Universal coverage for pregnant women and children = 9 days of DOD spending

Nurses Activism

Published

You are reading page 9 of Universal coverage for pregnant women and children = 9 days of DOD spending

lorita

50 Posts

Specializes in ER Occ Health Urgent Care.

I would like to see universal coverage. But we also need to make people more responsible like say making people who have unhealthy life styles pay higher copays or if they use ER inappropriatly time and time again their ER copay should go up. If you are a bad driver you pay more for car insurance right. Now I'm not suggesting people who have health problems pay more but those who abuse the system and their bodies should. I've also been reading the argument that we shouldn't be providing health care because then we'll be paying for people who don't work. hello thats what we're doing now anyone who doesn't work or is illegal walks in an ER gets care and never pays for it. It's the working people who can't get healthcare. There are many more employers who just aren't offering it anymore. :welcome:

HM2VikingRN, RN

4,700 Posts

Anyone can find themselves without health insurance due to unfortunate circumstances that may be completely beyond their control. That realization is part of the reason I feel compassion for those without insurance. I have also lived without insurance and know how difficult it is, and I have family members who are experiencing that problem now.

1 in 5 Americans do not have any health coverage. I do not believe it is because 1 in 5 Americans are lazy moochers. There are many options to fix this problem, each with their own pros and cons. I don't think ignoring the problem or blaming it on the victims is the way to go.

:yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat:

sumoe

29 Posts

Specializes in ER, OR, ICU, PACU, POCU, QA, DC Planning.

Why is everyone else responsible for the children of the irresponsible?

Simplepleasures

1,355 Posts

Why is everyone else responsible for the children of the irresponsible?
Because the children did no wrong, they did not ask to be born. What would you suggest we do with them?

ZASHAGALKA, RN

3,322 Posts

Specializes in Critical Care.
Because the children did no wrong, they did not ask to be born. What would you suggest we do with them?

Give them the OPPORTUNITY to excel without becoming future slaves to irresponsible people like their parents.

Everybody here, probably, would detest slavery. But, that is EXACTLY what is being advocated here. When you command my labor for the fruits of others, by threat of the full power and coercive mechanisms of gov't, you are, in effect, advocating a form of slavery.

The whole concept of ownership of property stands against the concept of slavery. It's not enough to be able to own 'yourself' if you cannot likewise own the fruits of your work.

The key phrase oft bantered about is the 'common good'. When the gov't takes that concept and applies it, not to providing services that benefit us all equally, such as roads or defense, but expands that concept to taking from some to provide services for others, the result is slavery.

I detest the concept of universal healthcare because I believe the concept of slavery to be repugnant, MORE repugnant than the potential benefits that could result from coerced labor.

But, you say, how on earth will we be able to feed everybody if slaves aren't harvesting our crops? It's for the 'common good', afterall. Right? Who could be against feeding little children?

You might point out that experience has now proven that food can be provided for the masses by means that do NOT include slavery. Exactly so. That's MY point.

Just because the taskmaster raids your paycheck at the threat of jail instead of a whip across the back in order to get the fruits of YOUR labor does NOT make it essentially more humane.

There ARE better ways to create access to healthcare without resulting to slavery. In any case, I can think of no WORSE ways.

~faith,

Timothy.

Simplepleasures

1,355 Posts

give them the opportunity to excel without becoming future slaves to irresponsible people like their parents.wouldnt that be giving them something? it might mean a social entitlement program.

i detest the concept of universal healthcare because i believe the concept of slavery to be repugnant, more repugnant than the potential benefits that could result from coerced labor. slaves in norway, sweden , canada, germany, england,australia.do you think they see themselves as slaves?

but, you say,(you said that, not me.) how on earth will we be able to feed everybody if slaves aren't harvesting our crops? it's for the 'common good', afterall. right? who could be against feeding little children? whoa, this is really streching.

.

~faith,

timothy.

i know that there are folks out there that dont agree with universal healthcare, but to say that this will turn us into slaves is an insult to the real slaves of america's past.

ZASHAGALKA, RN

3,322 Posts

Specializes in Critical Care.
I know that there are folks out there that dont agree with Universal healthcare, but to say that this will turn us into SLAVES is an insult to the REAL slaves of America's past.

Not at all. It's EQUALLY offensive and insulting to command the fruits of THEIR labor for the benefit of others as it is to command the fruits of MY labor for the benefits of others - both at the threat of coercion.

There might be a huge difference in coercive tactics, but there is absolutely NO difference in the moral case for such action. In BOTH cases, the intended coercion of "service" is repugnant.

Please explain the moral difference. Perhaps you wish to argue that if the gov't proposes to take only 40% of my income, then that makes me only 40% a slave, thereby being a morally superior argument than making me 100% a slave. But, in making THAT argument, you would be making a moral case FOR slavery, with your only objection being the quantity of it. In effect, slavery is GOOD, in moderation.

"But, you say, how on earth will we be able to feed everybody if slaves aren't harvesting our crops? It's for the 'common good', afterall. Right? Who could be against feeding little children? Whoa, this is really streching."

That's not stretching at all. In fact, that is EXACTLY the case made 150 yrs ago for the necessity of continuing slavery. It's a 'necessary evil' to ensure access to crops for everyone. Otherwise, 'little children' back in the great Northeast will starve.

I intend to use coercive efforts to compel you to provide the benefit of your labor for the use of others. That is a definition that applies to universal healthcare as equally as it does to slavery. If you disagree, point out the difference.

~faith,

Timothy.

rngreenhorn

317 Posts

Because the children did no wrong, they did not ask to be born. What would you suggest we do with them?

There are millions of families in America who provide for there children. There unfortunately are those who do not. For those children, there already are programs.

For the most part, kids are healthy. There are however sick kids and families who are finacially challenged because of their child's health. These are sad cases, but it makes more sense to reform the current system to make health care/ health insurance more affordable.

It doesn't take a village to raise a child. It takes a family.

pickledpepperRN

4,491 Posts

Who is profiting from our nursing work?

■ Hospital profits-$28.9 billion (2005), a record. Hospital revenues, 544.7 billion. (Modern Healthcare, Dec. 18, 2006) NURSING CARE is the only reason for a hospital to exist. Yet they cut nursing care to make a profit.

■ The 20 largest HMOs in the U.S. made $10.8 billion in profits in 2005. The top seven U.S. health insurers made a combined $10 billion, nearly triple their profits of five years earlier. 12 top HMO executives pocketed $222.6 million in direct compensation in 2005 (Institute for Health and Socio-economic Policy). It takes a lot of money to find reasons to deny care.

■ William McGuire, CEO, UnitedHealth, the nation's second leading health insurer, had $1.6 billion in stock options at the end of 2005 (IHSP). (This is the corporation for AARP and many employee plans)

■ Donations from healthcare industry to Democratic and Republican campaigns for 2006-$72.3 million (Modern Healthcare, Dec. 18, 2006). If you have health insurance you are forced to contribute to political candidates.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05233/557458.stm

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0510-22.htm

rngreenhorn

317 Posts

I got a decent paycheck today.

ZASHAGALKA, RN

3,322 Posts

Specializes in Critical Care.
I got a decent paycheck today.

My paycheck on Thursday would have been MUCH more decent if Uncle Daddy hadn't taken 648 dollars out of it first. . .

This is especially true in that, when you eliminate bridges to nowhere in Alaska, L. Welk museums, and the slavery Uncle Daddy NOW sees fit to impose (in other words, if gov't were actually limited to its enumerated powers), such confiscations of my labor should have been less than half that.

Why, with THAT kind of money, I could devise a retirement for myself that could dwarf some lousy social security check that likely won't be there in 35 yrs, in any case. Or, if I didn't have healthcare, I could actually afford it on my own. . .

~faith,

Timothy.

ZASHAGALKA, RN

3,322 Posts

Specializes in Critical Care.
If you have health insurance you are forced to contribute to political candidates.

As opposed to a proposed scheme that would 'force' me to contribute to the health care of deadbeats that don't choose to get their own. (NO, I didn't say that meant everybody not on health insurance now, just the majority, anecotal evidence aside.)

When the political goal of such reforms is to encourage dependence upon gov't, isn't that ALSO contributing to the campaigns of political candidates that wish to pay for their votes with MY dollars?

~faith,

Timothy.

+ Add a Comment