[Nurse4years]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Coming to a gov't restricted health care plan near you:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../02/nhs102.xml
NHS patients told to treat themselves

"Millions of people with arthritis, asthma and even heart failure will be urged to treat themselves as part of a Government plan to save billions of pounds from the NHS budget.
Instead of going to hospital or consulting a doctor, patients will be encouraged to carry out "self care" as the Department of Health (DoH) tries to meet Treasury targets to curb spending."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../02/nhs202.xml
Waiting times target 'will be missed'

"Plans to eliminate excessive waiting times in the National Health Service stand no chance of succeeding, an independent think-tank claims today.

In a serious blow to Gordon Brown's credibility, Civitas says the target of a maximum 18-week delay from GP referral to treatment by December is an "impossibility".

~~~
UNDERSTAND THIS: The NHS set an EIGHTEEN WEEK STANDARD as a reasonable delay between diagnosis by a GP and actual referral for treatment. AND THEY CAN'T MEET THIS GOAL.

I don't know what's worse: setting a 4.5 month standard as a 'reasonable' wait in the first place, or, failing to meet it.

How many of you are truly willing to wait 4.5 months for a referral, and that's only IF the gov't meets it's rationing goals. If not, who knows how long you'll wait?

Unlimited demand = unlimited supply (impossible) or rationed supply. It's a law of economics. Congress can't change that.

The last time I needed surgery, the wait time from seeing my GP to seeing the specialist was 18 HOURS; not 18 WEEKS. I saw my GP on Thurs, saw the Surgeon on FRI, and had surgery the following Monday. Given a choice, I would choose 18 HOURS over 18 WEEKS. Which, of course, is why gov't restricted health care first requires the removal of choice.

~faith,
Timothy.

Regarding self care- that is already being done by the uninsured. Uninsured are already treating their own ailments, whether successfully or unsuccessfully, only time tells.
Re you 18 hour wait, sincerely glad for you. And, stating the obvious, you know that 18 weeks would be nothing for the uninsured, who cannot see a Physician, much less a specialist.
All of the stats, graphs, and studies aren't adding or subtracting from the bottom line: We will have universal health care, and it will eventually be paid for by society as a whole. So, instead of jumping through free market/competition/mandatory insurance....and all of the above, isn't it time to just go ahead and start the ball rolling?
We know it will take decades and possibly centuries to work out the kinks and fine tune, so shouldn't we just get started?

[HM2Viking]

I think Universal Health care speaks to the issue of Social Capital as well:

For another take on this idea see:

There is a new concept: "social capital" -- originally coined by J. S. Coleman, now expanded by Professor Kawachi of Harvard and his colleagues, and recently spotlighted in a Scientific American article. (5)
When researchers get into the streets and survey people's opinions, they can rate communities and neighborhoods on the results. A community has high social capital if people say they trust one another and help each other out, and if they belong to local groups (service groups, tenant associations, unions, etc.) which have an impact; the community has an atmosphere of cohesiveness. A community has low social capital if residents don't belong to organizations, don't trust each other and say others try to take advantage of them. Researchers like Kawachi also check out health statistics and crime rates. He and his colleagues have found that communities with low social capital also have worse health, higher mortality rates, and higher rates of violent crime. (6) Also, cohesive communities turn out to be more egalitarian.

at: http://www.swans.com/library/art12/jedney01.html#03

[CRNA2007]

The reason is too few people are personally responsible for the community at large. Personal responsibility should be just that personal responisbility not community responsibility.

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

I don't understand the hostility for personal responsibility to the well-being of the community at large. Dean Baker makes the following observation:

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

[CRNA2007]

The uninsured consistently utilize the ER for primary care and most do not pay the bill. Universal health care will not be paid for by society as a whole. It will be paid for by middle and upper income Americans so that people who refuse to work or pull their own weight can have yet a nother free handout on the backs of the American taxpayer.

Originally Posted by Mschrisco

Regarding self care- that is already being done by the uninsured. Uninsured are already treating their own ailments, whether successfully or unsuccessfully, only time tells.
Re you 18 hour wait, sincerely glad for you. And, stating the obvious, you know that 18 weeks would be nothing for the uninsured, who cannot see a Physician, much less a specialist.
All of the stats, graphs, and studies aren't adding or subtracting from the bottom line: We will have universal health care, and it will eventually be paid for by society as a whole. So, instead of jumping through free market/competition/mandatory insurance....and all of the above, isn't it time to just go ahead and start the ball rolling?
We know it will take decades and possibly centuries to work out the kinks and fine tune, so shouldn't we just get started?

[Nurse4years]

Originally Posted by CRNA2007

The uninsured consistently utilize the ER for primary care and most do not pay the bill. Universal health care will not be paid for by society as a whole. It will be paid for by middle and upper income Americans so that people who refuse to work or pull their own weight can have yet a nother free handout on the backs of the American taxpayer.

Do you really believe that the uninsured simply refuse to work or pull their own weight? If you have the opportunity, please do some research. The issue isn't laziness, it is the unaffordability of health care for working poor, and many middle class.
The uninsured utilize the ER because they cannot afford to see a Physician, or, if they did see a Physician, they cannot afford any testing or treatments prescribed.
It seems most people have accepted these as facts, and the discussion appears to be government involvement or encourage competition to assist in health care for all. (Simple person trying to simplify-am I correct?)
The candidates have outlined their potential plans-but there are so many issues we all need to work out for ourselves.
After all, the way of health care will greatly affect all of our lives, one way or the other. There is no going back. Fork in the road. Could possibly change our country's entire way of life/thinking/future
Right?

[jjjoy]

Originally Posted by CRNA2007

You're not choosing anything except jail time if you don't pay that money. Call up the state and federal governments and tell them this year you don't want to support someone elses children so you choose not to pay the taxes.

You're right. I didn't express myself well.

Let me rephrase what I said. I support the policy of taxes providing public education for all children. And I will continue to support such policies. Current policy does allow parents to opt out of public education. Yes, if they put their kids in a private school, they have to pay extra for that, but there *is* a choice. It's impractical for everyone to ask for their "share" of funds going to tax-funded programs that they don't use or approve of. How many people would want to take back their tax monies going to war or farm subsidies or foreign aid or public libraries or...

Alternatively, we have to go through the frustratingly slow and imperfect system of local and national policy change. I can see why people support the idea of small government. But "small" is a relative term. We want the government to be big enough to be effective but not too big. And again, we as individuals and groups disagree over what big enough and too big are exactly.

[pickledpepperRN]

I think rather than health insurance vouchers it would be better to have health care vouchers to pay the provider. The clinic, hospital, or independent practitioner.
The details would have to be worked out in terms of need. I just had my physical so after the mammogram I am free for a year unless I am sick or injured.
So how to determine when need exists?

Solved!
It covers everyone. It cuts costs. It can get through Congress. Why Universal Health Care Vouchers is the next big idea.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...6.emanuel.html

[jjjoy]

Originally Posted by CRNA2007

The uninsured consistently utilize the ER for primary care and most do not pay the bill. Universal health care will not be paid for by society as a whole. It will be paid for by middle and upper income Americans so that people who refuse to work or pull their own weight can have yet a nother free handout on the backs of the American taxpayer.

There are those who take advantage of systems put in place to help the truly needy. And we need to take measures to discourage such behavior. I definitely support policy change in that direction. But we also need to provide reasonable, accessible alternatives... a 24hr free clinic next door to the ER?

But we only see the abusers because they keep coming back again and again while most of the uninsured simply do without.

And I have no problem with sharing with those less fortunate. While I have worked hard for what I have, I also have been blessed with good health, a family that gave me a good start, a strong education from the public school system, an affordable college degree from a state university, etc.

I, too, don't want to see my generosity taken advantage of and I support policy change to minimize that, but I also don't expect perfection in any system that deals with and is run by the human animal.

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by CRNA2007

Universal health care will not be paid for by society as a whole. It will be paid for by middle and upper income Americans so that people who refuse to work or pull their own weight can have yet a nother free handout on the backs of the American taxpayer.

Who is really getting the handout? The economic mobility project found:

•

A considerable slice of federal funds has been aimed toward programs
promoting mobility at some level. In 2006 alone, about $212 billion or
1.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in direct spending and another
$534 billion or 4.1 percent of GDP in tax subsidies went to programs aimed
at promoting mobility, for a rough total of $746 billion. (The measure itself
is rough because of the inevitable issues of categorization, and because one
cannot strictly sum tax expenditures together.)

• Roughly 72 percent of this $746 billion in mobility expenditures, or $540
billion, is delivered mainly through employer-provided work subsidies, aids
in asset accumulation, and savings incentives. This spending flows mainly
to middle- and higher-income households and often excludes lower-income
households or provides them comparably little in benefits.

• The remaining 28 percent, or $205 billion, of the mobility budget is channeled

through programs that favor lower- to moderate-income individuals.

http://economicmobility.org/assets/p...lty_Budget.pdf

You have been richly blessed by our society. I think its time to express some gratitude rather than resentment.

[Jolie]

Roughly 72 percent of this $746 billion in mobility expenditures, or $540
billion, is delivered mainly through employer-provided work subsidies, aids
in asset accumulation, and savings incentives. (Quote from HM2Viking's post above)

"Mobility expenditures...delivered ...through employer-provided work subsidies, aids in asset accumulation, and savings incentives" translates to salaries, benefits and savings plans EARNED by WORKERS. You can quote euphemisms to try and make this sound like ill-gotten gains, but it all boils down to workers being paid what they have earned via employment, a far cry from entitlements.