Eight years ago, I had a wonderful opportunity to do a fellowship with the Institute for Health Policy Solutions (IHPS), a non-profit consulting group based in Washington, DC. It worked with the federal and state governments that were attempting to provide health coverage to a broader section of their citizens. I sought out that opportunity because of my deep-seated conviction that adequate health care is a basic human right that everyone should be able to access.
While I was in Washington, Barack Obama was elected to his first term as president, and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate later approved the Affordable Care Act (ACA), pejoratively labeled "Obamacare." One of President Trump's first official actions, on the day of his inauguration, was to sign an executive order directing government agencies to scale back as many aspects of the Affordable Care Act as possible, although without giving any specifics about which aspects of the law it was targeting. In addition, the new President has called for immediate repeal of the ACA, to be replaced with an as-yet undetermined Republican plan.
Universal health care has long been a topic considered by the US government, beginning in the Progressive Era of the early 1900s. Several European countries had initiated forms of social health insurance in the late 1800s. In the absence of government-sponsored health insurance in the US, the employer-based system that forms the basis of our current system came into being almost by accident. During World War II, the federal government was deeply concerned about the possibility of hyperinflation, and placed wage and price controls on many parts of the domestic economy. Workers' unions, at that time much more powerful than today, threatened massive strikes to protest the wage controls. To avert work stoppages, the War Labor Board "temporarily" exempted employer-paid health benefits from wage controls and income taxes. Companies then provided health coverage in lieu of wage increases. Thus, the basis of our current system of health care coverage came, not from a well-planned, rational approach, but a quick response to crisis in the midst of a major world war.
Largely because the US health care and insurance systems have evolved organically, many inefficiencies have grown, also. Comparative studies regularly show the US spends more per capita and has worse health outcomes than many other countries. One of the things I learned at IHPS was that the primary goals of health care reform are threefold: 1) expand coverage to include more people, 2) improve health care outcomes, and 3) control or reduce costs. In any sane world, those three goals could not be accomplished simultaneously. Unfortunately, the US health system is so inefficient those three goals can realistically be pursued contemporaneously.
Another lesson I learned at IHPS is that even the countries that first instituted national health coverage are still changing provisions to adapt to current scientific and economic realities, and have been for well over 100 years. No one should have realistically expected the ACA to operate perfectly. Thus, the zeal to repeal Obamacare seems to indicate motives other than simple concern about its efficiency and effectiveness.
Could it be that US citizens are less concerned about basic human rights than we profess? The Constitution enumerates certain "unalienable rights," including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." How are those achievable without health? Why, if our government accepts the responsibility to defend our lives and liberty from enemies, foreign and domestic, to provide free public education for all, to protect free speech, and so on, does it not accept the responsibility to ensure the health of our citizens? Why is access to health care considered a privilege available only to those who can afford to pay for it?
The economics of providing health care to all is certainly a legitimate concern. But other countries, including many much poorer than the US, have long ago committed themselves to doing so. Just one quick example—about two years ago, my wife and I were traveling in a rural part of India, a place where low levels of income and wealth were painfully obvious. My wife had a health issue that needed relatively quick attention. We asked around and were soon directed to a small, local health clinic. The building was small, without air conditioning, and had dirt floors. But after waiting a few minutes to see the doctor, my wife was examined, given medicine for her condition, and we walked out without incurring any cost—and she recovered quickly. If India (and most other countries in the world, for that matter) can figure out how to provide universal health care, surely the US can.
What if we viewed universal health care as primarily a moral issue, rather than an economic one? What if we actually cared about people's health and wellbeing?
78 Responses to What If We Cared More About the Health of Our People?
I think we should be viewing health care as more of a moral issue than an economical one. I'd like to put myself in the position of those who are not able to afford healthcare and if you were sitting in their boat you would want healthcare as well. That being said though, I think the topic of healthcare will always be a difficult and controversial topic in the U.S. There are many different opinions and perspectives that go into this topic and what your stance is financially that make this situation extremely complicated. Even though I believe healthcare is very important and I believe it should be available for all our citizens no matter their income, zip code, etc. I know others have different views that probably will never change. I find it hard to think that we let people in our country stress over whether they or their families are able to be covered by healthcare and worry if something were to happen to them, what would they do?
I think the most important issue that was stated in your blog is that everyone deserves health care even if they can't afford it. I liked your approach to the US constitution and health care. I agree with you. I think it is against are rights completely to be denied healthcare because we do not have enough money to afford it. Health care does not seem to be as big of a priority as it should be in the US. It is sad that India can offer good free health care and our country cant. If we cared about peoples health and well being, I feel like everyone would feel more respected, safe, and secured.
I agree with the position of this article. Why can America not figure out how to make health care affordable? When I was in France I lived near a pharmacy and they sold the plan B pill for roughly $15. The plan B pill in America costs over $50. This just one example, but why is it that American health care is so expensive? Just the other day I heard that more young Americans are in debt simply because of health care, that is insane. Obamacare was a great idea that should have never been repealed in the first place. There are countries with much less money than America that do so much more for their citizens. There needs to be a change to figure out how to make healthcare affordable, and not seem like a ridiculous idea in the process.
The problem with "free" universal healthcare for all is that it isn't actually "free." If it is a government run industry and not a private, company run industry then everyone has to pay into it to provide healthcare to those who "need" it. This by definition isn't free it's simply the democratic illusion of it being free. Further, if taxes weren't raised in order to pay for it, then the United States would have no finances to afford it as we are already in immense debt from all the other inadequate and failing socialistic/democratic policies. Also, this country was built on the notion of individual freedom for everyone to make their own decisions and pave their own path. Therefore, with regards to "free" universal healthcare being considered a "right" as defined by the constitution under the phrase "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" simply is nonsensical. Therefore, having to pay into a pool so that some guy you have never met can have his health looked after is a direct infringement on individual freedom. This leads to the real question, why does everyone deserve the "right" to "free" universal healthcare? If I am a very healthy person who has no major health issues, then why is it fair that I should have to pay into a pool so that someone who has potentially never taken care of his body in any way and suddenly has health problems? Obviously, it is not always the case that someone's level of health is directly correlated to their own doing. However, as any health professional will tell you, there is a strong correlation between those who eat a healthy diet and exercise regularly having far less health problems than those that don't. Therefore, by making people pay for there own individual health insurance plans, different individuals with varying level of health can choose to pay for less coverage and in their old age will have cheaper premiums due to the fact that they take care of themselves better. Further, whenever this topic is brought up democrats always make it sound like the argument is either side with us and care about people or side against us and you are a bad person for not caring. This is simply a cultural norm that has begun to establish itself more deeply in our society. The notion that because you don't want to pay for someone else's health problems makes you a bad person is ludicrous. It simply means that you values the money you worked for and deserve to keep the money that you worked for. This is a much more "fair" statement to make than saying that because I can't afford healthcare someone else should pay it for me. Everyone makes decisions their entire life that leads to them being in a situation. If finances are a problem then you should have made sure to set yourself up financially to handle future health issues. Also, there is a strong correlation between a persons general health and level of income. Generally, poor people don't take care of themselves as well as rich people and this isn't because poor people don't have the finances. It is because poor people don't make health a priority because they are often trying to live outside of their means. Countries like India and many other countries are able to afford these socialist policies more easily because their national defense is provided by us the United States. Many of the countries with these policies couldn't even protect themselves if we decided to back out of defending them. Thus, we make it feasible for these countries to have "free" universal healthcare. Moreover, any time someone is given something for free, they don't appreciate what they have been given as compared to when they had to actually pay for it themselves. Therefore, when applying this logic to "free" universal healthcare, people won't take charge of their own health because they don't feel like they have anything vested into their health.
I think the underlying issue currently is what you mentioned, how health care is viewed. Right now, it is viewed as a necessary cost for corporations to keep its employees happy and coming to work. It is an expense no one really wants to pay for. If people viewed health and well-being as a basic human right, however, I feel that overall health expenses would go down. In the case of a lot of health issues, early detection is key. If screenings and basic treatments were accessible to all, a lot of health issues could be treated before they become a major issue and expensive. I also feel that providing health care to all would overall make the people feel safer and happier which could lead to a decrease in illness anyway. I definitely feel that this issue is not one of "who wants (or doesn't want) to pay for it" but one of "are all humans entitled to basic health care". Once we change our views, we can begin to change policies. I agree that if a country like India can make it a priority, so can the US.
I would agree with this, I feel like basic health care shoulder covered by the government. My employer does offer free health checkups and what I would call "preventative maintainence" I feel like free physicals and yearly dental check ups would not be too expensive to cover and are well worth the pay out. This could eliminate potential problems or prevent little problems Turning into bigger problems. However this does come at a cost to everyone but the benefit in my opinion out ways the cost.
Not to be cynical, but I believe that healthcare will forever be a difficult topic for the US. Our country is so divided on so many beliefs that the roots of the healthcare issue stems far into other issues. I believe that healthcare is extremely important and I think it should absolutely be available for all our citizens no matter their income, zip code, etc. I constantly think about all the men and women out there who can't afford healthcare, but who knows what they offer our society. There is no doubt that some of them are brilliant people, but we will never know because they can't afford to get healthy. The other issue about healthcare is the lack of education on the topic. I am a licensed insurance producer and I work specifically with people approaching, or already in, retirement and on medicare. Every single time I speak with a client, I am shocked at how little they know what they have or what they could have. "Medicare" has such a stigma to it and there have been more than enough scams out there that haven't helped, but people need to understand how to prepare for health coverage once they turn 65.
The health care system in the United States is extremely complex and expensive. I was not aware that our current employer based system was established during world war to as mentioned in the post as to try to solve a hyperinflation problem but it is still the current system we have in place today. I don't understand why we would keep the solution to a crisis as the way we operate health care for 60 years after that. But when looking at health care from an economic stand point, it would be very hard to provide free health care to all without raising our taxes significantly as other socialistic countries have. I also do believe that there should be some system in place that does allow free health care to everyone. There has to be a solution to make both of these possible but unfortunately we haven't found one yet. I believe that this may be because of the extremely high costs of our medicines. I recently had surgery and was fortunate enough to have medical insurance pay for it but if I wouldn't have had insurance the surgery would have cost me $48,000 out of pocket. I looked at the break down of how much each part of surgery cost I was shocked. Each scalpel they used was $80 each and an IV I was given was $800. How does a small piece of metal and an IV cost so much? So possibly something should be done with the pricing of this equipment that hospitals use to start.
Reading this article I kept on thinking about Planned Parenthood. If you think about it, Planned Parenthood is about enabling Americans access to affordable reproductive and sexual health care, education, and information. Offering ALL people affordable medical care. Yes, I understand affordable health care is different from Planned Parenthood, but I'll come back to the part where Planned Parenthood is about offering everyone who enters their doors affordable medical care. So we're seeing potential changes to the ACA, we're also witnessing changes trying to be made to other organizations focused on offering affordable medical care. Coming from someone who usually has more conservative views this is one area I have a strong opinion- when are we going to start putting our people above profit?
I wish the people in the US had more of a say and control over what we wanted to see from our government. No one person should have to worry about getting the medical care they need for them or for their children. It should just be a given.
The issue with healthcare is tricky. It seems as if there is no good solution to the problem, but we know that there obviously is because other nations around the world have found a solution. The question then is, what do we as a nation have to give up in order to gain affordable healthcare for all citizens? Being a conservative, I greatly oppose the idea of socialism, but I do believe that healthcare should be included in our list of inalienable rights. But healthcare is an industry that requires funding, and providing healthcare to everyone means less funding. So where will that funding come from and how will it be provided? Considering our nation's impressive bill for military spending, I think we could start there.
I agree with you Josh, that healthcare should be included in our list of unalienable rights, and that the issue with healthcare can be seen as tricky, but that's only because us Americans try to see the economic component before anything else. Especially as business students in the U.S., we are constantly told that the bottom line is the most important criterion in any situation, but when it comes at the expense of our health, should it really be what is most important? Like Professor VanSandt stated in the blog, there are many other countries who are providing healthcare to all of their citizens and it seems to be working for them, because they realize that if their society is taken care of, they will do better and be a better society as a whole. Are strive to make the most money, and save as much as possible in everything we do in the United States makes us less focused on humans in general. We need to start thinking of our citizens and their health first, before the bottom line.
American healthcare is a money field. A foolproof way to make buckets of money is to make people pay for something they need. I don't buy glasses because I like having different styles. I buy glasses because I need them to see! I can't imagine the difficulty of life if I had no way to correct my poor vision. There's an obvious problem when your mother is reluctant to buy you glasses since it would take a big chunk out of her paycheck. The dilemma in this debate is how everything will be paid for. A doctor might absolutely love their job, but they're not going to do it all day, everyday if they receive nothing for their work. Countries with free healthcare cover the costs with taxes. Everyone pays for everyone to be healthy. The typical American attitude is completely against taxes. More taxes is bad, end of discussion. It doesn't even matter what benefit a tax increase might bring. We don't want to pay more taxes, and we don't want to pay the high price for healthcare, so we just don't go to the doctor. Perhaps this indicates why America is more unhealthy. I may be a little pessimistic, but we won't care more about our people until we care less about our money. In a separate issue over climate change, the burning of fossil fuels is supported by many politicians. It turns out that these politicians are paid for what they say. The money in fossil fuels is enough to completely alter the values of the people we look to to run our country, and I would say the same is true for healthcare.
I completely agree with you. It's sad that healthcare is so expensive in America which causes people to choose not to go to the doctor. Especially when they need something urgent and they have to cope without it because of the price. I've had instances where I've gone to the doctor and their services didn't help, but I still had to fork out a bunch of money. I can only imagine what people go through when they need to make multiple trips back to the doctor.
I like this blog because I believe it gets at the main issue of our (U.S.) health care system. Money. We have become so concerned about profitability that we have forgotten about the basic human need of being in good health. When a doctor is examining you, for any kind of health problem, they see the money they can get from you, more than the actual improvement of your health. I'm sure there are situations that differ from my previous comment, but I believe that is the general norm. The fact that countries, much poorer than ours, can have citizen driven healthcare means there is no excuse why the U.S. couldn't do the same. The media has allowed the issue to become so politicized that the majority of our citizens are more confused then knowledgeable on the subject. I'm not saying I know what's going on because I don't. I believe the government needs to do its part and inform the public on the specs of the issue. Personally, I don't see a problem with a single payer system. We, as a society, need to work as a team on this. If everyone pays their fair share, everyone will receive the benefits. Nobody in this country should have to choose whether they can afford healthcare or not. Tax appropriately, and help your neighbors. United we stand, divided we fall.
The topic of healthcare in the United States is honestly so frustrating. It seems that everyone has a different opinion about what the best approach is, and although everyone has all these opinions, there hasn't seemed to be a successful solution up to this point. I think that one of the major problems with healthcare is that people in politics see it as a competition. With every change of office seems to come a new policy regarding healthcare. Rather than focusing on actually improving our health care system, it seems that our politicians are more concerned with simply having the control over the system. If people were able to see this as a system in which there are many areas of common ground, but also one that is continually changing which needs constant attention, there could be more improvements made and less focus on who is actually making these improvements and changes. The United States is such a medically technologically developed country with the ability to provide its people with exceptional health care. However, the constant bickering about policy and control over healthcare has hindered our country's ability to actually provide this exceptional health care to a majority of its people.
Honestly, I am kind of torn on the issue of healthcare. Of course, everyone deserves to be taken care of during times of need, but there are a lot of negative implications that come from a government-funded universal health care system. I also think we like to think other countries are leaps and bonds above us, but you get what you pay for. My sister lives in Spain, and it is much cheaper. However, the quality and facility in which patients are treated are far below the standards in the US. I don't logically seeing us being ok with a decrease in these aspects to get more affordable care. You could make that claim, but I would guess those thoughts would be reversed as we see our hospitals deteriorate. Spain also has a lot of economical issues, a lot that can be blamed on there government spending. On the other hand, my dad passed away after a battle with a rare kidney cancer. So I have very personal experiences with our healthcare system and the Mayo Clinic. I could not imagine my dad not having the opportunity to be treated for as long as he was. For these reasons, I am torn on the healthcare subject. I do hope that our leaders can find a positive solution.
I agree with you Bailey. I do think Healthcare reform is needed in this country, but I am unsure of how or what the answer to the issue is. I agree there are some negative implications that come from a government-funded universal healthcare system. Recently, an instructor of mine told my class that if she had been living in a country with their healthcare system, she would have been paying 60% of her income in taxes. That to me seems way too much. This is not to say I don't value the health of the people in our county, I am simply saying there must be a better way. I also hope our leaders are able to find a solution to this ongoing controversial issue.
This blog brings up some really good points about how other countries (that are poorer than the US) are doing for their people in regards to health care than we are! That just shocks me because we're always that country that is trying to be the best of the best. Getting old and starting to understand how important health care and health insurance is, I find it really unfair that some people can't afford it because of the life they have. I'm someone who will go to the doctor for the littlest things because I'm always worried I have something and I'm lucky enough to have parents that have really good health insurance to where I can do that whenever I'm worried about something. Something does need to be changed because taking away money from the programs that help people who can't afford health care isn't right. Everyone should be able to get the care they need.
I agree that having access to quality health care should be the right to all citizens. That being said we would have to change the entire health care system to make that happen. I agree that we need to take this issue more seriously and make changes in the right direction. I have been privileged to always have health insurance but I have had to pay a lot to have that benefit as well. I think their need to be some kind of system in place that we still look at having health care as a benefit but don't have to go broke trying to pay for it. And for the people that are not fortunate enough to be able to have it, there needs to be a better system in place that would allow these people to have access to health care. This is a important issue if we want to have a strong and healthy country in the future.
The older I get, the more I understand the importance of healthcare and how it impacts me. Obviously I still know and understand next to nothing about this industry and how it relates to me, but I do feel healthcare should be a basic right. How can we properly function as a society if not all of us are healthy? How can everyone actively participate and contribute to the economy if they aren't healthy enough to do so? There are many factors that also impact that last question, but healthcare is a good start. Even though I am privileged enough to have parents who can afford good health insurance, I still often put off going to the doctor just because I don't want to add extra expenses to my parents. On the other side of things, I can't imagine being unable to receive medical attention just because I can't afford it. I've heard many stories of people being extremely sick or injured and hospitals will not treat them because they cannot pay. I find this terrible because these people are left to suffer and figure it out on their own. Affordable healthcare should be a primary focus of the government and should be revised and updated every year to fit the changing needs of our country.
I do think that healthcare is a basic right that everyone should have access to. I know that is a lot easier said than done, because it is so expensive. It seems that healthcare changes so often that it is hard to even keep up to date. I think that the U.S should try and find a way so that everyone is able to get the basic care that is needed. No one should avoid going to the doctor because they know they could not afford it. I know that when I get out of college I'm going to look for jobs that offer better health insurance rather than focus on salary.
Healthcare is a basic human right specially now because we have developed so much in the past decade that if one can save a life they should by any means possible and without feeling taken advantage off. As an international student studying in the U.S my health care is extremely expensive and we are not allowed to go to external sources to get a different health care because of university requirements. I think, there is a stereotype that if international students can afford school here they can afford expensive healthcare as well. For most of us our parents are giving up a lot for us to get the best education possible and converting money from a depreciating currency is not an easy task to do. I really wish we weren't being taken advantage of in every way possible just because we are international students.
If our country had been built with the notion of country survival instead of personal rights we may have had a better health system that provides to help rather than a way to gain a profit.
If patients stopped sewing the doctors for a surgery that is known to be risky. Or lawsuits over hot McDonald's Coffee, which spread chaos in lawsuits. If companies help their employees with affordable care Instead of ways to cut costs to save towards the bottom line. Or if Congress did not get paid for serving their state, and contributed those funds to the state costs that they represent. Maybe then things will change towards the better.
The health care system in our country has been an immense issue that affects just about every human being in the United States. We seem to change the health care system each time a new president takes office which hinders our progress on getting anywhere remotely close to a successful health care system. I believe each citizen should have access to some form of health care. Why should only the wealthiest have access to health care? Our health is crucial to how we live each day. Not all health related problems are caused by our decisions and actions. Some health issues are beyond our control. We can all agree that health care is an expensive governmental project and there is no inexpensive method of creating a successful solution, however, it is a basic and fundamental need for us to live a fairly healthy life to participate and contribute to society.
as someone who fights an auto immune disease for the better part of a decade i have seen how unforgiving our health care system is. Now I am blessed with a great insurance program, i will not sugar coat that or mislead anyone into thinking i am not but i know, and see others who struggle because we don't make it a priority. Other countries have much lower costs and things are negotiated with insurance companies yet in America the excuse for why we don't do that is because we offer a better quality of service.
last summer i had to get a Brain MRI the bill before insurance was $12,000. The total bill was over $20,000. two of our biggest financial problems in this country are drowning our citizens in student debt and health care debt. niether of which should ever happen because those are things that are 1. essential 2. lead us to be productive members of society. We cannot be either if we are using everything we have to give to high costs of health care.
I have been able to experience health care from two different sides of the coin. When I was in the military our health care was free. If I was sick, broke a bone, had a baby, needed to talk to a mental health specialist, anything, it was covered 100%. While the transition from military to civilian was a difficult one, one of the hardest aspects that I faced was the price of medical care. It even got to the point where I would avoid the doctor as long as possible, simply to avoid the astronomic bills that would follow any visit.
The fact that we are still adhering to the same health care system that was put into place back during WW2 is incomprehensible. Especially when we have examples of countries who have successfully changed and adapted to provide free healthcare for there citizens.
I can't help but wonder if American's are willing to do what is required of them in order to provide American citizens with universal health care, and if they are willing or even able to look past their individualistic mindset for the betterment of our country.
This topic is important, since it will affect everyone at some point in your life. I agree that if we are willing to spend money on the "safety" of the American public, what about the "wellbeing" of the American public? If no one is around to "save," what is the point of strong military? Furthermore, as the fiancée of a veteran, the healthcare available for those serving and not, are not any better. I feel this issue will forever impact our society.
Heath care is a big topic and a concerning one at that. To some extent I do think that there is a large majority of the US citizens that do not care as much about their health as they should. However, I think that one explanation to this is because they simply can't afford it so, why be concerned about something that you can't physically afford fix or take care of? I do think that health care is far expensive and it is not fair to those who can't afford it. I think that health care should be provided to all citizens because it does say that we all should have LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yes, our health care could improve however, I think our focus first should be to get everyone in the position to where they are able to have some sort of health care.
This is a very important topic in our society today. I believe that it comes down to America's individualism. When you think about it, we as a society are greedy people. We tend to only think about ourselves, and many Americans don't want their tax dollars to go to others who might take advantage of the system. I think healthcare should be available to everyone., or it should be more affordable. As a nation, we need to be focused on helping our neighbor/community and not focused on ourselves. I remember when my family used to live in Texas, we would always go to Mexico (we lived close to the border) to get any medications that we needed because they were so much cheaper than in the States. This shouldn't be the case for anyone and it is unfortunate that we haven't solved this issue yet.
This article touches on a very important topic that I am sure some people do not think of. I believe that healthcare is definitely a basic human right. If the government is going to protect our lives with soldiers, why not go a step further and protect us right here in the United States against illnesses. I understand it will be expensive to provide healthcare to everyone but maybe the government can take a pay cut. I don't think this will happen and I don't think that healthcare will become a human right. The government is worried about money and providing healthcare would cause it to loose its money.
When looking for a job, I actually hd to think about if the employer offered healthcare or not. My fiancee does not have healthcare through his work so when we get married I will have to be the one to provide it. We tried finding it on the market but it was too expensive to afford.
This article could not be more relevant in the last few months. I agree that access to healthcare should be considered a human right, not a privilege. When my mother lost her job, and with it our health insurance, we paid an insanely large amount in premiums each month until my mother got a new job. Because my family is in a good place financially, this wasn't catastrophic for us, but I cannot imagine the burden this placed on other families. The system we created in America is built to make some people rich, because others had the misfortune of being sick. I hope that this system will be dismantled soon, and replaced with something like a medicare-for-all, or public option buy-in program. It blows my mind that the party with majority is unwilling to spend the money to provide access to healthcare for all, but many are more than willing to spend billions on a pointless wall. I am personally more willing to pay extra in taxes each year and receive healthcare, than I am to shell out much larger amounts in premiums to insurance companies that only care about their bottom line.
I think this is a question that so many people in the U.S. has. Why can't we have some sort of universal health care, not saying it has to be the best of the best all around. Just that any person could want into the hospital or doctor's office would be cared for and not have to stress about the costs they're about to incur. I thought it was so interesting to read how we came about our employers paying for part of our health care costs. It was such a quick easy fix, which surprises me that it's our system now when there was no prior planning done. It's not that our system can't change we're just so used to how it is now. As well the economic impact that it would have and people tend to recognize that first before the benefits that will come.
I think this is a good example of how America tends to be an individualistic society. People are more concerned about themselves and the ways they can benefit as individuals (by not paying higher taxes) than they are about the health of the other people in their community. While that statement seems rather harsh, I think it is because many people who do not have major health issues don't benefit at the time they are paying the higher taxes. They just see it as a burden because they look at the situation as an economic issue. I think you are right in saying that if we changed our views and saw it as a moral issue, maybe there would be more people willing to help their fellow community members who are struggling. While this would be great in a sense, people will not forget the economic impact it will have on them because of the way our society runs, so I think that it is going to need to be looked at as both a moral and economic issue.
How to provide adequate healthcare while considering the economics of it is a very big problem in the US. I do think that if it were looked at from a moral POV and not economical, without a question it would be provided for all. I have read so many articles and heard stories from people I know about how people have to choose from being treated or afford other bills. There are people that will choose to suffer from a treatable illness simply because they can't afford it. Those situations alone would persuade lawmakers to make universal healthcare available. But we can't look at it just that way; we have to consider the economics as well. The cost to create the drugs, to perform surgeries, and how the insurance companies are going to pay for them have to be considered.
In an ideal world, the wellbeing of everyone would be put ahead of everything else. However in reality, there is so much more that has to be thought about. I think the American Healthcare Act has the right idea in mind and should be expanded on to ensure that we will eventually find the balance between care and costs. Until that happens there will continue to be debate over the topic of healthcare.
Indeed, I believe health care is a moral issue, and it holds the same argument as other moral issues: despite the morality of the topic, the gains to be made by pursuing it outweigh the costs. If health care was provided, taxpayers would reduce the money spent paying for individuals who do not have health insurance, our population would have greater and longer use of its human capital, and small businesses would have higher likelihood of success. In these ways and others, the moral issue of health care is an economic issue as well — in fact, it's also a patriotic issue in terms of how it will improve the United States' output.
Health care has continued to be a large topic of controversy in our country. I do have concerns for the Affordable Care Act because of the exorbitant amount of money it will cost the American citizens to implement. I like the idea of the American Health Care Reform Act, which will lower health care costs by increasing the number of health care options available to businesses and individuals, ensuring competition between insurance providers.
Health care is complex and the current system could use some modifications, but I do not think we will ever attain universal healthcare because it is difficult to draw the line between morality and economic reality. And the reality is, people do not want to pay higher taxes. It is not so much that we do not care about others, I think it is more so that we care about ourselves. Those who are in great health would rather not pay significant tax increases when they do not need any treatment; the current system would be cheaper for them. Alternatively, those who do have many health problems would gladly pay the higher income taxes because they need health care services. In general, the free rider problem would be prevalent as those who do not work would receive free health care while others pay for it. Furthermore, the notion of government-provided healthcare goes against Republican values of limited government. Overall, I think we are unwilling to overlook the economic costs.
I agree with you! I also feel that because of the road we are down with how the health care in the States works I feel it would be hard to change gears to a government provided health care. As stated in the article healthcare in the States was implemented within companies in Lou of wages which can make it hard not just from a health perspective but from a business standpoint.
It pains me that as rich of a country we are, that health care cannot be provided for everyone. I know there are any factors that come into play, but how have we not evolved into some form of a universal health care that works? How are there so many countries that have universal health care, like India, who is a povern stricken country? What are they doing that we aren't? It kills me that Donald Trump, who is the top 1% of this country, can take away basic rights, like health insurance. He's never been in a position where he can't afford it, so how can he make that call?
I think there is clearly a problem with our system. The numbers have been crunched many times, for instance, there are more deaths in the US from not receiving adequate healthcare than anywhere else in the world that has healthcare of some sort. I think it is definitely something that should happen, the way I look at it, if it weren't for people in the country there would be no country, so it is wrong to not help them be healthy so that country can be better off.
This article sums up a lot of my concerns regarding the american health care system. As someone who lived in Canada for most of my life it really hit me hard to come here and find the "healthcare is a privilege not a right". I do agree with the opinion that healthcare is a moral or ethical issue rather than an economic one, but I think that now that the opinion is in place it's going to be exceptionally hard to change it. Hopefully one day the United States will be able to see how this can work in other countries and be able to find a system that works, but unfortunately it might be a while.
I believe healthcare should be attainable for all. It's insane that not everyone has the same healthcare. I realize that even if we were able to get everyone heathcare there will still be the option to pay more for more benefits, but everyone should be given the same base program. It's hard to believe something that should be a basic human right is bought and sold like any other good.
I have been fortunate enough to have these things taken care of by my family. This topic hasn't been an issue for me in the past, because I wasn't directly affected. It's scary to think of the future and think how I will be affected when I have to take care of these things.
I personally think healthcare should be a basic right and should be more accessible to americans. There are numerous countries out there (given the population difference) that provide this to their public effectively. With the knowledge that the United States is one of the most unhealthy countries in the world, I think this aspect needs to change. Obama did well with the ACA and I believe that it is a step in the right direction. However, if our current president finally releases that great health care plan he's been gloating over and not the one that got shut down by its own party, than our country will see this movement of having basic healthcare for citizens become even harder to attain.
Yesterday in class we talked about systemic problems. Health care in this country definitely seems to fit into this category. Like the author of this article says, if India can figure out how to provide universal health care, surely the US can. There has to be a better way for health care to be handled in our country, and hopefully it is implemented soon.
Since I have been fortunate enough to have had access to health care through my family's insurance plan, it has been easy to overlook the fact that many people haven't been as fortunate as I have. The part that talks about health care being a privilege reminded me of this. I believe that the health care system does need to be more accessible. Many people don't get needed attention because of the cost that they would have to incur to be treated. Therefore a health care system that makes health care more accessible to everyone at a low cost needs to be accomplished. Especially because the health of people in America is very important.
I found it extremely interesting how easily your wife was able to get treated in rural India and be on your way. That being said, I feel the US government is split on how it looks at health care. I think until both political parties can agree on a feasible option, there will always be repeals and changes on healthcare acts. I think US culture has shaped people to view healthcare not as a moral issue but as an economic. I feel the government and other entities ignore the struggle of people affording healthcare. These 3rd party healthcare companies solely focus on generating profit and are/will continue to lobby political laws to benefit their corporation, not the people. I'm interested to see the next approach Trump will take with the healthcare bill after failing to repeal the first time.
I can immensely relate to this article. I work at an insurance company that sells health care. I find it a daily struggle keeping up with all the changing laws. The most recent one was that Wellmark and several other companies were dropping out of the individual market in 2018 and all individual ACA (not grandfathered) policies would cancel effective 1/1/2018. How are people supposed to even have access to health care if their employers do not carry group insurance (even if they can afford it)? The government needs to figure out this problem quickly. Health care is very important and needs to be offered to everyone at an affordable price. It is a human right. Multiple other countries like India can figure it out and they are a very poor country, so why can't the U.S.? I am very fortunate to have health insurance, but a lot of people are not. Sometimes, we do not think about that, but it is very prevalent in the U.S. I hope that the government will all work together to figure something out ASAP.
I think it really puts it into perspective that the answer to our issue will not come about tomorrow, or maybe even 5 years down the road.
Health care is a privilege that I feel should be universal and all encompassing. Most of the people around the Cedar Falls area can be considered middle class and have had the luxury of obtaining health insurance for the entirety of our lives. I feel that when bringing up the idea of universal health care, we have to analyze it as citizens as well as recipients of insurance. Someone would be entitled to pay for this, most likely tax payers, increasing our taxes dramatically. I think that everyone should be entitled to health care, but we need to find a way to make it cost efficient and easily obtainable. In recent years, our health care plans have been widely disputed, and I think that at some point we may have to improve on what we already have.
It seems that health care is being turned into another commodity – not unlike water, heat, food, clothing, shelter, or any other basic living necessity. It's not very surprising that we are looking at another humans right issue through the lens of corporate control.
Government is meant to allocate the scarce resources held by any one society. Citizens can use these resources to cover their basic needs, and in even elevate past them. Currently, we have an excess of citizens who cannot even cover these basic needs, while others are fighting over which provides a better service. Government allocation is absent, and left to corporate mercy instead.
We have to completely change our approach to all of these issues if we want to provide any form of equity. Basic rights should not be bid upon, left to markets, or turned into commodities. For luxuries (or anything past what would be considered basic need) market forces are fine, and don't need to be protected.
Something that struck me in the article was the reference to health care as being a privilege. My family has been fortunate enough to always have access to health care and insurance and because of that it can be easy to forget that not everyone is so lucky.
When I hear examples like the one in this article about poorer countries than the US providing health care to its citizens, it astounds me that the US can't seem to figure out how to do this. If other countries are doing this and it's working well for them, I don't see why the US doesn't try harder to implement a health system for all so everyone can have their best shot at living a healthy life.
I believe that health care should be more accessible. Many people incur unnecessary medical costs because they do not have access to health care. There are people who die unnecessarily because they do not have health care. I have a very good friend who had cancer as a child and without access to healthcare she probably would not be here today. She still needs that healthcare today, when Trump made the executive order to repeal the affordable care act she got really scared because she would've lost her access to healthcare along with many other people. Even with the ACA there are still millions of people who do not have access to good healthcare and we need to make sure that in the near future we make sure these people get access to healthcare so more people do not die unnecessarily.
I definitely agree that healthcare should be more accessible. However, everybody knows that this is going to be a tough task that many people may work years on improving it. I saw the comments posted by Bowen Cai and Yingxue Mei. Yes, what she posted was exactly what I was going to say. The healthcare systems are very different in the U.S. and China. There was one thing happened to my girlfriend recently: Two weeks ago, my girlfriend did not feel good and I went to the UNI clinic with her. And after we got there, I was shocked that we had to make an appointment and the earliest available time was two days after. You guys could imagine what I was thinking. So, I did agree on Bowen's point that the healthcare outcomes should be improved.
I agree healthcare should be more accessible. It is really hard to deal with major medical bills which are usually incurred when something major in your health occurs, thus putting a lot of stress on people who need health care. These costs can make people opt out of getting the care they need because they cannot incur these costs or don't have the coverage to help. With this being said, I don't think that healthcare should be free or too cheap. Our medical staff, doctors, surgeons, etc, spend good money, time, studying, research, and practice in becoming someone we can depend on for health care. They deserve a higher pay. But there is surely many ways this all could be worked out and maybe someone should find them.
Good point. I think health care is an economic issues as well as an ethical issue. It is a basic right for human.
I agree that health care is a basic human right and I think that government had better to pay more attention to health care and insurance systems. I heard that if you just have a small problem in the USA, you may need to wait for a long time to be cured. You should wait for other people who have more serious problems. I do not know if it is true. It is very different from China. The health care systems of USA and China both have advantages and dis advantages. In China, we may not need to wait for a long time but it is costly if we have serious problems. We may use all the money we have. I heard that if US citizens have serious problems, they may not pay as much as Chinese people do.
I do agree that healthcare should be accessible to all, but there also needs to be a price attached with that. Healthcare costs have been very expensive as of late and need to be reduced, but I do not believe a universal healthcare is the solution to this problem. I do not know the correct solution to this situation and that is probably why this scenario has not been resolved either. I really liked that point that Bradon made, "Should the government just pay for every person's groceries as well too?" I know that is a harsh illustration but I think it illustrates the point. But then again, my heart would be torn for those individuals with pre-existing conditions that can't necessarily afford healthcare who may be deserving.
I believe health care in the US should be more affordable, however, to have free health care doesn't seem likely. I agree we do see healthcare as a economic issue instead as a moral issue. In America today money seems like the most important thing. People who have jobs and pay their taxes should be able to afford good healthcare. People don't seek medical attention in emergencies because they know they wouldn't be able to afford it. It is sad that so many people have to deal with this issue. Something should be done, but it's hard to come up with a good solution.
I agree healthcare should be accessible for all. While a different healthcare system would help alleviate some of the difficulties people have finding adequate coverage now, there are still going to be some consequences. Along with a likely increase in taxes, there would be limitations on what ailments and injuries would be fully covered and most likely longer wait times to see physicians or receive emergency care services. However, a universal healthcare system could create an overall improvement of health for American citizens on the average, but it would be difficult to implement in America.
I really enjoyed this article as it gives a good background to America's health care system through the years. It seems America can do almost anything if it puts its mind to it. We put a man on the moon, but it took up until 2010 when the ACA was passed that people with preexisting conditions could be covered by health. As someone with a close family member that has gone through the fight with cancer, I see health care as a top issue. The ACA is not perfect, but I think we should be working to improve it instead of repeal it. America put a man on the moon almost 50 years ago. Health care in America is very important. It is time for America to figure out a health care system that is low cost and works for everyone.
I believe that health care costs are too expensive in the United States, but I do not believe universal health care is the answer. If I'm making healthy choices while my peers are making unhealthy choices, then why should I pay for their unhealthy lifestyles? I think the costs of health care needs to be addressed, while making health care more easily obtainable, especially for people with pre-exisiting conditions. But, again, I do not think universal health care is the answer. One of my favorite sayings from the various economics classes I have taken is "there is no such thing as a free lunch". This article definitely touches on this point.
I enjoyed reading some of your arguments on why health care should be given to all citizens in the United States. In theory, it does seem crazy that our society essentially considers health care a "privilege" for those who can afford it. However, I would argue that hospitals and clinics are just like any other business. You have to pay for the service, whatever it may be. This, of course, is why people elect to have health insurance. I guess I see this topic similar to people needing to eat. Obviously everyone needs to eat, and wouldn't be able to have the "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" if they are starving to death. So in this same scenario, should our government just pay for every person's groceries as well? It is strange to me that people don't see this as essentially the same thing. I definitely see that there is a problem with people not being able to receive health care, but I wouldn't agree that our government needs to subsidize it for everyone.
This is indeed a very polarizing subject with many ethical facets. I respect your deeply-seated conviction that all citizens should have access to health care. I would like to present a few "devil's advocate" points to consider, however.
1. What would be the best way to ensure universal care? Does this come in the form of a single-payer system, wherein a government (federal, state or local) reimburses physicians and specialists for the costs of the care they provide?
2. If this comes in the form of single-payer, how do we remedy the incentive/disincentive by-products of a nationally-subsidized, single-payer system? If unhealthy individuals are divorced from the costs of their medical care, economic theory (and some empirical findings) would suggest that they would have less incentive to "take care" of their health, and therefore, they would not feel a corresponding financial incentive to improve their health.
3. If single-payer is enacted, it would have to come in the form of new taxes. This would result in some form of wealth redistribution. Thus, there are other ethical issues to consider, such as: Is it ethical to force grandma to pay for treatment of liver damage to the 40-year old chronic drinker who, despite his physician's constant warnings, continued to abuse alcohol and is now seeking medical care as a result of the consequences of his bad choices? (Note: I realize this is somewhat of an extreme illustration, but I wanted to use it to highlight a potential ethical issue of single-payer).
4. If single-payer is the preferred vehicle of delivery for universal health care access, are there new opportunities for corruption from the same government that created a government-sponsored monopoly in Medicare prescription drug purchases? Trust in the government's ability to administer mandatory programs (soc security, medicare, medicaid, etc) is at near-record lows. I have concerns about this government's ability to manage a new "entitlement" program.
All of that said, I should clarify that I am NO fan of the existing model of health-care access (via private health-insurance companies). Basic economic theory would indicate that any transaction involving three parties is almost ALWAYS more expensive than a two-party transaction. Furthermore, health-insurance companies and execs are clearly abusing their position by extracting significant profit margins through ridiculously complicated health insurance policies, loopholes, and denial-of-claims (see Wellmark's very nice, and very expensive HQ in Des Moines). Corruption (in the form of monopoly-style pricing systems) is already here in the private sector.
I did, however, come across an interesting article today about a potential compromise between national single-payer, and the current system of private insurance.
It's an interesting idea, and I think local control over insurance would help mitigate the temptation for drug companies (and others) to rig the system for their gain.
Bottom-line: Are there measurably better ways of improving access to care? Absolutely. Is the American health-care system an inefficient and unequal mess? Definitely. Is single-payer the answer? Hard to say. There have been mixed results in the countries that have employed it. Some concrete improvements compared to the U.S. system, while some deficiencies include longer wait times and lack of access to specialists.
I certainly don't have the answer to the health-care problem in America. I also recognize the ethical travesty of a system that results in millions of people lacking access to adequate health care. I think we do need to frame the issue through the lenses of morality and not simply economics, but I think both are necessary to achieve a practically implementable outcome.
There are some very good comments on this article. Cost is always a problem for everything especially with government run programs. While it would be great if we were able to provide health care to everyone in the United States it is very difficult. I do not like spending money so I see where concerns come from about my money going to pay for someone else's health insurance. I personally would feel better and I would assume many other would feel better if people held their own responsibility for their heath. What I mean with that is people need to make sure they are eating healthy, exercising, and doing other measures to promote a healthy lifestyle. I know there are people that cannot physically do those things and I am sure people would be more than willing to provide for them.
I am interested in the topic about the primary goals of health care reform.1) expand coverage to include more people, 2) improve health care outcomes, and 3) control or reduce costs.
Because I'm an international student, I know the difference in the health care between the U.S and China. 1. Expand the coverage to include more people. I think it is a serious problem in China, there are lots of people in China spending lots of money at hospital and I don't know if it is because of the lack of medical insurance. But the medical insurance in the U.S is really excellent. 2. Improve health care outcomes. In this part, I think the efficiency of the health care in China is better and usually we don't have an appointment to go the clinic. 3.Control and reduce costs. This is the funniest part. Our international students all know that do not call for an ambulance if it is unnecessary! It's really expensive! What's more, once we have some healthy problems, if the problem is not serious (like toothache), we will endure till we are back to China!
Having healthy citizens in America is important and health care can help with that. But the goals that you stated surely don't seem to work together, as you said. I would agree with this, I don't think you can cover more people, while reducing costs. Those two goals alone would be hard to put together. Overall health care may be good, but finding the perfect health care package seems next to impossible or it's always going to need some kind of tweaks.
I enjoyed this article because I did not have a lot of previous knowledge about the Affordable Care Act and it helped to shed some light about health care in America. I think that we should treat universal health care as a priority and right for citizens. However, I question how the US can reach this point. If we can then why haven't we yet? Is it because it is not that big of a priority for the people that have a political voice in the US? Another question that arises is would people be held accountable to take care of themselves and lead a healthy lifestyle? I feel as though certain policies and requirements would have to be met and written up in order to provide every U.S citizen health care. This would cost a lot of money and take a lot of time to try and reorganize our whole healthcare system. I hope that sometime in the future this can become a priority but, as of right now with the current election, we might have to wait a while to see some changes take place.
I agree that many inefficiencies have grown with our health care system, and that something needs to be done. Many families around the country are paying outrageous amounts of money for health insurance, which can make keeping up with other expenses extremely difficult. I love the idea of having UHC, but I agree that the United States has economic issues to resolve before we can get there, if we ever do.
I believe we should care more about an individual's health over the profits of their illness. This situation is much like the pharmaceuticals situation where the price is raised on life sustaining drugs to make a profit. Both make me sick. I, and everyone else, should not have to worry about whether or not I/we will make it to an old age. If someone gets sick, the goal should be to treat them and heal them, not bankrupt them. It is so frustrating to see doctors and drug companies making millions while people are working 3+ jobs to pay for their spouse, parent, or even child's healthcare. Although if you work full time, it is required that a company offer you healthcare benefits. EXCEPT, you still have to pay for them and many people are scrapping by on little to nothing left over from their checks. If companies so big (and global) like John Deere can offer "free" healthcare to their Union/Wage employees, why is it so difficult to see the benefits of this being a national system. We will never get there if the ACA is repealed. Yes, I will admit that it can use some revising, but it is a step in the right direction. We have taken a step forward, let's not take three back.
This article gives a nice history of health care in the United States. I am wondering where the responsibility falls for the citizens. Some are choosing to eat poorly, smoke, not exercise, sit in the sun without sunscreen, and live sedentary lifestyles. I don't want to be paying for my neighbor's health care down the street who chooses not to take good care of himself. I do think if the government is going to provide health coverage, there needs to be regulations to belonging to the health care plan. Also, I wonder if other countries have successful plans, could we mimic one of their programs?
I do feel that it is important for the government to actively be involved with health care for the well-being of the citizens. However, like many have said, many people do not have unhealthy records and are not using the medical institutions as frequently, yet they are ones who have to pay taxes in order for free health care. The government focuses a lot of attention on many things that the citizens are taxed for. Maybe the government may have to spend less on one thing and use that to help with health care? If we are to care more about the health of the people, then the government needs to make that their priority, not the people who pay a lot in taxes.
I see the point that many other comments on making on the issue. I do not think health insurance should be handed out to everyone, but I believe it should be at least much more attainable for those who can't afford it on their own. I know several people who have never had health insurance, and it makes me really sad. Those people usually end up in a much worse situation because they are unable to afford a trip to the doctor, thus forcing them to take off work and becoming even more financially worse off. I don't know what the best way is to get everyone health insurance in the United States, but something has got to change in my opinion. If other countries can figure out a way, I believe the US can do it too, and probably do it better. The inflation in the medical field is something that really bothers me, as well. Someones medicine shouldn't be say $50 one month, and then be $700 the next.That isn't realistic for the average person in America to be able to afford that expense. My current place of employment offers free health insurance to both part-time and full-time employees. I think it is absolutely amazing, even though I am still on my parents family plan.
Brady makes a good point-how do we know what to cover? Which ailment is more important? My only suggestion would be to run it like an FSA- Flexible Spending Account. Perhaps each citizen would get a certain amount of money in their health account and could use it whenever and however they needed it. At the end of the year you either lose it or can transfer it to a different person's account who is in need. Let's say you use all of your FSA by the middle of the year, the rest of the fees would be out of pocket. Moral of the story, this isn't a great solution either. Is there really any good solution? Healthcare isn't free and no matter how we slice it, someone will have to pay for it.
I'd like to point out that the expensive price of healthcare is a part of our capitalistic society. Doctors go through years and years of education, schooling and training to learn and absorb all of the knowledge to be able to operate and cure us when we are ill or in pain. To compensate them fairly in accordance with their investment of time and money for schooling, healthcare must be expensive. In the U.S. we reward hard work, education, expertise and knowledge with pay. In India, your wife was treated in a thorough and quick manner free of charge, but how good were the conditions? How well compensated are those doctors? I think its inevitable in our current society that healthcare costs will be high. I'd rather pay the 15%-20% deductible than inflated government taxes to pay for the healthcare of others who's jobs don't cover their insurance. As unempathetic as that sounds, we live in an unempathetic capitalistic society where "that's just too bad, you didn't make the cut" is the norm.
My opinion is similar to what Roni and Jacey both touched on. I believe that having 'access' to health care (which we all have) is a human right, but as for the related costs that come with the health care… I don't believe that it is a right for it to be free. My largest concern would be with the costs associated with providing the health care.
First, do we provide coverage for every sickness, disease, etc.? Or do we limit what we will treat and what we will pay for? How do we determine what will be covered and how do we justify placing one disease's importance over another? Second, who is going to pay for all of this? The only "logical" solution I can think of is through taxpayer money. As Jacey mentioned, I would assume that not many people want to pay for other people's medical expenses. I personally don't want to, especially if I am paying for the expenses of people who value their alcohol, tobacco, drugs, etc., more than their health.
I agree with Roni's statement about it being easier to care about a person's health and well-being than it is to not care about the costs associated with it. Maybe this makes me a bad person… But when I see a homeless person on the side of the road, I feel bad for them and I care for their health, but I don't empty my bank account to make sure that they are receiving the appropriate medical attention.
Roni took the words out of my mouth. The idea of universal healthcare may be an easy thing to desire but the hard part is coming up with a solution for the costs incurred for medical services. Services, of any kind, often are not free and we must pay for them. While we can strive to make healthcare more easily accessible, the financial cost of it still becomes an issue and even more so, who takes on the financial burden of those who can not pay for their medical costs? I may be making a broad assumption, but I would assume not many people want to pay for other people's medical expenses.
I think that the idea of viewing universal health care as a human right that everyone should have access to sounds great on the surface; however, I am not sure how the economic side of health care would function with this view. If health care is provided to individuals without that person incurring any costs, who is paying for those costs? If it is the government, where is the government obtaining the funds to pay for these costs? I think that it is easy to care about the well-being and health of all people, but more difficult to not care how the costs of caring are being handled and that is why the US health systems are arranged in the way that they are currently.
I don't think that the issue is purely economic. Roughly 40% of the Americans "live paycheck to paycheck", and they may think a UHC tax may put them and their families on the streets. This naturally causes a lot of fear and anxiety. Most American citizens also consider themselves to be in "excellent" health and visit their medical provider very infrequently; the current health care system may seem like a less pressing concern to them and, therefore, less likely to get political momentum.


text:
Kojima Productions will multiply projects in 2022
The renewal of the calendar year is always an opportunity to teaser, an exercise in which the eponymous founder of Kojima Productions has long been a master.
Like most Japanese developers, the young studio Kojima Productions took advantage of the Western calendar renewal to display via the weekly Famitsu its plans for the year 2022, and look back on the successes of the previous one:
Although 2021 was still a very difficult year for us, we were able to deliver Death Stranding Director's Cut safely to PS5 even in this COVID-19 situation, even as we prepared and experimented with new titles.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Kojima, a radical dreamer
But because life is not only made of re-releases and other rehashes, the young Tokyo studio is already looking towards the future, and Sieur Kojima to promise as usual great and beautiful things for the post-Death Stranding. The reverse would have surprised us.
This year I'm going to start a new project and take it to the next level of experimentation with a radical project in earnest. I also hope to get the film crew up and running. And I could start to embark on another radio project.
Engine, action!
For Kojima Productions, the year 2022 will therefore be very busy, since the new division responsible for producing films announced in 2019 should therefore begin its march, on the principle that "if you can do one thing well, then you can do everything well. ", of the Kojima in the text, obviously.
But the question everyone is asking is obviously about the creator's next game with glasses., since would the five million copies of Death Stranding be such as to start a new episode, as actor Norman Reedus potentially suggested this summer, or would Kojima's "radical" project necessarily involve developing a new license? We'll leave it up to you to discuss this possibility in the comments below. Your keyboards !

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Proposal that the earth's heat is very old, and that granites crystallized from molten rocks. Once the granites had formed, according to this theory, the heat also uplifted the land; volcanoes were considered escape valves, and were correctly proposed as the source of basalts. Weathering and deposition led to renewed heat accumulation which in turn led to the production of new continents. One of the chief advocates was James Hutton. Aka plutonism.


text:
Laboratory for Coastal Research
Laboratory for Insurance, Financial and Economic Research
Laboratory for Social Science Research
Laboratory for Wind Engineering Research
Latest Media Coverage
WOW Challenge
NOAA designates IHRC as Weather-Ready Nation Ambassador
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has designated the FIU International Hurricane Research Center (IHRC) as the first Weather-Ready Nation Ambassador in South Florida. Weather-Ready Nation (WRN) is about building community resilience in the face of increasing vulnerability to extreme weather. WRN Ambassadors serve a pivotal role in affecting societal change – helping to build a nation that is ready, responsive, and resilient to the impacts of extreme weather. (PDF)
Laboratories: Laboratory for Coastal Research, Laboratory for Wind Engineering Research
Ambassadors from around the world experience the impact of FIU's Wall of Wind
Investigating Socio-economic Impacts of a Recent Hurricane and Understanding Perceptions of Coastal Vulnerability
Wall of Wind, The Weather Channel, August 22nd, 2012
IHRC Laboratories
Laboratory for Wind Engineering Research, Laboratory for Coastal Research, Laboratory for Social Science Research, Laboratory for Insurance Financial and Economic Research
EEI Facebook
EEI Twitter
FPHLM
HURACANNES
IHRC Website © 2021 All Rights Reserved


text:
Cricket Teams
One Day International (ODI)
Twenty20 (T20) Cricket
Team India Schedule For Home Series Against Sri Lanka, New Zealand, and Australia 2022-23
Rahul Chaube
Team India Schedule For Home Series.
Team India Schedule For Home Series: The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) unveiled the schedule for the forthcoming home series against Sri Lanka, New Zealand, and Australia on Thursday. In January, a three-match T20I and three-match ODI series against Sri Lanka will kick off the international home season.
Team India will play 19 matches in the course of two and a half months. Keeping the 2023 ODI world cup in mind, out of those 19 matches, 9 are ODIs. The BCCI schedule announces the Sri Lanka Tour of India 2022-23, the New Zealand tour of India 2022-23, and the Australia tour of India 2022-33. This also includes the Border-Gavaskar trophy.
🚨 NEWS 🚨: BCCI announces schedule for Mastercard home series against Sri Lanka, New Zealand & Australia. #TeamIndia | #INDvSL | #INDvNZ | #INDvAUS | @mastercardindia
More Details 🔽https://t.co/gEpahJztn5
— BCCI (@BCCI) December 8, 2022
Read: ICC World Test Championship (WTC) final to be held on June 7, likely to clash with IPL 2023
Team India Schedule For Home Series
Sri Lanka tour of India, 2022-23
Team India's home season will begin in January 2023 with a three-match T20 series against Sri Lanka followed by 3 ODIs.
Sr. No. Date Match Venue
1 3rd January 1st T20I Mumbai
2 5th January 2nd T20I Pune
3 7th January 3rd T20I Rajkot
4 10th January 1st ODI Guwahati
5 12th January 2nd ODI Kolkata
6 15th January 3rd ODI Trivandrum
New Zealand tour of India, 2022-23
Next will be the New Zealand tour of India. New Zealand will play 3 ODIs against India starting on 18 January. Team India will also play a three-match T20I series against New Zealand. It will end on 1st February.
1 18th January 1st ODI Hyderabad
2 21st January 2nd ODI Raipur
3 24th January 3rd ODI Indore
4 27th January 1st T20I Ranchi
5 29th January 2nd T20I Lucknow
6 1st February 3rd T20I Ahmedabad
Australia's tour of India, 2022-23 – Test series
The action will move forward with much awaited India vs Australia Border-Gavaskar Trophy. Beginning on February 9 in Nagpur, the Australia Border-Gavaskar Trophy tour of India will get underway. The following three Test matches for Team India will be held at Delhi, Dharamsala, and Ahmedabad. The Border-Gavaskar Trophy, which consists of a four-match Test series, will probably be terminated after this year.
(Image Source: Twitter)
1 9th – 13th February 1st Test Nagpur
2 17th – 21st February 2nd Test Delhi
3 1st – 5th March 3rd Test Dharamsala
4 9th – 13th March 4th Test Ahmedabad
Australia's tour of India, 2022-23 – ODI series
The home series will then conclude with a three-match ODI series which will be held in Mumbai, Vizag, and Chennai.
1 17th March 1st ODI Mumbai
2 19th March 2nd ODI Vizag
3 22nd March 3rd ODI Chennai
The major adjustment is that Virat Kohli and India's captain Rohit Sharma may no longer be a part of India's T20 plans. There have already been reports that Hardik Pandya will be named India's new T20 captain before the series against Sri Lanka. A new coach for the Indian T20 Team is something that the Indian Board BCCI is also interested in. Most likely, Rahul Dravid and the incoming coach will collaborate.
Read: 500+ sixes for Rohit Sharma. Becomes the second player to reach the landmark.
Border Gavaskar Trophy


text:
Leukaemia and lupus research to be fast-tracked by GSK
Researchers who have identified potential targets for new medicines for acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) and lupus have been announced as the Australian winners of the 2018 GSK Discovery Fast Track Challenge.
The GSK Discovery Fast Track Challenge was designed to help turn innovative research into treatments for patients faster, by fostering greater collaboration between academia and industry. Winners of the challenge are granted rare access to GSK's state-of-the-art research resources, expertise and compound library to screen their targets to identify molecules that could potentially become new medicines.
Challenge winners Professors Tom Gonda and Richard D'Andrea, from the University of South Australia, will work together with GSK scientists to test GSK compound libraries against a target protein that plays a role in a number of different cancers. It has been shown to be critical in acute myeloid leukaemia, and the researchers believe the discovery of a molecule that could block the function of this protein could ultimately lead to new therapies.
"It's an exciting area of research and it's terrific to have access to the range of GSK technologies and expertise so we can use them to identify candidate drugs against our target protein," Prof Gonda said. "This is a very promising line of enquiry in regard to new treatments, especially given AML currently has such a poor prognosis, with less than 30% of patients surviving for five years after diagnosis."
Professor Tom Gonda (top) and Professor Richard D'Andrea (bottom).
Dr Kim Good-Jacobson, from the Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, has also been named a challenge winner for her work researching how to target and destroy antibody-producing cells that cause autoimmune diseases.
"For the past three years we have been working on a target that is able to recognise the antibody-producing cells that cause autoimmune diseases like lupus — our next challenge is to discover an inhibitor for it," Dr Good-Jacobson said.
"By having access to GSK libraries, we can immediately begin screening against our target. Through this process we hope to determine a molecule that may become the basis for a drug to help patients living with lupus."
Dr Kim Good-Jacobson.
This year's challenge winners will also receive up to $75,000 in funding to support the collaboration from GSK's Discovery Partnerships with Academia (DPAc) program. They were selected from over 80 entries based on their potential to impact diseases where there is an unmet medical need and where patients would strongly benefit from new therapeutic interventions.
"I am delighted to congratulate our winners of this year's Australian Challenge," said Andrew Weekes, Medical Director for GSK Australia. "The Challenge has been extremely successful in identifying exciting new collaborative opportunities that may ultimately lead to innovative medicines to tackle unmet patient need. This program has also enhanced our ability to reach out and make contacts with leading academics."
Top image credit: ©stock.adobe.com/au/vege


The Playa Penthouse is a tall viewing platform where Newbies can get their bearings and discuss and learn the 10 Principles and their application on the Playa and in life. Gin &Tonics, as long as they last, or BYOB. Learn the importance of carrying your own cup! Enjoy the view and get your initial bearing of major locations around the Playa.


1. The Conveyancing Committee is not in favour of a reduction of 25% in respect of bonds and 20% in respect of transfers of the prescribed fee.
This will create a precedent which might result in a situation where conveyancers will have to register low cost housing transfers at an even greater loss as is the case at present.
2. It has come to the attention of the Conveyancing Committee that the fees of legal practitioners widely differ in respect of registration of transfer of shares and interest in Companies and Close Corporations. The situation is untenable. At its meeting held on 24 July 2002 the Committee decided to propose the following minimum tariffs.
The same fee as fee prescribed in Schedule 1 to the Deeds Registries Regulations being the fees for Conveyance of immovable property with a minimum of N$1 500.00 per transaction.
The fee is to be an all inclusive fee for all services rendered including the financial arrangements, preparation and registration of CC2, but excluding any fees payable to Auditors and/or Accounting Officers in respect of secretarial matters.
The same fee as fee prescribed in Schedule 1 to the Deeds Registries Regulations being the fees for Conveyance of immovable property with a minimum of N$ 3500,00 per transaction.
The fee is to be an all inclusive fee for all services rendered including the financial arrangements, preparation and registration of CC2, but excluding any fees payable to Auditors and/or Accounting Officers in respect of Company and/or Close Corporation secretarial matters.
The fee as prescribed in Schedule 1 to the Deeds Regulations being the Fees for Conveyance of immovable property based on the value of property accepted by the Receiver of Revenue for Transfer Duty and Stamp Duty purposes.
Fee in accordance with Guidelines of Law Society in respect of non-litigious matters.


Reg B: Do you need to disclose the Bank's name and address to a declined business applicant?
AA Notice Required When Deposit Acct. Turn Downed?
Is it mandatory to give the customer an adverse action notice when turned down for a deposit account? If so, should the agency we collected the info from provide the forms?
When do you have to send out a Adverse Action Notice on Commercial Loans?
I am preparing an adverse action notice for a denied application, but the applicant does not have a score on their credit report.How do I complete the credit score portion of the adverse action notice when there is no score? Can this section be omitted?
What is the regulatory requirement for declining a customer the Bill Pay Service?
We pull a report (not a credit report) prior to opening checking accounts for new clients. This report only contains information on checking account closures, it is not a credit report, nor do we use this report in credit decision. We have recently changed the adverse action from when we refuse to open a checking account because of information contained in this report, but it mirrors the form we give to our loan clients. Where do we find, definitively, what needs to be included in this Adverse Action notification. Again, there is no credit decision, nor is there any credit information contained in the report received.
Adverse Action Notices for Inactivity?
Are adverse action notices issued when credit card lines of credit are closed for inactivity?
When I pull a ChexSystem report and the customer is on ChexSytems, can I tell him what is showing? I know I have to give that person an adverse action notice if I am asked what is on there.
What Adverse Action Reason to Use?
We have an application for a new checking account. Part of our approval processing involves running a credit report, which is disclosed on our application. This person's credit appears to be fine, but in conversation with the potential customer, we feel that this is someone with whom we do not want to do business. He has admitted to us that he has had problems dealing with just about everyone with whom he has dealt, and has been banned from most business offices in the town in which he lives. I know that we do not have to do business with him, but what adverse action reason is acceptable? His credit is OK. Quite frankly, we think that he's got mental issues.
How Accurate Does the Interest Rate Have to Be?
Our "Pricing Committee" decides on the APY that they want to offer on certain products, so when we plug in the APY on our system it provides us with the Interest Rate. Our internal system calculates the Interest Rate on the APY that was provided for example as .01489, then on our disclosures, we state that the Interest Rate is .01490 (we round it up). Since this is technically an adverse action to our customers based on us disclosing an interest rate of 1.490 on our disclosures and our internal system is set at 1.489, which is off by .01% is this even an issue? I guess what I am wondering is since we allowed a "cushion" on the APY of .05%, are we allowed any type of "cushion" on the interest rate and by how much?
Question: We recently discovered that one of our employees was a suspect in a major identity theft case, and that he had been working for almost four years under an assumed name.


SKU: N/A. Category: Nike Kobe 7 (VII). Tags: Kobe 7 Black Mamba For Sale, Kobe Fade to Black Kobe 7, Kobe FTB 7 Black Mamba, Nike Kobe 7 FTB, Nike Kobe Fade to Black, Nike Kobe FTB Black Mamba, Nike Zoom Kobe 7, Nike Zoom Kobe 7 FTB, Nike Zoom Kobe VII FTB.
This Nike Kobe "Fade to Black" Collection celebrates Kobe's farewell to his love for basketball as the Black Mamba will now enter a new chapter to his life, called post basketball era. This release of the Nike Kobe 7 comes dressed in a Blue Fox color scheme. One of the key features to the Kobe 7 was the insoles which included an "Attack Fast" and "Attack Strong" versions. The shoe also accompanied Kobe to London as he won a Gold medal at the 2012 Olympics. The Nike Kobe 7 FTB is part of the Nike Kobe FTB "Black Mamba" Pack that features limited edition styles, which slowly fade from White to Black as an appropriate metaphor heading into Kobe Bryant's final game.


text:
<?php

final class DifferentialParseRenderTestCase extends PhabricatorTestCase {

  public function testParseRender() {
    $dir = dirname(__FILE__).'/data/';
    foreach (Filesystem::listDirectory($dir, $show_hidden = false) as $file) {
      if (!preg_match('/\.diff$/', $file)) {
        continue;
      }
      $data = Filesystem::readFile($dir.$file);

      $opt_file = $dir.$file.'.options';
      if (Filesystem::pathExists($opt_file)) {
        $options = Filesystem::readFile($opt_file);
        $options = json_decode($options, true);
        if (!is_array($options)) {
          throw new Exception("Invalid options file: {$opt_file}.");
        }
      } else {
        $options = array();
      }

      foreach (array('one', 'two') as $type) {
        $parser = $this->buildChangesetParser($type, $data, $file);
        $actual = $parser->render(null, null, array());

        $expect = Filesystem::readFile($dir.$file.'.'.$type.'.expect');
        $this->assertEqual($expect, (string)$actual, $file.'.'.$type);
      }
    }
  }

  private function buildChangesetParser($type, $data, $file) {
    $parser = new ArcanistDiffParser();
    $changes = $parser->parseDiff($data);

    $diff = DifferentialDiff::newFromRawChanges($changes);
    if (count($diff->getChangesets()) !== 1) {
      throw new Exception("Expected one changeset: {$file}");
    }

    $changeset = head($diff->getChangesets());

    $engine = new PhabricatorMarkupEngine();
    $engine->setViewer(new PhabricatorUser());

    $cparser = new DifferentialChangesetParser();
    $cparser->setDisableCache(true);
    $cparser->setChangeset($changeset);
    $cparser->setMarkupEngine($engine);

    if ($type == 'one') {
      $cparser->setRenderer(new DifferentialChangesetOneUpTestRenderer());
    } else if ($type == 'two') {
      $cparser->setRenderer(new DifferentialChangesetTwoUpTestRenderer());
    } else {
      throw new Exception("Unknown renderer type '{$type}'!");
    }

    return $cparser;
  }

}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Remarkable People...Remarkable Care
Troy Regional Medical Center is pleased to announce Dr. Paul Howard, ENT, recently joined Troy Ear,
Nose and Throat. Dr. Howard diagnoses and treats hearing and balance disorders, pediatric ENT issues,
nose and sinus problems, sleep apnea, skin cancers and salivary gland disorders.
A native of San Antonio, Texas, Howard has more than 35 years of experience as an ear, nose and throat
physician.
"I like that I see patients of all ages and that ENT care is both surgical and medical where I follow
patients for years and help them manage their problems," Howard said. "I love working, and I love my
work. I'm excited to join the Troy Ear, Nose and Throat practice. I also look forward to working with Trina
Thompson, Board Certified Audiologist and the other members of the Troy Ear, Nose and Throat staff.
Troy is a thriving community that I look forward to learning more about and becoming an active part of."
Rick Smith, Troy Regional Medical Center Chief Executive Officer, is excited to welcome Dr. Howard to
the medial staff. "Dr. McRae has been serving the Troy community for almost 20 years and leaves the
practice in very capable hands. With over 35 years of experience, Dr. Howard offers a wealth of
knowledge and dedication to the patients in our area," Smith said.
Dr. Howard is a third-generation physician following in the footsteps of both his father and grandfather.
"My father was a pediatrician and worked through 15 years of surgeries and cancer treatments, retiring
only one year before his death. My grandfather was an ear, nose and throat specialist in Texas who
worked into his 80s. They both showed me the value of hard work and the importance of listening to
their patients."
Howard received his undergraduate degree at Texas State University and attended medical school at the
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. He is board certified by the American Board of
Otolaryngology.
Troy Ear, Nose and Throat is located at 1320 Hwy. 231 South, Suite 3 located on the Troy Regional
Medical Center campus. Dr. Howard is now accepting patients. To call for an appointment, dial 334-807-
The Pike Medical Foundation presented Troy Regional Medical Center with $70,000 from the 2022 Virtual Balloon Launch to use for…
TROY, Ala., November 16, 2022 – Troy Regional Medical Center received an "A" Hospital Safety Grade from The Leapfrog Group.…
Troy Regional Medical Center recently earned a four-star Quality rating from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as…


Bulk orders of 11 ounce coffee mug featuring "Someone in Durham Loves Me" design complete with a love bull.
Mugs are availaBULL in English, Spanish, and Taurus (flag) variations.
Please note quantity of each variation in the order note section. No note will default to English.
Monthly orders are placed on the 10th of every month.


The seashells atop this beach colored border look as if they've been washed up by the waves in this pretty hand-hooked rug from the Coastal Collection.
Beautiful coastal decor area rug in soft colors of beach and sea with shells sprinkled around the border. Available in many sizes.


It's no secret that these powerful financial instances have been troublesome for nearly anybody. In case you are like me you've gotten been searching for methods to chop again on bills and get monetary savings. A method I've accomplished that is to begin buying at Walmart, as I've discovered they you'll be able to often do no higher on costs for groceries or different gadgets for the home. I've since found that there are packages accessible that assist you to earn a Walmart present card for little or no price, and often the balances are over 5 hundred dollars and as much as one thousand dollars. I wish to present you some simple steps right here so you may get your personal present card.
First you have to do a web-based seek for these present playing cards. That is very simple, all it's essential to do is use the time period Walmart present card in any search engine and you will discover pages and pages of presents. It helps to maintain monitor of this in a spreadsheet as you'll be able to copy the url of every hyperlink in a row. Additionally be aware how a lot the provide is for and what it's essential to do to begin this system. Normally all that's required is so that you can submit your e mail tackle, and presumably additionally your zip code. Two of the preferred packages proper now are the 5 hundred greenback present card and the one thousand greenback present card.
Subsequent, when you submit your e mail tackle to the present card provide firm they may reply with the steps wanted to finish the provide. This often requires that you simply enroll with trial memberships and presents that different firms are providing as a promotion. You possibly can at instances discover nice offers by means of these trials and you might wish to hold them. Discover out what the necessities are for every present card and the variety of trials you'll have to signup for. Preserve monitor of all this info in your spreadsheet. It'll simple fairly simple to seek out ten or so of those firms in lower than an hour. Decide the corporate that provides probably the most present card dollars per signup.
Lastly, upon getting accomplished all of the presents it is best to qualify for and obtain your Walmart present card. When you get approval it's essential to begin cancel all of those trial presents instantly. Some assist you to do that through e mail, and others need you to present them a telephone name. Throughout the name be ready to hearken to a closing gross sales pitch as they attempt to stop you from canceling. I've discovered that it's best simply to hear patiently for them to complete after which decline. They perceive and can course of your request with out additional problem. Ensure you save any affirmation emails they might provide you with with the cancelation as you might want them later. All the time verify that these firms usually are not charging you any month-to-month charges by taking a look at your bank card assertion.


text:
namespace System.Diagnostics.Contracts
{
    /// <summary>
    /// Methods and classes marked with this attribute can be used within calls to Contract methods. Such methods not make any visible state changes.
    /// </summary>
    [Conditional("CONTRACTS_FULL")]
    [AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.Constructor | AttributeTargets.Method | AttributeTargets.Property | AttributeTargets.Event | AttributeTargets.Delegate | AttributeTargets.Class | AttributeTargets.Parameter, AllowMultiple = false, Inherited = true)]
    [Bridge.External]
    public sealed class PureAttribute : Attribute
    {
    }
}