lastly, I agree with your idea of how nationalized healthcare should
be implemented. I guess it can be described as a balance between national and private HC. When that balance is found, the consequences will be reduced to a minimum.
I believe that public healthcare is a must have and it will reassure people that they are safe and are bieng cared for by the government. We as citizens of the united states disserve to have our government take care of us that's why we pay taxes. They have to make sure everybody is protected and not only protect the upper class and forget about the lower class which would be unfair.Everyone needs healthcare because we all get sick and rich or poor we all disserve to get better not just the wealthy. By not giving everyone universal healthcare it almost means that the governement is saying the poor are worthless and don't need good health. Inorder to let everyone have healthcare; lower, upper, or middle class, we need the wealthier people like the CEO's of the large healthcare corporations to put a little money into this idea to make this happen. Even though the upper class can already afford this and now will have to pay more so everyone can get healthcare what is truly the right thing to do. Lose a little money so more people can have good health or have it stay the same and let the poor suffer. I think in the end people will realize the right thing to do and we will unite as a nation and thrive.
ReplyDelete-Austin Kamel
@ Everyone who is in favor of a universal health care system:
ReplyDeleteYou have yet to prove why health care is a right and not a privilege. In my opinion, right to life means a right to not have others take your life away, not the right to have someone extend your life doing whatever they can.
Separate note as to why any system of health care is ultimately self defeating:
Insofar as we accept that the purpose of health care is to keep people alive with medical care, then the entire system eventually out grows itself, unless the supporting infrastructure grows with it.
What I mean by this is that when a health care system works, which ideally it would, then it has more people living longer, and more people requiring more health care, since the number of people needing health care will always grow, insofar as the system works. Eventually, you'll have more people than the system can handle, and the system collapses.