Obama's health plan takes shape

*Pierrette* · Jun 24, 2009, 10:17 AM

Re: Obama's health plan takes shape

Originally Posted by blue note

As for ABC being the new Al-jazeera, it's laughable considering that Faux News is nothing but the media arm of the GOP...

Faux News...hahaha, that is so clever!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...bye_97122.html

blue note · Jun 24, 2009, 01:33 PM

Re: Obama's health plan takes shape

Originally Posted by Pierrette

Faux News...hahaha, that is so clever!

Why, thank you.

I've got more - Fixed News, Fox Noise.....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/23/obamacare_kiss_your_access_goodbye_97122.html

Same old Republican fearmongering that we've all heard hundreds of times before. And all centering around the false premise that "ObamaCare" means "rationed or restricted access to doctors, therapies and care." Article also ignores polls which show that a plurality of Americans favor a public option, the most recent of which by the NYT was linked to just a few posts up!

blue note · Jun 24, 2009, 02:11 PM

Re: Obama's health plan takes shape

Originally Posted by wowza

let us not front about what UHC actually is, a redistribution of wealth and nothing more. And how is that just?

Amazingly, countries with UHC like the UK and Canada still have millions living in poverty, despite this "redistribution of wealth" - 13.2 million in the UK (22% poverty rate), 3.5 million in Canada (11.4 poverty rate). Amazingly, despite the UHC "redistribution of wealth," the poverty rate was not significantly lower than in the U.S., which was 12.5% in 2007. It would appear that UHC is really really bad at redistributiing wealth. But the poor in countries like the UK and Canada can at least take heart that one thing they won't have to worry about, is access to affordable health care.

wowza · Jun 24, 2009, 02:29 PM

Re: Obama's health plan takes shape

Originally Posted by blue note

Why, thank you. I've got more - Fixed News, Fox Noise.....

Same old Republican fearmongering that we've all heard hundreds of times before. And all centering around the false premise that "ObamaCare" means "rationed or restricted access to doctors, therapies and care." Article also ignores polls which show that a plurality of Americans favor a public option, the most recent of which by the NYT was linked to just a few posts up!

Let's take a look at the article because some of the points are valid. Here are the 6 points it makes.

Number 1: Less access to timely health care, especially by trained specialists
This is valid and logical. We have a fixed number of current doctors working as fast as they can and will have an influx of patients. We cannot increase the number of doctors unless congress increases the number of residency and fellowship spots. That should take congress about 5 years to get on. Even if they were to pass it immediately, it will take at a minimum of 3 years (quickest fellowship) to see any meaningful increase and well over a decade to be at levels the population needs. There will be waits, at least temporarily

Number 2: Less access to state-of-the-art drugs that are proven to cure serious diseases, like cancer
Like it or not, this is likely true too. Less profit means fewer trials put out means fewer new drugs.

Number 3: Less access to modern medical technologies that lead to earlier diagnoses, safer treatments, and better outcomes
A combo of true and false. In the short run there will be absolutely no change unless the gov't is going to sell all the MRIs we have. In the long run, it may or may not affect the advent and inclusion of new technology into medicine

Number 4: Less access to choice of doctor and choice of treatments for patients and families
The first part is probably false, the last part is likely true.

Number 5: Less access to choice of health insurance coverage
Who knows

Number 6: Less access to the leading innovators and innovations in health care
Probably false

wowza · Jun 24, 2009, 02:42 PM

Re: Obama's health plan takes shape

Originally Posted by blue note

Amazingly, countries with UHC like the UK and Canada still have millions living in poverty, despite this "redistribution of wealth" - 13.2 million in the UK (22% poverty rate), 3.5 million in Canada (11.4 poverty rate). Amazingly, despite the UHC "redistribution of wealth," the poverty rate was not significantly lower than in the U.S., which was 12.5% in 2007. It would appear that UHC is really really bad at redistributiing wealth. But the poor in countries like the UK and Canada can at least take heart that one thing they won't have to worry about, is access to affordable health care.

A redistribution of wealth does not mean there will be no one in poverty. It means that money or property is taken from one group and used by another. Pretty sure this fits the exact definition of redistribution of wealth. Thanks for the statistics though.

blue note · Jun 24, 2009, 03:03 PM

Re: Obama's health plan takes shape

Originally Posted by wowza

A redistribution of wealth does not mean there will be no one in poverty. It means that money or property is taken from one group and used by another. Pretty sure this fits the exact definition of redistribution of wealth.

In other words, you claim UHC to be a "redistribution of wealth" yet totally ignore the consequences of such redistribution.

*Pierrette* · Jun 24, 2009, 03:23 PM

Re: Obama's health plan takes shape

Originally Posted by blue note

Why, thank you. I've got more - Fixed News, Fox Noise.....

Same old Republican fearmongering that we've all heard hundreds of times before. And all centering around the false premise that "ObamaCare" means "rationed or restricted access to doctors, therapies and care." Article also ignores polls which show that a plurality of Americans favor a public option, the most recent of which by the NYT was linked to just a few posts up!

I've heard ABC being called the All Barack Channel. Each side has its cute, and somewhat accurate names. Where there's smoke...

Regardless, no one knows how this is all going to end up. Maybe neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are correct. Even President Obama does not know what's going to happen. No one knows.

According to statistics, in 2007, the U.S. spent $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person. I have health insurance and my total health expenditures this year have been $0. I don't smoke, drink, use drugs, engage in promiscuous sex or illegal activities, I never "accidentally" got pregnant nor had a baby I couldn't afford to care for. I exercise regularly, eat healthy foods, and drive within speed limits. I went to school so that I could make a living for "me and mine". I made a decision as a youth to take care of the one body I have. I have been fortunate, I acknowledge, but good fortune tends to go hand-in-hand with preparation. I have prepared all my life for good health, and my good health, I believe, is a consequence of how I treat myself. If everyone took good care of their bodies, I suspect the cost per person would be significantly lower - low enough that health care expenditures would not be a problem.

On the other hand, I may have a stroke tomorrow and need medical help for the rest of my life.

wowza · Jun 24, 2009, 03:52 PM

Re: Obama's health plan takes shape

Originally Posted by blue note

In other words, you claim UHC to be a "redistribution of wealth" yet totally ignore the consequences of such redistribution.

Wrong. The consequence of the redistribution is that they get free health care (or rather health care off the backs of others). That in itself has monetary benefit.

Look you're not going to win this argument because UHC is a textbook example of redistribution of wealth. You're just wrong in this instance.

blue note · Jun 24, 2009, 04:26 PM

Re: Obama's health plan takes shape

Originally Posted by wowza

Wrong. The consequence of the redistribution is that they get free health care (or rather health care off the backs of others). That in itself has monetary benefit.

Look you're not going to win this argument because UHC is a textbook example of redistribution of wealth. You're just wrong in this instance.

How arrogant. Just because you and conservatives call UHC redistribution of health does NOT make it fact.

**VivaLasViejas** · Jun 24, 2009, 04:33 PM

Re: Obama's health plan takes shape

Once again: for threads like this to remain open, please remember the Terms of Service and post your opinions WITHOUT aiming caustic or belittling remarks at other members.

Thank you.

New To Site	Need Help	Quick Links
Create An Account General Site Map allnurses.com Journals Terms Of Service Privacy Policy Testimonials Meet Our Staff Advertising Information	Information Center & FAQ Boards of Nursing How-To Video Tutorials Did you forget your password? Compare Membership Contact allnurses.com Text Version Mark All Sections As Read	United States Nursing International Nursing Nursing Specialty Advanced Practice Nursing Critical Care Nursing Nursing Specialties Get In Touch... Find Us On Facebook Follow Us On Twitter

Obama's health plan takes shape

Nursing News

Doctors-in-short-supply-responsibilities-for-nurses-may-expa...

Less regular sleep for ICU nurses may lead to errors

Nurse sends unused medical supplies to needy nations

Premature Births Are Fueling Higher Rates of Infant...

MRSA Strain Linked to High Death Rates

RI hospital fined $150,000 in 5th wrong-site surgery since...

Nursing: One of the 6 Thriving Jobs that are Here to Stay???

Dad Fights Hospital to Keep Baby on Life Support

A nurse can dream...about awesome nursing

California Nursing Situation - CINHC's plan to help New...

Nursing Articles

Why am I doing this, anyway?

Nurse Heal Thyself

My Papa, why I am the nurse I am today.

I made it through

An angel's gaze

A Sister Never Forgets

Ruby's Marbles

What Do Operating Room Nurses Do?

My Little Old Jedi

I love this job......

"I hear voices"

Preventing FRUTI (Foley Related Urinary Tract Infection) in...

Error and Attitude

It's Just a Shower

Searching for the Purpose

Available Topics (tags)