After posting the piece about Nurses traveling to Germany and reading the feedback. I would like to open up a debate on this BB about "Universal Health Care" or "Single Payor Systems"
In doing this I hope to learn more about each side of the issue. I do not want to turn this into a heated horrific debate that ends in belittling one another as some other charged topics have ended, but a genuine debate about the Pros and Cons of proposed "Universal Health Care or Single Payor systems" I believe we can all agree to debate and we can all learn things we might not otherwise have the time to research.
I am going to begin by placing an article that discusses the cons of Universal Health Care with some statistics, and if anyone is willing please come in and try to debate some of the key points this brings up. With stats not hyped up words or hot air. I am truly interested in seeing the different sides of this issue. This effects us all, and in order to make an informed decision we need to see "all" sides of the issue. Thanks in advance for participating.
Michele
I am going to have to post the article in several pieces because the bulletin board only will allow 3000 characters.So see the next posts.
Great to see this discussion is still alive. Universal health care is fundamental to a civilised, respectful, caring and intelligent social order. Need I say more.
So am I to understand that the U.S. is not "a civilised, respectful, caring or intelligent social order?"
Makes one wonder why so many immigrants are beating down the door to get in.
great to see this discussion is still alive. universal health care is fundamental to a civilised, respectful, caring and intelligent social order. need i say more.
a member from oz? i see that howard got replaced, how is that working out for ya'll? granted i know little about oz healthcare, i will find out real fast.
all i need to see is the % of gdp spent and one can estimate the quality.
in reality healthcare is simple. it is a service. it is not a right, it has nothing to do with naturual law, and it has to be paid for. if we create an unlimited demand for a limited product the price will go up (please read "free to choose" by milton and rose freidman). americans (of course) have made the rational choice to use the price mechanism; while euro-trash surrender monkeys use the "que". as a follow on to the aforementioned book one needs to read "capitalism and freedom" and "tyranny of the status quo" both by milton/rose freidman.
i believe that there is an online presentation of his famous series "free to choose" and a follow on by his son david.
in his book, the machinery of freedom, friedman developed a form of anarcho-capitalism where all goods and services including law itself can be produced by the free market. this differs from the version proposed by murray rothbard, where a legal code would first be consented to by the parties involved in setting up the anarcho-capitalist society. friedman advocates an incrementalist approach to achieve anarcho-capitalism by gradual privatization of areas that government is involved in, ultimately privatizing law and order itself.
this version of anarcho-capitalism has been called the "chicago school" version[2]. friedman's version of individualist anarchism is not based on the assumption of inviolable natural rights but rather rests on a cost/benefit analysis of state versus no state.[3]
a member from oz? i see that howard got replaced, how is that working out for ya'll? granted i know f-all about oz healthcare, i will find out real fast.
all i need to see is the % of gdp spent and one can estimate the quality.
in reality healthcare is simple. it is a service. it is not a right, it has nothing to do with naturual law, and it has to be paid for. if we create an unlimited demand for a limited product the price will go up (please read "free to choose" by milton and rose freidman). americans (of course) have made the rational choice to use the price mechanism; while euro-trash surrender monkeys use the "que". as a follow on to the aforementioned book one needs to read "capitalism and freedom" and "tyranny of the status quo" both by milton/rose freidman.
i believe that there is an online presentation of his famous series "free to choose" and a follow on by his son david.
in his book, the machinery of freedom, friedman developed a form of anarcho-capitalism where all goods and services including law itself can be produced by the free market. this differs from the version proposed by murray rothbard, where a legal code would first be consented to by the parties involved in setting up the anarcho-capitalist society. friedman advocates an incrementalist approach to achieve anarcho-capitalism by gradual privatization of areas that government is involved in, ultimately privatizing law and order itself.
this version of anarcho-capitalism has been called the "chicago school" version[2]. friedman's version of individualist anarchism is not based on the assumption of inviolable natural rights but rather rests on a cost/benefit analysis of state versus no state.[3]
david is kind of a nut.....
i guess you have not noticed that our american economy, based on friedman and the chicago school is in the crapper. we have been on an expensive experiment but are now in real terms and at the cost of real lives proving that friedman's ideas and reagonomics leads to disaster. mourn if you must for unregulated capitalism, but it is dead.
along with it is unbridled greed in our health care system. the insurers likewise have been the architects of their own demise. we have given them more than an arm and a leg and they have delayed, denied and thwarted necessary care. we are tired of their obstructionism and greed. we want a system like hr 676, expanded and improved medicare for all.
as for the british national health system, at least all are covered with some kind of care. the poorest brit has a longer life expectancy than the richest american, simply because they have access to health care. i have a friend who has duel citizenship. she does not have insurance here. she works for a company that does not offer it and does not make enough to be able to afford individual premiums (over $500/month). but if she gets sick, she at least can go 'home' and get the care she needs. she figures she will retire in england specifically for the purpose of not having to worry about medicines and care.
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
While the U.S. Spends Heavily on Health Care, a Study Faults the Quality
American medical care may be the most expensive in the world, but that does not mean it is worth every penny.
A study to be released Thursday highlights the stark contrast between what the United States spends on its health system and the quality of care it delivers, especially when compared with many other industrialized nations.
...The report, the second national scorecard from this influential health policy research group, shows that the United States spends more than twice as much on each person for health care as most other industrialized countries.
But it has fallen to last place among those countries in preventing deaths through use of timely and effective medical care, according to the report by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research group in New York. ....
In the United States we have constitutional rights such as free speech and entitlement rights such as everyone entitled to an education. Universal Healthcare would fall into entitlement rights. People are dying because they can't get the healthcare that they need. The healthcare system we have now does not work. I can not believe that anyone in the healthcare profession would not support some type of healthcare that would include everyone. Are we placing value on a persons life simply because he or she can afford insurance? The medical technology may be available but it is available only to those that can afford it and that my friends is wrong.
While the U.S. Spends Heavily on Health Care, a Study Faults the Quality
American medical care may be the most expensive in the world, but that does not mean it is worth every penny.
A study to be released Thursday highlights the stark contrast between what the United States spends on its health system and the quality of care it delivers, especially when compared with many other industrialized nations.
...The report, the second national scorecard from this influential health policy research group, shows that the United States spends more than twice as much on each person for health care as most other industrialized countries.
But it has fallen to last place among those countries in preventing deaths through use of timely and effective medical care, according to the report by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research group in New York. ....
So here we have proof again that we are being bilked by the private insurance companies and it is to the tune of Billions of dollars (about $350 Billion).
Let's raise our voices louder and louder that we need to get rid of these lecherous private health care companies! Tell everybody you know (including your Senators and Congressman/woman) that you want HR 676, Expanded and Improved Medicare for All.
You have got to be kidding me! Why don't you look up the 2001 white paper the Tory Party published comparing the NHS to the rest of the civilized world? The data does not lie, the NHS is terrible compared to other countries/systems. And don't even start on me about how the waiting times have come down. I know that Labour has consistently cooked the books in that regard, as I would expect.
The primary reason is the amount of money spent. The UK spends 7% of GDP on healthcare and the USA spends 16%. No mystery there.
Are you really quoting data from 7 years ago to help strengthen your argument, of course nothing could have changed in the UK within the 7 years and government changes.
Specializes in ICU, Paeds ICU, Correctional, Education.
a member from oz? i see that howard got replaced, how is that working out for ya'll? granted i know little about oz healthcare, i will find out real fast.
all i need to see is the % of gdp spent and one can estimate the quality.
in reality healthcare is simple. it is a service. it is not a right, it has nothing to do with naturual law, and it has to be paid for. if we create an unlimited demand for a limited product the price will go up (please read "free to choose" by milton and rose freidman). americans (of course) have made the rational choice to use the price mechanism; while euro-trash surrender monkeys use the "que". as a follow on to the aforementioned book one needs to read "capitalism and freedom" and "tyranny of the status quo" both by milton/rose freidman.
i believe that there is an online presentation of his famous series "free to choose" and a follow on by his son david.
in his book, the machinery of freedom, friedman developed a form of anarcho-capitalism where all goods and services including law itself can be produced by the free market. this differs from the version proposed by murray rothbard, where a legal code would first be consented to by the parties involved in setting up the anarcho-capitalist society. friedman advocates an incrementalist approach to achieve anarcho-capitalism by gradual privatization of areas that government is involved in, ultimately privatizing law and order itself.
this version of anarcho-capitalism has been called the "chicago school" version[2]. friedman's version of individualist anarchism is not based on the assumption of inviolable natural rights but rather rests on a cost/benefit analysis of state versus no state.[3]
david is kind of a nut.....
by your own admission you know little about oz health care. the problem with you guys is that your benchmarks aren't off the bottom line. your current health care system is the bottom line. if you are going to measure how good a health care system is by how much is spent on it you are never going to understand it's complexities. if course a private system is going to cost more. it's bound by profit...derrrrr!
There are also extensive waiting times for elective surgeries at public hospitals. Although waiting lists for the most urgent elective surgery for heart disease and cancer are almost nonexistent, there are long waiting lists for orthopedic surgery (median wait for total hip replacement is 88 days; 10% of patients waited over 345 days in 1999 to 2000), and cataract surgery (median is 73 days; 10% waited more than 316 days). One of the attractions of health insurance is the ability to bypass public hospital waiting lists.
Oz is comparable to other western nations as to the expenditure rate. I would have guessed 9% as that seems to be the norm for Western Europe, with some variance.
Qualitatively healthcare is healthcare. The doctors in the US, UK, Fr, West Germany, Oz, Bel, ect are all good. The key difference is spending. The US spends more and gets more.
In any event I advise anyone to read "Free to Choose".
Are you really quoting data from 7 years ago to help strengthen your argument, of course nothing could have changed in the UK within the 7 years and government changes.
Yes,
As you are very well aware macro-trends do not change a lot in such a short period of time (7 years). No mystery.
Jolie, BSN
6,375 Posts
So am I to understand that the U.S. is not "a civilised, respectful, caring or intelligent social order?"
Makes one wonder why so many immigrants are beating down the door to get in.