I am watching Michael Moore's "Sicko" for the first time....

Honnête et Sérieux · Mar 26, 2009

AMEN AMEN!
I am horrified to think where social security would be now if we had privatized it, and invested the $$ in the stock mkt as Bush was pushing for!
And I think our "socialized" police, military, fire depts, etc. do a damn fine job!

As I said already, Soc. Sec. announced a 25% reduction in my soc. sec. benefit when I retire; this announcement came BEFORE any downturn in the market. The market will recover, but I expect no such recovery from Soc. Sec. In fact, I expect to be lucky to receive any benefit at all when I retire even after spending a lifetime diverting 12.4% of my paycheck into that ponzi scheme.

My private investments are still 30% over my principle. BTW, the same idea was floated by Bill Clinton; it wasn't a Bush invention.

Repeating myself; only a MINORITY percentage of our police and fire services in this country are "socialized," and I seriously doubt that our healthcare system is willing to function according to the same traditions were 70% of us are volunteering and conducting bingo and bake sales on the side (as volunteers) to generate operating revenue. Finally, we don't all get equal coverage when it comes to police and fire services.

Honnête et Sérieux · Mar 26, 2009

Not to mention the fine job done by the US postal service!

No one gets more or less "postal service" than another. No one gets FREE postal service. Everyone, rich or poor, pays the same for a stamp, money order, or passport.

It seems to be a counterproductive argument; in one post, it seems we want to provide basic healthcare services to everyone regardless of their ability to pay, but then the post office is held up as an example, where people have to pay the same as everyone else...or they get nothing.

Long Term Care Columnist / Guide · Mar 26, 2009

Who says we wouldn't continue to pay for our health services if we had UHC? And who's talking about covering illegal immigrants? I specifically stated that American CITIZENS should be able to access basic health services. And please.......do the math, cutting out the middleman (the insurance industry) would get rid of a goodly amount of paperwork and expense that have NOTHING to do with medical care.

The ONLY advantage of the current system is that it provides multimillion dollar jobs for insurance company CEOs and middle-income wages for the bean counters. Lord forbid they have to go do something else......

Honnête et Sérieux · Mar 26, 2009

Visitors to countries with socialized medicine are treated free of charge when they enter these countries legally. I don't know about illegally.

No they aren't. Of this, I have first hand experience. If this were true, then these systems would be crushed in a day by people conveniently being "on vacation" in a socialized medicine country when they suddenly needed healthcare.

A friend of my husband's required an emergency appendectomy while on sabbatical in Germany. He says the care he received was wonderful- and 100% free.

Forgive me if I find this highly unlikely. Here is an NPR article where an American had an MI in Germany while on vacation, and he is still paying the bills.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91963961

Valerie Salva, BSN, RN · Mar 26, 2009

honnête et sérieux-

i totally disagree with your opinions, but i appreciate your contributions to the thread.

Honnête et Sérieux · Mar 26, 2009

and who's talking about covering illegal immigrants? i specifically stated that american citizens should be able to access basic health services.

this person did;

and what if we don't provide care for immigrants, how will you feel when you or your family contract one of their exotic diseases like that drug-resistant form of tb?

...and you did indirectly when you presented the inaccurate number referring to the alleged 45 million of uninsured people in the us.

and as it stands, all american citizens are able to access "basic health services."

who is not allowing them to access basic health services?

allnurses Guide · Mar 26, 2009

Interested newcomers to ALLNURSES.COM may want to look at some of the 111 posts on this:

https://allnurses.com/social-health-care/controversial-michael-moore-220623.html

Honnête et Sérieux · Mar 26, 2009

honnête et sérieux-
i totally disagree with your opinions, but i appreciate your contributions to the thread.

thanks, but the majority of the information i presented is fact, little of it is opinion.

and i appreciate yours as well.

Long Term Care Columnist / Guide · Mar 26, 2009

who is not allowing them to access basic health services?

i don't know about your part of the country, but where i live, you don't get in to see your pcp without either presenting an insurance card or paying the office visit fee (at my pcp, it's almost $200) up front.

now, patients in my income bracket and above don't have much of an issue with this, but if you're poor and/or uninsured, your only options are the local free clinic (open one night a week) or the er. so i guess in the broadest sense, there is universal access to health care..........but certainly not at a price many people can afford to pay.

at any rate, you are not going to change my mind, and i am not going to change yours. it's ok, there's plenty of room here for all opinions.:)

Valerie Salva, BSN, RN · Mar 26, 2009

It makes a lot more sense to me for people to be able to go to a clinic and see a pcp and have that paid for- than to wait until they're really sick, go to ER, get admitted and it still ends up being paid for by us anyway.

Hey- "an ounce of prevention" is waaaaaaay more cost effective than a pound of cure.

Valerie Salva, BSN, RN · Mar 26, 2009

Here's an example of an ounce of prevention...

Colorado is one state where illegal aliens cannot get outpt chronic dialysis paid for. So here's what these pts do- They clog up the ERs in Denver waiting for their K+ levels to become critically high so they can be admitted as inpts and receive "emergency" dialysis. Some of them even eat contraindicated high K+ foods on purpose so that their labs will sufficiently critical to allow them to be admitted and get dialysis.

If they could get outpt dialysis they could get their 3 x week tx, and be done with it. But- because of the way the system "works" they make themselves much sicker on purpose, and end up getting much more expensive inpt tx, and the ERs are filled w/ pts who are really there working the system so that they can get some semblence of their needed chronic tx.

Most of these pts play it so they do end up getting their dialysis twice a week- as inpts. In the meantime, all of their co-morbidies are getting worse due to the constant up and down of their labs, fluid overload, and lack of routine scheduled dialysis.

This is way more expensive and harmful than just giving them outpt dialysis in the first place.

How stupid is this system?

Long Term Care Columnist / Guide · Mar 26, 2009

It makes a lot more sense to me for people to be able to go to a clinic and see a pcp and have that paid for- than to wait until they're really sick, go to ER, get admitted and it still ends up being paid for by us anyway.
Hey- "an ounce of prevention" is waaaaaaay more cost effective than a pound of cure.

Yes, well, that's logical to your way of thinking, but logic isn't part of the argument against UHC. Otherwise, who would fight to keep a system that costs more money, creates more work for nurses and doctors, and provides less care for patients? :banghead: