I want to know what nurses think about socialized medicine.

Nurses Activism

Published

I'm doing a report on Socialized medicine and dont know much about how people feel about it as I live in Idaho.What are any of you Canadian nurses feelings about it? Good or Bad?

I'll take the approach , of the anti UHC crowd .

Shock , Horror , you are not providing health insurance for yourselves because you have other priorities for where your income goes .So when one of the possible complications of Metabolic Syndrome strikes , makes a visit to the ER unavoidable , you expect us to pick up the tab for your poor choice , NO WAY ,no how !!!.Also don't expect any help from us , if you try to meet , your financial obligations and go bankrupt .

I on the other hand realise that even those of us who have health insurance , who take good care of ourselves , in the present system are often one major health crisis away from bankrupcy .This present system will not only bankrupt the individual , but it will also bankrupt industry and eventually the country .

So it would be nice if people who agree there is a problem , come up with a new viable solution , rather than write off a system ,UHC , which although it has some detractors in the countries it is used in ( never possible to please everyone ), but given the choice of using their UHC or US financing system of healthcare , show at least through opinion polls in their countries they will stick to UHC.

There are many viable solutions to this problem. So interesting that my econ class is studying this issue right now and we all have a huge paper due in two weeks about some aspect. And next week's paper is compare/contrast Michael Moore's Sicko with John Stossel's "Sick in America".

I would NEVER ask y'all to pay for our health care. Right now my husband is taking good care of himself. But he also works at a very dangerous job. And a good friend of his from high school just lost her sister yesterday to a brain aneurysm so you just never know. If something happens to someone in our family, we have assets we can sell. But I'd never go on welfare (we'd never qualify). So you don't have to worry about picking up the tab.

I read the article and in fact I think I posted it here by Atul Gawande . . .I did disagree with the same point John does:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/10/competition_would_save_medicine_too_96917.html

steph

I think that I would trust the work of the Commonwealth Fund for accurate information about UHC over the work of John Stossel.

well, well, well....

very interesting about mr. stossel, viking.

pffffffft.

leslie

I watched it during class and just pulled out my notes "David Gratzer" and "The Cure" and I came home after class and looked him up and found out he was a conservative, just exactly as he came across on the interview. Wow, big whoop. Are conservatives not allowed to have opinions? John didn't hide anything.

Also, another woman he interviewed started "The Galen Institute" which was also in my notes and I went online and checked it out and it also has conservative ideas.

http://www.galen.org/

I also posted both these authors websites days ago on one of these socialized med threads.

It is not a secret where they are coming from.

Michael interviews people who are liberal . . . . John is rebutting him with conservative or libertarian thought.

As to WHO . . . .we learned in class that each country has different ways they interpret information and that is why the US doesn't stack up well in some areas because other countries leave things out or skew it. Like infant mortality.

Just an example we learned in class is that other countries don't try to save as many premies as we do. We count those babies. Other countries don't. In Cuba, if a baby dies within a few hours of being born, they don't count that baby as a live birth. There is NO universal standard way all countries share for counting infant mortality. Our professor showed that we are really 10th - not 29th . . and some of the reasons are we have a huge market for infertility and multiple births here in America and it is not that big elsewhere.

My stats prof taught us to look with a jaundiced eye and research stats.

step

well, well, well....

very interesting about mr. stossel, viking.

pffffffft.

leslie

you know viking, this really bothers me about j. stossel.

i have always liked him and now, feel totally deluded.

i found another piece by mediamatters, that speaks to stossel's distorted and misleading views on public schools.

this is just so unacceptable on many levels, but mostly because he has received awards for his journalism...

and now, to find out that what he reports on, is slanted to reflect his ideals.

*sigh*...whatever.

sorry to go off topic.

leslie

Equating access to effective and affordable health care as welfare just doesn't connect logically.

Insurance by definition is a social product. We collectively pay into a risk pool to cover the risks that we cannot afford to absorb as individuals.

you know viking, this really bothers me about j. stossel.

i have always liked him and now, feel totally deluded.

i found another piece by mediamatters, that speaks to stossel's distorted and misleading views on public schools.

this is just so unacceptable on many levels, but mostly because he has received awards for his journalism...

and now, to find out that what he reports on, is slanted to reflect his ideals.

*sigh*...whatever.

sorry to go off topic.

leslie

I think the lesson is that we have to be willing as individuals to evaluate data and evidence as we seek the path to better practices for ourselves and as a society. You weren't off topic as you pointed out the importance of thinking things through. :D

Steph,

I was pointing out that Mr. Stossel doesn't always hit the mark. Whether other countries count live births differently than we do does not erase that WHO and the Commonwealth fund have both given our health care system less than stellar grades for quality, affordability and accessibility.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Images/Chart%20Maps/Chartcart/Report/Fork%20in%20the%20Road/2009_06_Schoen_ForkInTheRoad_02.gif

MirrorMirror_FigureES1.gif

Graph%201.gif

at http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Performance-Snapshots/International-Comparisons/International-Comparison--Access---Timeliness.aspx

I think the lesson is that we have to be willing as individuals to evaluate data and evidence as we seek the path to better practices for ourselves and as a society.

i understand that, and agree...

but he is supposed to be a consumer reporter!!

i would expect UNBIASED reporting, and not misrepresented data to reflect his agenda.

i soooo dislike deception, and he is deceitful.

i am reading some hair-raising stories about him.

i would now advise folks to read up on his proven and bogus antics he has pulled.

i will never believe him again.

leslie

I think that I would trust the work of the Commonwealth Fund for accurate information about UHC over the work of John Stossel.

:lol2: How true. That John Stossel is a hack corporate shill is not news. Remember the 20/20 organic food story he did, which resulted in ABC reprimanding him for lying about tests conducted and he was forced to apologize on air? He has about as much credibility as his fellow Mediastache club member, Geraldo.

Without personal credibility he has failed as a journalist. :

It is not a secret where they are coming from.

Michael interviews people who are liberal . . . . John is rebutting him with conservative or libertarian thought.

It is no secret where Michael Moore is coming from. John Stossel pretends to be an impartial journalist when he is not.

Journalism ethics is not an oxymoron:

Seek Truth and Report It

Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

— Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.

— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.

— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.

— Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.

— Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.

— Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.

— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story

— Never plagiarize.

— Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.

— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.

— Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.

— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

— Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.

— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.

— Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.

— Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.

at http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
i have always liked him and now, feel totally deluded.

i found another piece by mediamatters, that speaks to stossel's distorted and misleading views on public schools.

this is just so unacceptable on many levels, but mostly because he has received awards for his journalism...

and now, to find out that what he reports on, is slanted to reflect his ideals.

He was asked, "If you believe that consumer reporting works, and is a better regulator than regulation or lawsuits, why did you stop doing it?"

His reply: "I got sick of it. I also now make so much money I just lost interest in saving a buck on a can of peas. Twenty years was enough. But mainly, I came to realize that the government was doing far more harm to people than business and I ought to be reporting on that. Nobody else was."

He also claimed that the Enron collapse proved that free market capitalism worked! "There are no big national scams except for Enron. Because markets figure it out. Not the government. Enron is an example of how well the market worked for people. Enron's stock came tumbling down. When the government fails, we give them more money. So, yes, there are Enrons, but the exception proves the rule."

A response in a LA paper pointed out that "Enron collapsed not due to a stock tumble but because government investigations disclosed accounting fraud, and Ken Lay's Ponzi scheme was exposed. Most investors lost their shirts, and thousands of Enron employees lost their jobs. That's "how well the market works for people"?" (source - and there's more there)

+ Add a Comment