This is an article I came by that supports what believe and is supported by research from very respected sources. Its worth the read. I hope you find it as interesting as I did.
This idea has been called the alpha myth because it is fundamentally the root of all other myths.[1] It is the straightforward belief that Americans have access to the highest quality healthcare available in the world. A different way to present this myth is to state that citizens in other countries experience long waits for healthcare, that they must rely on generalists, and that they suffer worse outcomes as a result.
This belief is widespread and well-entrenched in the American mindset. So it is perhaps surprising that in a 10-nation 1990 survey on the level of satisfaction with the national healthcare system, the United States ranked 10th.[2] These results were then reproduced a decade later.[3] Although Americans believe the US system is the best, clearly they are not as satisfied with the healthcare they receive as are citizens of other countries.
oh they are easy. we just have way too many people that like to make it hard for the rest of us.
i remember reading here somewhere that 'too stupid to live' should be a diagnosis. well it's a real disease and it is virulent and hereditary rofl. no doubt they will find that gene soon... :chuckle:chuckle:chuckle
The real issue is what constitutes best. And the WHO's description doesn't cut it for me.
One of their three primary goals is "fairness in financing: ensuring financial protection for everyone, with costs distributed according to one's ability to pay." Why should I concede that one of the fundamental goals of a health system SHOULD be to make me pay more for my care, merely because I can. Or to put it another way, why should I have to pay for your health care?
I work long, hard hours for my money. I worked hard in school to develop the skills I need to work long hard hours for my money. The government takes my money because they can - they have men with guns who will put me in jail if I don't give them a lot of my money. They then give it to people who DON'T work long hard hours for their money. And now the World Health Organization is saying that unless I give someone else more of the money that I earned and they didn't, then we don't have a good health system.
I'm not giving the WHO the moral high ground on this one. What they're basically saying is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." You might want to look up whose quote that is before you get too enthusiastic.
I work long, hard hours for my money. I worked hard in school to develop the skills I need to work long hard hours for my money. The government takes my money because they can - they have men with guns who will put me in jail if I don't give them a lot of my money. They then give it to people who DON'T work long hard hours for their money.
Many of the poor people in this country work LONGER and WAY HARDER THAN NURSING HOURS than you do and still can't get adequate insurance. Your argument is fallacious and inflammatory. You are trying to infer that the millions of people that can't get healthcare are plain lazy, made bad choices or don't deserve it. Now, if you could actually provide REAL evidence that the countless millions that can't afford healthcare work less and easier jobs than you then bring it on.
See how easy that was. Point out the fallacious argument and poof it goes away.
"Many of the poor people in this country work LONGER and WAY HARDER THAN NURSING HOURS than you do and still can't get adequate insurance."
You don't know how many hours I work, so you don't know that your statement is true. And even if many work longer and harder than I do, many more don't work much, or don't work at all. But whether or not the poor are hardworking was not, and is not, my point. My point is that they don't have some moral claim on the money that I've earned. And that I disagree with the WHO's assertion that a good healthcare system is one which forces some people to pay for other people's healthcare.
"Your argument is fallacious and inflammatory. You are trying to infer that the millions of people that can't get healthcare are plain lazy, made bad choices or don't deserve it."
It's your interpretation of my argument that is false. I don't believe that all of the poor are lazy, but many of them are. I don't believe that they all made bad choices, but many of them did. And my fundamental point was not that they don't deserve healthcare - my point is that they don't have some moral claim on me to make me pay for their healthcare. You're putting words in my mouth. However, if you truly believe that every poor person in this country is hardworking, then you're the one that needs to provide some evidence.
Well most things people disagree on are subjective... Like the best potential president. However, when conclusive evidence (even if it is just the preponderance of evidence) points in one direction and someone just can't get it, well they do have blinders on.
You can't disagree with evidence. You can only ignore it or come up with evidence to dispute it. Someone that ignores something plain as day is putting on blinders. Shrug.
Although our system is supposed to be for all, it is not. There is a post code lottery going on for the majority in this country and this is why our system fails.
The politicians in this country constantly bang on about if the NHS is gotten rid of then we would end up like the US, only they do not mean it would be a good thing, as most people in this country, including the politicians still beleive that if an ambulance comes to pick you up, if they find out you have no insurance they leave you in the street!
The "Example 1" above works, but only if you have Adobe reader. The article itself reminds me of Mark Twain ("There are lies, da%&ed lies, and statistics.")
Example 2 is not a valid link.
Ok, so it sounds like 1) We want perfect health services (all the care you COULD EVER want), and 2) We want perfect health financing (perfect services AFFORDABLY PRICED), and 3) Fair health services.
I think we should have high goals for healthcare, but no matter which way we turn, we will find limits on resources. How those limited resources are distributed depends on many factors, but in the end, we are looking at rationing.
Rationing is one of those yucky words. "We'd never go for rationing." SURPRISE! We ration health care right now, and we'd ration health care if it were centrally controlled. This is how . . .
Central system, central (probably government) control decides the supply side of healthcare delivery (how many pts a doc, a nurse, a hospital, etc. may accept).
This is straight out of the Communist Manifesto, and the rationing is only good if you believe the government can decide what is best for you better than you can.
Current free market system has the same limited resources, only the purchaser is in control. If I decide to work harder, save more money, put my money into more health services than you, FINE. It's my money and I get to decide. I don't get the joy of paying for my neighbor's liver transplant directly r/t lifestyle choices. I can decide for myself (because that is what freedom allows me) whether or not to pay for health care for me or anyone else.
This is straight out of the conservative playbook, but in the end, it is still rationing. But it is only good rationing if you believe you can decide better than the government what is best for you.
Why are people killing themselves to get into this country if things are so bad?
Respect to all the debaters here, have a good day.
the real issue is what constitutes best. and the who's description doesn't cut it for me.
one of their three primary goals is "fairness in financing: ensuring financial protection for everyone, with costs distributed according to one's ability to pay." why should i concede that one of the fundamental goals of a health system should be to make me pay more for my care, merely because i can. or to put it another way, why should i have to pay for yourhealthcare?
i'm not giving the who the moral high ground on this one. what they're basically saying is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." you might want to look up whose quote that is before you get too enthusiastic.
:yeahthat: well said!!
unless "your health care" needs involve a child, an aged person, or an adult with severe mental or physical handicaps.....
....from which i exclude addictions and morbid obesity and their sequelae..
"Many of the poor people in this country work LONGER and WAY HARDER THAN NURSING HOURS than you do and still can't get adequate insurance."
You don't know how many hours I work, so you don't know that your statement is true. And even if many work longer and harder than I do, many more don't work much, or don't work at all. But whether or not the poor are hardworking was not, and is not, my point. My point is that they don't have some moral claim on the money that I've earned. And that I disagree with the WHO's assertion that a good healthcare system is one which forces some people to pay for other people's healthcare.
"Your argument is fallacious and inflammatory. You are trying to infer that the millions of people that can't get healthcare are plain lazy, made bad choices or don't deserve it."
It's your interpretation of my argument that is false. I don't believe that all of the poor are lazy, but many of them are. I don't believe that they all made bad choices, but many of them did. And my fundamental point was not that they don't deserve healthcare - my point is that they don't have some moral claim on me to make me pay for their healthcare. You're putting words in my mouth. However, if you truly believe that every poor person in this country is hardworking, then you're the one that needs to provide some evidence.
The issue that you are not grasping is that you are already paying for their health care, just in the most expensive and unproductive way. Every time your premium increases for your health insurance you are paying for the indigent/charity services that your and other facilities have provided. Cost are a direct result of our system ignoring the uninsured and believing that the emergency room is the answer. Have some compassion and some common economic sense about the issue. You either pay on the front end or at the back end and it always cost more on the back end.
Also even if the 47 million are the lowest form of worthless life on the planetthey will still end up in our ER one day and their problems will cost us triple what it would have if they had been able to get regular screenings and managment of chronic conditions. You as a medical professional know that if you control hypertension you can avoid in many cases stroke, heart disease and kidney failure. If we are able to manage these problems better we save millions bykeeping these patients from debilitating acute situations that lead to long and costly treatments like dialysis, Bypass, stroke that requires long term care ect.
Take the issue out of the me, me, me realm and look at it as what is in the best interest of this country and what is best for my fellow man.
BlueRidgeHomeRN
829 Posts
come on--nothing is easy.