A majority of Americans would tolerate higher taxes to help pay for universal health

Nurses Activism

Published

From Bloomberg:

Universal Health Care

Six in 10 people surveyed say they would be willing to repeal tax cuts to help pay for a health-care program that insures all Americans.

...

Most of the highest income group polled, those in households earning more than $100,000, support it. While more than eight in 10 Democrats say they like the plan, most Republicans oppose it.

Most of the highest income group polled, those in households earning more than $100,000, support it. While more than eight in 10 Democrats say they like the plan, most Republicans oppose it.

...

An agenda focused on health care and education spending would be better for the economy than returning money to taxpayers through tax cuts, she said: ``In the end it would cut costs.''

By 52 percent to 36 percent, Americans favored health and education spending as a better economic stimulus than tax cuts

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&refer=home&sid=a2TWmuh3vHHI accessed today.

Specializes in IM/Critical Care/Cardiology.
Do you really think that a Gov't run health care system is a good idea. We are talking about the same people who can't ever balance a budget. These people think that balancing the budget is done by raising taxes. And you want them in charge of our healthcare system? I DON"T THINK SO.

Eight years ago the President walked right into a balanced budget. IMO I wouldn't want this administration in charge of the healthcare systems in America.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Psych , Peds ,Nicu.

It is highly probable that at some time in our life all of us will require some healthcare .

The arguments in this discussion seems to boil down to ,

a) those that beleive in self reliance , saying that we as individuals should provide for our own healthcare through private insurance .

b) those opposing beleive all of us at some point will need healthcare ,so we should spread the risk and funding to everyone .

In group a)response we see a healthcare system ,whose primary objective is make a profit ( even non profit healtcare,means not making a loss,so some areas charge more to cover the loss in other area's).Which leads to a healtcare sytem that gravitates towards providing care that will generate profit , so we see duplication of care within a market , or else your system will be at a disadvantage to a competitor.Whilst group b)'s opposing system usually has a greater emphasis on preventive care , because as we are all know prevention is better than cure

The proponents of group a) forget that the basic principal of insurance is the spread of risk , the larger you make the pool of insured the more you spread the risk and therefore reduce the costs to the individual.

If you have Insurance you have accepted group reliance.So now we have to decide who should control the flow of healtcare dollars /then decide who should receive treatment.Should this flow be controlled by private insurance companies who make decisions on the profitability of that decision , or by primary care physicians who will base that care upon medical need . In either Private Insurance or Universal Healthcare there is not unlimited funding / provision of care , so whischever system is used there is always denial of care / restriction of care to some.

So with the above factors I for one would prefer to pay throuh my taxes for healthcare . It relieves me from the serfdom of employer provided Halth insurance , releives the employer from the cost of providing Healthcare and creats the largest possible pool of insured to negotiate with all who prove healthcare related services / products .

Up Vote Up Vote ×

If there is socialized medicine in the US, our RN licenses will not be worth the paper they are printed on. How much are the nurses making in countries where socialized medicine is practiced?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
If there is socialized medicine in the US, our RN licenses will not be worth the paper they are printed on. How much are the nurses making in countries where socialized medicine is practiced?

Sources to back up your assertion?

Single payer is not socialized medicine. See:

Is national health insurance "socialized medicine"?

No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for the government and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. Examples also exist in Great Britain and Spain. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized financing, or socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage their medical practices or hospitals.

The term socialized medicine is often used to conjure images of government bureaucratic interference in medical care. That does not describe what happens in countries with national health insurance. It does describe the interference by insurance company bureaucrats in our health system.

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

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ER, Infusion therapy, Oncology.

Have you ever spoke to anyone that lived in a country with "socialized medicine" or "socialized health insurance"? The people that use it and the healthcare providers themselves will tell you if you have an emergent problem you can be seen, but if your problem is chronic the wait times are extremely long to have anything done. I know several people from Eurpoe and Canada and they are not very impressed with the healthcare system they have. This is not the solution.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Psych , Peds ,Nicu.

Salary is market related wherever you live , so when I lived in Europe I was paid less ,so was everyone else !. Relatively speaking I was,as here ,well paid .

I have expereince of the Healthcare systems of both Europe and the USA ,I would say , on balance ,they are basically the same ( some area's of care better here , some better there) , except in Europe I never had to worry about the BILL , or how it would put me at risk of bankrupcy ,a patient has enough problems being ill ,without the worry of how to pay for their condition ( great stress inducer for an MI patient ).

Access is limited in both cases by the insurance provider . Which comes back to my point earlier I would much rather have somebody who is not oriented to making a profit from my healthcare problem , make the decision regarding access to provision of healtcare to me

Up Vote Up Vote ×
in essence there would be no net increase in costs. we are already paying for single payer and not getting it.

i am rather tired of the go to guns attitude of your posts. the vitriol does nothing to advance the discussion.

please see:

pnhp co-founders drs. steffie woolhandler and david himmelstein published this definitive study of the administrative costs of the u.s. health system in the august 21, 2003 edition of the new england journal of medicine. after analyzing the costs of insurers, employers, doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and home-care agencies in both the u.s. and canada, they found that administration consumes 31.0 percent of u.s. health spending, double the proportion of canada (16.7 percent). average overhead among private u.s. insurers was 11.7 percent, compared with 1.3 percent for canada’s single-payer system and 3.6 percent for medicare. streamlined to canadian levels, enough administrative waste could be saved to provide compressive health insurance to all americans.

read “costs of health administration in the u.s. and canada” (pdf)

at: http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf for a full discussion of the impact on administrative waste on health care finance.

:idea: as a canadian, i appreciate the universiality of our health system. i know that in spite of paying into a system quarterly i know that the people who need help are getting it and when i need it it will be there. the administration of this system is partnered with una, provincial nursing bodies, and doctors as well as government persons. we all know as a nurse that if you don't like the way the world is change it. get involved and lobby for a better system that has nursing professionals - yea, that means you-helping to design the policies & budgets for a healthier tomorrow for all.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

As a Canadian, I appreciate the universiality of our Health system. I contribute to a system quarterly (about $1400 annually) and know that the money is being used to help those who need it, just like it will for me if I need it. The system is cost effective because it is partnered with UNA, provincial nursing bodies, and doctors along with government authorities. As a nurse you know that if you don't like the way the world is, you have to get involved to change it. Lobby for a better system, as a professional- yea that's you- you have the unique mandate of advocating for your patients and yourselves. Voices make a difference!:idea:

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ER, Infusion therapy, Oncology.

There are problems with the US healthcare system, but there are also problems with the Canadians and Europeans also. I am not willing, nor are most of the people I know willing,to take on a replica of the healthcare in other countries. If you are satisfied with it then that is great. One survey can not convince me that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes to foot the cost of everyones healthcare. I could do a survey and come up with an entirely different result. Surveys are useless.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment