Socialised Medicine the myths and the facts - page 11

The first and the most obvious concern is the cost to the patient and their family, we all know how devastating an illness can be for patients and their family many times I have witnessed the despair... Read More

  1. by   Sade
    What do folks mean when they refer to a "moral obligation" in terms of our federal government providing universal health care coverage?

    I must be missing something here because I've never read in our Constitution where it gives our federal government authority over the states on this subject.

    IMO - The basis of this argument is equivalent to a person saying that I have a moral right to walk over to my neighbor and hold a gun to their heads and unlawfully demand that they give me their money to help me pay for my family's medical expenses? That doesn't sound too high-minded or virtuous to me.

    I'd encourage more of the individuals within the so called "majorities" on this website who favor government funded universal health care to practice what you preach and start helping folks out at a community level with your own money. If the so called "majorities" within our communities truly lived up to the moral obligations they try to impose illegitimately onto their neighbors through our federal government, then many if not all of the disparities we see in our health care system would cease to exist. Until then save your breath on the "moral obligation" philosophies. Take care.
  2. by   talaxandra
    To the best of my knowledge there aren't any moral rights addressed in the US constitution. That doesn't mean moral rights don't exist.

    Contributing financially to needy causes as an individual, while admirable, is not in itself enough to reverse the kind of health disparity you have in America. The assumption that this is something pro-UHC members preach but do not practice has no foundation and is in any case a wholly separate matter.

    Clearly most of us are too committed to our positions to move. On the one hand are those like Sade, who believe we live in a meritocracy where anyone can be successful if they try hard enough and that individuals ought to stand or fall on their own. On the other hand are those like me, who believe many factors contribute to success and that the first duty of a civilised society is to provide for those who are unable to help themselves, either temporarily or permanently. I imagine that those with a diametrically opposed opinion to mine have reflected on their position as much as I have on mine, considered the alternatives and rejected them, and recognise that there's unilkely to be any kind of common ground achieved. That doesn't mean we can't try to diabuse one another of errors in the information they use to arrive at that position, which is why I've posted on my experiences working in a country with UHC.
  3. by   dlatimer
    Instead your neighbor walking over with a gun - how about a healthcare industry who increases your premiums until you are spending 1/5 of your paycheck on those premiums and the co-deductible payments so you can be healthy enough to work and become a more productive member of society? That is where we are now. I don't know about moral responsibility. Is it OK if someone makes lots of $$$$ because you were ill and had to spend all your savings on treatment? Now, health care is controlled by the market. Maybe the market isn't doing an equitable job. The market was controlling the banking sector (still is) and do you remember the deal with the banks a few months ago?
  4. by   MaritesaRN
    Quote from madwife2002
    having worked in a country which has socialised medicine i can certainly see the pit falls and the benefits. what i dont understand is the fear behind having socialised medicine in my opinion socialised medicine has more positive benefits than negative benefits.

    the first and the most obvious concern is the cost to the patient and their family, we all know how devestating an illness can be for pts and their family many times i have witnessed the despair when a diagnoses meant further treatment which insurances question and in some cases wont cover. i have seen pts needing costly drugs to keep them alive and being unable to afford them, causing repeated admissions to repair the damage so called none compliance has caused. the first question in none compliance is were the pts actually refusing to take their medication or was it simply they could not afford to buy their medication because they dont have enough money and other bills need to be paid first? if the real reason is the cost then surely it would be more simple of we provided these medications at a more effective price or that all medications cost $5 no matter what they had? outrageous i hear you shout but the cost of the repeated admission is far more costly than by helping prevent a repeat admission, by providing medicine they can afford.

    how about blood tests could these not be done in the doctors office before the pt leaves for home and forgets to go and have a blood draw, or simply cannot get to the lab to have them drawn. i have personnally waited in doctors office hours (and paid for the priviledge) then been sent to the lab, miles away to sit and wait for blood work to be done. why could the doctors not employ somebody to be at the office to draw blood on pts?
    we should be looking at improving preventative medicine rather than patch it up and see.

    many times i have seen pts discharged with a new diagnoses of diabetes, no follow up at home can be organised because in my city nothing exists to assist these people. there should be a diabetic home nurse who monitors these pts in their own home-rationale, this would again help prevent admissions for diabetic complications, and none compliance.

    so you wonder what has this got to do with socialised medicine. well, in the uk if you have certain illnesses for example

    • children
    • over 60 for women and over 65 for men
    • diabetes
    • asthma
    • thyroid problems, etc...
    then you get all your medicines for free.

    there are in place specialised rn's who focus is on preventative care in the community. there are telephone help lines which anybody can utilise for free.

    maternity care is free a midwife will be assigned to you for the duration of your pregnancy and upto 6 weeks later. the cost of the birth-nothing no matter how you deliver.

    i have been asked what kind of care do you recieve in a socilaised medicine country and i ask them, i am a product of socialised medicine you tell me how my care differs from nurses who have paid outrageous amounts of money to train as a nurse?

    of course even in the uk you can have private care if you chose to pay, this is an advantage if you need hip replacements, knee replacements, eye surgeries-other wise you may have to wait. there are initiatives in place to reduce waiting times for surgeries in the nhs and i hear that dr's can now book surgeries from their office at hospitals all over the uk which helps reduce waiting times, plus hospitals get fined if they dont meet their quota.
    i agree mri's and ct's are not as freely available, but again iinitiatives are in place to improve the waiting times.
    emergency care no different all patients will recieve emergency care.

    poor conditions yes there are poor hospitals and there are excellent hospitals, no different to phoenix az.


    :dhi want to add to your thoughts.
    there is a real good article in aarp about 8 myths of health care reform;
  5. by   Sade
    I've never read in our Constitution where it gives our federal government authority over the states on this subject or many, many, many, other subjects.
  6. by   lamazeteacher
    Quote from Sade
    I've never read in our Constitution where it gives our federal government authority over the states on this subject or many, many, many, other subjects.

    Here's the way I see posts such as the ones you've submitted (like it or not, asked for because you made them).

    Change is difficult for everyone, not just you. When it's needed, it's especially hard, because it means admitting that past ways aren't working.

    Questioning governmental procedure by the doubting capability of leadership (our leader taught the American Constitution at University of Chicago's Law School), having achieved his education at Harvard, one of our country's leading Law Schools is futile. It just wastes time and doesn't work. Instead it perpetuates an underground current of discontent! (Where's that head banging "smilie" when I need it?).

    Not accepting needed change, attempting to change its course (like stopping a raging river) by compartmentalizing authority (hoping state government will supercede national decrees, when the reverse is true) keeps things circling, to land.....

    Arguing using inflated suppositions (like a neighbor holding a firearm at someone's head - did it matter if the neighbor was to one side or the other - I'll bet it did!)

    Refusing to believe that in unity there is strength (in a country of this size, with so many immigrants who do not speak the same language literally or figuratively) 100% unity is impossible, even though more babies are dying here due to medical neglect/ignorance, than in some undeveloped countries.

    Belief that each person should be healthy and financially successful by their own efforts (the problem being that most of us stumble due to ill health, somewhere along the way, usually later in life, and lose all we had, healthwise and wealthwise). That causes unemployment if businesses depended on the health of owners.

    Seeing government as the enemy, rather than an ally to your well being. Due to the greed of many elected officials (for money, for sex, for power, etc., etc., etc.) it has become commonplace for many to idolize that. It is up to every individual to maintain a high sense of their own morality, and accepting nothing less in their elected officials, rather than the seeming prevailing atmosphere of: if you get away with it, it's OK, vis a vis the former governor of Illinois, W. Bush, IAG, banks' lack of allegiance to their customers, and on and on and on and on........


    Eat well (you know how), drink lots of healthy fluids, breathe deeply, exhale slowly, and think well of yourself and others. Know that you are in a safe place that allows good to happen for everyone.

    Meditate often.

    Participate with others who enjoy life.

    Go to political gatherings (like meet the candidate events) and sop up what you learn, rather than "party lines". Evaluate candidates based on who they are, what you see, and their integrity (not what others say). Then support them, however you can. Let them know you and when you write to them when they achieve their goal of being in office, cite where you met them and clearly say what you want them to do (without resorting to arms).

    I met a candidate last week, who is running for the delegate position in a district that is not mine, and I tell others who I meet who are in her district, how great I think she is. It turns out that she's a "consumer advocate" lawyer and might help me get out of my current crunch.

    Go to sleep and wake up saying, I'm going to make this a great day, full of achievement for myself and others, You'll be amazed how well that works, when you mean it! You can even set your internal timeclock and wake up when you need to, by saying something like this: "It's 10:30 P.M. I'm going to awake at 6:00 A.M. refreshed, due to all the REM sleep I'll get early and throughout my 8 hour rest that renews my bodily functions and mental health." DO IT!! DON'T JUST "TRY" IT. Sleep deprivation is the main cause of depression, hence negativity, and all the errors made.

    I'm sure you will see other ways of solving your world's problems. GO FOR IT!!!
  7. by   lamazeteacher
    the article recommended below, is a "must read" for anyone not in favor of uhc!

    june 25, 2009

    "the truth about the insurance industry"

    ezra klein does a bang-up job of explaining the fundamental problem with for-profit health insurance over at his washington post blog. ezra also links to congressional testimony by one wendell potter, who worked in the insurance industry for some 20 years.
    i would add only that non-profit private sector insurers don't labor under the same built-in conflict of interest. they don't have "a fiduciary duty to maximize profits."
    in europe, every country offers some combination of regulated non-profit private sector insurance and public-sector insurance. the hybrid model seems to work well. if you have only public sector insurance (as in the u.k.) and sarah palin is elected president, you have a problem. don't laugh. were you laughing when gwb was re-elected? okay, some people liked president bush. obviously quite a few people voted for him. but you never know who is going to wind up in the white house. when margaret thatcher took charge in the u.k., she took a hatchet to the national health service. it still hasn't fully recovered.

    posted by maggie mahar on june 25, 2009 | email this post
  8. by   Sade
    America, as originally intended to be, consisted of a bunch of independent and self sufficient states. These states had total sovereignty over their laws, religions, culture, and way of life, unless otherwise specified within the Constitution. For example, New York didn't really care much if Massachusetts had a State established Christian Puritan religion because it was a sovereign state, independent from New York. Who was New York to tell Massachusetts how to run their state? The states were joined together as a country for purposes of protecting the liberties and sovereignty that each enjoyed collectively within their states. This sovereignty has incrementally through the years eroded to the point where today states think they are now cities and the country now thinks it's a state. Many Americans abhor the idea of government funded health care because it flies in the face of Constitutional principles.
  9. by   Sade
    (10th Amendment) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
  10. by   Sade
    Once again... I've never read in our Constitution where it gives our federal government authority over the states on this subject or many, many, many, other subjects.

    If individuals are ignorant of our American Constitution then their opinions have no authority and their responses are worthless.

    The idea that New York, for example, has a Constitutional right to limit or affect in any way Massachusetts laws, religions, culture, health care, and way of life, unless otherwise specified within the Constitution, should be fiercely opposed and tirelessly exposed on the basis of Constitutional illegitimacy.
  11. by   quezen
    The end of an America that "consisted of a bunch of independent and self sufficient states...that sovereignty over thier laws, religions, culture and way of life"was bloody and public and happened in 1865.
    The Civil War, or, the War Between the States, (as it is still called by many in the 'losing' States) changed the rules of that game forever.
    The winning side dictates the terms-this is what it means to lose a war.
    Texas, you can no longer think about spliting yourself into five geographical States of Texas, you lost that right. Anyone who wants to purchace and hold a Slave is going to face severe legal penalities,as they should, that 'legal and cultural' way of life is gone.
    If you want to have more than one wife, you better have money and be stealthy, because guess what, it's not legal.
    If you want to increase your land holdings by forcing your 14 year old daughter to marry the old widower with the big farm, guess what, you will have to find another way to get your hands on that field and pasture.
    This is the UNITED States. We have the rule of law. The law is for all the people.
    Or it's supposed to be. If you don't have money it is not so easy to access the legal system.
    If you don"t have money it is not so easy to access the health care system.
    Nothing is what it once was. We are a work in progress. Other places in the world buried the hatchet and figured out how to get along and benefit as many of their citizens as they can with the resources available.
    Where is the UNITED States going come down on this issue?
    On the side of We the People? Or on the side of We the Big Corporation?
  12. by   PostOpPrincess
    Canada: Population 33,000,000

    USA: Population 300,000,000

    ....nursing shortage, doctor shortage....hmmmmmm........

    do you think:

    Nurses will work for less pay? I know friends of mine that make $100,000.00 NO Overtime.
    Doctors will be willing to GIVE UP their salary? Yeah...right....

    For the good of the people? .........


  13. by   sharyn buccalo
    excellent thread. i support socialized medicine , and feel the sooner the better, this was very enlightening and enjoyable