The Seattle Silly Council is again evading its real responsibilities and spending its time promoting a foolish ballot initiative:
The Seattle City Council yesterday voted to put an advisory ballot before voters in November, asking them to endorse the principle that everyone in the U.S. should have "the right to health care of equal high quality."Go figure....
Councilman Tom Rasmussen, who sponsored the ordinance placing the measure on the Nov. 8 ballot, noted the council had passed a resolution in support of universal health care last year.
The federal government didn't heed the council's advice.
I was approached to write the voter's pamphlet statement in opposition to this idiotic money-wasting ballot measure. I had to decline on account of other commitments, but I promised to spread the word to help recruit someone to write the statement. The working text of initiative and details for applying to write the opposition statement follow --
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE ADVISORYIf you're interested in writing the opposition statement, please contact Wayne Barnett of the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission, who says:The current health care system is under great strain. The cost of
health care increases annually at three to four times the rate of
inflation. Over 11% of the citizens of Seattle have no health insurance
at all, with lower-income adults 10 times more likely to lack coverage
then those of higher incomes. Indeed, the fastest growing segment of
the uninsured are the poorest families, those earning less than the
federal poverty level (FPL). In all, over 60% of the uninsured are low
income. Despite the number of uninsured children and adults rising,
the rate of employer-based insurance continues to decrease. The
percentage of people insured through their employers dropped to its
lowest point in over 10 years - 60.2%. Children are significantly
affected. In Washington State, there are now over 95,000 uninsured kids
or 5.8% of the state's children. The United States has the wealthiest
health care system in the world and is unable to ensure basics like
pre-natal care and immunizations. The U.S. trails most of the developed
world on such indicators as infant mortality and life expectancy. Widely
differing proposals are being discussed to address the crisis in U.S.
healthcare. This advisory ballot makes no judgments upon these efforts.
It serves only to provide the residents of Seattle with an opportunity
to speak with a unified voice in advising the City of Seattle to take
concerted action to help ensure that every person in the United States
has equal access to quality health care.As such, do you agree that the voters give the following advisory to
the Mayor and City Council members of the City of Seattle:Every person in the United States should have the right to health care
of equal high quality. The Congress should immediately enact
legislation to implement this right.The City should take the necessary steps to help ensure this right,
including but not limited to the following:* Engage WA state representatives and senators in the U.S. Congress
towards supporting legislation towards this end.* Encourage a public outreach effort to engage the populace to learn
more about this issue who would in turn pressure their representatives
to act on this issue.* Research ways that the Council can implement and improve healthcare
access to the uninsured through city, county and state resources.
I'm going to need a 400 word statement in support of a "No" vote on the question by Thursday, September 22nd, with a 150 word rebuttal due on Monday, September 26th.Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 07, 2005 12:55 PM | Email This
The next proposal on the table for Oly city council is to shut down any franchise that is non-union. This excludes mom & pop businesses which can pay employees as poorly as they wish- so long as they don't sell nukes.
http://www.theolympian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2005508280338
Posted by: Andy on September 7, 2005 01:06 PMThe funny thing is that I remember from my civics courses that a right was an inherent activity that the government could not take away or restrict. I think it's telling that the popular notion among the left is that a right is something that the government must now provide.
Posted by: Darth Dogbert on September 7, 2005 01:10 PMHow much is just placing this advisory vote on the ballot costing the voters of Seattle, simply to run the election?
Elections aren't "free". The jurisdictions that are holding elections are billed for the service by King County.
So now they are paying for an election contest simply to ask the voters' opinion? Conduct a poll. Sheeesh.
The waste of this money is the silliest part of this whole fiasco.
Posted by: More of My Money? on September 7, 2005 01:22 PMVote NO on the Universal Healthcare Advisory and send the Seattle City Council a message:
"Quit screwing around and do your jobs!"
I'm not sure stretching it to 400 words makes the point any more clear.
Posted by: Regret on September 7, 2005 01:29 PMIn the typical socialist manner, they say equally high quality, which of course means that the top notch medical institutes will have to lower their standards, heart doctors that have a 95% survival rate will have to start killing off more of their patients so that everyone has equally bad health care - as the standard has to drop to the worst doctor so that everyone has equal healthcare. It also disallows private doctors, as then someone will have better healthcare then others.
Posted by: fred on September 7, 2005 01:33 PMIt is an admirable goal that everyone should have health care. But it ain't the City of Seattle's place to dictate Federal policy.
Posted by: swatter on September 7, 2005 01:58 PMAs it is they only show themselves to be so civilically and politically ignorant as to how policies are enacted and at what level that it deems them unfit to hold the office they have.
Moonbats!
Posted by: JCM on September 7, 2005 01:59 PMI've yet to hear one example of someone turned down for emergency care.
2) A "right" is not something that obligates others to pay for it.
You have a "right" to bare arms. The government doesn't have the obligation to buy you a gun.
Mark D
Posted by: Mark D on September 7, 2005 02:40 PMIs there a comparable rule like courts that hold one in contempt for wasting the court's time? How about wasting the public's legislative time? Aren't legislators expected to use the public's legislative time prudently and efficiently? How asinine.
Never mind--let's ask our "Sister City" for advice--remenber--this is from the same Council that gave us the inability to question an illegal alien's status;
Jimmie's Law: "Every city should have the equal right to share and access the high-quality legislators and wisdom of Seattle. Congress and cities should enact legislation to implement this right." Boom--I just aided & abetted the terrorists in one fell swoop. Scary, eh?
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on September 7, 2005 02:42 PM"The people insist we do something. THIS is something. Therefore, we must do THIS."
But I do have to say to several posters in here. First of all people are rarely denied emergency care, but you fail to consider the number coming in for emergency care that are caused by a lack of basic care. Remember emergency care is EXCEEDINGLY costly.
Second people who claim that advocating gov't provided universal healthcare means someone is a socialist need to get a friggen grip. This knee jerk reaction, even if in jest bothers me to no end. Wanting to make sure everyone is cared for is human, and it's compassionate, and it's the right thing to do. In the case of the city they are just advocating it in a foolish way.
When it comes to national healthcare I a friend of mine broke his arm many years ago in Europe. Walked into the hospital and was asked only two non medical questions: Are you over 18? and "What's your name?" That was it. If only it was that simple and still efficient/quality, I guess one can hope we'll figure it out eventually.
Posted by: Chokai on September 7, 2005 10:00 PMSad to see these silly idiots sticking their noses where they don't belong.
Maybe they wasted less, they could have a city provided healthcare plan. That, combined with free housing, and we can be sure to have every indigent person in the nation living in Seattle.
Posted by: BananaLand (aka Iguana) on September 7, 2005 10:10 PM
Second people who claim that advocating gov't provided universal healthcare means someone is a socialist need to get a friggen grip. This knee jerk reaction, even if in jest bothers me to no end. Wanting to make sure everyone is cared for is human, and it's compassionate, and it's the right thing to do. In the case of the city they are just advocating it in a foolish way.
Probably no one is joking when he says that people who believe in free medical care are socialists. They are. You are. That is not necessarily an insult, so much as a simple truth. I don't understand why so many socialists refuse to accept the fact that they are socialists?
And another thing... nobody here is saying that people should not be cared for... you are right in saying that would not be compassionate. We object to having the federal and state governments accept the responsiblity for what should be handled locally. Is your vision so limited that you cannot imagine Seattle taking care of it's sick and hungry without state or federal aid? How pathetic!
I did not intend for someone to take it so literally and I hoped most would realize I was generalizing, but if you wish to nitpick you can. Yes I am a socialist and I fully accept that, but also a capitalist and a libertarian and many other things. My complaint, and I apologize if it was not clear to you was the use of a single belief or idea to categorize a person and then attack thier idea. A sort of McCarthyism if you will. Universal healthcare appears to be particularly succeptable to this, there are apparently few grays to the politics when it comes to that particular topic. Damn straight I'm a socialist when it comes to healthcare and human life, but I'm not about to advocate we all live communally.
Thank you for your rant about state and federal gov't and petty personal attack. Unfortunately SP does not use something like slashcode (please switch Shark) so I cannot flag you as -1, Troll.
Posted by: Chokai on September 8, 2005 01:19 AMIf you like Europe so much, you should have stayed there.
If you want healthcare, do like the rest of us and pay for it, or find a job where your employer pays for all or part.
What we do not need is another entitlement handed to people who do not work. The "poor" and the elderly are cared for in this country, and we have the best healthcare in the world. "Old" Europe is going broke paying for its socialistic programs. Wait 'til the Islamofascists rise up against the "oppressive" French government. Then you'll see why France can pay for socialism....it has no military to defend itself.
And in case you're wondering, the Preamble to U.S. Constitution states "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." That's "PROVIDE for the common defense" and "PROMOTE the general welfare". In a nutshell, that means the founding fathers agreed that taxation was necessary for defense, but not for socialistic programs.
Posted by: Saltherring on September 8, 2005 06:02 AMWhere is Arnhem, and how many people there were murdered by Americans?
Posted by: huckleberry on September 8, 2005 11:00 AMUnemployment rates in Europe are twice those in the United States, due in part to the economic albatross that is socialized medicine. Canadians line up in the waiting rooms of American doctors. British doctors are quitting in droves. Canadian doctors are emigrating to the United States. American consumers of pharmaceuticals are subsidizing the Canadians, who have ceilings on drug prices. I'm just not buying your story.
Dear Chokai:
As an American, why would I be interested in studying a British defeat, unless I relied on Google and Hollywood movies as my source materials. I asked the question to give you an opportunity to tell us more about how you feel about America and Americans. I am dissappointed you chose to attack me instead of enlightening the masses. Pity.
Posted by: huckleberry on September 8, 2005 12:50 PMIt's also a shame that in your zeal to attack me and despite your professed desire to enlighten the masses that you chose to ignore the 3,600 American's were killed or wounded fighting in and around Arnhem and Nijmegen. I think they at least warrant a mention and our respect.
What are your feelings about the character of Americans, and how do you feel about America?
Posted by: huckleberry on September 8, 2005 02:06 PMChokai--
i disagree; govt healthcare a noble idea on paper, but bad in practice; setting up another massive govt bureaucracy will get us the Euro econ growth rate and tax rates; i.e.: stagnancy for all; no thanks;
ps--look also at how Europe is now struggling with ITS immigration problems; terrorists on welfare for decades in Britian; a crystal ball warning for the U.S.? You bet!
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on September 8, 2005 02:06 PMI sadly think we are much closer to Europe than you think. We have the same rampant illegal immigration Europe does, probably worse in terms of numbers, we have people recieving benefits who are here illegally. Mom's who come across the border simply to have a kid and get bennies. etc.. etc.. We've provided financial aid to terrorists so they can goto school. In order to avoid those massive taxes while providing even a small part of those services we instead run up a the debt and defer infrastructure investment. I fear the end result maybe at some point be nearly the same, although accordingly less devestating for us based on the lesser benefits our gov't provides. So far no one has stepped up with the balls to advocate a proper solution from either the left or the right, socialist or capitalist.
Rep Tancredo (CO) has stepped up, but he is dismissed even by his own party; too many companies unwilling to cut their own throats for the larger good; cant blame them for short-term thinking, but yet the problem will loom; wishing it away with a p.c.-acceptable solution will not work;
you have some good points--i respect your right to an opinion--and you are entitled to your socialist views--but i'm not ready to trade my preferences for the blue flag with stars or the UN flag; why? i dont want to be in a one-world Pangia;
i want the individual, pull-your-bootstrap independence to succeed AND FAIL that's about America; no Nanny State because no going back from one once established; it crushes creativty and excellence; govt nannystates dumb down the masses to a happy daze; that's why people still come here to 'make their fortunes' as corny as it sounds;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on September 8, 2005 02:45 PMAs for the purported higher unemployment rates suffered by countries with universal health care, I'm not sure that you can compare unemployment rates across countries given the different ways that countries measure such things (you may be comparing apples and oranges). This is not the case for measurments such as infant mortality, life expectancy and, to a lesser extent, the rate of preventable diseases - there are uniform ways of measuring these things.
Posted by: truth on September 8, 2005 04:26 PMThere are 208 sovereign states, whose infant mortality rates vary from a low of 2.28 deaths per 1000 live births in Singapore, to a high of 192 in Angola. The United States was in 36th place with a rate of 6.63, right behind Taiwan and Cuba. (God bless those Cuban mothers!) If you look at European countries, or countries that are primarily of European extraction, most have infant mortality rates that vary from about 3 to up to about 10. The Scandinavian countries do quite well, with Sweden at #2 with a rate of 2.77. Who does worse than the U.S.? Surprisingly, Israel has a rate of 7.21. A little less surprising are Hungary and Poland, at 8.68 and 8.73. Finally, we start seeing the workers' paradises Russia (17.0), Georgia (19.3), Ukraine (20.6), Mexico (21.7), and Romania (27.2).
In earlier posts, Truth claims he is shocked, shocked (!) that the U.S. trails the industrialized nations in infant mortality rates. I'm just not seeing it. We have room for improvement, but we are doing pretty good.
I would still like to hear from Truth what he (she?) thinks causes the "high" U.S. infant mortality rate.
Posted by: huckleberry on September 9, 2005 02:29 AMI'm sure Truth would agree that there are a lot of factors that go into life expectancy and infant mortality rates besides economic system and quality of health care. Factors like genetics, lifestyle, nutrition, and stress. And of course, the choice of economic system strongly influences the lifestyle, nutrition, and stress.
The real issue between us is not the measure of the extremes (death rates), but the quality of life in the middle. We are talking about basic freedoms... the freedom of a doctor to work under conditions of his own choosing; the freedom of sick people to choose doctors and procedures according to their own schedule and ability to pay; the freedom to take care of yourself, or not take care of yourself, without the shadow of socialized, subsidized health care making your business everybody else's business. You do see that don't you? If you are paying for my health care, then you have more say in my choices than I care for you to have, and vice versa.
Health care is not a basic human right. It is not fundamentally different from food, shelter, and clothes. As compassionate people, we want to live in a country where everyone has access to these commodities, e.g., promote the general welfare, but it is not the government's business to dispense these commodities as freebies. We are free to pursue them, but there can be no guarantee that we will achieve them.
Posted by: huckleberry on September 9, 2005 02:55 AMThe U.S. is number 38! I think that pretty much proves my point. I would suspect that most, if not all, of the 37 countries that scored better than we did have a health care system that is at least managed by the government. Also, if you look more closely at the statistics, you will find that we spend far more per person for our health care. I agree that there are any number of factors that contribute to this sad state of America, but you cannot ignore the fact that the governments in those countries that do better have decided that access to affordable health care is very important (calling it a right or not is simply semantics). As for why the infant mortality rate in America is so high, give some thought to the relationship between prenatal care and infant mortality. Imagine if you will, a situation where a pregnant woman, regardless of her social class or level of income, could get basic prenatal care any time and anywhere she wanted. That it an of itself would have a positive impact on infant mortaltiy and health. We do not have that situation in America, other industrialized countries do, we should follow their example.
Finally, as to the quality of life issues you raise, I think that's an interesting point, but I'm not sure you can say that the quality of life in Canada, for example, is worse than the quality of life in America because Canadian's have government health care.
Posted by: Truth on September 9, 2005 10:27 AMNews flash for you. I think and I suspect Truth does too that the United States is the best country on the planet. But it has great room for improvement and that some of the tools to do that are socialist, others are capitalist and some are religious. Just because someone doesn't happen to agree with your position on a particular issue is no reason to shamefully leap to conclusions and accuse them, even jokingly of hating America or hate Americans.
Posted by: Chokai on September 9, 2005 03:11 PMPosted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on September 10, 2005 11:54 AM
You may be correct, Chokai. Why do you think America is the best country on the planet?
Posted by huckleberry at September 9, 2005 04:29 PM
I am so dissappointed that Chokai has dropped this thread. I was looking forward to hearing Chokai's opinions on why this is such a great country. I am reminded of an interview I heard a couple of years ago. Charlie Rose asked Gore Vidal to point out something that is right with America, and Vidal said "he would have to think about it and get back to him in a couple of weeks." Perhaps it is some sort of movement?
Posted by: huckleberry on September 12, 2005 12:39 PM