[Jolie]

[quote=Mschrisco;2691327Then what do we do with the uninsured?[/QUOTE]

We assist them in obtaining the tools necessary to be responsible for planning, budgeting, making care decisions for themselves and accepting the consequences of those decisions, just as employed and insured citizens do every day. Those tools include lessons in budgeting, saving and financial planning, as well as tax breaks and vouchers to assist with establishing healthcare savings accounts and purchasing healthcare services and/or coverage for themselves.

Until individuals of every economic status are responsible for their own expenses and budget, healthcare costs will never be brought under control.

[ingelein]

How will this "assistance" be paid for? Will it cost the taxpayers money? Vouchers, wont that cost taxpayer dollars too?

[HM2Viking]

Its difficult to negotiate from a gurney......

In all seriousness the market provides incentives for the insurers to compete to deny care not improve it for patients... see: http://prospect.org/cs/articles?arti...ce_doesnt_work

Why Health Insurance Doesn't Work
It is actually against their interest for insurers to compete on giving us the best care. It's not simply that they're not doing it, but given the structure of the marketplace, they shouldn't do it.

[BlueRidgeHomeRN]

[quote=Jolie;2691911]We assist them in obtaining the tools necessary to be responsible for planning, budgeting, making care decisions for themselves and accepting the consequences of those decisions, just as employed and insured citizens do every day. quote]

Thank you, Jolie..



There will never be agreement on this issue, becuase we have two very different schools of thought here..
:cat:
The first states that care of each person is a communal responsibility best regulated by the government. Nurses have to support this or they are uncaring or immoral. People who need help are primarily victims who deserve sympathy and support, regardless of what precipitated their need. No one is allowed to judge anyone, because there is not a moral absolute and all choices are of equal value. If not for taxation and government programs, people would be dying in the streets.

The second school of thought states that adults are responsible for themselves and their offspring, and that it is the duty of people of faith to provide assistance to those who cannot help themselves..i.e., "widows and orphans" in the Judeo-Christian context, the children and aged, the mentally and physically incompetent. This support is given with the expectation that those who can contribute should ["if one should not work, neither shall he eat"] and that the the others are to be protected. Caring does not enable poor or dangerous choices. Work is the rent you pay for your existance here on earth, which is just a short stay on your way to somewhere else.

As Timothy has so eloquently stated, charity cannot be forced, and entitlements encourage a mentality of need and dependence. I'll continue to listen to rational opinions, but I doubt I can be convinced that everyone should have equality of outcome--its the pursuit of happiness, not the guarentee thereof that makes this country great.

[HM2Viking]

The real opportunity in health care today is to provide best care. The real
opportunity is to identify the patients who are at high risk of becoming the
most expensive 5 percent of health care users. The real opportunity is to
strategically intervene with each of those patients to reduce the likelihood that
they will become the 40 percent users of all health care.
That is the best focus for our health care energies. That is where the real

dollar opportunities are.
...

Let’s design the next generation of benefit plans based on real data, not
academic theory and ideological speculation. And let’s focus our maximum

energy on best care——not disincenting chronic care treatment plans.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_...f?section=4061

[HM2Viking]

New York City, August 19, 2004—Consumer-directed health care (CDHC)—high-deductible plans often touted as the answer to spiraling health care costs—is not likely to curb health care costs, and could even worsen health outcomes by reducing patients' receipt of needed preventive care and care for chronic conditions, says a new report from The Commonwealth Fund.
A more effective and equitable alternative to increased cost-sharing for patients would be care management for high-cost patients, says Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis in Will Consumer-Directed Health Care Improve Health System Performance?, noting that ten percent of individuals account for 69 percent of health care costs.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/news...?doc_id=235868

[Jolie]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

Its difficult to negotiate from a gurney......

Viking,

Do you believe that you are capable of managing your own budget and healthcare needs?

If so, do you believe that your fellow citizens are likewise capable?

Do you think that low-income equals ignorant or incapable? If the low-income citizens of this country are capable of managing every other aspect of their lives without well-meaning, but unnecessary intrusion, why don't you support enabling them to do the same with their healthcare?

[jjjoy]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

BUT. We have to do SOMETHING. So, let's make a solution that is much worse than the problem.

Yep, that's what UHC proponents REALLY want. To make things worse. And they try so hard to make us believe that they really think it would have some upsides for a good number of people. Like not having to worry about getting ill or injured potentially starting a spiral to bankruptcy despite having made responsible choices such as working, having health insurance and getting regular check ups. Like not having to worry about how one will afford gap coverage in health insurance if they are without work for awhile.

But seriously...

Tim, anyone who has kept up with this discussion knows that you believe in minimal government interference and we know HM2Viking supports UHC. You each know that you're not going to convince the other. So both of your arguments are more for those of us who are on the fence. Explain to us a different approach to deal with the problems of increasing medical costs (no matter who's paying or how well they negotiate modern medical technology is expensive). Explain to us how the current system isn't THAT bad (if that's your argument). Instead of "socialism vs. free market" - which will lead us in circles - let's talk about the pros and cons of the different varieties of national health programs and the different varieties of private sector health care provision. If UHC is such a terrible idea, what specific alternatives are there that are politically viable (cuz that's a reality we have to deal with no matter how frustrating it is.)

I don't always agree with HM2Viking and I question the basis of some of the statistics posted, but I respect the fact that he is putting information and ideas out there and isn't just complaining about & criticizing other people's ideas of a solution as *hare-brained*, *misguided*, *idiotic*, *obviously ridiculous*, etc. I'm not saying you've used those words specifically, but the tone of your posts can be so caustic that I just want to disagree with you because I don't want to side with someone who is so quick to so negatively judge another's perspective. Just because someone supports some aspects of social assistance doesn't mean they want "Uncle Daddy" to take care of their every need. That's insulting and not conducive to constructive discussion.

The reason I'm bothering to spend so much time saying this and why I'm addressing you specifically is that I *know* you from other posts in other areas. You have a lot of insight to share and I generally respect your input. But when I see your vehement and insulting replies in regard to anything that hints at socialism, I wonder where that other guy went.

PS I hope I'm not coming across as the "feel good, never disagree with anyone ever" police.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by jjjoy

Yep, that's what UHC proponents REALLY want. To make things worse.

I KNOW that isn't what proponents want. I am saying that is what they will get. I have said, over and over in this and many similar discussions here, that I'm not opposed to what proponents of UHC WANT; I'm opposed to method they wish to employ.

I'm opposed BECAUSE IT WON'T WORK. The laws of economics do not yield to extreme desire. Even if you want it, very VERY badly.

It's the simple law of supply and demand. IF you create unlimited demand (IT'S FREE!!!), then, you must also create unlimited supply (physically and financially impossible) or you must ration supply.

A plan to ration supply is restricted care, not universal care.

We have access to the best health care in the world. If you have an issue with access, then devise a method to increase access. Gov't restricted health care has NOTHING to do with access. You don't need to change the way 265 million Americans get coverage in order to cover 38 million uninsured.

You don't. Unless at issue is how you want to control the health care of the 265 million.

At issue is choice. Gov't restricted health care is anti-choice.

~faith,
Timothy.

[Kyrshamarks]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

I didn't question the value of work. The mobility project data shows that once an individual is in the middle class there are substantial aids given by government policies that help that individual and their family stay there. Its hypocritical to deny the assistive role of government in maintaining ones social class.

I find it funny that you contradict yourself in two different threads; http://allnurses.com/forums/f313/cau...ss-285691.html

So what is it...is the government helpng the middle class with substanial aid (then where is my aid because I do nothing but pay fees and am not entitled to any type of public assistance or help) or are they hurting them?