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.
kitkat, what they do is theft. I am not suggesting a government run system would solve that, but what will? A hospital has to treat. But people don't pay. And they really don't have to. They declare bankruptcy. Then I wind up paying for it.
As far as not having to satisfy patients here.... I find you make a lot of off the wall comments for someone who has never lived here.... Patients here can still sue their doctors. Doctors and nurses are still legally responsible to provide good care or suffer from their own professional body. That means patients' needs do have to be met. If they aren't you can see yourself in court or without a lisence to practice. My medical care is determined by myself and my doctor, not the government. Saying otherwise is simply untrue propaganda. We do have customers (self paying patients) and their care is no different.
There are a lot of problems with our system (I wouldn't mind decreasing the need for referals), but not having to meet patient needs just isn't one of them. We don't treat patients well because they are customers (in the US or in Canada), we treat them well because we have a legal, ethical and moral duty to do so. Look at Sick Kid's in Toronto, look at Mount Sinai, you'll see family centred care is the buzz word and it has nothing to do with "customer" care.
I understand that taxpayers should not have to pay for something for which they do not approve. I, for one, can't stand the fact that my taxes are higher because some big business receives tax breaks for some ungodly reason. Anyway, you did not respond to my mention of corporate heads taking pay cuts rather than laying off people (people who work easily as hard as the corporate swine that rule them). And perhaps you shouldn't within our current system be forced to help other people, but my question of you, nurse, is why don't you WANT to or see that maybe everyone should want to . Surely, being conservative you understand family values better than me, a mere liberal, but you can't see that in order for humans to move forward, we have to do it together, leaning on one another when needed. Why can't you see that something as important as healthcare for our little group of humans is not something that should be subject to whims of the people with the most money?
Proceeding with the typical conservative ideas will not help us as a race. After all that you've read even on this board alone about businesses, from former medical reviewers at insurance companies, from doctors, and many of your peers, why don't you see that many conservatives ( the ones with power) are concerned with more money and more power. Just like you, they think they deserve ever more wealth and power, no mater how they get it--the bottom line is all that matters. And I don't buy the notion that businesses help us by creating jobs, because if there were a way to obtain cheaper labor through total automation of some kind, they would replace every single employee in a second. Are these the knd of people who should be controlling our healthcare?
A note about "customers". I was a waiter for seven years and while I certainly liked many of them, including some regulars, as a general rule I hated customers. "Customers" is ofcourse a word invented by business people and it has no meaning for me whatsoever. Customers do NOT have power--we have to pretend to like/care about them to get their money. AS another nurse said on this site, we care about PATIENTS because we ought to, because it is our duty and it is ethically compelling. These concepts seem to escape the comprehension of most conservatives. Patients are someone to care about, customers is a useless term to people with a soul. Sorry--that was harsh.
Your arguements, Kitkat, seem well prepared with many statistics and some facts, but we are alive on a beautiful planet and selling this planet to the one who thinks he has worked the hardest is not the way to keep it revolving around the sun. Just in case you were wondering, I suppose I lean towards being a liberal, but I by no means think that there shoul be only liberals. We definitely need more than one political party to keep one another in check lest one become too extreme. In truth, many issues debated between the parties pale in comparrison to what is really going on. The masses keep fighting amongst themselves while the few with all the money (liberals and conservatives) just keep laughing all the way to the bank! I still think most of our problems center around the age-old class war. I think it is just really hard for us liberals to see enough humanity in many conservatives to trust them. And I am not coming from a point of laziness nor apathy. I think people should be responsible for their own actions, take charge of their own lives, and not expect handouts or that the world owes them something. However, there should not be powerful entities taking things away from us or making natural life anymore difficult through their own greed.
Conservatives have souls. I do not think that it means that you are any better than me because you think that I ought to give my money to other people. That doesn't mean that your soul is more sympathetic, or empathetic. It does not mean that you are more compassionate. If you want to give your money all away, then more power to you. You, Randy, however, do not have the right to make that choice for me. You do not have the right to take my money from me and pay for my neighbors third abortion for instance. You do not have the right to take my money and pay for a fifth drug inpatient treatment for an alcoholic. Give yours freely and patronizingly, but do not volunteer mine.
Do you want to work as an RN for free? Why not? If you were a true compassionate person wouldn't you volunteer your time rather than require compensation, and a union to push for more and more money, rights and benefits for you? Do not hide behind some shield of liberal bleeding heart compassionate expressions.
If money hungry CEO are all evil creatures, then prove your money means nothing and volunteer all of your time. You work to make money, do you not? Why did you go to nursing school? Was it to earn more or less money? Your patient is your customer whether you like it or not. If they did not get sick and need your care, you would not have a paycheck, my friend. Who should run hospitals in your opinion? Who should control hospital costs and expenditures?
I am alive on a beautiful planet, and in my estimation there is a God that created it. I thank God every morning for being able to walk, talk, think, breathe and eat on my own. I thank him for all the blessings that I have. I am humbled by His creations. That is my belief. I also believe that I am to ultimately be dependent on nobody but my God.
Most often liberals are resentful of people with more money because they want what they have. I am not resentful of people that earn more than me. I am not jealous, and I do not think that they owe me anything. I am happy with the little (in other's estimation) that I have. Money and power would not give me inner happiness. Thus, I do not believe that all heads of corporations are swine, Randy. I am glad there are corporations and CEO's making a profit that keeps me in a job.
You may have "pretended" to care about your customers. I do not pretend to care about my patients. I do care about them. However, my life is separate from theirs despite their income or profession or power level. There are some patients that I like better than others, and that is human nature. However, I do not like a patient better because he/she is poor, nor do I like a patient better that is rich.
And, again I say, that nobody became an RN to do it for free. We follow rules of "ethics" and rules of "supposed to", not because we are volunteers of life and love and happiness. If your intent was only to "care" for people, you would be a volunteer. You'd volunteer at homeless shelters and free clinics. Do you do that Randy?
Some of the finest registered nurses I know have never received a paycheck.
They are the nuns I have worked alongside in two states.
I am no angel but have volunteered at the free clinics in two locations for 35 years. Red Cross volunteer and pre school volunteer too.
Care for a nurse friends teen age child with a trach, G-tube, CP, and blindness. She can at least go out to eat with her husband for a few hours. Neighbor down the street has a mother in a hospital bed in the living room. She needs respite too.
And I do also work full time for pay.
I am very glad a small percentage of my taxes helps pay what your insurance does not pay for so your son has care and a mother with a balanced life.
Re redistribution of wealth: if you weren't in the top 20 of incomes in USA in the last 25 years, the odds are that your income either stayed the same or dropped. If you were in the upper 20%, the odds are that your income went up at least 60%. The "conservatives" probably will probably still be bleating "income redistribution" when 1/2 of 1% of Americans control 99% of the wealth. How can you possibly defend that?
The wealthy do not need the extra protection from society -- I fear it is truly the other way around.
My patients ARE NOT customers and I will never ever see them as such because that would mean reducing their level of importance to money! Who ever suggested to you that I or anyone else would work for free? Your limited black and white thinking is not helping your arguement. I think I should be paid and paid well for my job. How is it , in your estimation, that in order for me to think that way that I should also agree with "we have to cut cost! Fire that whole department! so what if they are people with families, we have a business to run here! Why the hell should I help them--that would mean less for me"? Why should I agree with these businesses literally making sure that they screw people as much as they can to make as much as they can? I do not think I am better than you--I think the way I see things is better for me and it seems like it would be better for the world. I can use tough love as easily as much as the next person, but the goal is to help the other person. Yes, I do donate money from every paycheck--and I'm not even religious! Go figure--donating money without a bible thumper behind me--bet thats hard for a conservative to figure out. And, oohh, I was in the Air Force, too. Imagine--a liberal in the military. How is it that people can have a sense of duty and morality without the bible. I'm off the track here.
Does it not seem strange to you that all of the professions that are geared towards helping people or the world are for the most part payed much less than the professions that are geared towards helping businesses? That is teachers, social workers, nurses, many doctors, almost anything in healthcare versus most corporate sales people, business consultants, insurance companies, a host of business administrators, etc. Businesses do not want to pour money into jobs that end at the consumer because there is no money in that for them. These people, who consider money worth while but not people should not be in charge of healthcare. How screwed up is it that Football players, these aforementioned "business professions" is what I'll call them, and car salesman make more than firemen, teachers, EMTs, and in many cases even more than the President of the country?
It is this way only because greedy ( or lets just say misguided) conservative business people see the world the way they do. Well, many of them anyway. I do not currently volunteer since I work 2 jobs--more than full time in this great healthcare system of ours--and being married too, I do not have enough time for that.
But many nurses and other healthcare professionals, such as myself will be leaving the profession because we are tired of beating our heads up against the wall ( against people who think like you). Many will stick it out and I applaud them. Perhaps I'll just become more politically active for what I believe, but work for what I want. I am sorry about the "soul" comment--I don't know you well enough to know that, and being a nurse I would probably assume that you are not soulless. Bye for now.
Peter Singer is one example of utilitarian, atheistic, morality without belief in a creator. Just one example... (You can read prior posts in regards to him if you wish).
I believe that some liberals are coming from a place in their heart that feels help should be given freely. What I disagree with, and what you fail to respond to is the notion of resentment (which is obviously displayed in posts that you have submitted), and jealousy of what in your opinion the "rich, swine, CEO's" have. While I think more money might lessen some of my own personal problems, I do realize without a shadow of a doubt that money will not provide me with inner peace an contentment with my life.
You brought up the world being a beautiful place. I agreed with that. I then expressed my belief in a creator of this beautiful world. So, now I am a "Bible-thumping conservative". I would take that as a compliment. One thing I would mention is that while you can use that as an attempted insult directed at me, you would NEVER probaly insult a Muslim person, or a Jewish person, or a Buddhist, or Hindu pesons' belief system. Why is it so easy and acceptable for certain folks on the left to Christian bash? I never brought up the term Christ, or Jesus, or Christian in the thread, Randy. Interesting that your distaste for Christian people runs so deep.
The NHS was set up just over 50 years ago and is now the largest organisation in Europe
It is recognised as one of the best health services in the world by the World Health Organisation but there need to be improvements to cope with the demands of the 21st century.
The NHS was created in 1948
We take the National Health Service for granted now, but it is only 50 years ago that health care was a luxury not everyone could afford. It is difficult today for us to imagine what life must have been like without free health care and the difference that the arrival of the NHS made to people's lives.
Just before the creation of the NHS, the services available were, as you might expect, the same as after; no new hospitals were built nor hundreds of new doctors employed. What was different was that poor people often went without medical treatment, relying instead on dubious - and sometimes dangerous - home remedies or on the charity of doctors who gave their services free to their poorest patients.
Hospitals charged
Access to a doctor was free to workers, who were on lower pay, but this didn't necessarily cover their wives or children, nor did it cover other workers or those with a better standard of living. Hospitals charged for services, though sometimes poorer people would be reimbursed. Even so, it meant paying for the service in the first place - which not everyone could afford.
The need for free health care was widely recognised, but it was impossible to achieve without the support or resources of the state.
Philanthropists and social reformers
Throughout the 19th century, philanthropists and social reformers working alone had tried to provide free medical care for the poor. One such man was William Marsden, a young surgeon, who in 1828 opened a dispensary for advice and medicines. His grandly named London General Institution for the Gratuitous Cure of Malignant Diseases - a simple four-storey house in one of the poorest parts of the city - was conceived as a hospital to which the only passport should be poverty and disease and where treatment was provided free of charge to any destitute or sick person who asked for it.
Royal Free Hospital
The demand for Marsden's free services was overwhelming. By 1844 his dispensary, now called the Royal Free Hospital, was treating 30,000 patients a year. With consultant medical staff giving their services free of charge and money from legacies, donations, subscriptions and fund-raising events, the Royal Free - now re-housed in larger premises - struggled to fulfil Marsden's vision until 1920 when, on the brink of bankruptcy, it was forced to ask patients to pay whatever they could towards their treatment - just like every other voluntary hospital in the country.
Municipal hospitals
As well as the charitable and voluntary hospitals, which tended to deal mainly with serious illnesses, the local authorities of large towns provided municipal hospitals - maternity hospitals, hospitals for infectious diseases like smallpox and tuberculosis, as well as hospitals for the elderly, mentally ill and mentally handicapped.
Mentally ill people
Mentally ill and mentally handicapped people were locked away in large forbidding institutions, not always for their own benefit but to save other people from embarrassment. Conditions were often so bad that many patients became worse, not better.
Older people
Older people who were no longer able to look after themselves also fared badly. Many ended their lives in the workhouse - a Victorian institution feared by everyone - where paupers did unpaid work in return for food and shelter. Workhouses changed their names to Public Assistance Institutions in 1929, but their character, and the stigma attached to them, remained.
The National Health Service became reality on 5 July 1948. It was a momentous achievement and everybody wanted the new service to work.
However, food was still rationed, building materials were short, there was a dollar economic crisis and a shortage of fuel. The war had created a housing crisis - alongside post-war re-building of cities, and the designation of overspill areas, the New Towns Act (1946) created major new centres of population and all needed health services.
Administrative difficulties
The NHS brought hospital services, family practitioner services (doctors, pharmacists, opticians and dentists) and community-based services into one organisation for the first time. But it was not easy. Holding everything together and keeping everyone on board continued to create administrative difficulties for years.
Costs
Financial problems, however, were worse. It was impossible to predict the day-to-day costs of the new service and public expectations rose. Medical science was rapidly gathering pace, hospital beds for tuberculosis were closed, allowing cash to be released for other services.
More mothers were wanting their babies delivered in hospital, cardiac surgery was being applied to rheumatic heart disease, and the first hip replacements were beginning to be performed.
But initial estimates of the cost of the NHS were soon exceeded as newer, more expensive and more frequently used drugs were developed.
fergus51
6,620 Posts
kitkat, what they do is theft. I am not suggesting a government run system would solve that, but what will? A hospital has to treat. But people don't pay. And they really don't have to. They declare bankruptcy. Then I wind up paying for it.
As far as not having to satisfy patients here.... I find you make a lot of off the wall comments for someone who has never lived here.... Patients here can still sue their doctors. Doctors and nurses are still legally responsible to provide good care or suffer from their own professional body. That means patients' needs do have to be met. If they aren't you can see yourself in court or without a lisence to practice. My medical care is determined by myself and my doctor, not the government. Saying otherwise is simply untrue propaganda. We do have customers (self paying patients) and their care is no different.
There are a lot of problems with our system (I wouldn't mind decreasing the need for referals), but not having to meet patient needs just isn't one of them. We don't treat patients well because they are customers (in the US or in Canada), we treat them well because we have a legal, ethical and moral duty to do so. Look at Sick Kid's in Toronto, look at Mount Sinai, you'll see family centred care is the buzz word and it has nothing to do with "customer" care.