When you ask any American or non-American person, what they think about America’s culture, we often hear something like “America is a Melting Pot.” United States of America has been described as “melting pot” because it resides several cultures, races and religions to fabricate its possess unique culture. The imperative characteristics about American culture is the right to free will and the ability to make individual choices with limited intervention from the Government; some clarify it as, “Classical Liberalism” or just “Liberalism.”
In present day America, a proposal for a National Health Insurance is a significant debate on whether the integrity of an American’s right to choose is under threat or whether it is actually preserving Liberalism as defined by President John F. Kennedy, “If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not leisurely, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” 1
In an article published in Wall Street Journal [WSJ] on April 12, 2009, “The End of Private Health Insurance,” the author gives an insight in to how implementation of National Health Insurance can affect the people in America.2 The content of the article should appeal to every American, however as this article appears in the WSJ one would assume that in order to define and relate to author’s point of view the audience should be familiar with the basic information regarding the existing role of Medicare and private health insurance companies in the health care system.
This article refers to National Health Insurance as “public option,” an insurance program which is essentially financed by the taxpayers and managed by the Government; also this option is open to everyone. The author conveys his position on this debate whether this Insurance policy really is modest and affordable or a threat to taxpayers’ individual choice in an effort to cover the uninsured by highlighting these points below:
1) National Health Insurance will become default coverage for the uninsured Americans.
2) It will compete with the private insurance companies.
3) Overall spending will be controlled over time by paying less for medical services, drugs and technology.
4) The hospitals and clinics will be reimbursed on a fee schedule basis; with the idea of “take-it-or-leave-it.”
5) Allows people who are glad with their current insurance policies to keep it.
So what does all this translate into? What does it mean for the people who are uninsured? What does it mean for the people who are currently insured through private insurance companies? How will this succor the hospitals and original deteriorating economic situation? Is this really in the best interest of the American society? Is it true that America is proceeding towards what’s called Socialized Medicine?
If Congress adopts this “public option,” the taxpayers will be forced to pay more taxes in order to cover the uninsured and there will be relatively low premium rates for enrollment due to access to the national treasury as compared to the private insurance rates. Therefore, private insurance companies will be obligated to offer benefit packages similar to those offered by the public insurance. Depending on the payment levels the congress adopts, the Lewin Group in a recent analysis predicted that a 131 million people will enroll in public option and 119 million people will shift out of or lose private coverage. The Lewin group is a consulting company that provides solutions for the issues related to health care and human services. It serves the public agencies, non profit organizations, industry associations and private companies in Unites States.3
As far as the hospitals and physicians are concerned, they will not be able to announce the amount of reimbursement which is offered to them, which could result into cost shifting by accepting fewer patients at a given time. This in turn could mean that patients will have to wait to see their doctors and wait in queues to have procedures like MRI and Hip replacement for example. This could also mean that hospitals may have to cut down on employees if the patient traffic reduces and if overall income reduces at a given time. It is crucial to warn the public that any conception which provides universal coverage will force the government to curtail the spiraling cost of health care. This will result in limitations in physician choice, create long delays in diagnosis and treatment and ultimately lead to widespread rationing of health care.4
It not only affects acute care settings and primary care physicians, it affects greatly to the profession of Physical Therapy. As patients wait in lines to go through common procedures such as total hip replacements, the degenerative disease progresses and patients report deterioration of Quality of Life. Moreover, the post surgical prognosis is worse in patients who get operated on in the later stage of the disease as compared to the patients who glean operated early on in the disease process.5Besides the surgical interventions, as patients wait to see their primary care physicians to get referrals for physical therapy, acute episodes of low succor pain for example may already have progressed in to chronic conditions; which not only affects the rehabilitation prognosis but also affects psychological aspects, activity level and over all Quality of Life.
Some scholars debate on whether the National Health Insurance proposal is a step towards Socialized Medicine or if it remains inconclusive from its accessible definition. “Socialized medicine” refers to health system in which the government owns and operates both the financing of health care and its delivery.6 The investigation of this definition suggests that classic socialism involves government or collective ownership of the means and distribution of production; hence truly socialized medicine doesn’t exist anywhere in the world.However, it would be valid to argue that America’s health sector is already more than half socialized because government purchases 46% of all medical care. Therefore, technically socialized medicine can be defined not based on how much is spent on the medical care but who decides.7
The intent of the National Health Insurance policy may be to practice Liberalism as defined by J.F.K and an act of benevolence by American government, however in an effort to provide coverage to the medically uninsured population the disadvantages in adopting this policy has a substantial triumph over its advantages. Ultimately, it is up to an individual’s discretion whether to support or not to support the public option from the obtainable facts by media and literature.
References
1. Modern Liberalism in the United States. . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States. Accessed May 15, 2009.
Classical liberalism. . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism. Accessed May 15, 2009.
2. The Slay of Private Health Insurance- When government ‘competes,’ guess who always sins? The Wall Street Journal. April 12 2009.
3. The Lewin Group. . http://www.lewin.com/WhyLewin/AboutUs/. Accessed May 15, 2009.
4. Dr R. Scott Wright. Both Sides: Let the buyer beware of universal health insurance. Post-Bulletin. 2009.
5. Marieke Ostendorf MSc, Erik Buskens MD, PhD, Henk van Stel PhD, Augustus Schrijvers PhD, Louis Marting MD, Wouter Dhert MD, PhD and Abharam Verbout MD, PhD. Waiting for total hip arthroplasty: Avoidable loss in quality time and preventable deterioration. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2004;19(3):302-309.
6. Uwe E. Reinhardt. What is ‘Socialized Medicine’? : A Taxonomy of Health Care Systems. The New York Times. 2009.
7. Michael F. Cannon. Does Barack Obama Support Socialized Medicine? . The Cato Journal. 2008.
Filed under Automobile Insurance Wiki by on Feb 26th, 2011. Comment. 
Within the two documents, A Letter Concerning Toleration by John Locke, and The English Bill of Rights, 1689 drafted by act of Parliament, we regain a similar subject being presented in two vastly different ways. The common thread running through both pieces, and the fundamental point to illustrating the importance of religion in English civil and political life is the idea of “just and moderate government.”[1] John Locke and Parliament both try for this ideal through different approaches. As to the extent of tensions and problems created by differing religious beliefs in the England of the time, we will be able to examine those difficulties through the efforts of those suitable and philosophical minds that created the primary sources.
First, I will discuss the idea of justice, and its dispensing in religious and civil spheres. Locke refers to civil magistrates as those whose duty it is “to find unto all…the just possession of these things belonging to this life.”[2] Conversely, we can pick that another role of the civil magistrate is to prosecute the infractions incurred against those natural rights, stated by Locke to be “life, liberty and estate.”[3] Locke spends the entire letter detailing the ways in which religion possesses its rights and powers within the religious sphere, while secular governments maintain their authority within the civil sphere. In A Letter Concerning Toleration, there is a tone of concept due, no doubt, to the religious strife that Locke had seen in his absorb lifetime, including the English Civil War and its abolition of the Anglican Church’s monopoly on Christian worship in England.[4]
The English Bill of Rights argues that justice can only be served when civil law is carried out under the auspices of Christian (read Protestant) doctrine. Justice, in the eyes of the parliamentary document, is thought of as “[that] demand of their rights [which] they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein.”[5] In other words, the private true proceedings adjudicated by the king and the existence of a standing army were characteristics of power hungry Catholics. Parliament saw in James II echoes of the Inquisition and the absolute power of the Pope. Such an imbalance of power was not just to the people. Whereas Locke stresses the justice that is expedient when religion and government are separated, the English Bill of Rights, 1689 places the blame for injustice on the head of King James II and the Catholics. It is not entirely ironic that the philosopher proffers a solution, while the governing body only finds a culprit for the problem.
Moderate government is what is ultimately hoped for in Locke’s letter. A single sentence seems to outline the cautious line walked by government: “Only the magistrate ought always to be very careful that he do not misuse his authority to the oppression of any Church, under pretence of public good.”[6] Moderation involves the use of compromise and marvelous judgment. Locke emphasizes that those acts that are crimes against the laws of the land are not to be tolerated, as opposed to the toleration of things that may rush counter to another religion’s creed.
The way the English Bill of Rights seeks a moderate government is far more visible than how the document seeks just government. The enumerated rights of freeholders in English society provided a framework for the understanding of a government whose sole responsibility is to be the receptacle of common consent. Such a government does not enforce the specific tolerations advocated by Locke, but instead creates a moderation between the honest of the sovereign and the rights of the people (all within a Protestant ideal).
These documents illustrate the importance of religion in English civil and political life by both seeking for a “just and moderate government” and relying upon religion as a necessity to accomplish that goal. Parliament sought for a religious (Protestant and Church of England) control of the civil order. Locke wanted a toleration and separation of the mutual rights of civil and religious spheres. While the strivings for this goal were disparate in context, both were, as St. Paul wrote to the Ephesians, “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”[7]
[1] Locke, John. A Letter Concerning Toleration. 1689. http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1651-1700/locke/ECT/toleraxx.htm. The phrase “unbiased and moderate government” is used by Locke in the essay to picture various governing entities throughout the world. He contrasts this with the oppression that leads to “seditions…frequently raised upon pretence of religion.” However, this does not explain all treason or uprising, and Locke attributes such action to “the common disposition of mankind… who when …under any heavy burthen endeavour naturally to shake off the yoke that galls their necks.”
[2] Ibid.
[3] Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge University Press, 1988, Chapter 2, section vi
[4]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War
[5]The English Bill of Rights 1689. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/england.htm
[6] Locke, John. A Letter Concerning Toleration. 1689. http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1651-1700/locke/ECT/toleraxx.htm.
[7] Ephesians 4:3. King James Bible. Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 1484.
Filed under Automobile Insurance Wiki by on Feb 17th, 2011. Comment.
