Universal Health Care... what would this mean...

HM2VikingRN, RN · Feb 6, 2008

Fortunately, most people do what I do and scroll right past all those graphics. The point of debate is to insert your own opinion, not Paul Grubman's.
~faith,
Timothy.

Informed decisions can only be made with objective sourced data. My challenge has been to provide sourced data that demonstrates how CDHP/HDHP control costs and improve patient health outcomes. I have yet to see any credible evidence that it would be an optimal approach while there is substantial evidence to the contrary.

Every bit of evidence from the world stage and between the states shows that universal coverage works better both from an economic performance standpoint AND in patient outcomes.

Evidence based practice requires us as professionals to examine data to design, evaluate and implement interventions.

BTW the columnists name is Paul Krugman. Misstating his name could be taken as a slur and I am quite sure that you would not do that deliberately.

Jolie, BSN · Feb 6, 2008

Responsible coporate employers provide health insurance to their employees. Failing to provide health benefits on a corporate level is the same as not paying your taxes as an individual. Part of the solution is to adopt a pay or play requirement for business./QUOTE]
Why do you single out corporate employers?
Responsible employers (of any size or configuration) are those that provide the wages, benefits and working conditions they have promised their employees. That may or may not include health insurance, a matter to be decided by the employer and employee, not Big Brother.
Why stop at health insurance? Why not insist that "responsible employers" provide their employees with housing, food, clothing and transportation as well. After all, these items are just as important, if not more so than healthcare. Why give an employee any salary at all? Why not just promise to take care of him since he is seemingly incapable of doing so?
Oh, I get it! That's what we have government for!

Jolie, BSN · Feb 6, 2008

Evidence based practice requires us as professionals to examine data to design, evaluate and implement interventions.
So give us a study, done here in the United States, that compares various options for healthcare delivery and financing and which clearly shows the costs/benefits of each.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Feb 6, 2008

I think that we can use the performance data of the following to make a prima facia case as models for designing a better system:

1. VA medical system

2. FEBP

Rgds

allnurses Guide · Feb 6, 2008

Jolie, BSN · Feb 6, 2008

I think that we can use the performance data of the following to make a prima facia case as models for designing a better system:
1. VA medical system
2. FEBP
Rgds

Those are two plans designed to provide services for specific, small segments of society. Even if I were to accept your belief that they are efficient, cost-effective systems, there is absolutely no evidence that they would perform as well when applied to society at large. In fact, I'm quite certain they wouldn't.

You can not extrapolate data from one small segment of society and expect it to fit every other segment, just as data from adult drug studies can not be applied to neonates.

Why do proponents of government-mandated, taxpayer-funded healthcare continuously refuse to produce relevant study data?

Woodenpug, BSN · Feb 6, 2008

I'd like to make an informed decision.

What I've seen here is good solid data from one side of the issue and "you bad" from the other. No panacea exists, but the position from sticking one's head in the sand is less than favorable.

Jolie, BSN · Feb 6, 2008

NBC is now reporting that Obama not only surpassed Hillary in terms of states on Super Tuesday (13 to 8), but he out-earned her in delegates as well. I guess it wasn't such a great day for Hillary after all!

Simplepleasures · Feb 6, 2008

NBC is now reporting that Obama not only surpassed Hillary in terms of states on Super Tuesday (13 to 8), but he out-earned her in delegates as well. I guess it wasn't such a great day for Hillary after all!

But what a great day for Obama, who is even more liberal than Hillary Clinton!! :w00t:

arelle68 · Feb 7, 2008

Think of the things that the government controls now. Are any of these things run efficiently, or sensibly, or on a budget? NO! Extrapolate that into a health care system. A nightmare waiting for us to fall asleep!

ShaunES · Feb 7, 2008

Think of the things that the government controls now. Are any of these things run efficiently, or sensibly, or on a budget? NO! Extrapolate that into a health care system. A nightmare waiting for us to fall asleep!

The argument that American government is uniquely incompetent, and cannot do things that every other nation in the world can do, is simply nonsense. Not only has America, and the American government achieved many things that other countries have not, America has so many resources and the improvement in care and cost from moving to UHC is so large that even with incredible inefficiencies it would still be a good idea.

It is irrelevant whether this is a "socialist" policy; it's effective. It costs less and provides better care to more people, and as a result is used literally everywhere else in the entire world. Those who want to ensure that society remains ideologically committed to market capitalism need to look for other issues, as if they cling to this one they will only end up providing evidence against their position.

According to the World Health Organisation, average American individual spending on healthcare is $3371 per year. Since this includes the uninsured and those covered by their employers, actual costs are higher. For comparison:

Australia: $1017

Canada: $916

Sweden: $532

United Kingdom: $397

The first of those is the second-highest in the world - meaning that Americans pay, not including taxes, more than three times as much as citizens of any other nation. This would be somewhat justifiable if they received better healthcare, but again - 28% have no care at all, life expectancy is below all other developed nations, and general health rating is below all other developed nations.

It is commonly assumed that this difference in cost is because under UHC systems, higher taxes are required to fund the system. Not so. As mentioned, UHC is a great deal cheaper than private healthcare, and as a result America's health-related taxation is also the highest in the world. According to the OECD, in 2006, American government spending on healthcare was $2887 per person. For comparison:

Australia: $2106

Canada: $2338

Sweden: $2468

United Kingdom: $2372

American healthcare taxes are in fact the highest in the OECD, with France second at $2714. In conclusion, every single UHC system in the world costs less money for individuals, requires lower taxes, and provides better care to more people than the American health care system. By implementing UHC in the U.S., things can only get better.

Simplepleasures · Feb 7, 2008

The argument that American government is uniquely incompetent, and cannot do things that every other nation in the world can do, is simply nonsense. Not only has America, and the American government achieved many things that other countries have not, America has so many resources and the improvement in care and cost from moving to UHC is so large that even with incredible inefficiencies it would still be a good idea.
It is irrelevant whether this is a "socialist" policy; it's effective. It costs less and provides better care to more people, and as a result is used literally everywhere else in the entire world. Those who want to ensure that society remains ideologically committed to market capitalism need to look for other issues, as if they cling to this one they will only end up providing evidence against their position.
According to the World Health Organisation, average American individual spending on healthcare is $3371 per year. Since this includes the uninsured and those covered by their employers, actual costs are higher. For comparison:
Australia: $1017
Canada: $916
Sweden: $532
United Kingdom: $397
The first of those is the second-highest in the world - meaning that Americans pay, not including taxes, more than three times as much as citizens of any other nation. This would be somewhat justifiable if they received better healthcare, but again - 28% have no care at all, life expectancy is below all other developed nations, and general health rating is below all other developed nations.
It is commonly assumed that this difference in cost is because under UHC systems, higher taxes are required to fund the system. Not so. As mentioned, UHC is a great deal cheaper than private healthcare, and as a result America's health-related taxation is also the highest in the world. According to the OECD, in 2006, American government spending on healthcare was $2887 per person. For comparison:
Australia: $2106
Canada: $2338
Sweden: $2468
United Kingdom: $2372
American healthcare taxes are in fact the highest in the OECD, with France second at $2714. In conclusion, every single UHC system in the world costs less money for individuals, requires lower taxes, and provides better care to more people than the American health care system. By implementing UHC in the U.S., things can only get better.

Thank you , we need to hear from more people from counties with UHC. My relatives in Canada and Germany like their system and tell me they would not trade their system for ours. It makes my relatives laugh when I tell them that some Americans think their style of health care is tantamount to becoming a socialist, even communist, nation.