I have felt for a while that we should have universal health care here in the US, but I didn't know things were this bad. We really should be ashamed that GTMO Bay prisoners get free (and very good quality, from the looks of it) health care and 9/11 rescue workers are suffering from 9/11 related health conditions and have no coverage.
And hospitals removing their names from the pt bracelets of ill, unisured pts, and having cabs drop them on Skid Row?
And insurance company physicians admitting that they know they caused the death of pts by denying claims in order to save the ins company money?
What is the matter with us that our health care system is ranked #37 among industrialized nations?
To me, this is not about politics, not about personal responsibility, it's not about cost- it's just about what is right and what is wrong.
I know the Canadian and other universal health care systems have their problems, but they are not run on a foundation of greed and denial of care as ours is.
I am very fortunate that I have good health insurance, but this could change at any time. I am willing to pay more taxes so that all US citizens can get free or low-cost health care that is not connected with a job, and can move with the citizen and cover them wherever they are and whatever their circumstances are.
The majority of people who refuse UHC and other public assistance programs are people who have never had to rely on the government for anything. It's easy to sit up there on your high horse and pick apart people who abuse the system. News flash: people abuse all kinds of systems, health care related or not. Should we punish the majority for the mistakes of the few? Should we abolish welfare, WIC, and government grants for school? Why are the rich (for lack of a better word) the only people who "deserve" to succeed? And who the hell made up that rule? What kind of society finds that acceptable? It's disgusting.
I'm astonished at the massive amount of nurses and other health care professionals - who are suppose to be compassionate - that do not support health care for all. Because you don't want to pay more taxes? Another news flash: no one does. But if the amount of money you put into private insurance equals the same amount that you would pay in taxes for a UHC system, why not go with the UHC? Something to benefit all?
Of course Michal Moore is going to be biased. Many, many reporters and journalists are. That's why people need to examine both sides of the story and come to their own conclusions. It is difficult to find a non-biased opinion and non-biased facts.
Many (not all, mind you) conservative Christians are against UHC and other government aid programs because they feel that the poor are not worthy of it, or some other such nonsense. But didn't Jesus help the poor? Didn't he believe in everyone being treated the same, and just as deserving of love and respect? Funny how this teaching is often ignored by the religious right. But I guess that's what happens with a religion that picks and chooses what Bible verses to follow. (Done with religion, too off topic.)
In short, there is no perfect solution and every system will have it's flaws. But we can definitely do better than what we've got now - and besides, don't we deserve it?
Toxic - you are making generalizations and misrepresenting people's positions. (Borrowing from H&S).
I don't know any Christians who think the poor are not worthy of being helped.
Aside from the tax thing, government in charge of your every day life turns into a big mess. In my opinion.
I do support access to health care for all - I just don't support the government running it.
Reporters and journalists are not supposed to be biased. The press is supposed to be unbiased and look at every story and research it to see if it is true. The problem right now is the press has lost credibility with the public. Their ratings are tanking.
I'm a conservative Christian and I an NOT against UHC because I don't think the poor are worthy. That is not fair for you to even say that. And I don't pick and choose which bible verse to follow - I believe the entire bible is the inspired word of God.
Please, explain your own beliefs and thoughts but don't mischaracterize others. That is just wrong.
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
you're right, honnête et sérieux, but my concern is that the emphasis on private health insurance will result in the loss of medicare as a viable, universal health care provider. my greatest concern is that it will lead to us adopting an american-style user-pays service that's fine for those who can afford insurance and who have no pre-existing or significant and long-term conditions but that leaves anyone else to fend for themselves.
i understand that it's your concern, but the point is that australia obviously is unable to insure everyone, and therefore it's disingenuis to promote their system as the model by which we should go...especially when they are turning to the private market to solve their problems.
i can't see how it makes sense to criticize private market alternatives, and then hold up a system that is turning to private market solutions as the uhc example by which we should model ourselves.
Just a little bit more about the press. The Founding Fathers gave the press Constitutional protection because they knew they needed an institution that would keep an eye on a very powerful government.
Our press today unfortunately is very biased. And everyone must research on their own to find out truth.
I saw the film last night and I felt absolutely disgusted by the end of it.
I'm so glad that even the poorest person here in Australia has the opportunity to be treated in a hospital. We don't offer people the choice on which finger they want re-attached because your insurance will only pay for one. And we certainly don't remove the hospital identification on patient's armbands and kick them out on the streets.
The thought of the US system even happening here down under quite frankly terrifies me.
The attack from Obama's left flank began in earnest yesterday, as two reliably liberal forces openly compared Barack Obama's plan for escalating the war in Afghanistan to Bush's fiasco in Iraq. Obama fangirl Rachel Maddow put together an Obama-Bush mashup on last night's show, playing Obama's speech announcing his Afghanistan plan next to clips of Bush talking about Iraq, and pointing out the eerie similarities. She hesitantly defended Obama—or at least seemed like she was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt—but it was clearly a shot across the bow.
Moore's been relatively quiet lately, and his trouble-making capacity is a little bit attenuated by the lack of a spotlight. But he's working on a film about the financial meltdown, a subject that is tailor-made for him—prepackaged with corporate greed, populist outrage, and plenty of little-guy-loses-the-house-but-rich-guy-gets-the-bonus stories to mine for class fury. So Moore will have a fairly big megaphone when the publicity tour starts, and Barack Obama probably doesn't want him running around saying he's just like Bush.
I myself am very hopeful for UHC, we will not have a single payor system like most European countries have which is a shame. I had the pleasure to utilize a single payor system while living in Europe and it was fabulous. The emergency rooms were like ghost towns because people were not misusing them. I had progressive wellness care during my pregnancy. I had access to a private doctor at what was no more than 50 euros for the duration of my pregnancy. I had access to a midwife and physician who both attended my delivery.
I was allowed to stay a full week, and when discharged, received visits. Now, I know it wasn't free, as we had a 20% VAT that we had to cough up whenever we consummed, but at the end of the day it was a real return. A great example is my father in law who has heart problems who is prescribed wellness months, where he goes to a spa, eats right, exercises and has many holistic needs addressed which in turn addresses underlying/lifestyle choices that provokes illness. The concept of wellness is not a feature in the US healthcare system, and it is something that we very much need.
A couple of weeks ago, I asked a visiting nurse from Korea what she thought about our system in comparison, and she helped me realize a couple of key points.
1. Our patients are vastly overweight, which makes the nursing profession harder in the US, because we don't addreess wellness at all, and we provide little to no incentive for customers of the healthcare system to take control of their health.
2. Our patients in the US system enter the system very ill, which of course increases costs and length of stay.
I for one have suffered two potentially catostropic events in the US Healthcare system. I was wonderfully insured for both, and needed a bailout from my European inlaws for one. Luckily, we have never had the misfortune of being uninsured, and I would not wish that upon anyone. I believe that anyone who works, pays taxes and has children is entitled to care without facing financial ruin.
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
and you're not doing this when you say michael moore's movie "is a lie"?
many of your statements come off as conjecture, generalizations, and are very biased, imo.
if you define mine that way, then you have to define the posts of 99.9% of the members in here that way.
do you think that the ordinary people in the movie who shared their stories are liars as well?
did you see where i said anything that looked remotely like that?
i think they are just as genuine as mccormack, whom moore initially made promises to regarding the sicko project...and then abandoned.
and moore has an undeniable history of a failure to perform due diligence, admitting satire in place of facts, and manipulating the story to meet his ideology, so i ask...do you think this woman is a liar?
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
the majority of people who refuse uhc and other public assistance programs are people who have never had to rely on the government for anything.
[color=gray]first, do you have any evidence to even remotely suggest this is true, and second, what does it have to do with the discussion?
it's easy to sit up there on your high horse and pick apart people who abuse the system.
[color=gray]i don't know what constitutes being on a "high horse," but we would be ill advised and irresponsible to ignore the fact that people abuse the system. the only way i would agree with you is if we simultaneously received the same capacity with the irs...now that's a system i wouldn't mind abusing.
news flash: people abuse all kinds of systems, health care related or not. should we punish the majority for the mistakes of the few?
[color=gray]nope, but advocates of uhc think we should.
should we abolish welfare, wic, and government grants for school? why are the rich (for lack of a better word) the only people who "deserve" to succeed? and who the hell made up that rule? what kind of society finds that acceptable? it's disgusting.
[color=gray]this is part of the problem; we need to keep the discussion within context and stop skidding off to the edges of the spectrum. i didn't see where anyone said to "abolish welfare, wic, and government grants for school." but it doesn't mean people who are not eager to become enslaved to a uhc system can just be categorized as completely unwilling to support some social programs...especially money for school.
i'm astonished at the massive amount of nurses and other health care professionals - who are suppose to be compassionate - that do not support health care for all.
[color=gray]yes, it's preposterous...maybe we should follow the allegedly socialized fire department model and 70% of us can do it for free. heck, it has to be at least a little safer than running into burning buildings.
because you don't want to pay more taxes? another news flash: no one does. but if the amount of money you put into private insurance equals the same amount that you would pay in taxes for a uhc system, why not go with the uhc? something to benefit all?
[color=gray]because the gov't will never guarantee that i will never pay more than what i am paying now while keeping the coverage i have. and as our uhc recipients can tell you, it never gets cheaper...it only gets more and more expensive until they are resorting back to private enterprise solutions.
of course michal moore is going to be biased. many, many reporters and journalists are. that's why people need to examine both sides of the story and come to their own conclusions. it is difficult to find a non-biased opinion and non-biased facts.
[color=gray]journalists and reporters are not supposed to be biased. they definitely aren't supposed to lie. and here's what you aren't finding in this discussion; you aren't finding people who said "i saw sicko" and then i saw the movie "dead meat" and read [color=gray]this article by kurt loder [color=gray]and i find m. moore to be a credible documentarian.
many (not all, mind you) conservative christians are against uhc and other government aid programs because they feel that the poor are not worthy of it, or some other such nonsense. but didn't jesus help the poor? didn't he believe in everyone being treated the same, and just as deserving of love and respect? funny how this teaching is often ignored by the religious right. but i guess that's what happens with a religion that picks and chooses what bible verses to follow. (done with religion, too off topic.)
[color=gray]here's what i find funny, and i'm about as religious as a piece of wood; i find it funny when people compare jesus to the gov't. jesus helped everyone, but he didn't take anyone elses stuff by force to do it.
[color=gray]
[color=gray]and it's not reasonable to suggest that uhc is about "love and respect," and that "love and respect" are lacking in a healthcare system that is not universalized.
in short, there is no perfect solution and every system will have it's flaws. but we can definitely do better than what we've got now - and besides, don't we deserve it?
[color=gray][color=gray]i don't know what i did to deserve being thrown into a universalized system with 300,000,000 other people. i must've done something terrible.
"do you think that the ordinary people in the movie who shared their stories are liars as well?" (me)
did you see where i said anything that looked remotely like that?
you stated flatly "the movie is a lie."
these people and their stories are part of the movie.
perhaps it would not be such a complete generalization, and total disregard for everything in the film, if you had said something like "i feel that michael moore is biased in that he exagerates, edits, and embellishes to support his personal beliefs/agenda" or something similar.
the fact that you flatly state "the movie is a lie" is part of what leads me to the belief that you completely write off as irrelevent and false anything that does correspond exactly with your personal beliefs.
i do believe that moore exagerates and embellishes- i do not take his statements as the gospel truth.
however, i do feel the majority of his statements are based in fact- and i certainly believe the stories of the regular people in the film, and the documentation/phone calls from insurance companies which were used in the film.
i personally feel that uhc would be benefit our country finacially in the long run, in addition to it being the ethical thing to do. my opinions are not based on love, flowers or rainbows.
why do you think that you have to pay more taxes, in the uk the tax rate is 23%, and a social security payment, much like your medicare payment that comes out of our wages, but then on top of that you pay health care benefits out of your wages, so if these payments honestly went into a health system and not into the health insurance companies profits then you would have a working health system for everyone, if you have a lot of money like your politicians then bills dont matter, if you have no money, then they done matter if you are old then its paid for, but if you are one of the many working people who pay health insurance, then try getting sick and see how many bills you get, even with good coverage, the system that is in america only works for the working person if you dont get sick and have to take time off work, try calling socialised medicine something else, oh i forgot you already do its called insurance companies who control it all.
good post.
my dh and i are in the 20% tax bracket now, plus we pay hundreds of dollars a month for our private insurance, and all health care costs (co-pays and such) which are not covered by our insurance.
and- all us taxpayers foot the bill already when uninsured people require healthcare and can't pay for it- hospitals write these costs off and we foot the bill.
i believe we would all come out ahead (finacially and otherwise) if we had uhc in the us.
ToxicShock
506 Posts
The majority of people who refuse UHC and other public assistance programs are people who have never had to rely on the government for anything. It's easy to sit up there on your high horse and pick apart people who abuse the system. News flash: people abuse all kinds of systems, health care related or not. Should we punish the majority for the mistakes of the few? Should we abolish welfare, WIC, and government grants for school? Why are the rich (for lack of a better word) the only people who "deserve" to succeed? And who the hell made up that rule? What kind of society finds that acceptable? It's disgusting.
I'm astonished at the massive amount of nurses and other health care professionals - who are suppose to be compassionate - that do not support health care for all. Because you don't want to pay more taxes? Another news flash: no one does. But if the amount of money you put into private insurance equals the same amount that you would pay in taxes for a UHC system, why not go with the UHC? Something to benefit all?
Of course Michal Moore is going to be biased. Many, many reporters and journalists are. That's why people need to examine both sides of the story and come to their own conclusions. It is difficult to find a non-biased opinion and non-biased facts.
Many (not all, mind you) conservative Christians are against UHC and other government aid programs because they feel that the poor are not worthy of it, or some other such nonsense. But didn't Jesus help the poor? Didn't he believe in everyone being treated the same, and just as deserving of love and respect? Funny how this teaching is often ignored by the religious right. But I guess that's what happens with a religion that picks and chooses what Bible verses to follow. (Done with religion, too off topic.)
In short, there is no perfect solution and every system will have it's flaws. But we can definitely do better than what we've got now - and besides, don't we deserve it?