[Valerie Salva]

Originally Posted by ingelein

Most anti universal health care folks already call any form of government run health care proposals, "Socialized Medicine", whether it be a true single payer system or not. This is an increasingly used buzzword for denegrating the democratic/liberal point of view, but most Americans are too sophisticated to buy that rubbish.

I think they're not too sophisticated to buy into it, I'm afraid!.

[HM2Viking]

It is not an issue of the states being unable to tax. It is an issue that the states are able to deliver a consistent set of insurance benefits IAW evidence based standards. I think the only way to do that is through federal funding streams.

It is after all "The United States" not a loosely organized confederation of states.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

It is not an issue of the states being unable to tax. It is an issue that the states are able to deliver a consistent set of insurance benefits IAW evidence based standards. I think the only way to do that is through federal funding streams.

It is after all "The United States" not a loosely organized confederation of states.

In other words, it's an issue of the FEDS using control of dollars to determine what is 'consistent'. I agree. It's about Federal Administration and control. After all, the States, more local and therefore, more responsive to the people, can't be TRUSTED with the decisions they might make.

That was my point.

~faith,
Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by Valerie Salva

I think they're not too sophisticated to buy into it, I'm afraid!.

Or rather, they ARE too sophisticated to buy into government mandated "free" health care for all at almost no additional taxation and no loss of freedom to choose.

You're right. 1993 and 'hillarycare' proved your theory.

~faith,
Timothy.

[HM2Viking]

I don't think that anyone is saying that the states cannot be trusted. I do think that setting a minimum standard of health care for all people living in the US is different from telling the states how to achieve that standard. (States IOW would be free to charge copays etc. and administer their programs but not deviate below a certain standard of care.)

I can think of a basic standard of coverage that would be included because they are good practices:

Annual physical
Immunizations covered 100%
Annual Dental Exam and 2 cleanings
Annual eye exam
Cover chronic illness care and medications at 100% with no out of pocket costs.
Medications reimbursed according to evidence based standards.
Contraceptive equity
Mental Health equity

The emphasis of any plan should be towards prevention.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

I don't think that anyone is saying that the states cannot be trusted. I do think that setting a minimum standard of health care for all people living in the US is different from telling the states how to achieve that standard.

How is setting a national standard different than denying the States the right to set their own standards?

More to the point, how is this NOT Federal Control? Your plans depend upon Federal funding in order to maintain Federal control. That's fine, but let's not pretend the States would exercise control of the programs. He who pays, decides.

If you don't think the various States will meet 'minimum standards' without Federal control, then what you are saying is that you don't trust the States to do so. It's implicit in the argument.

~faith,
Timothy.

[pickledpepperRN]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

How is setting a national standard different than denying the States the right to set their own standards?

More to the point, how is this NOT Federal Control? Your plans depend upon Federal funding in order to maintain Federal control. That's fine, but let's not pretend the States would exercise control of the programs. He who pays, decides.

If you don't think the various States will meet 'minimum standards' without Federal control, then what you are saying is that you don't trust the States to do so. It's implicit in the argument.

~faith,
Timothy.

No matter where it is not possible to provide safe nursing care to an unstable patient requiring CRRT and IABP and one or more other patients.

Texas, Alaska, or Rhode Island people deserve the same high standard of safe, effective, therapeutic, compassionate nursing care.

[Woodenpug]

Everyone understands that "free market" is a theoretical concept, right? Markets are always controlled by forces outside of the market itself. Whether that force is Grogg, the guy with the biggest club, or federal subsidies, no "free market" has ever or can ever exist.
Health care is currently very heavily regulated. The laws and regulations are so complex that we have little control. A single payer system would only decrease that complexity and, as stated in earlier posts, be more transparent.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by Woodenpug

Everyone understands that "free market" is a theoretical concept, right? Markets are always controlled by forces outside of the market itself. Whether that force is Grogg, the guy with the biggest club, or federal subsidies, no "free market" has ever or can ever exist.
Health care is currently very heavily regulated. The laws and regulations are so complex that we have little control. A single payer system would only decrease that complexity and, as stated in earlier posts, be more transparent.

This argument is nonsensical. You state that the health care market is currently heavily regulated by government (that is the source of the current problems with health care), but yet, if we turn over ALL control to government, the system would become LESS complicated, that we would gain more control.

No.

It would become FULLY regulated and, as a result MORE complicated and no individual control.

I agree with your premise that the free market is 'theoretical' in that there will ALWAYS be some regulation. I'm not proposing NO regulation. Even the wildly successful OTC market has SOME regulation. As a general rule, however, the LESS regulation, the more free the market. The more free the market, the more freedom Americans have to choose. The more free the market, the more free the ability to provide - AND RECEIVE - the best combination of pricing and quality.

The market can only charge what the market will bear. It charges TONS now because YOU DON'T PAY. You aren't the customer. THAT is what is transparent in the current market. TOTAL GOV'T CONTROL will only make that more the case.

~faith,
Timothy.

[Woodenpug]

"his argument is nonsensical. You state that the health care market is currently heavily regulated by government (that is the source of the current problems with health care), but yet, if we turn over ALL control to government, the system would become LESS regulated."

No, I said it is already controlled by the government. Putting it all in one location would make that control more transparent.