According to the Associated Press as cited in the Post article, "Cuba has made recent advancements in biotechnology and exports its treatments to 40 countries around the world, raking in an estimated $100 million a year. ... In 2004, the U.S. government granted an exception to its economic embargo against Cuba and allowed a California drug company to test three cancer vaccines developed in Havana."
For the life of me I cannot understand why Americans would not support UHC in this country. I've heard all the arguments, but truly it's rather a simple choice. Do those that oppose it really not care about their fellow un-insured Americans, do they really feel that people should die to maintain an unmoral health insurance system? Our current healthcare system is a business, set up to make alot of money for a few. As nurses we constantly see the ramifications from the 'suits and bean-counters' making the decisions in our hospitals, and regarding patient care. I personally have no feelings one or the other concerning MM, but I certainly know that our system needs fixing and am glad that he has people talking more about it. I am also ashamed that this country seems to put business and money higher than people, not just in healthcare but in other areas as well. My father died for this nation and I've always thought of myself as a patriotic American, but lately I am becoming very disillutioned, and it hurts.[/quote']
Hi Dream'n. Its not that I oppose everyone having access to health care I am just opposed gov't run UHC. There are other ways to deal w/ the problems of our system w/o scrapping the whole system (see previous posts).
Specializes in Trauma,ER,CCU/OHU/Nsg Ed/Nsg Research.
I received this email from a friend today. I think it makes a vaery poerful case for single payer. The simple truth is that by working together and with small individual sacrifices we can help everyone to have access to health care.
I received this email from a friend today. I think it makes a vaery poerful case for single payer. The simple truth is that by working together and with small individual sacrifices we can help everyone to have access to health care.
You don't think we can share w/o the US gov't writing out a plan for us? I have a higher oppinion of us than that.
As far as the "founding fathers" are concerned, they were basically a bunch of racist hypocrites. They claimed to be fighting for freedom yet all owned slaves. They also excluded women from the constitution. .
Ok, but I was referring to the basic premise of our government ... which is supposed to be government for the people. We really don't have government for the people ... we have government for the healthcare profiteers.
When you look at the history of the French and British, they certainly have had their share of ruthless tyrants who promoted their own interests over the interests of the people. But, at least today, their government does a lot more for their people than ours does when it comes to healthcare.
These countries spend less on healthcare than we do yet they still manage to deliver much better care for their citizens. Why is that? Probably because they don't have a bunch of middle men (hospital administrators, insurance companies, etc.) skimming the money off the top so they can make record breaking profits at the expense of patients.
Great link Sheri, it is interesting what you didn't mention about the article though. Yes, respiratory mortality rates are lower but, according to the article the tax burden on the French has gotten so high that the French gov't is considering HMO type tactics to contain costs.
Another thing I thought was interseting is that the article states that the French system is "very similar" to what the US has. Also that it is a mix of public and private funding. I believe it has been suggested in this thread that an increase in public funding for health care for the uninsured and underinsured in addition to pvt insurance would be a good way to solve some of our health care issues w/o having to resort to a Canadian style UHC.
True ... the French are grappling with deficits, although their deficits are still miniscule compared to ours. So the French pay more taxes for their healthcare ... but you still have to buy health insurance in this country. Just because you're not paying that money directly to the goverment doesn't mean it's not costing you.
At least the French get a hellava lot more for their money. As Business Week points out: about 11 percent of their GDP goes to healthcare and they have the number one system in the world. We spend a lot more with 16 percent of our GDP going to healthcare yet, we're ranked 37th.
We probably don't need to raise taxes and spend more money on healthcare. What we really need is an overhall of the system that eliminates the profiteering middle men. But, unfortunately, that will never happen.
Thanks Spacenurse. It was good to hear the insurers side and see that they are not evil as they are often portrayed. Not perfect perhaps, but not evil either.
Yes it was good to hear their side even though it couldnt have come from a more slanted source.
These same fundraisers are occurring in socialized countries like Canada.
Just like our medicaide/medicare system Canada's system doesn't pay for each and everything. There are limits in place in both systems, perhaps as it should be.
Thanks Spacenurse. It was good to hear the insurers side and see that they are not evil as they are often portrayed. Not perfect perhaps, but not evil either.
You didn't actually expect them to proudly proclaim that they are "evildoers" did you? What greedy capitalist has ever called themselves a "greedy capitalist"? Very few criminals ever admitt to their crimes, that goes for working class petty criminals and rich white collar criminals too.
Hi Dream'n. Its not that I oppose everyone having access to health care I am just opposed gov't run UHC. There are other ways to deal w/ the problems of our system w/o scrapping the whole system (see previous posts).
Single payer advocates ARE NOT calling for socialized medicine. What they are advocating is for hospitals and providers to be independent. Government acts as the payer. The administrative costs of our current system are focused on delivering profit to investors not health care for patients.
Single payer advocates ARE NOT calling for socialized medicine. What they are advocating is for hospitals and providers to be independent. Government acts as the payer.
I am all for capitalism, as I'm a true blue American.
Leave the health providers as they are, just get access to everyone. No need to scrap the entire medical system, just come up with a system where everyone is insured. :)
You don't think we can share w/o the US gov't writing out a plan for us? I have a higher oppinion of us than that.
Who will run the health care system?
There is a myth that, with national health insurance, the government will be making the medical decisions. But in a publicly-financed, universal health care system medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the UK and Spain that have socialized medicine.
In a public system the public has a say in how it's run. Cost containment measures are publicly managed at the state level by an elected and appointed body that represents the people of that state. This body decides on the benefit package, negotiates doctor fees and hospital budgets. It also is responsible for health planning and the distribution of expensive technology.
The benefit package people will receive will not be decided upon by the legislature, but by the appointed body that represents all state residents in consultation with medical experts in all fields of medicine.
I'm wondering why MM compared US heathcare to Cuba? Why not Canada? I really am unsure if things would be better or worse w/universal healthcare. There are several doctors at work from Canada that have little good to say about the healthcare system there. Also, we have patients coming from Canada that are tired of being on waiting lists for hernia surgery & other routine procedures. (one guy had a huge painful hernia and had been waiting for over a year). I've also been told that the government will automaticallly take money out of our paychecks to pay for this insurance. Right now I pay nothing for my insurance- and I have the choices. I believe the healthcare system in this country is sick, but universal healthcare is flawed as well-- so is our government- there is no panacea. So I'm trying to become more informed about the pros & cons, but I'm hearing more against it than for it. I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 - I like to hear all sides- not just be spoonfed by media & follow the masses like a lemming. So I will see Sicko as well, and come to my own conclusions.
Specializes in Surgery/ Psych/ Peds ICU/ Coranary Care.
uhc may be better than we have now or it may be worse. if i were president and could have my way. i would get government and insurance companies out of health care. since we all have got to pay, one way or another., therefore i would propose we go back to paying out of pocket for services.( we would have thousands more in our pockets) let the healthcare community compete for my bucks. you want to see healthcare cost drop to almost zero just follow this recipe.
does anyone else see what i see in this? computers avoided government and collusion business (insurance companies) controls and thier prices dropped and made us wealthy; this based on the power of cumputers we can afford today, as compared to 15 years ago. again get government and collusion businesses out of healthcare. watch costs drop like a lead balloon. we all could afford more than we are getting from those bloated beurocracies.
fronkey bean
491 Posts