Single-payer advocates disrupt Senate Finance Committee.

Nurses Activism

Published

  • by GCTMT
    Specializes in LTC.

You are reading page 4 of Single-payer advocates disrupt Senate Finance Committee.

Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
Let's examine the research. Briefly, their findings are "no significant differences" in regards to the four health status indicators. (Pg. 2)

I don't know what you are doing.

You claimed a higher rate of satisfaction among Canadians based on a non-scientific poll. I showed a higher rate of satisfaction among Americans based on a far more recent academic paper. For that reason, I'm not sure what the purpose was of dissecting the paper since I seriously doubt it contradicted itself about the satisfaction levels.

I don't have time to review the expose, but I seriously doubt it had anything to do with your previous assertion about the satisfaction of Canadians and Americans.

GCTMT

335 Posts

Specializes in LTC.
I don't know what you are doing.

You claimed a higher rate of satisfaction among Canadians based on a non-scientific poll. I showed a higher rate of satisfaction among Americans based on a far more recent academic paper. For that reason, I'm not sure what the purpose was of dissecting the paper since I seriously doubt it contradicted itself about the satisfaction levels.

I don't have time to review the expose, but I seriously doubt it had anything to do with your previous assertion about the satisfaction of Canadians and Americans.

Well let's go over the whole thing, shall we? You claimed single-payer doesn't work. I said it does and is working in Canada. I offered a link that illustrates at least three Canadians like their system. You said that doesn't prove anything. I offered more sources. You said they were "wikified" outdated and non-scientific. You offered a source that was three years old, riddled with typos that cites (on it's Bibliography) over twenty sources yet only uses six footnotes. Furthermore, it relied mainly on data from JCUSH, which was gathered in 2002 and 2003. I read the document in it's entirety and responded. And yes, regardless of what your document says, I am inclined to think that Canada has got a better deal in regards to health care.

I think single-payer is the way to go. I have offered you and others who believe that the free market solutions are the way to go to voice your solutions in a thread that I posted about six hours ago, feel free to comment if/when you choose to do so.

Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
Well let's go over the whole thing, shall we? You claimed single-payer doesn't work. I said it does and is working in Canada. I offered a link that illustrates at least three Canadians like their system.

Your link was three anecdotal expressions about the system which don't serve to prove one way or another that a single-payer system works. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in sharing this; I would never waste your time with that kind of an example, so don't be surprised if I give such examples a dim view.

You said that doesn't prove anything.

I stand by it...are you of the opinion that those three posts prove anything about single-payer systems?

I offered more sources. You said they were "wikified" outdated and non-scientific. You offered a source that was three years old, riddled with typos that cites (on it's Bibliography) over twenty sources yet only uses six footnotes.

I don't know what you are reading, but your characterization is grossly mistaken. It is not "riddled" with typos, and please understand if I find it amusing that someone who uses anecdotes as a supporting argument is critical of the footnote/bibliography structure of an academic paper. I happen to be in grad school and took 7 credits of medical writing; modern APA prefers that the use of footnotes be limited, and these authors appropriately used parenthetical citations. I personally think that it could've been written in a more aesthetic way, but scientists are rarely good writers and even fewer of them have the gift of artistic expression.

And most of what you presented was by any definition...non-scientific. The medhunter article is definitely wikified, and that poses a real problem when it comes to credibility. Here's what I will never do; I will never use blogs or wikified sources to try and support a position because such sources lack credibility. And since I won't use them, I'll also point out the errancy when others try to prop up a position with one.

Furthermore, it relied mainly on data from JCUSH, which was gathered in 2002 and 2003. I read the document in it's entirety and responded. And yes, regardless of what your document says, I am inclined to think that Canada has got a better deal in regards to health care.

Well there you go...not sure how we can have a discussion because you simply won't accept information that disagrees with your inclination. And even if the JCUSH data was collected in 2003, it was still just as recent, and more recent than the sources you used!

I think single-payer is the way to go. I have offered you and others who believe that the free market solutions are the way to go to voice your solutions in a thread that I posted about six hours ago, feel free to comment if/when you choose to do so.

If I get a chance, I'll visit it, but so far I have the funny feeling that it will not follow reasonable traditions of dialogue.

GCTMT

335 Posts

Specializes in LTC.
Your link was three anecdotal expressions about the system which don't serve to prove one way or another that a single-payer system works. I don't think I'm being unreasonable in sharing this; I would never waste your time with that kind of an example, so don't be surprised if I give such examples a dim view.

I stand by it...are you of the opinion that those three posts prove anything about single-payer systems?

I don't know what you are reading, but your characterization is grossly mistaken. It is not "riddled" with typos, and please understand if I find it amusing that someone who uses anecdotes as a supporting argument is critical of the footnote/bibliography structure of an academic paper. I happen to be in grad school and took 7 credits of medical writing; modern APA prefers that the use of footnotes be limited, and these authors appropriately used parenthetical citations. I personally think that it could've been written in a more aesthetic way, but scientists are rarely good writers and even fewer of them have the gift of artistic expression.

Mmm-hmm.. It certainly is riddled with typos. Read it. I was trained in Chicago Style, which is elemental in all the humanities. I am not certain about which reference style is preferred in regards to economics, but I know that economics is not an exact science. Yet you claim your document is "scientific". Please, offer up some more studies from you Grad. Studies that are academic and peer-reviewed. Perhaps, you have some documents from MUSE or JSTOR?

And most of what you presented was by any definition...non-scientific. The medhunter article is definitely wikified, and that poses a real problem when it comes to credibility. Here's what I will never do; I will never use blogs or wikified sources to try and support a position because such sources lack credibility. And since I won't use them, I'll also point out the errancy when others try to prop up a position with one.

Fair enough, I will never try to present something as what it isn't. I offered the sources as general knowledge. Most of us, do not have access to resources that state one way or another that "this position is not so good" and "this position is" because they are not readily available for a wider audience.

Well there you go...not sure how we can have a discussion because you simply won't accept information that disagrees with your inclination. And even if the JCUSH data was collected in 2003, it was still just as recent, and more recent than the sources you used!

No, it wasn't. It was just as recent or older. The gallup poll was 2003.

If I get a chance, I'll visit it, but so far I have the funny feeling that it will not follow reasonable traditions of dialogue.

I feel the same way about your, one sided, poorly sourced documents. Nice try Amigo, Adios.

Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
Mmm-hmm.. It certainly is riddled with typos. Read it. I was trained in Chicago Style, which is elemental in all the humanities. I am not certain about which reference style is preferred in regards to economics, but I know that economics is not an exact science. Yet you claim your document is "scientific". Please, offer up some more studies from you Grad. Studies that are academic and peer-reviewed. Perhaps, you have some documents from MUSE or JSTOR?

First off, don't call me amigo...the manner in which you've done it is condescending and unnecessary. I haven't been extending any such disrespect toward you, and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the same.

Second...if the article was supposedly "riddled" with typos, I'd like you to point them out. If you find one or two, that does not constitute "riddled." After that little endeavor, I'd like you to explain the relevance.

And why would you try to apply the chicago style to this article? The CS is used for languages, history, and arts, and that was a research article.

And at this point, I find your demands completely non-credible; you present anecdotes, but then want me to submit more solid academic sources. Here you go...NO. Not until the stuff I am reading in this thread sheds its schizophrenic tendencies. Have you presented something from JSTOR? How do you know my article is not archived in JSTOR or P.Muse?

Fair enough, I will never try to present something as what it isn't. I offered the sources as general knowledge. Most of us, do not have access to resources that state one way or another that "this position is not so good" and "this position is" because they are not readily available for a wider audience.

Not arguing that one way or another, but under those conditions, you then cannot make unqualifiable claims about the satisfaction levels of a population or the delivery of healthcare. You especially can't be surprised or offended when someone challenges you, particularly on the sources you used.

No, it wasn't. It was just as recent or older. The gallup poll was 2003.

Uh...it was a poll...which by it's very definition is NON-scientific. Again, I don't use them, so I don't give the credibility. The closest you offered to an academic source, (which BTW did not support your assertion), specifically said that all the data was obtained BEFORE 2003...some of which are from the 80's and early 90's.

I feel the same way about your, one sided, poorly sourced documents. Nice try Amigo, Adios.

My opinions about your sources are objective, not based on feeling. If you present an objective academic source, you can expect it to be considered objectively. If you present polls and anecdotes, and then try to discredit any source I provided based on standards that you yourself have failed to achieve, then you shouldn't be surprised when the validity of your position is challenged.

And I say again...try to keep it respectful; I'm not directing any shots below the belt.

GCTMT

335 Posts

Specializes in LTC.

first off, don't call me amigo...the manner in which you've done it is condescending and unnecessary. i haven't been extending any such disrespect toward you, and i don't think it's unreasonable to expect the same.

it certainly wasn't meant to be condescending, but, that would be for you to decide and since it obviously offended you, then i apologize. of course, whether or not you have been "extending any such disrespect" to me, is for me to decide. i find a few or your comments on this thread to be more dismissive than anything else. for example, after i read the paper you provided and commented on it, you wrote, "i don't have time to review the expose", fair enough.

second...if the article was supposedly "riddled" with typos, i'd like you to point them out. if you find one or two, that does not constitute "riddled." after that little endeavor, i'd like you to explain the relevance.

read it yourself, it certainly wasn't one or two, it was many. and while i have agreed that the research did have some good points that support your position, the reason typos are relevant is because academic documents are supposed to be peer-reviewed for typos, content, etc ... if this one was peer-reviewed, then it was done poorly

and why would you try to apply the chicago style to this article? the cs is used for languages, history, and arts, and that was a research article.

i didn't say you should apply the chicago style to this. chicago style is typically used for humanities subjects, which, unless i am mistaken, economics is a humanity, not a science. so the reason i commented on it was because i have never read a "research article" that has over 20 sources on it's bibliography, yet footnotes a total of six times. that doesn't mean it wasn't written incorrectly, but it's quite possible that it was.

and at this point, i find your demands completely non-credible; you present anecdotes, but then want me to submit more solid academic sources. here you go...no. not until the stuff i am reading in this thread sheds its schizophrenic tendencies. have you presented something from jstor? how do you know my article is not archived in jstor or p.muse?

i haven't presented anything from jstor or muse. i am assuming that the article came from the website on the pdf. document itself.

as far as this thread having "schizophrenic tendencies", i don't have the first clue what you are talking about. when i make factual errors (like admitting that australia is indeed not a single-payer system), i admit it. if that is a "schizophrenic tendency", then i suppose we should all quit admitting when we make mistakes.

i would be interested to read more studies, but obviously you are under no obligation to present any. the reason i asked for documents from jstor or muse is because i used to have access to them, and i am quite certain there is a great deal of information on health care systems, with out even looking, i am fairly confident that their are research documents on jstor or muse (for example) that argue effectively for single-payer. so, i'll tell you what. if you would like for me to find an academic peer-reviewed document that supports single-payer and my positions, then just let me know and as soon as i have the time to do so, i will.

not arguing that one way or another, but under those conditions, you then cannot make unqualifiable claims about the satisfaction levels of a population or the delivery of healthcare. you especially can't be surprised or offended when someone challenges you, particularly on the sources you used.

the gallup poll has been consistent, and reliable at measuring public opinion. i don't make claims based on one poll, however, i have been involved in an advocacy group for over a year, together with doctors, nurses and other intelligent knowledgeable people that think single-payer is the best option for health care reform. i am certainly not surprised that i was challenged, and quite frankly i was expecting it. furthermore, based on the jcush data (which again is six years old) when canadians age 18-64 are asked to rate their satisfaction, 84.4% rate it as good or excellent whereas americans stand at 87.9%, so americans are more satisfied amongst 18-64 years by 3.5 %. you are right then, based on this research article, (mainly jcush) americans are more satisfied. ages 65+, 89.6% in canada and 91.4% in america, these americans are more satisfied by 1.8%.

my opinions about your sources are objective, not based on feeling. if you present an objective academic source, you can expect it to be considered objectively. if you present polls and anecdotes, and then try to discredit any source i provided based on standards that you yourself have failed to achieve, then you shouldn't be surprised when the validity of your position is challenged.

while it would be a lie to say that i am not passionate about single-payer. my opinions on your research paper were not based on feelings. for example, i was taught not rely heavily on one source alone while writing research papers, yet this document seems to rely heavily on jcush, i was taught that claims made as fact in research papers have to be given a footnote or endnote, this document made a lot of claims, but again, provided only six footnotes.

and i say again...try to keep it respectful; i'm not directing any shots below the belt.

i don't have a problem with that. if you feel disrespected and feel that i hit below the belt, then sincerely, i apologize.

enjoy your weekend.

allnurses Guide

herring_RN, ASN, BSN

3,651 Posts

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

How many police does it take to silence the voice of the people?

The Senate Finance Committee thought it was a hilarious joke as they ejected one brave activist after another, for protesting that not even one spokesperson for single payer health care was being allowed to sit at the hearing table.

Yes, Senator Max Baucus (MT), who had preemptively declared that consideration of a single payer option was off the table, actually joked "We need more police." [1:58 on video] And the rest of the Senate panel just laughed their heads off.

GCTMT

335 Posts

Specializes in LTC.

The laughing could indicate that they have absolutely no respect for us whatsoever. There were quite a few people at the table who represented big business, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies, they're worth a lot of money.

Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
it certainly wasn't meant to be condescending, but, that would be for you to decide and since it obviously offended you, then i apologize. of course, whether or not you have been "extending any such disrespect" to me, is for me to decide. i find a few or your comments on this thread to be more dismissive than anything else. for example, after i read the paper you provided and commented on it, you wrote, "i don't have time to review the expose", fair enough.

noted. good reply.

second...if the article was supposedly "riddled" with typos, i'd like you to point them out. if you find one or two, that does not constitute "riddled." after that little endeavor, i'd like you to explain the relevance.

read it yourself, it certainly wasn't one or two, it was many. and while i have agreed that the research did have some good points that support your position, the reason typos are relevant is because academic documents are supposed to be peer-reviewed for typos, content, etc ... if this one was peer-reviewed, then it was done poorly

i did read it. even 'spell-checked' it since you are so adamate that it has typos...spell check found two misspelled words in 44 pages...i am merely asking what predisposes this article to be "riddled" with typos...and i ask again, explain the relevance, especially along the lines of 'peer review.' the very fact this article is open and available on the web subjects it to peer review. this article has been classified in the jel, and is very clearly published in the nber, including a presentation to peers at the health policy research conference. far be it from me to judge their capacity for 'peer review,' but two mis-spelled words does not constitute "riddled" with typos, nor does it qualify as a failed peer review process.

i didn't say you should apply the chicago style to this. chicago style is typically used for humanities subjects, which, unless i am mistaken, economics is a humanity, not a science. so the reason i commented on it was because i have never read a "research article" that has over 20 sources on it's bibliography, yet footnotes a total of six times. that doesn't mean it wasn't written incorrectly, but it's quite possible that it was.

economics is a social science that has roots in humanities, but is now measured empirically...just like the sciences. this article was written from an empirical position, and therefore should not be reviewed within the context of the chicago style. and while there is no doubt that this issue is debatable, we certainly use graphs, equations, and numbers to measure it, and i tend to think that the bank of sweden carefully considered this when creating the nobel prize in economic sciences.

i haven't presented anything from jstor or muse. i am assuming that the article came from the website on the pdf. document itself.

as far as this thread having "schizophrenic tendencies", i don't have the first clue what you are talking about. when i make factual errors (like admitting that australia is indeed not a single-payer system), i admit it. if that is a "schizophrenic tendency", then i suppose we should all quit admitting when we make mistakes.

when i say "schizophrenic tendencies," i was referring to the fact that i am being challenged to present my material at a much higher standard, when a). i've already done so, and b). the person who is challenging me has not pursued those standards themself. that was my reference; it has nothing to do with errors, but rather to do with a disparity in standards.

reviewing my paragraph, i concede that my word choice was poor, but i actually can't think of another word right now, so i'll clarify; i am not referring to you or your character. i am referring to the standards being expected of me. i refer to other things in this manner; the weather, traffic patterns, my internet connection, etc. it might be hard to separate these issues, so i understand if this is offensive...such was not my intent.

i would be interested to read more studies, but obviously you are under no obligation to present any. the reason i asked for documents from jstor or muse is because i used to have access to them, and i am quite certain there is a great deal of information on health care systems, with out even looking, i am fairly confident that their are research documents on jstor or muse (for example) that argue effectively for single-payer. so, i'll tell you what. if you would like for me to find an academic peer-reviewed document that supports single-payer and my positions, then just let me know and as soon as i have the time to do so, i will.

when i presented the article, i was focusing on a specific statements you made; that of satisfaction among canadians and americans. if you thought i was laying out some total argument against socialized medicine, then it may explain why you chose to take this discussion in a direction that i was not even alluding to. i am very focused and specific in my posts, and not given to tangents and non sequitor.

the gallup poll has been consistent, and reliable at measuring public opinion. i don't make claims based on one poll, however, i have been involved in an advocacy group for over a year, together with doctors, nurses and other intelligent knowledgeable people that think single-payer is the best option for health care reform. i am certainly not surprised that i was challenged, and quite frankly i was expecting it. furthermore, based on the jcush data (which again is six years old) when canadians age 18-64 are asked to rate their satisfaction, 84.4% rate it as good or excellent whereas americans stand at 87.9%, so americans are more satisfied amongst 18-64 years by 3.5 %. you are right then, based on this research article, (mainly jcush) americans are more satisfied. ages 65+, 89.6% in canada and 91.4% in america, these americans are more satisfied by 1.8%
.

it doesn't matter if the gallup poll is "consistent." by its very own admission and definition, it's non-scientific. and if you aren't making claims based on this poll, then why was it included in the discussion? it would seem that we all could be making much better use of our time than including irrelevant sources...

and i praise you for recognizing what i was saying all along...canadians are not more satisfied. so, based on that conclusion, it would be disingenuous to use that as a talking point in support of socialized medicine.

while it would be a lie to say that i am not passionate about single-payer. my opinions on your research paper were not based on feelings. for example, i was taught not rely heavily on one source alone while writing research papers, yet this document seems to rely heavily on jcush, i was taught that claims made as fact in research papers have to be given a footnote or endnote, this document made a lot of claims, but again, provided only six footnotes.

i don't know how else to view it when you said your position was based on 'inclination,' (a variation of the actual root word you used). and unless there is someone else besides the cdc conducting research on the data presented by the jcush, there aren't too many options when it comes to sources. the authors were not errant in using this source, and their 20+ pages of references do not support implications of a narrow lit-search. it certainly is more credible than a gallup poll and opinion statements by three people on an internet forum.

and i say again, this was an empirical research paper, written according to the proper standards of scientific publication...standards which discourage the prolific use of footnotes, and prefer the use of parenthetical citations. if you choose to argue against accepted practices of contemporary publication, then we will never make any progress.

btw, i recognize that i hit hard sometimes, but it is not my intention to offend anyone. if i posted anything offensive, i apologize, but i try to be very careful to avoid any reference to the 'personal,' and strive to focus on evidence and the content of the discussion. i'm very literal, because i believe that is how one must be to ensure clarity and avoid misunderstanding, and i choose to both read and post in that manner.

enjoy your weekend.

loriangel14, RN

6,931 Posts

Specializes in Acute Care, Rehab, Palliative.

I know that you never intend to offend anyone and your post are intelligent and worth reading.But what I find frustrating is that when a Canadian posts regarding their view of and experiences with our system your dismiss it as bunkum. We are not making things up. Our experiences are valid and we do know our own system and how it works.We should not be written off as not knowing what we are talking about. Give us some credit. No offence meant.

Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
I know that you never intend to offend anyone and your post are intelligent and worth reading.But what I find frustrating is that when a Canadian posts regarding their view of and experiences with our system your dismiss it as bunkum. We are not making things up. Our experiences are valid and we do know our own system and how it works.We should not be written off as not knowing what we are talking about. Give us some credit. No offence meant.

Thank you.

I don't think it's possible to write a post on this subject that is not 'frustrating' to Canadians about their health-care system unless I just unconditionally agree with them, but to do so would be dishonest.

And I understand why it's frustrating, but I am honest and straightforward, and I don't think I'm inconsistent in redirecting the discussion to be anything but honest and straightforward.

I never said that anyone was making things up, and I never dismissed anyone's personal experiences as "bunkum." I never said anyone didn't 'know what they were talking about.'

What I am doing is conducting myself in a realistic and fair manner. Please note that I would not use the same tactics to support a similar defense of the US system, because the tactic is invalid. Recognizing that it would be invalid for me to mount a defense of the US system using 'personal experiences,' forces me to point out that it doesn't somehow lend credibility to the discussion when someone else uses the tactic to defend another system.

For example, even within this same discussion, someone stated from a personal point-of-view that Canadians were 'more satisfied.' They then conceded that the data actually supported the opposite view in an extremely gracious and commendable manner. I think if we are to engage in an honest intellectual discussion, we can't try to place arguments for reform and policy change on the backs of opinion, but must instead build our positions only upon the element of proof.

I understand what you mean about 'giving you some credit,' but the reality is that I can't honestly 'give credit' in this discussion to methods that actually shouldn't be used. I won't use them, and if I did, I would expect to be challenged on them...and rightly so. I can't realistically support a position based on just my own experiences, or that of however many similar anecdotal viewpoints I could include in this discussion. I'm only advocating an honest academic approach, and I don't know why I should be criticized for doing so.

But to redirect to the origins and evolution of this discussion, I'd like to point out this; the thread was about the discussion of single-payer in the US. And commonly in this kind of discussion, someone will toss in the "canada" smoke grenade. It wasn't me who redirected the discussion to discredit a single-payer program by alleging any failure of the system in Canada, it was someone else alleging the success of the single-payer by bringing Canada into the discussion. When this happens, I really don't know what else to do but to address the discrepancy, and I really can't help it if people don't like the way their healthcare system is displayed. The only thing I can say is this; if you don't want anyone to talk in a manner that is disagreeable to you on the issue of Canadian healthcare, then don't bring it up. I say so kindly.

I don't know what else to do.

loriangel14, RN

6,931 Posts

Specializes in Acute Care, Rehab, Palliative.

Many who post on here are just expressing opinions not taking an acedemic approach (like me). Peace.

+ Add a Comment