Single-payer advocates disrupt Senate Finance Committee.

Nurses Activism

Published

"So, let me get this straight you have fifteen seats at the table but not one for single-payer?" Priceless.

[YOUTUBE]

[/YOUTUBE]
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
Tha is why we need SINGLE PAYER.

Everybody in - Nobody out

FAQ http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php

Won't work.

Only universal coverage system that will work is an "Everyone-payer" system, especially one that is competitive.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LTC.
Won't work.

That's a matter of opinion of course. It seems to be working in Canada and Australia.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.

It's not working in Canada and Australia is not a single payer system.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LTC.

You are right about Austalia, it's not truly a single-payer plan.

But simply saying "it's not working in Canada" is just a matter of opinion. I think it is working.

So do some of these folks:

https://allnurses.com/social-health-care/nurses-uhc-countries-386039.html

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.

Three Canadians...well, that answers all, don't it?

Using such logic would imply that we need to leave the US system alone because I can find three people here who would say they don't want to trade our system for Canadas.

And I've said it before, I'll say it again. The only reason Canada's system doesn't collapse is because they've taken measures to EXPAND private care, previously illegal. They access the US system on a routine basis when their aren't enough beds for their sickest citizens. And they tolerate legendary wait times. Read my previous posts in this forum for references; I can't keep repeating myself.

Thanks.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LTC.

No, three Canadians doesn't really answer anything. But most Canadians are satisfied with their system, it is better than ours. http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/Healthcare-System-Ratings-US-Great-Britain-Canada.aspx

http://www.medhunters.com/articles/healthcareInCanada.html

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/may/quality_of_healthcar.php

The reason we hear so much about these "legendary wait times" is because their systems is publicly accountable, ours is not.

Every system is forced to ration care, in the US, if you can pay you can play, otherwise just stay home and wait till you get really sick, go to the E.R and wait for your number to be called.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817906/

http://mswd.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/further-increase-in-emergency-room-waiting-time/

No one is forcing you to repeat yourself. I am fairly new to this forum and quite frankly, don't have the time or energy to dig through hundreds of posts to look for links.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

with or without insurance would you like to be taken to this er?

these brave patient advocates have had as many as 80 patients to one rn in the er "green room"

http://www.fwweekly.com/index.php?vi...ent&itemid=375

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.

Sigh.

I see your six year old non-scientific poll, wikified article, and the inconclusive meta-analysis, and show you actual research that is four years newer which says, "US respondents...were more satisfied with health care services received than were the Canadians.

And their system is NOT "better than ours."

The reason we hear so much about these "legendary wait times" is because their systems is publicly accountable, ours is not.

No, the reason we hear so much about these legendary wait times is because their citizens wait legendary amounts of time to obtain necessary care, and it's a big problem in Canada. Countries don't willingly advertise their problems just so people will think they are "publically accountable.

Every system is forced to ration care, in the US, if you can pay you can play, otherwise just stay home and wait till you get really sick, go to the E.R and wait for your number to be called.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15817906/

http://mswd.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/further-increase-in-emergency-room-waiting-time/

I didn't mention rationing, and I'm not following what point you were making except that maybe you want to trade one rationing system for another?

No one is forcing you to repeat yourself. I am fairly new to this forum and quite frankly, don't have the time or energy to dig through hundreds of posts to look for links.

Understood, sorry, and I didn't realize you were 'new.' If you want to get some referenced info on the subject, check some of my past posts; I've been a member for less time than you.

Have a nice weekend.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

one reason to why single payer is "off the table::

health sector has donated millions to lawmakers

health insurers and drug makers have showered members of the 111th congress with millions in campaign contributions over the last four years, with a special focus on leaders who will play major roles in shaping health-care legislation, according to a study to be released tomorrow.

health insurers and their employees contributed $2.2 million to the top 10 recipients in the house and senate since 2005, while drug makers and their employees gave more than $3.3 million to top lawmakers during that period, according to an analysis of federal elections data by consumer watchdog, a california-based advocacy group.

the biggest beneficiaries in the senate included john mccain (r-ariz.), with $546,000; minority leader mitch mcconnell (r-ky.), with $425,000; and max baucus (d-mont.), with $413,000, who as head of the finance committee will play a leading role in the debate over health-care reform....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/07/ar2009030701748.html

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LTC.
sigh.

i see your six year old non-scientific poll, wikified article, and the inconclusive meta-analysis, and show you actual research that is four years newer which says, "us respondents...were more satisfied with health care services received than were the canadians.

let's examine the research. briefly, their findings are "no significant differences" in regards to the four health status indicators. (pg. 2)

"the results in table 5 show either no difference in self-perceived health status or a slight indication of a higher percentage reporting excellent health in the u.s" but as the authors admit, "the purely subjective nature of the measure ... may not be useful to answer the question whether one population is healthier than the other." (pg. 6&7)

they use the health status measurment index, it "provides a description of a individual's overall functional health based on eight attributes - vision, hearing, speech, mobility, dexterity of hands and fingers, memory and thinking, emotion and pain and discomfort. the second measure refers to the probability of major depression of questions from the composite international diagnostic interview. the last measure is a response to a question whether the respondent has pain that prevents some or most activities." (pg. 7) "for the 18-64 year old age group, the results show no difference of the three indicators." (pg. 8) table 6 also shows that americans have a slightly higher rate of depression. (pg. 26)

they ask, "what can be concluded from this type of data?" they answer, "the results still can not tell us whether the health systems are equally efficient." (pg. 8)

their next analysis point measures chronic health conditions for the younger population. according to the authors, "these indicators are more specific and less subjective" but, "are still influence by socio-economic status, life styles and genetic factors ... table 7a shows that for the first five conditions, canada has a lower incidence in all categories, but the difference is rather small except for high blood pressure. for the last three conditions that relate to the functioning of the heart, the two countries are nearly the same." (pg. 8&9)

a look at table 7a will reveal that canada treats more in regards to asthma, data is not available for arthritis, the u.s does slightly better than canada for treatment of high blood pressure, the u.s does better for treatment of emphysema and diabetes. canada does slightly better at treatment for heart disease, slightly worse for coronary heart disease and slightly worse for those with angina. for people in the age range of 18-64. (pg. 28)

canada screens less for, colonoscopy, mammography, pap smears and sigmoidoscopy. (pg. 29) it's unknown however, why screening is less in canada compared to u.s.

table 9 illustrates that those who suffer an episode of depression are more likely to seek treatment from a mental health professional. (pg. 30)

on to wait times. the evidence is inconclusive. statistics canada, "bases its numbers on the responses of individuals to questions on their wait time experience." the oecd "utilizes administrative data collected by various provincial governmental agencies. the fraser insitute, which gave the highest wait times, is a right-wing organization that supports free market solutions, generated, "it's own survey, of specialist physicians and asked them to estimate patient waiting time from the date the surgery was scheduled to the date the surgery actually took place." (pg. 32)

table 12 illustrates the percentage of those with self-reported unmet health needs and the reasons. the total number (ages 18-64) of those with unmet health needs in canada was 11.3%, whereas in the u.s it was 14.4 %. 56.3% of those in canada responded that it was because they had to wait too long or the service was not available, compared to 13.2% in the u.s. in terms of cost, 8.6% in canada remarked that cost was a factor compared to 54.7% in the u.s. "other reasons" are very close. age group 65+, 7.4% of canadians have unmet needs oposed to 6.4% in the united states. 51.9% of canada claim wait times, compared to 24.6% in the states. 2.2% in canada remark on cost, compared to 35.9% in the states. again, "other reasons" are pretty close.(pg.33)

both canada and the u.s have problems in regards to the delivery of health care. however, one problem canada does not have that the u.s does have is cost. the evidence shows that 54.7% of u.s participants age 18-64 had unmet health needs because they couldn't afford it. both countries have to wait, but canada doesn't discriminate on whether or not one can afford it.

table 14 illustrates the incidence rate and mortality rate of selected types of cancer. the u.s does a bit better in this regard. (pg. 35)

i appreciate the paper. obviously their are many factors that need to be considered in regards to which system is better. i am certainly not convinced that that the u.s has a better system than canada, in fact, in regards to some of the data that was presented in the source you provided, i still lean towards the idea that canada can do it better than us because they have a system that is more equitable. that is their framework. they made a decision to create a fair health delivery system and though it has problems which they acknowledge, they continue with a single-payer back bone and have refused to exclude anyone, while working on ways to fix the problems, while retaining the inclusive nature of their system.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LTC.

Here is a news story relevant to the initial discussion. I am glad to see that it is getting some press.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30629823#30629823

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

[color=#bb0000]who will be at the table?

[color=#333333]baucus evicts single-payer advocates from his hearing

this week, [color=#bb0000]sen. max baucus, whose finance committee holds the keys to health care reform, called the capitol police to eject single-payer advocates from his roundtable discussion. the advocates were protesting their exclusion from the committee's witness list. the event was one of several discussions the senator has been holding to let stakeholders talk about which route reform should take.

the fifteen witnesses read like a who's who of health reform bigwigs--representatives from the business roundtable, the heritage foundation, the national federation of independent business, families usa, aarp, america's health insurance plans, the u.s. chamber of commerce, the new america foundation, the national association of insurance commissioners, blue cross and blue shield association, the seiu, the national governors association, and a law professor from george washington university. the kaiser family foundation got two spots on the witness list. it's fair to say that this cast of characters has been seen many times before--at committee hearings and in the backrooms of the capitol, where the deal-making has begun.

single-payer reps have been marginalized since the beginning of this round of reform, and they're mad about it. at first, the president did not invite them to his summit. only when they threatened a protest in front of the white house did they get a [color=#bb0000]last-minute invite. tuesday they got their chance to protest, and eight single-payer supporters stood up, one by one, to say their piece. "we need to have single payer at the table," one said. as they stood, police removed them from the room....

... journalists don't take kindly to censorship, or attempts at censorship. that's not what we're about. for more than a year, campaign desk [color=#bb0000]has observed that the health reform debate has been too narrow; that the same sources are quoted again and again. we have urged the press to be more inclusive of other voices, even if politicians aren't.

health reform may or may not pass this year, but all americans must have their say. democracy is messy. stifling dissent is just not cool.

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/who_will_be_at_the_table_7.php

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment