Question by : Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right?

For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.

Best answer:

Answer by pissedoffbastard13
It sounds good, but the trouble is, when has the government ever done anything “for the common good”? These political parasites take care of themselves (as per congressional pensions and free heath care for congressmen) to the exclusion of everyone else.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Question by : Please read this article that I found and argue your side.?

For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Best answer:

Answer by apophasisx
Under capital, the motive is money. Unless we change our basic system, we cannot expect those in service industries to be different.

Give your answer to this question below!

For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.

Best answer:

Answer by Mr. Peanut
In very few words, the bottom line is that we can’t afford this health care bill.

It is a lie that it will cost the country less money.

What do you think? Answer below!

For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.

Best answer:

Answer by Fonz
Sounds like a commie to me.

Add your own answer in the comments!

For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.

Best answer:

Answer by Carol
Excellent article. Valid points. Important theme.

Not ONE of the cons will read it. They are not the least interested in actually understanding the health care problem in America – they have feasted too long on a diet of soundbites and talking points.

Even though doing so means that they are harming themselves, their loved ones, and their own family members.

It’s perverse.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Question by : Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right?

For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.

Best answer:

Answer by P X
Very easy: he’s wrong. People like this embrace but never admit to their desire to see confiscatory redistribution of all income in this country. This is just his wet dream to nationalize 15% of the economy.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.

Best answer:

Answer by Mr. Peanut
My argument?

Complete freedom of choice in health-care: Good.

Socialized medicine: Bad.

Bankrupt nation paying for socialized medicine: Even Worse.

What do you think? Answer below!

For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.

Best answer:

Answer by snarky
Agree. There’s also no profit for the military.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran

There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry.

Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry” lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care.

The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil” as resulting from “indecision.” Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care.

If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient.

Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need.

According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine.

In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer.

America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to 0 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount.

The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy.

Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.

Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.

Best answer:

Answer by Andrew Clements
Long but true.

But when u understand that the only thing that matters to USA is money, u can see where these large corporations are not really concerned with people’s health, but only how much money they can make.

Americans should force the government to oust these greedy corporations and return them to a state where they serve the public and not themselves.

Give your answer to this question below!

Question by Colique: Can you answer these statistics problems?

I need to know how I go about solving this problem and what the answer is. I don’t even understand what is being asked!

You want to compare the yearly costs of auto insurance companies. You select a sample of 15 families (some with one and some with multiple drivers). To make the data comparable, certain features, such as the amount deductible and limits of liability, are standardized. The sample information is reported below. At the .10 significance level, can we conclude that there is a difference in the amounts quoted?

FamilyAmerican Insurance /St. Paul Insurance

Becker90-10
Berry1683-1247
Cobb1402-2327
Debuck1830-1367
DuBrul930-1461
Eckroate697-1789
German1741-1621
Glasson1129-1914
King1018-1956
Kucic1881-1772
Meredith1571-1375
Obeid874-1527
Price1579-1767
Phillips1577-1636
Tresize860-1188

Best answer:

Answer by rostov
The question is simpler than it looks I think.

Basically, each family is getting insurance quotes from two insurance companies. On average, you want to know if one of those companies is cheaper. That means, you look at the difference of the two quotes.

You hypothesis is that the two companies are the same; i.e., that the average is 0!!!

What you do is calculate the average and standard deviation of these difference of the two quotes. Then, you assume normal distribution and use your tables to find out whether you average is close enough to zero or not. If its not, you reject the hypothesis and conclude one is cheaper than the other.

Good luck.

Now,

What do you think? Answer below!