[scottlgarrett]

Letting the government run our healthcare system is a bad idea. Canada and
England both have "Universal Healthcare" and many of their residents come to the
United States to receive healthcare. Adding more government control to our lives
and our healthcare system will most certainley cause even more problems. Nurse
to patient ratios will get worse, nursing pay will get worse, and patient care will get
worse. There needs to be a concerted effort to educate people on how to use the
healthcare system, instead of going to the ER when you have a cold; learn to treat
it your self. I am sure a " How to properly utilize the healthcare sysyem for
DUMMIES" book could be written. Look at the VA healthcare system, or MEDICARE,
both are basically "Universal healthcare" and the care that the patients get is often
sub-standare by normal consumer standards. If you or I want lower healthcare
costs the first place to demand change will be at the state level in the form of Tort
Reform laws. I for one just want the government to leave me alone, no taxes, let
me choose my own healthcare or not, stop giving handouts to people who make bad choices, and represent the people like they're supposed to.

[Miss_Chybil]

Originally Posted by scottlgarrett

Letting the government run our healthcare system is a bad idea. Canada and
England both have "Universal Healthcare" and many of their residents come to the
United States to receive healthcare. Adding more government control to our lives
and our healthcare system will most certainley cause even more problems. Nurse
to patient ratios will get worse, nursing pay will get worse, and patient care will get
worse. There needs to be a concerted effort to educate people on how to use the
healthcare system, instead of going to the ER when you have a cold; learn to treat
it your self. I am sure a " How to properly utilize the healthcare sysyem for
DUMMIES" book could be written. Look at the VA healthcare system, or MEDICARE,
both are basically "Universal healthcare" and the care that the patients get is often
sub-standare by normal consumer standards. If you or I want lower healthcare
costs the first place to demand change will be at the state level in the form of Tort
Reform laws. I for one just want the government to leave me alone, no taxes, let
me choose my own healthcare or not, stop giving handouts to people who make bad choices, and represent the people like they're supposed to.

Well, I accidentally hit the "thanks" button, instead of the "quote" button. You can be sure I did not mean to thank you for this post. I meant to ask you how sick people made bad choices. Sure, some have. Some people don't eat right, or some people smoke and do drugs, or drink. But, exactly what bad choice did my mother make when she got breast cancer and her insurance premiums went up to over $1,000.00 per month? (Which happens to be more than 50% of her income.)

What bad choice did my sister-in-law make when she was diagnosed with diabetes and now she can't buy insurance at any price. (She used to have it through her employer. Now, she has a different job and with a small business owner who tried to purchase insurance for her, but was refused because of her diabetes.) What bad choice did the working class parents of a child with leukemia make? I suppose it was that they settled for jobs without health insurance. What bad choice did the factory worker make, who had health insurance before they shipped his job overseas and what bad choice are you going to make when some day, for one reason, or another, beyond your control you need more insurance than you've got, or you've been canceled because of some strange, but all too common, diagnosis?

I will be asking the moderator if there is any way to remove the accidental thanks I gave you. I hope there is. I really do. In the meantime, I'd like to see your data for all the Canadians and Englishmen who have been breaking down our borders for healthcare. You might also look at how many Americans buy their prescription drugs in Canada because they can't afford them here.

[scottlgarrett]

Originally Posted by Miss_Chybil

Well, I accidentally hit the "thanks" button, instead of the "quote" button. You can be sure I did not mean to thank you for this post. I meant to ask you how sick people made bad choices. Sure, some have. Some people don't eat right, or some people smoke and do drugs, or drink. But, exactly what bad choice did my mother make when she got breast cancer and her insurance premiums went up to over $1,000.00 per month? (Which happens to be more than 50% of her income.)

What bad choice did my sister-in-law make when she was diagnosed with diabetes and now she can't buy insurance at any price. (She used to have it through her employer. Now, she has a different job and with a small business owner who tried to purchase insurance for her, but was refused because of her diabetes.) What bad choice did the working class parents of a child with leukemia make? I suppose it was that they settled for jobs without health insurance. What bad choice did the factory worker make, who had health insurance before they shipped his job overseas and what bad choice are you going to make when some day, for one reason, or another, beyond your control you need more insurance than you've got, or you've been canceled because of some strange, but all too common, diagnosis?

I will be asking the moderator if there is any way to remove the accidental thanks I gave you. I hope there is. I really do. In the meantime, I'd like to see your data for all the Canadians and Englishmen who have been breaking down our borders for healthcare. You might also look at how many Americans buy their prescription drugs in Canada because they can't afford them here.

WOW!!! I was not even trying to evoke that sort of response from anyone.

Let me try to clarify a couple of things.

First the bad choices I was thinking of are when people got themselves into the Sub-Prime loans, I was not thinking of eating disorders, or smoking. Also not thinking of Breast CA. My whole point is that the government should not be our mother.

Second as for my remark about the VA healthcare system, I am speaking of the Beaurocracy that begins in Washington D.C. and filters its way down. The medical professionals at the VA do a great job with what they have.

Third as far as you wanting your "THANK YOU" back; I did not ask for it, nor do I need it. I simply made my opinion known, and I did my best to try not to offend anyone. There is no reason to attack someone who has a different opinion than yours. That is one of the biggest problems with people these days, they don't think of anyone but themselves, and all they can do is attack others.

Lastly I am sorry for your Mom, and your Sister, I truely hope that their circumstances and foutunes turn for the better, and THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR POSTING A REPLY, I CAN SEE YOU PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO IT.

[icyounurse]

Wow, I can't believe someone actually posted that people from Canada and England seek healthcare in the U.S.......
excuse me while I die laughing---hahahahahahhttp://allnurses.com/forums/images/s...added/w00t.gif



puh-lease people. Our health care system is not among the top of industrialized nations by any means. Do some research. And seriously if I was in Canada and I could just go to the doctor when I was sick, why in the world would I cross the border so i could pay tons of $$$$ for the same care I would receive for free back home???Actually statistically their care in Canada is somewhat better. Their infant mortality rate is lower than ours and their life expectancy is longer(gasp)
And no, their nurses salaries are not lower than ours. Check out their statistics here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...stems_compared

If you look under Health care outcomes you will see Canadians live 2 and 1/2 years longer than us. Why do Americans get so arrogant defending our horrible healthcare system when we need to be getting together and trying to change it?

[Miss_Chybil]

Originally Posted by scottlgarrett

There is no reason to attack someone who has a different opinion than yours. That is one of the biggest problems with people these days, they don't think of anyone but themselves, and all they can do is attack others.

As in attacking people who need healthcare, but who don't have insurance because they've made bad choices?

It is my opinion the biggest problem with people these days is there are so many people who know what the biggest problem with people these days is. Of course, that's just my opinion. Were I want to prove my argument, I'd have to substantiate it with facts and perhaps acknowledge I'd just shot myself in the back by making such a generalized statement. Generalizations have a tendency to do that.

[icyounurse]

Originally Posted by Miss_Chybil

As in attacking people who need healthcare, but who don't have insurance because they've made bad choices?

It is my opinion the biggest problem with people these days is there are so many people who know what the biggest problem with people these days is. Of course, that's just my opinion. Were I want to prove my argument, I'd have to substantiate it with facts and perhaps acknowledge I'd just shot myself in the back by making such a generalized statement. Generalizations have a tendency to do that.

Amen sister. And actually not everyone who is uninsured is so because they have "made bad choices". Me and my husband recently moved and are starting new jobs and it takes 30 days to get the insurance. If you are in an accident or get cancer or something in the meantime? Oh well. I think the whole system has some major flaws personally.

[scottlgarrett]

Originally Posted by Miss_Chybil

As in attacking people who need healthcare, but who don't have insurance because they've made bad choices?

It is my opinion the biggest problem with people these days is there are so many people who know what the biggest problem with people these days is. Of course, that's just my opinion. Were I want to prove my argument, I'd have to substantiate it with facts and perhaps acknowledge I'd just shot myself in the back by making such a generalized statement. Generalizations have a tendency to do that.

I am so SORRY, I will go into my room and shoot myself because you think my I am such a bad guy.

Maby.....

Enjoy your SHREEKING

[happyloser]

Health Care in my opinion is a right everyone should have. Yes some of us are privledge to have medical insurance but it is time the government intervined.

Drug prices are rising everyday, health care is becoming ridiculously expensive and more and more people are participating in "social tourism."

It is evident that our healthcare system is flawed yet we continually deny care to those who need it. Universal health Care would offer everyone the chance to see a doctor on a regular basis. The point of universal health care is to practice preventative medicine thus elimanting the burden on hospitals.

I live in NJ and recently all we hear is "hospitals in Newark to close by summer" and "Overlook Hospital has purchased Union Hospital". Hospitals would not close because they cannot make money because insentatives would be set in place.

We must look to France and England to establish a system that works for each and every american. It is our right as citizens of the free world to have a system where everyone can benefit from.

[HM2Viking]

I have posted numerous threads and links to how we can do much better under a universal health care model. Here is a link to one article....

<B>

France
It's a common lament among health-policy wonks that the world's best health-care system resides in a country Americans are particularly loath to learn from. Yet France's system is hard to beat. Where Canada's system has a high floor and a low ceiling, France's has a high floor and no ceiling. The government provides basic insurance for all citizens, albeit with relatively robust co-pays, and then encourages the population to also purchase supplementary insurance -- which 86 percent do, most of them through employers, with the poor being subsidized by the state. This allows for as high a level of care as an individual is willing to pay for, and may help explain why waiting lines are nearly unknown in France.
France's system is further prized for its high level of choice and responsiveness -- attributes that led the World Health Organization to rank it the finest in the world (America's system came in at No. 37, between Costa Rica and Slovenia). The French can see any doctor or specialist they want, at any time they want, as many times as they want, no referrals or permissions needed. The French hospital system is similarly open. About 65 percent of the nation's hospital beds are public, but individuals can seek care at any hospital they want, public or private, and receive the same reimbursement rate no matter its status. Given all this, the French utilize more care than Americans do, averaging six physician visits a year to our 2.8, and they spend more time in the hospital as well. Yet they still manage to spend half per capita than we do, largely due to lower prices and a focus on preventive care.
...
The French have addressed this by creating what amounts to a tiered system for treatment reimbursement. As Jonathan Cohn explains in his new book, Sick:

In order to prevent cost sharing from penalizing people with serious medical problems -- the way Health Savings Accounts threaten to do -- the [French] government limits every individual's out-of-pocket expenses. In addition, the government has identified thirty chronic conditions, such as diabetes and hypertension, for which there is usually no cost sharing, in order to make sure people don't skimp on preventive care that might head off future complications.

The French do the same for pharmaceuticals, which are grouped into one of three classes and reimbursed at 35 percent, 65 percent, or 100 percent of cost, depending on whether data show their use to be cost effective. It's a wise straddle of a tricky problem, and one that other nations would do well to emulate.
...
Indeed, the VHA's lead in care quality isn't disputed. A New England Journal of Medicine study from 2003 compared the VHA with fee-for-service Medicare on 11 measures of quality. The VHA came out "significantly better" on every single one. The Annals of Internal Medicine pitted the VHA against an array of managed-care systems to see which offered the best treatment for diabetics. The VHA triumphed in all seven of the tested metrics. The National Committee for Quality Assurance, meanwhile, ranks health plans on 17 different care metrics, from hypertension treatment to adherence to evidence-based treatments. As Phillip Longman, the author of Best Care Anywhere, a book chronicling the VHA's remarkable transformation, explains: "Winning NCQA's seal of approval is the gold standard in the health-care industry. And who do you suppose is the highest ranking health care system? Johns Hopkins? Mayo Clinic? Massachusetts General? Nope. In every single category, the veterans health care system outperforms the highest-rated non-VHA hospitals."
What makes this such an explosive story is that the VHA is a truly socialized medical system. The unquestioned leader in American health care is a government agency that employs 198,000 federal workers from five different unions, and nonetheless maintains short wait times and high consumer satisfaction. Eighty-three percent of VHA hospital patients say they are satisfied with their care, 69 percent report being seen within 20 minutes of scheduled appointments, and 93 percent see a specialist within 30 days.

</B>

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?arti...lth_of_nations

I think we will do much better with a well designed universal system.

[HM2Viking]

See:

What’s Wrong With Giving People a Choice?

There are very good reasons to believe that a national centralized system
can provide pension and health insurance coverage more effectively and at
lower cost than existing private financial firms or health insurance providers.
But it is not necessary to speculate as to which system will provide better
service. If the public sector option is made available, the decision can be left to
the market. Businesses and individuals would be free to choose the system that
they felt best met their needs, at the lowest cost.
If the nanny state conservatives believe what they say, they should not be
concerned about the risk that public sector pension and health insurance
systems will pose to private plans. In fact, the prospect of competing against the
government arouses great fear among nanny state conservatives. This was one
reason the Republican Congress explicitly prohibited the Medicare system from
offering its own prescription drug benefit in the 2003 law establishing a

Medicare drug benefit.
...

In this situation, the nanny state conservatives are strongly opposed to
giving people a choice. They want the nanny state to ensure hefty profits for the
financial industry, the health insurance industry, and Internet service providers

even if means higher prices, poorer service, and a less efficient economy.

at: http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cnswebbook.pdf