In class we examined Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs which includes the idea that an individual must have his or her physiological needs met first before one can progress up the triangle towards self-actualization. Examples of physiological needs include food, water, shelter, and medical care.
I read this past week in the Los Angeles Times about Bush's veto of the bill to expand healthcare for children, followed by the inability of Congress to obtain the two-thirds majority necessary to override Bush's veto. I was wondering: In light of Maslow's theory that health care is a basic physiological need that must first be met before a person can fully reach his or her true potential, how do you feel about Bush's veto of the bill that would expand health care for our nation's children?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
In the Orwell novel, 1984, the protaganists were living in a wealthy hi-tech society which was on a permanent war footing and suffering from complaints that could easily have been cured had basic health care been available. When i read the book I didn't believe that a democratic society could ever evolve into the Orwellian nightmare but now i am not so sure.
Health care is a very important factor to anyone's survival. I do not understand why we can not have a system like Canada does where the people pay an extra tax fee but health care is free for everyone. Canada has one of the greatest systems in which the government really spends their money to take care of the people. The USA could really learn from other countries.
In today's Los Angeles Times I read how "Bush seeks billions more in military funding" bringing the cost of the wars in Afganistan and Iraq to over $600 billion. The government is willing to spend billions on waging war but unwilling to fund an expansion of healthcare for children, our most vulnerable, innocent and precious citizens. It is glaringly clear that our priorities are deeply askew. One criticism of the bill was that it was funded by a cigarette tax and we should not be encouraging more smoking. However, we could fund the healthcare bill without any additional taxes if we trimmed the bloated pentagon budget as presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich wants to do. It is true that the bill was not perfect, but what bill is? At least, it was a good start, but Bush callously destroyed it.It does appear that our society has warped into something from an Orwell novel. I agree that the USA can learn from other countries, and I recommend Michael Moore's film Sicko which looks at the healthcare issue.
One of my past history teachers said that America's economy was built on tobacco. The Southerners made millions from tobacco plantation and the government funded them. Now everyone knows that tobacco is terrible for health, yet so many still smoke. The are still so many plantations for tobbacco, which the government still funds, yet they also fund the campaings to stop smoking. How can this happen? The government seem more involved with power rather then helping the people with their health.
I find it horrible that children will not be able to receive adequate health care. Although it may be a cliche, children are in fact the future. If children cannot receive the health care that they need, then the future is sure to be a bleak one. Moreover, I also find it shocking that President Bush would rather fund a losing war than a healthy nation.
I strongly disagree with bush's rejection on the bill. If a child can not obtain the necessary health care they need how would they according to maslow fulfill their physiological needs. If the US can not provide normal health care for adults/seniors at least they should consider providing them to the children, as the children today will be the future of tommorow.
I agree that expanding healthcare coverage to include more children would be a step in the right direction, but what if a child's parent gets sick, then what is to become of the child? If we really want to talk about protecting our children, then we also need to talk about providing their parents with the resources to adequately take care of their own health so that they can continue to care for their children. Thus, it seems to me that universal healthcare is the answer. I would like to see my tax dollars used for this purpose.
I think more tax dollars should go towards health care for every individual instead of all the things the government wastes money on. I cannot see why we need to spend billions of dollars on a war with no purpose. I guarantee that with improved health care, people will have a lot more opportunities in this country. It is sad how we are adding about 1.41 billion dollars a day to our national debt. Right now the total amount of money the US owes is 9,064,972,347,049 dollars.
Adam, those statistics are quite worrisome. I worry that it will be future generations that will be stuck paying off this extremely high deficit. I do not think it is fair to our children and grandchildren to stick them with the bill. Just wondering, what was your source for those statistics that provided such excellent support for our discussion?
I dont agree with his veto because health care is a necessity and without some people could be in a serious crisis. What i do not understand is that Bush can spend millions of dollars to fund a war that we shouldn't even be having but he cant spend some of it on his own people and improving their lifestyles.
I dont think this matters. Yes i know some poor child does not get thier basic medcial met, but even if one gave money and etc to them they would not be able to produce much from it. Their potential is far too low. When one is raised with only the hopes of the basic they do not aspire to higher goals. Even when enticed by glory. They do not understand it. (eh sad but true.)
Also people must understand the poeple that are the poor are mostly ILLEGAL immagrants. When we (tax payers at least) pay MORE to fund for EVERYONE, it also means that we are giving more for the ILLEGAL IMMAGRANTS (ermm non tax payers) thus FREE CARE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO DONT GIVE ANYTHING BACK?!?!? yah right...
Actually, even illegal immigrants pay a sales tax every time they make a purchase and contribute to our economy. I disagree with the notion that it is mostly illegal immigrants who are poor and have no health insurance. My family currently relies on the health insurance provided by my husband. But what if he were to become seriously ill or was in an accident, and he could no longer work? What would become of myself and my two children? The fact is, most people are just one catastrophe from losing their health care. The U.S. is a wealthy nation, why not take care of its people in this way?
I still can’t believe the debt is going up. The thing I don’t get is that the US government is wasting money and not saving it. I don’t know what they are thinking and I think someone influential should do something about this. Since Bush has been elected the debt went from about 5.8 trillion to 9 trillion dollars. The website I got this information from was http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
I disagree with what Phil said because there are people who were very poor at a young age and now they are millionaires. Usually the poor people are more determined to reach their goals and live a successful life. Since we aren’t as poor we generally take things for granted. I would much rather save lives than spend money on a war that isn't just. What better can you do with tax dollars than provide everyone with healthcare, which is a necessity for all? It is very unfortunate that a lot people in this country don’t have health care. Imagine what would happen when a big disaster strikes.
Adam, thank you for the source citation. It is true that when Bush came into office he began with a budget surplus, but managed to recklessly squander it until we now have the largest deficit ever. It is interesting because even many Republicans who typically favor fiscal conservatism have expressed disapproval at the out-of-control deficit. Also, I would like to emphasize that the government could revise the current budget by trimming the bloated budget for military and defense spending and shifting that money towards universal health care. Doing this would provide health coverage for all without raising taxes which is a common argument against universal health care.
Bush's veto seems largely based upon the Republican objection to nationalized healthcare in whole or in part.
Traditionally, the Republican Party has supported a reduced Federal Government and increased personal liberties. This point of view extends such that traditional Republicans view most, if not all, federal government programs as an infringement upon personal rights. In addition, Republicans traditionally support a lassiez-faire economy, in which the invisible hand of the market will dictate the most efficient solution. Nationalized healthcare in any form, or even welfare, is seen by Republicans as a reduction in personal freedoms and as restriction on the market. Republicans tend to espouse the view that enacting any form of healthcare would cause some people to rely on the government for their health instead of themselves.
The Republicans (and by extension, Bush) do have a somewhat valid point; expansion of the SCHIP program could possibly pave the way for more healthcare reforms. However, one must consider the state of healthcare in this country: we are the only industrialized nation without nationalized healtcare. We are also the only nation with such a large uninsured population. In my opinion, providing healthcare would probably do more for Americans in the long run than any military operations in the Middle East. Bush should not have vetoed the extension of SCHIP, and should probably reconsider his strategy in Iraq.
i think that Bush is selfish and this veto proves it. He vetoed health care because he does not want to spend money on health care but he spends money for the war. All Bush wants is to win the war and he will do whatever it takes, this causes him to spend more money on war, but the war is not important to any one but Bush. Health care on the other hand, is important to everyone because if we don't have health care then we can die from sickness because we can not afford it.
Again, excellent comments. It is true that many who oppose the expansion of the SCHIP bill claim that it is the first step towards nationalized health care or socialized medicine. It seems that many in the Republican party strongly fear the "S word" or socialism. This is interesting to me because we already have in place a socialized police force, fire department, and postal service, and I believe all of these departments run effectively, so why not add health care to the list of government run services? If someone's house is on fire the fire department will help that person no matter what; I personally wish it was the same way for health care. With our current system, doctors have to turn sick people away for lack of insurance, which in my opinion, is morally reprehensible and a sad commentary on the priorities of such a wealthy nation.
It seems as though all bills benefiting the “lower” class are the first to be vetoed. The upper class society isn’t affected by these bills because they have the money to pay for the much needed healthcare services. I agree, an individual cannot reach their “true potential” without first meeting their physiological needs… which includes health. For example, on Tyra Bank’s “America’s Next Top Model” show one of the models fainted as a result of a lack of much needed nutrition. The model wasn’t even able to perform the simple task of standing for a short video shoot without collapsing. That’s just a small example, but you need to be healthy in order to be able to perform daily tasks. A person’s health is crucial to their survival. Unfortunately, Bush and his congress do not believe so. The children need these health care services to better themselves in activities such as: sports (physical), school (mental) and communication (social lives). How important are “our” children to the elites whom we have in one way or another, elected to represent us as a nation?
Nearly 80% percent of the nation's budget comes directly from us, the people. On an average, 48% is from state income taxes and 30% is from sales tax; which we pay. Businesses and Banks pay a mere 11%....???? As a nation we should seek out that our government treats revenues and expenditures equally. If the people pay nearly 8times more than the big corporations then appropiations should be made to benefit the voters @ least 8 times more. Let's not forget we live in a democracy, the people hold the final say.
Stacy, I think your statistics provide great support for your argument. I was just wondering...what is your source for your statistics?
Not only does the discrepancy in tax revenues bother me, but also I see no reason why we need to subsidize corporations such as the oil companies. For the next election, I plan on voting for a candidate that will do away with those subsidies.
I take my statistics from credible lecture notes, which are affirmed by the class text (American Government by Walter E. Volkomer) of a Political Science class I am concurrently enrolled in. No, I"m not just making these statistics up as I go along, that is so wrong!But if you know otherwise, please inform me; theres nothing worse than being incorrectly informed.
Thanks for the source citation, Stacy. Don't worry, I knew you were not making them up. I like to know the source so I can further enhance my own knowledge, and also it may be useful for others reading this blog to know the source. Plus, it always makes your argument more credible to cite the source, so it is a good habit to get into. Your political science class sounds interesting, by the way.
I dont thinks its right to veto Healthcare to the poor.Why is it that Health care isnt as important as War. Were Trilions of dollars and debt and its not getting much better. We spend alot of money on foregin oil as well.I wonder why is it we spend more money on death than keeping our nation alive.
Post a Comment