Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have over 388,048 members! Join today to network with other nurses, laugh, share, and much more.
| Advertisement Sponsored Links | | | | No. 61 | 
Jun 24, 2009, 12:33 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!  | | No. 62 |
Jun 24, 2009, 01:11 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.
| | No. 63 |
Jun 24, 2009, 01:29 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
| | No. 64 |
Jun 24, 2009, 01:42 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.
| | No. 66 |
Jun 24, 2009, 02:23 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.
| | No. 67 |
Jun 24, 2009, 02:52 PM
Updated
Jun 24, 2009 at 03:05 PM by wowza
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.
|
| 294 members
2,681 guests 2,975
| 1 | | | 11 | | | 2 | | | 9 | | | 17 | | | 11 | | | 14 | | | 16 | | | 37 | | | 14 | | | 20 | | | 23 | | | 19 | | | 24 | | | 10 | |
|
Nursing News