Do You Want Universal Healthcare?

[DanFNP]

I know this topic has been discussed before on this site..but, I was curious for an updated response. How many of you would be willing to pay more taxes for universal healthcare? I find it egregious that the US has put a cost on maintaining/saving ones life! I traveled to Europe and the thought of them having to bring their checkbook to the hospital aroused literal laughs. It's the same notion that we'd have to whip out our debit card to firefighters before they turned the hoses on our burning homes. It's sad. I think the overall costs of UH would be beneficial...in fact, the raised taxes would still probably be lower than our rising premiums every 2 weeks! Thoughts?

[Atheos]

stanley, you appear to contradict yourself. in one post you indicate that medicare is serving the elderly just fine:

from stanley's post #460: "1) reduces patient incentives to find the best possible prices for the best possible services/products available.

...is this a problem with the growing elderly population on medicare? not really..."

in another, you indicate that the elderly are abusing ss and medicare:

it can't be both ways. either ss and medicare are efficient systems that are meeting the needs of our elderly citizens, or not.

it is not the fault of the current elderly population that the politicians, policy makers and bureaucrats who engineered ss and medicare failed to plan for the decreasing population growth, longer lifespan, explosion of expensive medical technology and overwhelming tax burdens that are making these programs unsustainable. if you want a more current example, you need look no further than medicare part d, a program enacted with overwhelming bi-partisan support that has exploded to 5-10x the initial cost estimates. given this track record, why in the world would any thinking american taxpayer trust our government to plan an even more far-reaching and expensive program?

umm what contradiction. neither posts talk about the efficiency of medicare.

the first one is addressing education if people other than older people were allowed into medicare. the older people aren't cheating it.

they are abusing it by living longer. medicare and ss were not meant to cover someone for 40ish years. no, i am not implying anything so don't try to read anything into that.

as for the government planning anything they plan everything. i bet you have no problems with the gov't sinking billions into iraq. as far as the government not being qualified to plan these things, well americans vote for the politicians. if they suck blame the people that voted for them.

on a side note, i hold each and every one of you conservatives that voted for bush responsible for his actions.

[Atheos]

We had better wait until it's right before passing it, because once voted in, it will never be un-done, or even significantly amended to make it more responsive or cost-effective. As evidenced by SS and Medicare. While some Americans do indeed need healthcare coverage, that is not a reason to impose a poorly-thought-out, overly expensive or cumbersome system on the whole country.

What we need are pilot-studies comparing several options for UHC, MSA's coupled with catastrophic coverage, preventive plans, individual plans separate from employers, etc. Only when armed with information as to how various forms of healthcare coverage work, should we be voting anything into law.

It should be studied. I have not said a full country version should be voted in. I wouldn't even be disappointed if it was only started in various cities/counties/wherever.

We do know however that despite the talk of bipartisanship most things get stopped due to partisan politics. We need to avoid this. Even if we vote in a law that merely states we have to start piloting programs and try option X, Y, and Z. If we 'talk' and plan forever we will never get there.

As to what I said about it being perfect, well it never will be. Someone is always going to be mad at something and most likely they will get support and an otherwise perfect bill will never make it out of Congress because someone is grandstanding. Happens everytime...

[Jolie, BSN]

Please don't presume to know my opinions of unrelated topics. To set the record straight, I have problems with the government sinking even one dollar into anything that is not evidence-based.

As educated healthcare practitioners, we provide evidence-based care to our patients. To do less equals negligence.

We are due the same respect from the politicians who spend our tax money. Responsible taxpayers should demand it! No one, Republican or Democrat has produced a pilot study comparing and contrasting the costs and benefits of a number of different approaches to funding government healthcare. Until someone does, and demonstrates the overall benefit of UHC, I will not support it.

FTR, I predicted the mess that Medicare Part D has become, and opposed it from the get-go.

[Atheos]

Please don't presume to know my opinions of unrelated topics. To set the record straight, I have problems with the government sinking even one dollar into anything that is not evidence-based.

So... did you agree with the decision to go to Iraq because of WMD's?

The Republican Party has never operated in an evidence-based manner. You can't have it both ways. Of course, if I misunderstood and you aren't Republican forgive me.

Most nurses here while practicing in an evidence-based profession are only faking it as they have beliefs that are major parts of their lives that contradict evidence-based. (Not saying they are wrong as that is a another thread altogether) You just can't bring that out to fight with and then put it back when it's convenient.

[Jolie, BSN]

the republican party has never operated in an evidence-based manner. you can't have it both ways. of course, if i misunderstood and you aren't republican forgive me.

i'll accept your apology. if we ever meet, i'd be happy to show you my voter-registration card.

most nurses here while practicing in an evidence-based profession are only faking it as they have beliefs that are major parts of their lives that contradict evidence-based. (not saying they are wrong as that is a another thread altogether) you just can't bring that out to fight with and then put it back when it's convenient.

i can't begin to imagine what part of my personal life would contradict the care i give to my patients, but as you said, that's another thread.

[Atheos]

i can't begin to imagine what part of my personal life would contradict the care i give to my patients, but as you said, that's another thread.

i probably should say conservative and not republican. i have no clue as to your personal life. i only base my threads on what people say here. i can't comment on a personal life i have no knowledge.

however since you aren't republican i will apologize. not being republican garners you more esteem. not that esteem from me means anything to anyone else... :)

[tntrn, ASN, RN]

Just recently in the paper, a woman who worked at Walmart, and had their insurance, and was in a severe auto wreck, not her fault. Collected a large sum of money from the accident that was going to pay for the hospitalization and rehab that she needed to completely recover. Walmart put a lien on the $$ and tried to take almost every penny of it to pay them back for the $$ that it cost for her hospitilization and post accident rehab. They would have taken the entire amount until the family went to the media and made Walmart look like the Scrooge of the century. The negative publicity pressured Walmart to eventually back down and let the woman keep the entire award. If she had lost that money to Walmart, the taxpayers would have paid for this woman's rehab. That is how companies like Walmart work.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

This isn't just Walmart. After a motorhome accident, in which the oncoming driver died when he fell asleep and drove under our coach, our own insurance company tried to get us to reimburse them for their costs from money we got from the other driver's insurance. A good lawyer prevented that.

[TreeDoc]

Thought this was appropriate for this thread...

Special Report

Understanding American Politics

By Peter Ferrara

Published 8/6/2008 12:07:58 AM

Grover Norquist, Leave Us Alone

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13647

selected excerpt:

"THE BOOK and its analysis grow out of this background. Norquist starts by analyzing American politics as breaking out into two diametrically and irreconcilably opposed coalitions -- The Takings Coalition and the Leave Us Alone coalition.

For the Takings Coalition: "These groups and individuals view the proper role of government as taking things from one group and giving them to someone else. Money, power, and control. Who are they in favor of taking it from? You and me, the taxpayers." This coalition includes everyone who wants a handout from the government, from straight welfare to corporate welfare. It includes trail lawyers and labor union leaders trying to loot corporations and the taxpayers. It includes government bureaucrats, contractors, grantees, and big city political machines, whose primary motivation is a gold-plated deal paid for by the taxpayers. It also includes the "coercive utopians."

These folks want to change the world. They want to change you. And they are willing to wield the blunt instrument of the state to make you, your family, and your life fit their procrustean bed no matter how much it hurts you or how much it costs you. And they expect to be paid with tax dollars for supervising your moral regeneration. These are the radical environmentalists, gun control advocates, extreme feminists, safety and health "Nazis," animal rights extremists, anti-religious secularists, and some gay groups that wish to impose their sense of morality on others through the power of the state.

Of course, this Takings Coalition is the heart and soul of the Democrat party.

In sharp contrast, the Leave Us Alone Coalition,

the political movement created out of the defeated Republican Party of midcentury and sculpted by Ronald Reagan's political leadership and lifetime, is a coalition of groups that have one thing in common. They do not want the government to give them something. Or take something from others. On the key issue that motivates their vote, they want one simple thing from government: They just want to be left alone. They are taxpayers who want lower taxes. Businessmen and -women, entrepreneurs, investors who wish to run their own affairs without being regulated and taxed out of existence. Property owners who do not wish to be taxed out of their homes and property. Gun owners protective of their second amendment rights. Homeschoolers who are willing to spend the time and energy to educate their own children, asking only that the government leave them alone. Conservative Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Mormons, all members of the various communities of faith who wish to be left alone to practice their faith and pass it on to their children.

This Leave Us Alone Coalition is the heart and soul of the Republican Party, whether actual Republican leaders understand that or not.

Norquist does not intend Leave Us Alone to be a banner or political rallying cry to attract voters, as some have mistakenly interpreted him. He intends the phrase to be descriptive and analytical, just as he does not expect the Left to campaign under the phrase "The Takings Coalition." The Leave Us Alone Coalition adds up to a center-right majority that is available to perceptive and effective Republican and conservative leaders marching that majority to victory."

Cheers,

Dave

[herring_RN, ASN, BSN]

dave:

grover norquist is wrong.

i invite you to start a thread in the current events forum to discuss his writings and actions.

a little information:

single payer faq:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#costs_down

top ten reasons for enacting a single payer healthcare system:

http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/files/facts_singlepayer_top10.pdf

liberal benefits, conservative spending

http://www.pnhp.org/pdf_files/liberalbenefitsconservativespending.pdf

ps: my grandfather was a "tree surgeon". they always had to live and travel to places where it is difficult to grow trees. all over such areas of arkansas, oklahoma, texas, arizona, and california you can see his work those many years ago. cement repairs in lovely trees outside city halls and courthouses.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

like i described in my original statement. someone can come to this country never contribute to our system & get everything paid for (medicaid covers all medical, heap cover heating, section 8 housing covers rent, phone bills paid, food stamps) while our own elderly are struggling & denied & have to fight for things.

again americans have 2 forms of universal health care medicare /medicaid & no one is happy with them.

insurance companies do not do a good job. they are also regulated by the government who writes the laws that the insurance has to follow.

the way health care is now is already due to the politicians fixing it

links below just show that the gov. has already tried to be successful & have failed that is why we are where we are.

http://www.answers.com/topic/fhp-international-corporation

http://www.answers.com/topic/u-s-healthcare-inc

immigrants are not eligible for welfare. to argue otherwise is both a gross misstatement and demonstrates a real ignorance of the law.

undocumented immigrants have never been eligible for medicaid (other than for some emergency medical care) or schip. eligible legal immigrants have always been required to provide various documents to prove that they have legal status and that their particular legal status lets them qualify for medicaid under federal law. in addition, any citizens whose citizenship is in question have always been required to prove it. in 2005, dr. mark mcclellan, then-administrator of the centers for medicare and medicaid services, wrote that this policy “allows states to enroll eligible individuals while preserving program integrity.”[2]

at http://www.cbpp.org/8-1-07health.htm

medicare is quite popular with seniors. (malcolm gladwell has an excellent article about medicare and the reasons it is popular.)

it is an absolute obscene waste of resources to spend 31% of our health care dollars on profit and administration. medicare does it for about 3%.

you have it exactly backwards on what has driven the legal structure that governs health care. read the legislative hstory of medicare part d. it was written by phrma in order to directly assure obscene profit levels.

i encourage you to visit the commonwealth fund, cbpp.org, epi.org and pnhp.org. each of these websites has research based critiques of our current system. each of them in the end calls for some form of uhc and/or a single payer system based on real evidence and not the psychotic ramblings of the norquistas.

herring, thanks for posting the pnhp links. those were the links that i was thinking about while i wrote this post.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

Please don't presume to know my opinions of unrelated topics. To set the record straight, I have problems with the government sinking even one dollar into anything that is not evidence-based.

As educated healthcare practitioners, we provide evidence-based care to our patients. To do less equals negligence.

We are due the same respect from the politicians who spend our tax money. Responsible taxpayers should demand it! No one, Republican or Democrat has produced a pilot study comparing and contrasting the costs and benefits of a number of different approaches to funding government healthcare. Until someone does, and demonstrates the overall benefit of UHC, I will not support it.

FTR, I predicted the mess that Medicare Part D has become, and opposed it from the get-go.

The Commonwealth Fund has studied the various UHC models extensively. Believe it or not the best overall system is the NHS of the UK. We don't need to study this issue to death. THe evidence is already available for how to rebuild the system to assure higher quality, at lower cost and with fewer uninsureds.

at http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678.

[TreeDoc]

Dave:

Grover Norquist is wrong.

No, he is not wrong...as he was expressing his thoughts. You are allowed to disagree with him though...however, that might entail some elaboration beyond your initial statement.

Time constraints limit my ability to accept your invitation.

Dave