I'm sure that there are 'millions' who find a system where they benefit by the hard labor of others to be what works 'quite well' for them
That's unfair and overly harsh, saying so seems to characterize all who presently do not have insurance through their jobs as lazy social parasites leeching off the system. It completely ignores the many legitimate reasons people may be without insurance (just out of school, laid off, in the many blue collar jobs mentioned which do not provide insurance for their employees, etc). It's incredibly smug to look down on people without health care without paying attention to their circumstances.
I don't know where the notion comes from that there are hoards of people out there desperate to be beholden to a system of handouts - these people do certainly exist, there are people that will take advantage of any system, but the idea that we all need to be staunchly individualistic to prevent the 'millions' of free-loafers from taking advantage is overly paranoid.
I may not be sure what you are referring to; which anecdotal examples did I use?
I'm sure that there are 'millions' who find a system where they benefit by the hard labor of others to be what works 'quite well' for them
I didn't say you use antecdotes, but that you discount antecdotal examples automatically. Nor would I discount studies done that are two years old. You seem to discount anything that counters your opinion for either one reason or another.
So what about those of us who labor? Sounds as if you discount the fact that we are the laborers in this system. I personally feel that if some of my labor contributes to the well being of those who have less than I do, this is preferable to continuing to only enrich the rich. I know the corporate leaders benefit from my labors and I would love for my cousin who works as a furniture sales person with no health care insurance and a chronic illness to benefit from it also. She has made some less than smart decisions, but failure to hold a job is not one of them. These are the people who will most benefit from a health care system that is available to and reachable by all. If you insist on looking at from the view point of having the fruits of your labor taken from you I assure you the ceo's do benefit quiet lavishly.
You are going to be giving your money to someone to cover your health care and unless you have a lot of medical issues, chances are they will make a lot of money off you especially when the investment interest is calculated in over the long haul. I would love to see my money paying for someone elses health care instead of someone elses private jet.
That's unfair and overly harsh, saying so seems to characterize all who presently do not have insurance through their jobs as lazy social parasites leeching off the system. It completely ignores the many legitimate reasons people may be without insurance (just out of school, laid off, in the many blue collar jobs mentioned which do not provide insurance for their employees, etc). It's incredibly smug to look down on people without health care without paying attention to their circumstances.
I don't know where the notion comes from that there are hoards of people out there desperate to be beholden to a system of handouts - these people do certainly exist, there are people that will take advantage of any system, but the idea that we all need to be staunchly individualistic to prevent the 'millions' of free-loafers from taking advantage is overly paranoid.
:yeah::yeah::yeah:
thank you for this post. you said it much more eloquently than i could.
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
I didn't say you use antecdotes, but that you discount antecdotal examples automatically.
You said, "You discount antectdotal evidence sited which contradicts yours..." implying I used anecdotal examples. I understand what you are saying now, but it appears originally you were implying something else...that I used anecdotes.
That said, I find that anecdotal examples don't lend themselves toward credibility in supporting one position vs. another. That is why I don't use them, and why I don't think they should be used.
Nor would I discount studies done that are two years old. You seem to discount anything that counters your opinion for either one reason or another.
I didn't say you would...but, I was pointing out a double standard expressed in here. I have been criticized for using articles on this topic published within the past two years. I was sharing how in this discussion it appears that some participants try to force an inconsistent and unfair advantage by ignoring it when someone posts an article supporting their position regardless of the publication date, but will attempt to discredit my position based on the 'age' of the article.
So what about those of us who labor? Sounds as if you discount the fact that we are the laborers in this system. I personally feel that if some of my labor contributes to the well being of those who have less than I do, this is preferable to continuing to only enrich the rich. I know the corporate leaders benefit from my labors and I would love for my cousin who works as a furniture sales person with no health care insurance and a chronic illness to benefit from it also. She has made some less than smart decisions, but failure to hold a job is not one of them. These are the people who will most benefit from a health care system that is available to and reachable by all. If you insist on looking at from the view point of having the fruits of your labor taken from you I assure you the ceo's do benefit quiet lavishly.
You are going to be giving your money to someone to cover your health care and unless you have a lot of medical issues, chances are they will make a lot of money off you especially when the investment interest is calculated in over the long haul. I would love to see my money paying for someone elses health care instead of someone elses private jet.
Mahage
If you can assure me that the services will be provided for people who truly work and can still not insure themselves, or for people who cannot otherwise insure themselves, then I won't oppose that.
Such guarantees are not provided...hence it's called "UNIVERSAL" insurance...everyone is insured, regardless of their capacity and failure to contribute.
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
That's unfair and overly harsh, saying so seems to characterize all who presently do not have insurance through their jobs as lazy social parasites leeching off the system.
There is nothing in my statement that either directly or indirectly says that.
It completely ignores the many legitimate reasons people may be without insurance (just out of school, laid off, in the many blue collar jobs mentioned which do not provide insurance for their employees, etc).
No it doesn't.
It's incredibly smug to look down on people without health care without paying attention to their circumstances.
Sure it is, but that isn't what I did, and I'm offended that you would falsely imply that I said anything even resembling that.
I don't know where the notion comes from that there are hoards of people out there desperate to be beholden to a system of handouts - these people do certainly exist, there are people that will take advantage of any system, but the idea that we all need to be staunchly individualistic to prevent the 'millions' of free-loafers from taking advantage is overly paranoid.
It's not paranoid, it's realistic.
For example, when Hawaii tried to implement a socialized system just for children, it collapsed in eight months because people abandoned their own insurance in droves to get on board the 'universal' system. This example seems to indicate that there ARE significant portions of the population who will try to 'free-load' in spite of their proven capacity to do it for themselves.
It seems foolish to say that for sure the right way to "fix the system" is socialized medicine, yet it is also foolish to say that we don't need any kind of help for people, especially in this economy.
The problem with any socialization is that eventually you run out of other peoples money. The problem with not helping anyone is that there are many good people out there that would prefer to be taking care of themselves but have had some crappy luck.
The best way is a compromise, some rules on the use of the system, something. Instead of all the bickering and arguing of who is right and who is wrong and what statistics show, maybe people need to work together.
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
so you would rather continue to pay for someones private jet and caviar who "deserves" it rather than pay for meds for the "undeserving?"
That does not compute.
Mahage
I'd rather not pay for either, but the non-profit organization through which I am insured INSURES me, and I don't have any evidence that they zip around in private jets munching on caviar.
I DO know that if I am swapped to a 'gov't payer' model, I can be sure that the CEOs (Obama, Pelosi, Sebelius, etc), will be zipping around on private jets munching caviar.
And I find it insulting that you attempt to characterize me with quoted words which serve only to label me in a negative manner. I never said anyone was undeserving.
these men are payed millions of dollars and i'm sure can afford a private jet and caviar. non profit my foot.
And that's only the tip of the proverbial iceberg...........I guarantee you, if TPTB would just grow a set of cojones and take the insurance business, with its overpaid CEOs and massive amounts of paperwork OUT of the health care equation, we'd be able to cover every American citizen with at least the basics. Not to mention the idea that our lives would be considerably easier if we didn't have to spend valuable NURSING time poring over financial documents to find out what providers patients may or may not use because of their insurance, which meds are paid for and which aren't, whether they can get a particular procedure or piece of medical equipment, etc., etc. ad nauseam. (If you can't think of a single, better reason to dump our current system, that's it right there!)
Specializes in LTC, assisted living, med-surg, psych.
I don't want "the government" to run healthcare.
In fact, want the feds involved only in the collection of taxes for UHC. After that, my ideal system would empanel a group of healthcare professionals, attorneys, financial analysts, and knowledgeable laypeople IN EACH STATE to distribute the funds and administer the system at the state level. Who better to know and understand the health needs of each individual state than the people who live there?
That's what NO ONE at the top has considered yet, and I wish they would. There is more than one way to de-fur a feline; the feds just aren't very creative and would undoubtedly mess up the job. But the current system is untenable, and will collapse under its own weight when we Baby Boomers starting getting sick in large numbers.
Something has to be done, even if it's not the perfect thing.. I am completely convinced of that. And as conservative as I am on most political issues, this is one on which I have to concede the moral high ground to the liberals; anything less than universal coverage is worthless. Like it or not, we are all human beings and we owe each other at least a minimum standard of decency.........we don't require people to hold fulltime jobs so they can access schools, police and fire protection, clean air and water etc. And the argument that UHC will mean we won't get paid is completely ridiculous---do you know any teachers, cops, firefighters etc. who work for free? Me neither.
I'm all about the hands-off approach when it comes to most government interventions in private life and private industry. But I can't square the, ahem, morality of leaving people without BASIC food, medical care, housing and so on with the values I hold dear as a Christian and as an American.........and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who won't lead or follow on UHC just needs to get the heck out of the way.
:yeah:
CharmedJ7
193 Posts
That's unfair and overly harsh, saying so seems to characterize all who presently do not have insurance through their jobs as lazy social parasites leeching off the system. It completely ignores the many legitimate reasons people may be without insurance (just out of school, laid off, in the many blue collar jobs mentioned which do not provide insurance for their employees, etc). It's incredibly smug to look down on people without health care without paying attention to their circumstances.
I don't know where the notion comes from that there are hoards of people out there desperate to be beholden to a system of handouts - these people do certainly exist, there are people that will take advantage of any system, but the idea that we all need to be staunchly individualistic to prevent the 'millions' of free-loafers from taking advantage is overly paranoid.