DarrenWright

Here are the flaws in these assumptions. 1. Taking guns away is a fundamental violation of our Constitution. 2. A gun-control program respectful of the Constitution will not necessarily bring down the cost. As Canada has shown, it resulted in an extremely expensive program that took years to finally prove itself ineffective.

I am surprised. There are a lot of jobs in Atlanta. I was hired over the phone, and have been at my job for almost two years. It's a nice enough place to work. This hospital would likely be very accomodating to your school schedule, and it's right across the street from Emory. http://www.choa.org/default.aspx?id=2379

I live in Atlanta. There are lot's of apartments, and more being built. With the recent subprime issue, unfortunately, the migration of people from homes to apartments has driven up rent a bit; my last rent increase was 7%. I pay $1028/month (plus utilities), for an 860 sq ft apartment in a gated complex about 2.5 miles from Emory U. It's a nice apt. and a great area. Given the horrendous traffic conditions during the AM commute into Atlanta AND the current local gas prices (~$4/gal), I believe it is worthwhile to pay a few extra dollars to live as close as possible to your job and school. If you are going to school at Emory, there are plenty of apartments nearby, and alternative travel arrangements (metro bus, CliffBus). The weather is very nice most of the time, so I ride a motorcycle, and scooters are becoming popular. I am planning on leaving Atlanta this fall, but if I were to stay, I would probably be getting an apartment here (http://www.gables.com/sheridan), brand spanking new apartments about 3 miles from Emory. Another complex (don't remember the name) is going up at the intersection of Lavista and Cheshire Bridge...nice complex, across the street from a Publix grocery, cool little coffee shop on site, easy access to the interstate, and maybe 4-5 miles to Emory. A little seedy a few miles southwest with some adult entertainment as you go toward Monroe (closer to downtown Atlanta), but safe as any other neighborhood. I'd consider moving there as well. You may try craigslist as well. Where will you be working?

It's only instructive if you tell the whole story; in the US, the patient reserves the right to sue the surgeon, anesthesiologist, and hospital into oblivion, while Germany first persues criminal charges in medical malpractice and rarely awards punitive awards...certainly not millions of dollars as in the US. If we implement this kind of practice in the US, Sheriff Joe will have to set up many more acres of tents to house the prison population explosion; more than a few RN's and physicians will be going to jail, and the victims would lose out on big settlements. Healthcare costs will soar even more because healthcare professionals are probably more afraid of jail than a successful tort and will usher in a whole new era of defensive medical practice. The shortage of people entering the healthcare field will exponentially increase, and the vicious cycle will only get more vicious. Besides, the liberal legislature opposes caps on awards.

You rather constructed your post in a manner that makes it appear that I made the above quote...which I didn't. I'm not criticizing you, I just think it's important to point out.

These same fundraisers are occurring in socialized countries like Canada.

You are confusing a tax surplus (which is the unethical hoarding of taxpayer money), with the national debt (which also grew under Clinton).

Thank you for this link; it's good to know that people covered by private insurance have fewer health problems than those covered by gov't insurance. Also good to know that gov't insured patients have more trouble accessing the health care system. Single payer is simply another problem, not a solution.

1. What question? You asked if I'd care to elaborate, and I did. 2. BlueCross did not deny anyone any rights by any legal definition. I'm being very straight in my comments. I have never said I found anything disdainful; I'm simply making observations about the definition of a "right." Especially as how it does not apply in the manner people are attempting in this discussion. So while you are insulting me, you need to realize that the denial of reimbursements and the denial of services is not some trait unique to private insurers and providers. It is also a routine practice of gov't payor programs and gov't providers. And the denial of services for financial reasons is no more a denial of a right than if I were to demand that the gov't either pay for my guns or provide me with guns and they said no; if this happened, would you suggest that I had been denied a right?

I want to live in a society that is not influenced by the half-truths, mis-representations, and outright lies of a person who uses these very issues to improperly influence people to react emotionally, and thereby enrich him.

1. Those folks were not denied any rights by any legislative body. And currently, there is more money allocated per disease capita on HIV/AIDS than there are for other more common diseases that take far more lives. Those folks may have been denied financial coverage, but they were never denied any rights, and some have gotten the point I was making; if you are going to blur the definition of "rights" with comparisons like this, then you are opening a huge can of problems where people are going to be demanding money based on this distorted view of "rights." 2. Of course insurance companies have "denial departments." Get this...so does Medicare and Medicaid...the gov't provided system. So does the Canadian payers system. Going single-payer/socialist does not suddenly make denial of claims obsolete. You may actually find denial of claims to increase. 3. Your final comments on the use of emergency dept's for primary access; in a "single-payer"/socialized system like Canada, they are not experiencing some phenomena where people are using primary care physicians instead of ED's because it's a single-payer system. Instead, their ED's are even more overwhelmed than ours because nearly 17% of the population does not have a PCP, and even some that do have a PCP can't get an appointment. Concluding, your comments really have nothing to do with a legislative right to health care, because what you are doing is defining a right to something as the same as being able to get it for free...and that is not defined as a right in our Constitution.

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml http://onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/ Just another film. People who feel enthusiastic about this issue are just as obligated to watch this much shorter film, "Dead Meat."

1. I took a break from this topic while others, including you, continued to post away. Additionally, I have already dropped this subject; your comment is insulting. BTW, engaging in a seque on the discussion is what ticked people off, so your comment about 'changing the subject' makes no sense. 2. Are you suggesting that I am a fanatic because I won't change my mind? Will you change yours? What does that make you?

Not sure how one kind of health care can be a right, and another can't. It doesn't matter if it's elective, such as cosmetic surgery...it should still be our right to pursue. I think people need to realize that having the "right" to access something or do something does not mean we are guaranteed free access. Remember my previous post; gun ownership is a right, but it doesn't mean the gov't buys our guns for us. The moment that health care becomes "free" simply because it's defined as a right according to some constitutional interpretation, that's the moment I exercise my same right to gun and property ownership and vacations (my pursuit of happiness) and submit my receipts for my new Glock and a lakefront villa. As it stands now, I have the right to my guns and property and vacations, but I still have to pay for them myself. Not sure how officially defining health care as a "right" will make it any different. Not sure how making only certain kinds of health care a "right" makes any sense.

Mmmm, I think this is something different. Right now there is noone denied the right to healthcare. Free healthcare? Different story. And I don't know that it's either logistically or logically possible to make FREE healthcare a right. I'm trying to think of anyone in our population that is denied any rights when it comes to healthcare, and I can't think of anyone.

As was I, which is why I shared the view of another Canadian RN.

Fine. But I'd like to point out that I have just as much a right to point out the flaws in another countries system as someone like M. Moore, and if you want to make mention about what it's proper to say in open discussion, I'm going to have to start naming Canadian politicians who OPENLY 'disparage' the US health system while trolling for votes. Here is an extremly timely post in another forum that I visit from an CANADIAN who used to work as an RN in CANADA and now works as am RN in the US and is a MODERATOR for this other healthcare forum I visit. I, BTW, did not participate at all in this discussion in this forum. It's the seventh post down, and starts with "As a displaced Canadian ill comment on the taxes." Here is the link, but I'll attach the post because I don't know the ettiquette on sharing forum links even among likeminded healthcare forums. http://www.flightweb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?showtopic=32172

Defining health care as a right is pointless, just as engaging in an argument to say it's NOT a right is pointless, especially in relation to the discussions we have here. If you want me to say it's a right, then OK...it's a right. And if we decide that health care is a right based on some vague constitutional language, then we can also say car ownership is a right. So is home ownership. Internet access is a right. Gun ownership is a right, too. Anyone disagree? I own a few, and I support the right of EVERYONE to own a gun, even those Americans who might not like me. I, however, don't believe that right of gun ownership obligates me to buy that gun for them.

Sweet jiminy. I didn't bring public safety into this discussion as successful examples of socialization; would you suggest I'm not allowed to talk about the flaws in such a maneuver? Here is the point, explained as simply as possible. I apologize if I seem insulting and offend anyone, but I'm attempting to aim for the lowest common denominator. Others have already gotten the point, and to anyone who is offended, I'm sorry. During the evolution of this discussion, people attempted to make unreferenced and unqualified support for socialization by referring to the fire dept and law enforcement. I pointed out blatant and obvious flaws in that position, specifically that 73% of the fire dept. is NOT PAID. Doesn't matter what percentage of the population is covered by paid departments, the reality is that 73% of them are not paid, and it doesn't really matter why. What matters is that they are NOT PAID. If we want to make an accurate comparison, then 73% of nurses (and other health care providers), would have to be working for FREE, and the remaining 27% would have to be caring for 63% of the population. I also pointed out that there are private fire departments (i.e. Rural Metro, and a variety of smaller independent fire departments), in addition to the fact that many industries, i.e. Boeing, operate their own paid fire department because tax supported services are not capable of supporting them. I also pointed out the error in holding up law enforcement as a successful example of socialization. For every police officer in the US, there are approximately 2.5 private security officers, indicating that the majority of police protection is being provided by the private sector, not some socialized public agency that was mistakenly being held up as an example of successful socialization. And no matter how you look at it, none of these are single-payer. You can hold up these as some kind of supportive samples of socialized success, but if we look to them for solutions, we either have to INCREASE the number of private providers (like law enforcement), or make 73% of the work force volunteer and pay them a pittance in pension that is equal to roughly 2 years of social security. BTW, I don't know where you live, but you would be disheartened to find what your tax dollars buy you in regards to public safety in DC. I used to work there. Friend of mine is a police officer, and sometimes they used their own personal vehicles. Another friend was oversaw a contract to teach DC Fire (educational IT upgrade). They cut their losses and cancelled the contract because the low literacy level was to much of an obstacle. I can't take an objective position on the fire department because I used to work for two of them, but the service is essential. However, these agencies cannot be used as samples of successful socialization any more than you can use the liquor business in Pennsylvania. I wasn't picking apart "every whit and tittle," but was instead responding reasonably to flawed comparisons. I'd be disturbed to think you were attempting to suppress free speech with your characterization of my QUALIFIED statements on law enforcement and fire service.

First, these is relatively new funding, most of it implemented since the election of Pres. Bush. Second, it doesn't provide any support for the concept of single payer/socialist healthcare, for several reasons. 1. 73% of the force is VOLUNTEER. 2. Statewide assistance of 1.2 million is a drop in the bucket. If a department received the max $5k, they might be able to actually purchase replacement tires for their apparatus. 3. Most of Minnesota is covered by volunteers, which means there is minimal payroll outlay. And the AVERAGE pension payout for a 20 YEAR firefighter was a $16k lump sum payout. ($800 per year). Do you think I've disagreed with someone, or do you actually believe you've made a case for single payer/socialized health care by referencing the fire dept? Maybe Minnesota should make health care largely volunteer and pay 20 year nurses $800/year after retirement. This socialized/single payer system sounds fantastic.

No no no...I didn't say that. But as it stands now, the absolute highest I could ever pay on my income is 35%...at least federally (although I'm certain the current majority is licking their chops over the day when the current cuts expire). The highest I would pay on state (comparative to provincial), is about 9.9%. If I took the same income it would take to hit these highest possible marginal tax rates in the US , I would far and exceed those rates in places like BC. As it stands now, my income last year put me in a tax bracket where my highest marginal rate was 28%, but the gov't has neat little places where I can put money before they see it, and as a reward for putting a little of my own cash into retirement, they don't look at it as taxable income, lowering my highest possible marginal rate to 25%, and making my average tax rate 19%. Then my state tax was flat at 3%, for an average tax of 22%. My same income in BC would've been taxed at an average 34%, with a high margin of 44%. I know, I'm misinterpreting the data. But then, somehow I was able to crunch the numbers to bring myself from the cycle of average American debt to the point of a debt-free net worth of roughly three times the national average...on an RN's wage.

This is a rather inaccurate representation. I'm assuming that places like the fire and police dept. keep being presented here as a representation of successful socialization. In fact, this is not accurate. The fire dept. as a national institution is able to succeed because it is fairly unregulated, the academic element is far less intense than health care, and 73% of it's providers do so for free. Additionally, there are communities (including very wealthy communities), who are covered by private for-profit departments, and many industries (i.e. manufacturing) that employ their own career fire-fighters and operate their own fire departments within their facilities; these do not support arguments for socialization. A large percentage of the fire dept's are not tax-funded; many raise funds through business operations (i.e. operating EMS, a social hall, I know of a volunteer fire dept. that owns a tavern to obtain operating revenue, another that owns the parking facilities for an amusement park, and one that owns a McDonalds. And the police dept. does not succeed as an example of socialization because of some inherent good of socialization...in fact, they may be considered blatant failures of socialization. When you hold up the police dept. as a representation of socialization, you fail to realize that for every police officer in the US, there are approximately 2 to 2.5 private security guards, implying that less than 1/3 of our police protection is actually 'socialized.' Another reason these examples are poor is because people still die in fires in fully paid socially protected fire districts, and people still are victims of horrible crimes in socially protected police districts...sometimes even victims of the 'socialized' police themselves as the news routinely shows us. Additionally, the majority of these 'socialized' fire and police systems are union.

Folks posted around a dozen more times since I took a break from this thread three days ago. Telling me to "give it up now" is rather insulting. A little redirection of your exhortation may be in order.

Many Americans don't consider much at all about what the UN thinks; they hardly have done anyone any good anywhere else (i.e. Rawanda, E. Europe), so we hardly expect them to be influential in how we care for our children. There is no such thing as free health care. And we immunize the heck out of our children...with some exceptions that parents can (and do), decline.