Socialized/Universal/Single Payer/Government Funded Health care....why?

MBANurse · Dec 28, 2007

Well, I guess this could be argued till the cows come home. 2008 will tell. Curious, what will you do if a single payer system were to be enacted?

That depends on what options I have available to me. If there is such a system in place if I can opt out in the form of tax credits or rebates; I'll do that.

If I have to suck it up.. well I'll follow the rest of the sheeple. Then as people start to wail and cry about the system that costs them more and treats less I'll point and laugh.

Simplepleasures · Dec 28, 2007

That depends on what options I have available to me. If there is such a system in place if I can opt out in the form of tax credits or rebates; I'll do that.
If I have to suck it up.. well I'll follow the rest of the sheeple. Then as people start to wail and cry about the system that costs them more and treats less I'll point and laugh.

I like the concept of allowing people to opt out, BUT I dont think it is feasable, so IF you end up a sheeple, and it works out, I get to tell you I told you so, and vice versa. I was worried that you folks might start a revolt! Im glad to hear that you havent spouted that "give me liberty or give me death" stuff, when it come to healthcare, that is.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Dec 28, 2007

Viking,
Your citations are not academically referenced. Your sources are not subjective. YOUR sources cherry pick the information that they want to.
Freedom42;
THERE are lots of sources in the first post that are not blogs or opinions... or at least they are no more opinions than what pnhp is offering.
Just like I said

Each of the sources that I [posted was published in an academic journal with a posted reference list. Original article text is freely available for the reader. The articles are freely available and can be read with an open mind. OECD, The Commonwealth Fund and PNHP sources essentially agree that the US health care system of inequitable access presents a real threat to the future economic viability of the US.

See this graph:

Assuring equality of access to health care services is NOT assuring equality of results. Our lack of a rational health care system places our country at risk for economic decline.

MBANurse · Dec 28, 2007

Assuring equality of access to health care services is NOT assuring equality of results. Our lack of a rational health care system places our country at risk for economic decline.

Then what it is when you take money from me in the form of taxes and give it to someone else in the form of health care?

HM2VikingRN, RN · Dec 28, 2007

My thinking is guided by core nursing values:

Caring is best demonstrated by a nurse's ability to embody the five core values of professional nursing. Core nursing values essential to baccalaureate education include human dignity, integrity, autonomy, altruism, and social justice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=15682160&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google

The point that I think is being missed is that the insured are already paying for the uninsured in the form of premium cost shifts to pay for the costs of the uninsured that are not reimbursed. A well designed system brings everyone into the pool. Everyone is contributing towards the cost of health care. I posted slides earlier that discuss how to achieve universal coverage.

MBANurse · Dec 28, 2007

My thinking is guided by core nursing values:
Caring is best demonstrated by a nurse's ability to embody the five core values of professional nursing. Core nursing values essential to baccalaureate education include human dignity, integrity, autonomy, altruism, and social justice.

Thats great...

But what is it called when you take from one and give to another to even it out?

My point is...

Taxes are going to go up for everyone; things will not be covered. THe government will bungle this the same way that they bungle everything... then we will be stuck with a more ineffiecent system that costs more.

IT SOUNDS GREAT BUT WILL NOT WORK.

Sorry

and btw... how do those that will not, can not,do not work contribute to the system? No income means no taxes... low income means no taxes... so, no not everyone will be contributing.

BBFRN, BSN, PhD · Dec 28, 2007

Thats great...
and btw... how do those that will not, can not,do not work contribute to the system? No income means no taxes... low income means no taxes... so, no not everyone will be contributing.

They are the same people who aren't contributing now, and who are receiving Medicare/Medicaid (not us), correct? So, it's better to pay into a system that we don't benefit from at all?

HM2VikingRN, RN · Dec 28, 2007

thats great...
but what is it called when you take from one and give to another to even it out?
my point is...
taxes are going to go up for everyone; things will not be covered. the government will bungle this the same way that they bungle everything... then we will be stuck with a more ineffiecent system that costs more.
it sounds great but will not work.
sorry
and btw... how do those that will not, can not,do not work contribute to the system? no income means no taxes... low income means no taxes... so, no not everyone will be contributing.

how are these positions congruent with the army core values that you are bound to uphold?

http://www.goarmy.com/life/living_the_army_values.jsp

your claims that a universal health care system cannot be built are not supported by the available evidence from the world stage.

i encourage you to research and read more about poverty and work at cbpp.org, epi.org and the center for american progress. the hard core unemployed represent a very small percentage of those in poverty in the us. the reality of our system is that 40% of patients have significant access problems to affordable health care. assuming that 25% of the population falls in the working poor or below income levels means that a significant number of middle class families are experiencing health insecurity. i am not interested in equality of results but i want to make sure that we as a society do everything possible to reduce barriers to achievement of which poor health is a significant issue.

poverty is a risk factor for poor health.

poor health is a risk factor for poverty.

MBANurse · Dec 29, 2007

how are these positions congruent with the army core values that you are bound to uphold?
loyalty
duty
respect
selfless service
honor
integrity
personal courage

my friend i find it hard to believe that you are preaching to me about the army values.

loyalty-

bear true faith and allegiance to the us constitution, the army, your unit, and other soldiers.

be loyal to the nation and its heritage. loyalty is a two-way street: you should not expect loyalty without being prepared to give it as well.

the loyalty of your people is a gift they give you when, and only when, you deserve it--when you train them well, treat them fairly, and live by the concepts you talk about.

remember soldiers fight for each other--loyalty is that commitment.

loyalty extends to all members of all components of the army. both the reserve component--army national guard and army reserve--and army civilians all play an increasingly active role in the army's mission

i am loyal to my commander in chief; to the officers appointed above me and to my subordinates. i am loyal to the nation and will never do her harm. i am willing to fight and die to save my country and my soldiers.

duty

fulfill your obligations.

the essence of duty is acting in the absence of orders or direction from others, based on an inner sense of what is morally and professionally right....

duty begins with everything required of you by law, regulation, and orders; but it includes much more than that. as a professionals do your work not just to the minimum standard, but to the very best of your ability. commit to excellence in all aspects of your professional responsibility so that when the job is done they can look back and say, "i couldn't have given any more."

take the initiative, figuring out what needs to be done before being told what to do. what's more, take full responsibility for your actions and those of your subordinates.

never shade the truth to make the unit look good--or even to make others feel good. instead, follow your higher duty to the army and the nation

i seek ways to better educate my soldiers, ensure that they are trained so that they will survive in combat; i seek to ensure that my family will have all that is needed should i fall; to ensure that their needs are met physically and emotionally. this means that they are taught personal responsibilty and accountabilty. the whole nation should be. finally i have sought to educate myself while at the same time meeting the needs of my family. i worked and sacrificed sleep, time and other comforts so that i would better my position because i was taught that we earn our place in the world... not given it.

respect

treat people as they should be treated.

army leaders honor everyone's individual worth by treating all people with dignity and respect.

the leader who feels and gives the respect which is due to others cannot fail to inspire in them regard for himself. while he who feels, and hence manifests, disrespect toward others, especially his subordinates, cannot fail to inspire hatred against himself.

respect for the individual forms the basis for the rule of law, the very essence of what makes america. in the army, respect means recognizing and appreciating the inherent dignity and worth of all people. this value reminds you that your people are your greatest resource.

respecting individuals is not merely agreeing with their positions for the sake of peace. i respect my commander but if he is about to make a poor decision i respectfully tell him so; and he does the same for me. respect for soldiers and people in general means that sometimes you have to tell them no to the things that they want; as they are not really what is best for them; or in this case the nation.

selfless service:

put the welfare of the nation, the army, and your subordinates before your own.

selfless service leads to organizational teamwork and encompasses discipline, self-control and faith in the system.

selfless service means doing what's right for the nation, the army, your organization, and your people--and putting these responsibilities above your own interests.

the needs of the army and the nation come first. selfless service means that you don't make decisions or take actions that help your image or your career, for a team to work, the individual has to give up self-interest for the good of the whole. the requirement for selflessness doesn't decrease with one's rank; it increases.

that is exactly what i am doing; even with my anti-government handout position. to me; the welfare of the nation is at risk when we teach our citizens that they do not have to earn their way in the world and expect everything to be handed to them. if we foster an attitude of entitlement then we will lose the drive spark and innovation that has made the united states the greatest country on earth.

i would lay down my life to complete the mission and to protect my brethern soldiers. doesn't mean that i should open my wallet to everyone who is unmotivated or too lazy to better themselves.

honor:

live up to all the army values.

what is life without honor? degradation is worse than death. - lieutenant general thomas j. "stonewall" jackson

honor provides the "moral compass" for character and personal conduct in the army.

though many people struggle to define the term, most recognize instinctively those with a keen sense of right and wrong, those who live such that their words and deeds are above reproach.

honor is demonstrating an understanding of what's right and taking pride in that reputation means this: live up to all the army values. implicitly, that's what you promised when you took your oath of office or enlistment. you made this promise publicly, and the standards--army values are also public. to be an honorable person, you must be true to your oath and live army values in all you do

i live my life with honor. i come from rural kentucky which is the poorest part of the country. my family was poor as can be; however, i didn't know because there was always food; even if we had to grow it/slaughter/hunt for it. there were always clothes even if they were bought at a yard sale or thrift shop. i was taught early on that there is no such thing as free in this world and that if you want or need anything you have to earn it. the world owes you absolutely nothing. honor is not accepting handouts. honor is make the appropriate choices for my family; my soldiers and myself. teaching anyone anything other than they need to work; study and sacrifice to get the things that they want is what is without honor.

do what's right--legally and morally.

the american people rightly look to their military leaders not only to be skilled in the technical aspects of the profession of arms, but also to be men of integrity.

people of integrity consistently act according to principles--not just what might work at the moment. people of integrity do the right thing not because it's convenient or because they have no choice. they choose the right thing because their character permits no less.

conducting yourself with integrity has three parts:

[color=#ff9900]«mseparating what's right from what's wrong.

[color=#ff9900]«m always acting according to what you know to be right, even at personal cost.

[color=#ff9900]«m saying openly that you're acting on your understanding of right versus wrong.

integrity: the ability to seperate right from wrong; to do what is right even in the face of personal sacrifice. to be able to openly say what that your actions are guided on your belief of right and wrong. see the paragraph above. it is wrong to take from one and give to another.. just to even things out. i firmly believe that an attempt by the leftist to move this country towards (more) socialism/collectivism will in fact be the downfall of the nation. i have the integrity to state this belief. as an american i have the right to express my beliefs and as an honorable person i let my principles guide me.

face fear, danger, or adversity both physical or moral.

personal courage isn't the absence of fear; rather, it's the ability to put fear aside and do what's necessary.

personal courage takes two forms, physical and moral. good leaders demonstrate both.

physical courage means overcoming fears of bodily harm and doing your duty. it's the bravery that allows a soldier to take risks in combat in spite of the fear of wounds or death.

in contrast, moral courage is the willingness to stand firm on your values, principles, and convictions-even when threatened. it enables leaders to stand up for what they believe is right, regardless of the consequences. leaders who take responsibility for their decisions and actions, even when things go wrong, display moral courage. courageous leaders are willing to look critically inside themselves, consider new ideas, and change what needs changing.

i am standing up for what i believe is right. what more can be done?

i swore an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies; foreign and domestic. the leftist affront against the constitution and trying to "add" things that aren't there without the process that is afforded by the constitution is to me a domestic enemy.

your claims that a universal health care system cannot be built are not supported by the available evidence from the world stage

if it is so wonderful why are many of the nations that you are touting as a model moving towards private insurance choices to alleviate waits, problems and provide their citizens with choice..

i would suggest that you look at all the raw data yourself. without bias or the goal of creating a social system here in the us. avail yourself to sources that do "support" your worldview; in other words; think critically.

the sources that you cite have made projections about the cost of a nationalized health system in the united states. like minded and good intentioned individuals also projected costs for medicare to be about 700% less than what they are today.

looking critically at the governments inability to do anything; except maybe the military; without bungling it; leads me to believe that as good intentioned and as flawed as our system is currently... this will be worse. your trust in the government to do anything within budget and on time boggles my mind. remember; politicians are the ones who punch the buttons and there is no one less trustworthy in my opinion.

look at the income tax issue. you do realize that the personal income tax wasnt started until just after the turn of the century and when it was implemented it was meant to be temporary? but the government became used to the gluttony of spending and without the tax revenue all the politicians couldn't get their pet projects through... so here we are stuck with this horrible tax code and means for the government to steal our money.

check out this google search and read some of the links...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3aen-us%3aie-address&rlz=1i7adbr&q=nhs+budget+and+problems%2c+woes

that is the nhs from britain.

one of the flaws in the plan that you so adamantly tout here is that it will not allow people to opt out or buy private insurance because :

"whenever we allow the wealthy to buy better care or jump the queue, health care for the rest of us suffers. one need only look at the example of the nation's health insurance program for the poor, versus the national naval medical center in bethesda, md, that serves members of congress..."

yet most of the countries that you are touting as 'better' in fact allow private insurance/care to be purchased by the individuals.

http://osgoode.yorku.ca/media2.nsf/83303ffe5af03ed585256ae6005379c9/649135adf0264c4c8525701c004efc33/$file/twotier.pdf

what all the stats and charts that constantly present do not include is the number of people in other countries that purchase private health insurance to cover what is not covered by the nhs.i would look at this study..

http://www.euroframe.org/fileadmin/user_upload/euroframe/docs/2007/session4/eurof07_rebba.pdf

this article...

http://www.cnehealth.org/pubs/hjertqvist_swedish_model.htm

"the uk and sweden are not the only countries struggling with these problems. the challenge to reform healthcare is universal. other scandinavian countries such as norway, denmark, and finland could also benefit from the stockholm approach. basic financial incentives and options for workers to start their own businesses could revolutionise the delivery of healthcare in eastern europe, and sweden's independent hospitals are already attracting interest in the netherlands and germany. in future, healthcare consumers in the developed world will become less and less tolerant of long waiting lists, inadequate information, and lack of influence"

read this study..

http://www.globalization101.org/index.php?file=news1&id=90

europe, policymakers are looking for ways to continue offering universal coverage while expanding the role of private insurers. the health evidence network of the world health organization's regional office of europe published a study on cost containment and choice implications for private health care in western europe. different models for private health care in europe could include:

dominant model in which state-run health care is secondary to private insurance (u.s.);
compulsory model in which all citizens must buy private insurance (switzerland);
substitutive model in which individuals with a high enough income can opt out of the state-run insurance and buy private insurance (germany) or can buy private insurance because they earn too much for state-run insurance (netherlands);
complimentary model in which private insurance covers services not covered by state insurance, such as dental care (france, ireland, the netherlands, spain, and the united kingdom);
supplementary model which offers increased provider choice, extra amenities, and faster service (all western europe).11

and then enjoy this slideshow..

http://capitalism.org/tour/preamble5.htm

MBANurse · Dec 29, 2007

BTW the term that your chart was looking for is 'liberal'. Progressive means that progress is to be made.

I have never ever onced claimed to be 'progressive' or more appropriately..liberal or leftist or socialist or collectivist or communist or any of the synonyms.

MBANurse · Dec 29, 2007

They are the same people who aren't contributing now, and who are receiving Medicare/Medicaid (not us), correct? So, it's better to pay into a system that we don't benefit from at all?

It is my belief that we will end up paying far more than now for less quality of care.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Dec 29, 2007

The point of the graphic was that your positions did not represent a commitment to progress. Some of your postings could be taken as blaming the less fortunate for being less fortunate which could be taken as incongruent with the core nursing value of social justice and the Army core value(s) of Respect ( Treat people as they should be treated.) and Selfless service. (Put the welfare of the Nation, the Army and your subordinates before your own. Selfless service is larger than just one person.)

Undoubtedly the Europeans can learn some things from us about the "right care" dimension. However we have far more to learn from them in the areas of overall quality of health care as represented by outcomes and access.

Ultimately, the health care access issue represents one of simple fairness. I believe that every American deserves access to health care as a matter of course. Tricare has served (I assume) your family well as you have served on Active duty. FEHP serves the needs of federal employees. Minnesota Advantage serves the families of Minnesota State employees very well. Each of these plans uses the power of large groups to contain health costs and by doing that assures access to recommended preventive care for families. The key is economy of scale and bulk purchasing.

Really I think the middle option of this graph is what is achievable and congruent with our political fractiousness about this issue:

Insurance by definition is a social product. We buy insurance to reduce the risk of loss that is greater than we can bear as individuals or families. By definition that means that there is going to be redistribution from one person to another whether it is in the form of premiums or taxes. The premium model has failed us as a society because it has delivered neither efficiency or protection against loss.

I think that we as a people can design a health care system that brings everyone into the system both more efficiently and at a lower cost. I have provided links to numerous ideas on how to get there. Our love for private insurance has created an inefficient system of which fully 25% of our dollars are wasted on Administration and profit rather than being dedicated to patient care. We can and must adopt better models.

BTW I wasn't preaching about Army values. I was asking how your positions and comments were congruent with those value statements. 2 individuals can read values statements and come to different conclusions about what behaviors are congruent with those values. I can use the Navy and/or Army core values to inform my opinion about what societal approach best meets those value statements. Arguing to reduce barriers to health care access is hardly saying "give it away."

Rather from a policy standpoint it is asking what isn't working well? Why isn't it working? How can we improve the situation? In effect what universal care advocates are saying is that we as a society need to tweak the finance end of the system to reduce costs, deliver better care and make sure everone is paying into the system.