stuff for stuff

alright, this is abby for those of you who dont know and I may not be at the meetings but that doesnt meen i'm not here. I'll fight the system from the inside out! and I might "accidently" miss the bus one of these times so yeah any1 who needs help i'll be able to put debate stuff into "abbyfide" terms in other words, I'll put it so a rock could understand it. yeah and my e-mail is abbs1891@yahoo.com .
yeah well this is the info i've dug up so far.




Debate resolution: universal healthcare
Good stuff from a web-site

"The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 40 million. Since health care premiums continue to grow at several times the rate of inflation, many businesses are simply choosing to not offer a health plan, or if they do, to pass on more of the cost to employees. Employees facing higher costs themselves are often choosing to go without health coverage. No health insurance doesn't necessarily mean no health care since there are many clinics and services that are free to indigent individuals. However, any costs not covered by insurance must be absorbed by all the rest of us, which means even higher premiums.
Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. Businesses and individuals that choose to keep their health plans still must pay a much higher amount. Remember, businesses only have a certain amount of money they can spend on labor. If they must spend more on health insurance premiums, they will have less money to spend on raises, new hires, investment, and so on. Individuals who must pay more for premiums have less money to spend on rent, food, and consumer goods; in other words, less money is pumped back into the economy. Thus, health care prevents the country from making a robust economic recovery. A simpler government-controlled system that reduces costs would go a long way in helping that recovery.
We can eliminate wasteful inefficiencies such as duplicate paper work, claim approval, insurance submission, etc. Think back to all the times in your life you've had to fill out a medical history, answering the same questions over and over. Think about all the insurance paperwork you've had to fill out and submit. Our current health care system generates an enormous amount of overhead. Every time we go to the doctor, a claim must be submitted, an approval department has to go over the claim, checks have to be mailed, patients are sent co-pay bills, and so on. The thing that's especially wasteful is that each doctor's office usually maintains their own record-keeping system. A universal healthcare plan would allow us to build one centralized system. There would be no need for maintaining insurance information or wasting time submitting claims. The work savings in the banking and postal areas alone would be worth billions every year.
We can develop a centralized national database which makes diagnosis and treatment easier for doctors. Most doctor's offices maintain a separate record-keeping system. This is why you always have to fill out a lengthy health history whenever you go to a new physician. This is a problem for several reasons. First of all, it's wasteful of both time and money. Second of all, patients may lie, forget, or do a poor job of explaining past medical problems. Doctors need accurate information to make a proper diagnosis. Last of all, separate systems means we have a tougher time analyzing data at a national level. For example, are incidents of a certain disease dropping? How often is a certain illness associated with a specific set of symptoms? A centralized national system would allow us to do data analysis that we never dreamed possible, leading to medical advances and increased diagnosis efficiency. The main argument against a centralized database is that certain insurance providers may deny coverage if they find certain past medical problems. However, if the government is paying for everything, that should never be a problem.
Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc. Doctors have to take classes now simply to understand all the insurance plans out there; they are often restricted by insurance practices, such as what tests can be ordered. Doctors must practice defensive medicine to avoid getting sued. Some physicians are even leaving the profession rather than deal with all these non-medical headaches. A simplified universal health system would allow doctors, nurses, and other medical professions to simply focus on doing what's best for the patient. Medicine is a complex enough subject as it is. Our current system just adds to an already mentally-draining profession.
Free medical services would encourage patients to practice preventive medicine and inquire about problems early when treatment will be light; currently, patients often avoid physicals and other preventive measures because of the costs. Because many people are uninsured and those that do have insurance face high deductibles, Americans often forego doctor visits for minor health problems or for preventive medicine. Thus, health problems that could be caught at an early stage or prevented altogether become major illnesses. Things like routine physicals, mammograms, and HIV tests could prevent major problems. This not only affects the health of the patient but the overall cost of the system, since preventive medicine costs only a small fraction of a full blown disease. A government-provided system would remove the disincentive patients have for visiting a medical professional.

No
There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; if they can't run an office such as the DMV efficiently, how can we expect them to handle something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in a long line? If it can't handle something this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system?
"Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?
Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.
Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.
Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if he had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.
Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant.
Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.
Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?
A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money.
Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency." source balancedpolitics.org

Worldbusiness, September/October 1995, 19
All Better Now
U.S. lobbies notwithstanding, Canada’s health care is superior
By Diane Francis

Among the health care systems of the world’s wealthiest industrialized countries, the United States’ is the most expensive; even worse, it fails to provide health care for all Americans. Canada, on the other hand, provides excellent, comprehensive coverage to all of its citizens. Its system, administered jointly by the federal government and the twelve provincial governments, provides Canadian business with an enormous competitive advantage. And yet vested interests in the United States-including doctors, privately owned health care facilities, and insurance companies-have lobbied against government systems such as Canada’s. They say that Canadians must wait months for procedures. This is simply not the case. They would also have Americans believe that Canadian hospitals are second-rate, and that Canadian physicians are poorly trained. These are also not so.
The same type of lobbying took place in Canada in the late 1960s, when the government-run plan was first implemented. It is interesting to note that Vice President Al Gore became a fan of Canada’s health system after his seriously brain-injured son was successfully operated on in Toronto by one of the world’s best neurosurgical pediatrics teams.
A look at the facts leaves little doubt that the Canadian system is superior. An average of 6.3 out of every 1,000 babies born die before the age of 1 in Canada, as opposed to 8.3 in the United States. Life expectancies in Canada are 81 years for women and 74.5 for men, compared with 78.9 and 72.1 years, respectively, in the United States. Yet the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an international monitoring group, reports that while Canada spends just 10.2 percent of its gross domestic product on health care services for all its citizens, the United States spends 14.1 percent and still has millions of citizens with inadequate or nonexistent coverage.
It isn’t just the individual that benefits from Canada’s comprehensive health program. The Canadian system affords business many advantages, including reduced employee costs and an expanded, healthier labor pool. According to a March 1995 study by KPMG Peat Marwick called "A Comparison of Business Costs in Canada and the United States," Canadian employers spend less on employersponsored benefits than their American counterparts. "Costs for hospital, surgical, medical and major medical insurance premiums are the prime reason for the difference in costs," the study says. "These insurance premiums represent a cost of 8.2% of gross pay in the United States compared with 1.0% in Canada."
Unlike in the United States, Canadian health coverage is not tied to welfare benefits; unskilled workers can take low-paying entry-level jobs without fear of losing access to government-paid health care. This removes the possibility of creating an entrenched underclass with health problems who are handcuffed to welfare because of medical-cost issues.
Businesses in Canada are also able to hire workers regardless of their health history. This is particularly important when it comes to using the talents and efforts of senior citizens, or people with chronic illnesses. Canadian workers aren’t trapped in dead-end or unsatisfactory jobs because they are afraid of losing company-provided health benefits.
Reduced labor costs are not the only corporate benefit of the Canadian system. Individuals rarely file the type of highstakes personal injury lawsuits commonly seen in the United States. Because all citizens are guaranteed quality medical care, catastrophic medical expenses, generally the largest component of a settlement, are usually not sought when such suits are filed. In the United States, product liability insurance coverage costs corporations upwards of $500 million a year, and the premiums are growing by 20 percent to 30 percent annually. Insurance costs are dramatically lower in Canadaunless a manufacturer is exporting to the United States.
Canada’s government-run workers’ compensation plan is managed by the provincial governments, in contrast to the patchwork quilt of private and public systems at various levels of government in the United States. The workers’ compensation premium for a Canadian autoworker in London, Ontario, is 4.56 percent of his or her wages; for an American autoworker in Minneapolis, it is 9.07 percent, according to the KPMG comparative report.
Business should be free to conduct business, and in Canada this is so. There is no need for every company to have personnel employed just to handle the paper burden of privatesector workers’ compensation or health care.
Canada’s system is not perfect; nor is Canadian business able to outcompete American business at every turn as a result of cradle-tograve medical care for its population. But the advantages to citizen and business alike are very real. And as American health care costs outpace economic growth and the country’s population ages, a dose of Canadian medicine may cure what ails it. Failing that, the United States’ system will make its insured workers increasingly expensive to employ and its uninsured workers increasingly unable to afford proper health care.

The history of the present King of Great Britain [King George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Fact be submitted to a candid world (27 listed complaints) including: For [King George III] has imposed Taxes on us without our Consent.There can be no doubt that this foundation of our nation is being violated by the denial of health care services to many millions of Americans, even though they pay hefty taxes to fund public health care. Fully 65% of our nations total health care expenditure is already made from public funds.
Charter of the United Nations Charter
Ratified by the U.S. Senate on July 28, 1945. The preamble states that the peoples of the United Nations have determined to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.Article 55 of the UN Charter states: The UN shall promote higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development . . . as well as universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.As part of the "supreme law of the land" of the United States (U.S. Const., Art. VI cl.2.) this charter enumerates the rights of individuals and duties of every nation that is a signatory to the treaty. All levels of U.S. Government are expected to enforce rights guaranteed by the Charter. The US supreme court, two circuit courts, two district courts and one tax court have cited the UN Charter as U.S. law.

United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which was signed by all members of the general assembly (including the USA) in 1948. The signing of this document was obligatory for every nation which desired to participate and be represented in the world body. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which was signed by all members of the general assembly (including the USA) in 1948. The signing of this document was obligatory for every nation which desired to participate and be represented in the world body. Preamble: Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world . . . and Article 25: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
We have included some of the preamble of the former document since it bears so strongly on the preceding discussion of "natural rights". "Inalienable rights" sounds a lot like our own Declaration of Independence written 170 years earlier.
Note that this, one of the founding documents of the UN, established largely on US instigation, relies heavily in its opening statement and justification on the idea of certain rights belonging to all of humanity by mere virtue of their being part of the human family - the same idea as that of natural or essential human rights. Perhaps just as importantly these opening lines state that these rights are the necessary foundation for freedom, justice and peace. Let's assume that the words were well chosen after profound thought and that our nation's leaders were sincere in supporting these values, at least at the time. Article 25 of this document goes well beyond just a superficial right to see a physician or other health professional (for a few minutes every 6 months?). No, it is explicitly the right to medical care, adequate to the preservation of their own and their family's well-being that is established here. And not just medical care (which must include necessary mental health services to be adequate) but also social services as needed to meet the same end. Not content with just saying everyone in all the signatory nations has these rights, the document goes on to specifically state that the sick, disabled and elderly are entitled to security for their well-being. Another very important point is that the document does not just advise all signatory nations that they write, recognize and respect these as civil rights within their nations. Rather, it states that these listed rights are already recognized rights of the world body and the signatory nations. I repeat its not that "health care should be a right", its that "health care is a right".The UN Declaration of Human Rights has been used in over 150 cases in U.S. courts (as of early 2003). The document is not a treaty but a declaration and as such the U.S. Senate was never asked to ratify it. However, the language has become so well known that it has become part of the common law of the U.S., as well as of the world.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
In October of 1977 the U.S. signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This document recognizes: The right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest available standard of physical and mental health. [to be implemented by] the creation of conditions which would assure to all, medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness. Clearly this is one more signed document in which the US government declared its agreement with the concept of everyone being entitled to enjoy not just basic services, but "the highest available standard of physical and mental health". The US government by signing also acknowledged that the conditions which would assure such health and medical service and attention need to be provided. Why did our government sign this document? Were we just unwilling to once more be singled out (albeit maybe along with Somalia, or earlier with apartheid South Africa) as the only nation which disregards health care of its citizens as a responsibility? And if we signed only because of embarrassment, why is it that we are concerned? Maybe our leaders wonder how we could expect any international respect, any trust in our international dealings with other populations, if it becomes widely appreciated that our government is singularly unconcerned with the welfare of its own citizens (not just those privileged by wealth and status).d. As of early 2003 the ICESCR had been used in only one federal case, which was heard by the Fifth Circuit Court. That case alleged cultural genocide in Indonesia caused by a mining corporation. The case was not successful.

References
1. Comments on the jus cogens principle and the application of same to the "Right to Medications [and other necessary health care] were from comments by Dr. AE Yamin, JD, MPH. Boston Univ International Law Journal Vol 21, No. 2 page 330