politics & job scarcity - page 4

Okay, I've got two issues I'm wondering about--- Five years from now, does anyone have any insight/information to support the notion that there could actually be a glut of CRNA's on the market? ... Read More

  1. by   Roland
    THE GOVERNMENT providing services. Conservatives believe in helping people but they believe that it is the PRIVATE SECTOR which is most efficient in accomplishing this task. We can have a debate as to which perspective is correct, but keep in mind that we are debating the APPROACH and not the goal. As a conservative it is my most ardent desire that EVERY person have the best quality of life possible (including healthcare). However, I believe that the best way to accomplish this goal is free market capitialism, and the technological advances which it facilitates.

    Now, I understand that you believe my view is deeply flawed. Fine, you may be right. HOWEVER, it doesn't follow that you are in some way more caring or otherwise enlightened. No matter which approach is taken to the issue one must first acknowledge one simple truth. There isn't any such thing as a free lunch! The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics dictate that EVERYTHING has an energy, (which we account for in dollars with regard to healthcare) cost. The only question then is what approach is most efficient and beneficial in determining how that cost is paid and resources distributed. Socialism, is one approach that has certain advantages and also dis-advantages. The same is true for the free market (or more accurately quasi- socialistic approach that is in place today within the United States). So, please confine your arguments to the relative benefits of your approach and leave the moral superiority out of the equation, it's simply intellectually dishonest.
    Last edit by Roland on Nov 6, '02
  2. by   WntrMute2
    Roland, I didn't say socialized medicine was the answer, Read my last post again. I am not claiming higher morals here, but helping people would probably be nobler than not. I think that being willing to spend some more money on healthcare and being willing to sacrifice my money and effort does imply a more caring position than "I believe that the best way to accomplish this goal is free market capitialism, and the technological advances which it facilitates."
    Tell me Roland how is that free market capitalism and technology going to save the life of the indigent? Your statements are lip service to the problem, your eloquent language doesn't hold the first answer.
    I am still waiting for someone to describe to me realistic options for the poor who don't have health insurance. That guy on the street corner is still there and that young black man can't get his HTN treated.
    The private sector stepping up is deafening me with silence.
  3. by   London88
    Amen Roland because I am picking up the same moral superior vibes that you are talking about. Because I disagree with social medicine and free hand outs does not mean I do not care. That system simply does not work. I left England because I resented that system. I worked for the eqiuvalent of the IRS, as well the Income Support ( welfare) systems. We all knew of the inspectors who for a pay off would allow the big corporations to swindle their taxes. I watched Mr Blogs bring in his third wife from a country where polygamy is acceptable, and guess who had to pay to provide her with income support. YOURS TRULY. There is no large middle class sector over there like you have in the US. You have the poor and the rich. The government fosters a system where it is literally impossible to get ahead. I knew there had to be a better way, which is why I came to the US. There is nothing that anybody can tell me to convince that the grass is greener over there than it is over here. I could go on and on but I will leave the platform for another.
  4. by   CoreyB
    Minimum wage in California is $6.75 and that's as close to $9.00 as it is to $4.50. If any of you think you can live on minimum wage and afford health coverage, I'd be interested to hear exactly how you think it's possible, especially in a state like California. Without your employer obtaining the ins. at lower cost, than an individual can, and then paying a portion of the premium it is really unrealistic to think that people making minimum wage can afford ins on their own.

    I've said it before, but let me repeat myself if I haven't made it clear. I'm not for giving health care away to people who aren't willing to work. I am for making sure that anyone, who works fulltime, has access to health care, and I'm also for covering children who's parents meet low income reqs. In California there is a program called Healthy Families, that for a max of $3.00 per month per child provides health care ins to children via a list of HMO's that the parents can select from.

    For those of you that would like to class people out of health coverage (and I mean anyone that thinks working people, who can't afford health coverage, aren't worth it.), I'd ask, at what point due you think workers deserve to have their health care paid for. Within the scope of working people, tell me who's worth it, who isn't, and where you draw the line.

    And Roland, in regard to letting the market contol access to health care, you correctly stated medicare, medicaid, and federally mandated er and trauma care (that's unfunded) already limit the free market. And even if we had a true free market, did anyone pay attention to what the free market did to the electricity consumers in California. With all the corporate scandals of late, putting our faith in the culture of greed isn't something I'm prepared to do. There are certain public services (like electricity and water) that are necessities, and I don't think free markets operate as they should in relation to these services.

    I'm not for socialized medicine. I just think that children and working adults should have access to the same HMOs we all do.

    Also, for any of you that have ever worked in the financial side of the house, or who have friends that are health care CEOs or CFOs, it would be interesting to know exactly how much it costs them to treat (in trauma, er, and icu) all these uninsured people, and whether or not they think the system needs to be changed.
  5. by   CoreyB
    I didn't see anyone claiming moral superiority. Perhaps some are a little defensive.

    Dishonest, the only thing that's dishonest is saying, "let the free market solve the problem" and claming to care about the people the free market is leaving out in the cold.

    And no Canada and the UK don't have the answer, but can't we at least agree something needs to be done other than accepting the status quo or adopting the UK style.
  6. by   fence
    Last edit by fence on Nov 8, '02
  7. by   fence
    Well lets make it a nickel..
    I'm all for a hand up not a hand out.
  8. by   Roland
    to the ability of the patient to pay. I worked for ONE of them right here in Indiana, Saint Francis Hospital. Now, they will attempt to COLLECT for those services later, but what's wrong with that? Also, as someone who is currently POOR, and without health insurence I can assure you that there is SOME safety net in place. My son receives coverage under a state/federal program because of our current income as full time students. Now it's true that I'm not covered (in some states like Minnesota I probably would qualify for Medicaid), but I do have access to SOME medical care (ie Saint Francis Hospital or Wishard). State and federal governments spend BILLIONS on Medicaid services to the underprivledged. In most states Medicaid, and educational entitlements make up better than HALF of the state budget allocations. The average middle class American citizen ALREADY pays over 50% of their wages in taxes (when you consider state, federal, excise, sales, gasoline, property, and license fees, not to mention those taxes reflected in higher PRICES of consumer goods). How much is enough? If you want to argue for socialism fine, but at least be honest in admitting that is the system you are advocating.

    I would far prefer our current system which at least offers THE OPPORTUNITY for me to significantly better my future and that of my family, rather than one which in essence "condemed" me to a lower level working class forever. One of the prices of freedom is the acceptence that some people will do better than others. In order to have the chance to succeed, you must be willing to live with the fact that you may instead fail.
    Last edit by Roland on Nov 6, '02
  9. by   smiling_ru
    Is your school really closing half way through? Where will the students that currently attend finish their education? That is scary.
  10. by   kmchugh

    I will say this. I admire the courage you have in your convictions. It's easy for a Barbara Striesand to be liberal, and advocate a plethora of programs that will raise taxes. Even if she suddenly found herself paying 60% taxes on all her income, I would imagine that that would have absolutely no impact on her lifestyle.

    It is much harder for folks like you and me, who are trying to give our families the best we can. Jumping our taxes to 50% would decrease our lifestyle by at least two orders of magnitude. It speaks highly of your courage when you know that, and are still willing to move on you convictions.

    Kevin McHugh
  11. by   WntrMute2
    To Kevin and others, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Obviously judging by the elections Tuesday, health care for the needy will have to wait.
  12. by   Qwiigley
  13. by   MICU RN
    While I admire Dave's convictions also and realize he brings up some very good points why a wealthy society should provide health care for everyone. However, after working in a inner city county hospital which provides healthcare for free for anyone who can't afford it or is willing to lie and claim they can't afford it; I can tell you first hand that the abuse is staggering. I have seen many good hearted liberal doctors and nurses go into this environment with a liberal perspective and after a short period totally change their perspective because of the abuse of the system. Prime example, people still using the ER as a clinic when we make follow up appointmments in the clinic system for them. A general attitude by many that the system owes them; I can't tell you how many people I have seen pull up in nice cars, clothes, and cell phones who tell me they can't afford medical insurance. Some of these people are young healthy and single and could easily afford insurance if it were a priority and we did not offer free health care to them. The bottem line, our free market system is not perfect, but it is better than any socialist or communist system I am aware of, those systems look great in theory, such as communism, but do not work well in real world application because in does not take into account greed and dishonesty. Where as the free market system allows for people to compete for a better lifestyle and also accepts the fact that we will never all be on same financial level. And that is something many people can't or wont accept. It is also another reason why the free market system is a more honest system even though at times it may not seem fair. Also anyone who has studied recent history, post industial revolution, can see that the free market system has offered a better way of life to the masses than the other socialist systems. Therefore it makes more sense to improve on our current healthcare system than to adopt a socialist format.

Must Read Topics