Vice President Dick Cheney would "probably be dead by now" if not for his federally funded health care, according to an eye-catching ad calling for universal health care that will run Monday in ten Iowa newspapers. The ad is union-funded by the California Nurses Association and its national arm, the National Nurses Organizing Committee, which represents 75,000 nurses.
"The patient's history and prognosis were grim: four heart attacks, quadruple bypass surgery, angioplasty, an implanted defibrillator and now an emergency procedure to treat an irregular heartbeat," the ad states, referencing Cheney's lengthy medical chart. "For millions of Americans, this might be a death sentence. For the vice president, it was just another medical treatment. And it cost him very little."
The group is calling on the presidential candidates to support a single-payer government-run health-care bill introduced in Congress by Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) that has 88 co-sponsors, including long-shot Democratic candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.
The three Democratic front-runners have all proposed sweeping plans to cover all or nearly all uninsured. Republicans have offered more modest plans and none advocate a single-payer system. The nurses group opposes the plans of Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards because they argue that each plan will "continue to rely upon the wasteful inclusion of private insurance companies." The single-payer plan would take insurance companies out of the equation altogether. ...
It had the context I wanted it to have, pertinent to the point I wished to make. It isn't your place to explain to me what I meant or what would have been more appropriate. Thank you, though.
Oh your welcome... I guess if it made sense to you; then that is what is important.
oh and I didn't explain "your side' I stated why I expanded upon it.
Specializes in Happily semi-retired; excited for the whole whammy.
That's fine, but it wasn't the point I was trying to make. Perhaps in the future, if you have a point to make beyond one of mine, you could just do it in a separate post, instead of, in your own words, "expanding on" mine.
I didn't misunderstand anything. Disagreeing isn't the same as misunderstanding and it is patronizing to suggest otherwise.
That's fine, but it wasn't the point I was trying to make. Perhaps in the future, if you have a point to make beyond one of mine, you could just do it in a separate post, instead of, in your own words, "expanding on" mine.
I didn't misunderstand anything. Disagreeing isn't the same as misunderstanding and it is patronizing to suggest otherwise.
Yes.. it is. Thank you for pointing that out.
I didnt know what point you were trying to make.
You didnt say in what direction you were heading until after I filled the rest of the quote from the Gettysburg Address; to support MY point.
Specializes in Happily semi-retired; excited for the whole whammy.
The only direction I was trying to take was that you continue to refer to the government as if it isn't comprised of all of us. Yes, it is an entity, but it isn't an entity that operates independent of its parts.
Had I wished to make a point beyond that, I would have been perfectly capable of doing so.
Specializes in Trauma,ER,CCU/OHU/Nsg Ed/Nsg Research.
Heh? what corporate bodies want to shift the burden of healthcare from individuals to squarely on their back. I am curious as to what board members and shareholders want to reduce their profits for alturism.
The burden isn't on individuals right now- it's mostly on employers, who are paying the majority of insurance costs. It isn't altruism. It's corporate common sense. A single payer system will place the cost back on individuals through the tax system, and businesses will no longer have to finance the bulk of insurance costs. That is why some businesses are for the single payer system.
The burden isn't on individuals right now- it's mostly on employers, who are paying the majority of insurance costs. It isn't altruism. It's corporate common sense. A single payer system will place the cost back on individuals through the tax system, and businesses will no longer have to finance the bulk of insurance costs. That is why some businesses are for the single payer system.
The taxes that are going to be leavied to finance this are going to be against the biggest tax payers... the Corporations and the Wealthy.
Then the rest of us... then we are going to complain that we are being taxed to heavily.. then the government will shift the tax burden even further to the wealthy and corporations "because they can afford it."
Granted my circle of CEO and CFO friends is small (read non existent) but folks that I know and speak with anticipate something exactly like this happening.
Specializes in Trauma,ER,CCU/OHU/Nsg Ed/Nsg Research.
The taxes that are going to be leavied to finance this are going to be against the biggest tax payers... the Corporations and the Wealthy.
Then the rest of us... then we are going to complain that we are being taxed to heavily.. then the government will shift the tax burden even further to the wealthy and corporations "because they can afford it."
Granted my circle of CEO and CFO friends is small (read non existent) but folks that I know and speak with anticipate something exactly like this happening.
I have to say, I can see where you are coming from here. The odd thing is that the end result would probably put us right where we are today, with employer subsidized health care, but with a higher individual tax pay out. That is something to consider.
VivaLasViejas, ASN, RN
22 Articles; 9,996 Posts
Thank you for clarifying that!