Single-payer advocates disrupt Senate Finance Committee.

Honnête et Sérieux · May 10, 2009

No doubt, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Some, however, are trying to 'prove a point' by expressing their opinion. Please understand if I find it a bit errant.

Peace to you as well.

loriangel14, RN · May 10, 2009

You're right. Individual experiences don't prove anything. Anyone can manipulate facts to support their opinion, not that they are lying, just using selective reporting.(Did you watch Sicko?)The good and bad of any system is hard to quantify because you would have to be objective and impartial. No point of view is right or wrong, just different.

Ok that's enough.I am way off topic of this thread. sorry

GCTMT · May 12, 2009

when i presented the article, i was focusing on a specific statements you made; that of satisfaction among canadians and americans. if you thought i was laying out some total argument against socialized medicine, then it may explain why you chose to take this discussion in a direction that i was not even alluding to. i am very focused and specific in my posts, and not given to tangents and non sequitor.
nonetheless, you did present the article. and i was of course free to respond in whatever manner i saw fit, and i did.
it doesn't matter if the gallup poll is "consistent." by its very own admission and definition, it's non-scientific. and if you aren't making claims based on this poll, then why was it included in the discussion? it would seem that we all could be making much better use of our time than including irrelevant sources...
they are obviously irrelevant to you. no one is forcing you to spend your time here. what i was referring to in terms of making claims, was my position on single-payer. i think it is a better option for the u.s, atleast a single-payer framework.
and i praise you for recognizing what i was saying all along...canadians are not more satisfied. so, based on that conclusion, it would be disingenuous to use that as a talking point in support of socialized medicine.
no, what i said was, "based on this research article" canadians are less satisfied with americans. and i might add, marginally.
i don't know how else to view it when you said your position was based on 'inclination,' (a variation of the actual root word you used). and unless there is someone else besides the cdc conducting research on the data presented by the jcush, there aren't too many options when it comes to sources. the authors were not errant in using this source, and their 20+ pages of references do not support implications of a narrow lit-search. it certainly is more credible than a gallup poll and opinion statements by three people on an internet forum.
whether or not there are limited options in terms of sources for this particular issue (i am guessing you are referring to the jcush data that discusses canadian/american satisfaction) is something i can not say for certain.
and i say again, this was an empirical research paper, written according to the proper standards of scientific publication...standards which discourage the prolific use of footnotes, and prefer the use of parenthetical citations. if you choose to argue against accepted practices of contemporary publication, then we will never make any progress.
"progress" in this context would most likely be defined differently by the two of us.
btw, i recognize that i hit hard sometimes, but it is not my intention to offend anyone. if i posted anything offensive, i apologize, but i try to be very careful to avoid any reference to the 'personal,' and strive to focus on evidence and the content of the discussion. i'm very literal, because i believe that is how one must be to ensure clarity and avoid misunderstanding, and i choose to both read and post in that manner.
enjoy your weekend.

you made some assertions previously that i would like substantiated (though i don't think it's actually possible). you wrote that single-payer plan "won't work" in the united states, and you used as examples hawaii, mass., wisconsin and california, which another member mentioned none of them were single-payer. i'd like to know what makes you think it won't work? it seems to me, that their is no way to know for certain whether or not it will work on a national level. i think it will work. i don't know for certain though. you used canada as example of why it won't work and reference "legendary" wait times and not enough beds. but that doesn't prove it isn't working. it has problems, granted, but it's working. no one knows if single-payer will work in the united states on a national lever until it's tried.

this thread has become completely derailed. this is what i propose to avoid furth derailment. i will start a new thread.

https://allnurses.com/social-health-care/why-do-you-391131.html#post3620164

in this thread anyone can come and discuss the reasons they believe what they believe about health care. i will set three criteria because i think they are all important.

news.

personal experience.

scholarly research.

i would ask if you wish to continue this discussion, please post on the other thread. tomorrrow, the senate finance committee is supposed to be conduction another roundtable discussion, and i would the focus of the thread to be on that, and the exclusion of single-payer advocates. thanks

markuskristian · May 12, 2009

4.5billion sounds like a good head-start towards saving money through single-payer health reforms

CANADA: "To support the reduction of wait times, the Federal Government committed to investing $4.5 billion over the next six years, beginning in 2004-05, in the Wait Times Reduction Fund."

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acces/wait-attente/index-eng.php

To further show the the significant wait times with single-payer health care, here is some stats from Ontario:

http://www.waittimes.net/waittimes/en/default.aspx?adv=0

The link above is found from this Canadian government site:

http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation/wait_times/wait_mn.html

Honnête et Sérieux · May 12, 2009

in this thread anyone can come and discuss the reasons they believe what they believe about health care. i will set three criteria because i think they are all important.
news.
personal experience.
scholarly research.
i would ask if you wish to continue this discussion, please post on the other thread. tomorrrow, the senate finance committee is supposed to be conduction another roundtable discussion, and i would the focus of the thread to be on that, and the exclusion of single-payer advocates. thanks

i won't post in a thread where the person who 'sets the criteria' doesn't even live up to those criteria, diminishes the most academic sources, and most importantly includes anecdotes.

it would be a waste of time.

tntrn, ASN, RN · May 12, 2009

4.5billion sounds like a good head-start towards saving money through single-payer health reforms
CANADA: "To support the reduction of wait times, the Federal Government committed to investing $4.5 billion over the next six years, beginning in 2004-05, in the Wait Times Reduction Fund."
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acces/wait-attente/index-eng.php
To further show the the significant wait times with single-payer health care, here is some stats from Ontario:
http://www.waittimes.net/waittimes/en/default.aspx?adv=0
The link above is found from this Canadian government site:
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/transformation/wait_times/wait_mn.html

Frightening. For a reference I looked up the wait time for prostate surgery and in the location I chose, it was at least 84 days. My DH had a prostatectomy in 12-07. At the time of diagnosis, which was 11-07, the surgeon advised making a decision as to what course of treatment to choose 'in a month, but certainly no longer than that." He chose to have it removed immediately. With the "wait time" in Canada, his cancer would have most certainly been mestatacized outside the prostate, given what they found when they did remove it. How is that a "working" system?

I also checked the wait times on orthapedic surgeries in that same location: The best was 184 days. So my carpel-meta-carpel reconstruction surgery would have to wait 6 months? By that time, I would have lost all function in my left hand. Completely and utterly unacceptable.

The fact that they have an entire website full of details with every aspect of what a wait time is, how to figure it, both for patients and health care professionals, should tell you something. Wait times are a huge problem in Canada.

No thanks.

allnurses Guide · May 12, 2009

nurses, doctors arrested but insurers get a seat at the table

5 more caregivers arrested at baucus finance committee on "florence nightingale day protests" for guaranteed, single-payer healthcare

"what a disgrace that rns and physicians are shut out and arrested while the insurance industry is given a seat at the table. we would expect that from the bush administration, not in the time of the obama administration," said nnoc/cna executive director rose ann demoro. "the baucus committee can arrest nurses, but they cannot silence the voices of rns who will continue to speak from their hearts on behalf of their patients who want and deserve real reform."...

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/may/nurses-doctors-arrested-but-insurers-get-a-seat-at-the-tablenurses-doctors-arrested-but-insurers-get-a-seat-at-the-table.html?print=t

GCTMT · May 12, 2009

I won't post in a thread where the person who 'sets the criteria' doesn't even live up to those criteria, diminishes the most academic sources, and most importantly includes anecdotes.
It would be a waste of time.

My response is on the thread link I provided.

GCTMT · May 12, 2009

nurses, doctors arrested but insurers get a seat at the table
5 more caregivers arrested at baucus finance committee on "florence nightingale day protests" for guaranteed, single-payer healthcare
"what a disgrace that rns and physicians are shut out and arrested while the insurance industry is given a seat at the table. we would expect that from the bush administration, not in the time of the obama administration," said nnoc/cna executive director rose ann demoro. "the baucus committee can arrest nurses, but they cannot silence the voices of rns who will continue to speak from their hearts on behalf of their patients who want and deserve real reform."...
http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/may/nurses-doctors-arrested-but-insurers-get-a-seat-at-the-tablenurses-doctors-arrested-but-insurers-get-a-seat-at-the-table.html?print=t

"it was the second consecutive week of protests and arrests at the finance committee. eight were arrested last week for speaking out on behalf of single-payer/guaranteed healthcare."

it's encouraging that they continue to try and achieve access to the discussion (even though now, the "roundtables" are over). it's very bothersome that we were excluded, but not surprising.

Honnête et Sérieux · May 12, 2009

Too bad that these disrupters have no idea what they are talking about.

There have been three hearings, and both physicians and nurses have been invited to attend and speak. Even the unions had representation.

GCTMT · May 12, 2009

Too bad that these disrupters have no idea what they are talking about.
There have been three hearings, and both physicians and nurses have been invited to attend and speak. Even the unions had representation.

No advocates of single-payer were at the hearings. That's the issue.

Honnête et Sérieux · May 12, 2009

How do you know? The AFL-CIO testified. So did the SEIU, the AARP, and Medicare.

Experts in economics and health policy from Harvard, MIT, GWU, Penn (school of Nursing)...just for starters. I think there were around fifty people who testified; do you know that any of them spoke AGAINST a single-payer alternative?

I think the criticism is misguided.