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.
Timothy, you have faith in corporate America to care about you and have your best interest at heart. Yikes, your job must not have been outsourced yet.
I have no faith in corporate America whatsover. Corporate America, however, isn't an entity; it's a bunch of entities. Therefore, I can pick and choose from corporations that at least must give lip service to my needs and wants in order to garner business.
With Uncle Daddy, the thing that disappears is choice. When choice disappears, so does any concept of actually caring about MY needs. And that leads to a complete lack of compassion, real or feigned. I just don't TRUST anybody, corporate America or Uncle daddy to have my best interest at heart when such choices are made. With corporate America, their choices are counterbalanced by MY choice to go to a competitor with my business. When Uncle Daddy takes my choice away from me, that's not freedom, it's dictatorial. He has NO RIGHT to make my choice for me. NONE. I detest the concept at its very roots. Our forefathers committed to revolution for less.
An all-powerful government is not a friend of the people; it's the enemy. Our forefathers were well aware of this, having stripped the government of the right to do a whole host of things, including the very thing being discussed here. At its roots, universal healthcare is tyranny. It's not about providing healthcare for some, but about standardizing it at the lowest common denominator for all. Wanting to help those less fortunate is one thing. Doing so by using MY wallet and removing MY choice is another. By its very definition, charity cannot be coerced. By its very definition, dictating MY choices has nothing to do with charity and everything to do with control. Anytime the government tells you that it can run your life for you better than you: it's time to be very afraid. That's the nature of power. When you empower the government at the expense of the people, you empower the government to be an enemy of the people.
Not only have I never been 'outsourced', I would not consider such an outcome to be a negative consequence in my life. I'm not committed to any corporation; why should they be committed to me? Instead, I chose a job and a career path that more or less ensures my marketability to a variety of corporations in a variety of economic situations. Come layoff or depression, people still need nurses, and need them in great numbers.
President Bush on Thursday said, "There is no question in my mind that a proper role for the federal government is to help the poor and the elderly and the diseased get health care. We'll do that...."
That's the proper role of RELIGION. Our founding fathers did not create the wall of separation between church and state first contructed in 1947 and not before; the Cabal did. The above concept in the hands of government is nothing short of RELIGION as a government tool.
In this case, THIS proposed religion comes complete with mandatory offerings to the altar of UNCLE DADDY, in exchange for his divine guidance in such matters.
You can't have it both ways. Either the government has NO over-riding role here, or usurping an exclusive role for UNCLE DADDY is the equivalent of creating a social progressive IDOL.
The one is cognitive dissonance, creating the role of religion at the expense of religion. The other opens the door for social conservatives to rule every function of your life, should they hold and keep power. In that case, you have no right to complain as you are advocating that the government may take on the role of religion, as it sees fit, and as those that run the government see fit.
Either outcome is either completely illogical (dissonant), or completely terrifying (tyranny).
I still want that healthcare that my congresspeople get that I help pay for through my tax dollars. Our state representitive (we only have 1) has a wonderful healthcare poicy and she doesn't even have to show up for work to receive benefits. HMMMMM almost sounds like universal healthcare.
Uncle Daddy has been negleting his poor step-children, the ones who have worked hard all their lives, had the bad luck of getting fired, getting really sick, and still waiting for Social Security Disability to be approved after 1 1/2 years, home, car, savings, GONE. There are PLENTY of folks out there just like me, why is it so EASY for some seemingly caring people to forget this group of FORMERLY hard working people who NEVER asked for any help before becoming ill. Read the postings on the Forum, "Social Security Disability Coalition".Some of these folks have died while waiting for disability. There IS a better way, and those who think that just because we get universal healthcare, it is a first step toward socialism is just plain foolish. Germany, England, Australia,Canada, and many other countries in Europe, have socialized medicine-DOES NOT make them a communist country.
Specializes in burn, geriatric, rehab, wound care, ER.
Timothy,
your arguments are well thought out, your wordsmanship is superb but your ideas are just not practical. Universal health care is the only way to provide quality, affordable health care to everyone in the country, for the benefit of everyone in the country. We are all suffering because the present system is only working for the privileged few. I can argue on and on
- why am I paying for medicaid, medicare patients healthcare out of my own pocket, while I have to pay 10 times the premiums I should be paying for my own health care ?
- why are ER's closing due to insufficient reimbursement ?
- why did Ford post a record loss last year (12 billion), 3 billion of which could have been saved if the hadn't had to pay for employee healthcare ?
- why do prison inmates have more civil rights than a law abiding citizen when they are required to be provided with adequate healthcare ?
you know I can go on and on and on.................
Use your skills to join the Universal Health Care movement and implement safeguards against Uncle Daddy. Do something constructive. We need input from every political persuasion to reach a workable solution to the health care problem. The system is broken and needs repaired, you can't argue with that.
We are all suffering because the present system is only working for the privileged few. ... The system is broken and needs repaired, you can't argue with that.
I posted this in another thread, but I'd like you to defend these statements. The worst case scenario that I've seen says that 15% of our population does not have health care insurance (which does not equate to a lack of health care, byt the way.) Then, by mathematical calculation, a full 85% of our population does have health insurance. So, in light of this fact, can you defend your statement that our present system works only for the privileged few?
Can you also name any other system in our nation that to one degree or another meets the needs of 85% of our population? And if you can find such systems, can you name one for me that at 85% coverage we consider to be "broken?"
I happen to feel that lack of health insurance does equal to lack of health care. People get treated differently if they are selfpay unless they are in a situation ie. ER where payment options come up after treatment. Uninsured people use the ER more frequently because the do not have a primary care physician to go to for minor/major aliments. People without insurance do not receive the wellness testing that is recomended by the medical community because they either cannot afford the testing, they cannot afford the treatment should something be found, and/or they just don't want to think about the bankrupcty potential that a medical crisis could put them in. People who have pre-existing health problems do not get good care because of the vicious circle of unable to get health insurance, not having a job that will provide a higher premium policy for them, and, unable to have enough money to maintain their medical needs ie. prescription medications to work consistantly. Sure there is Social Security/Disability but many people would rather be taxpayers than taxtakers. I feel that there are too many able people on Disability because they cannot get good medical care without it. Most people that I have met on disabily would much rather be working and making their own money but are scared to lose the medical benefits that Social Security provides for them. Many people who are on Disability appear sad to me and I don't think that it's because of their disability either. I think that having a job and working for a living gives a person purpose in life which is much more healthy. I don't think that our Social Security system would be so overburdened if these folks could get their healthcare needs met somewhere else and be working instead of depending on that check.
Specializes in burn, geriatric, rehab, wound care, ER.
by the privileged few I mean the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies and the rest of the organizations that make obscene profits from the current system at OUR expense. Single payer healthcare would give us bulk buying power, reduce administrative costs, reduce healthcare fraud and generally increase the efficiency of healthcare http://www.onecarenow.org/singlepayerreduceshealthcarecosts.htm
For the last three months I have been paying over $100 dollars for my blood pressure medicine because my insurance company says my doctor should not have me on this type of medication, instead of A (which is more expensive) I should be using B(which I had adverse reactions to). So now until the proper paper work gets delivered to the insurance company I either go without medicine (which I sometimes have to do)while I pay over $300 a month in healthinsurance. Gee and I am one of the lucky ones. The patients that I take care of have better insurance coverage than I do. Something is wrong.
For the last three months I have been paying over $100 dollars for my blood pressure medicine because my insurance company says my doctor should not have me on this type of medication, instead of A (which is more expensive) I should be using B(which I had adverse reactions to). So now until the proper paper work gets delivered to the insurance company I either go without medicine (which I sometimes have to do)while I pay over $300 a month in healthinsurance. Gee and I am one of the lucky ones. The patients that I take care of have better insurance coverage than I do. Something is wrong.
But the something that is wrong is that you should be shopping around for better insurance - not that I should have to pay your bills.
Your freedoms come with the responsibility to manage them. When you take away those responsibilities, you take away those freedoms.
See, it's not that I object so much to paying for others as I object to taking away MY choice. Any proposed change that benefits 15% of the population at the expense of 85% is not practical, but ideological.
You want me to come on board with helping those 'less fortunate'; two issues must be addressed.
1. Find a solution that helps others in a way that doesn't hurt me. As it is, you don't just want my enforced charity, which is an imposition in itself, but you also want me to give up MY health care as well. It's a no-brainer that Hillarycare was taken off life support. 20 yrs haven't changed all that much. The left is still selling the same relativism morality. And the American public still isn't buying it in sufficient quantity.
2. Find a solution that encourages those that are less fortunate by choice to choose to become more fortunate. Admittedly, that's not everybody that doesn't have health insurance, but it's enough that forcing me to pay for that majority (that's right, majority) of uninsured is simply immoral.
Uncle Daddy or no, there are no free rides. The piper always comes a calling.
To me, this is just like environmentalism. The left doesn't just want solutions, but they want ideologically leftist solutions. They'd rather have no solutions at all rather then work on solutions that don't advance their socialist agenda. There are plenty of ways to help the poor get better access to healthcare. Why then, is the only way consistently advocated so completely in line with a socialistic ideology? Bottom line, universal healthcare is not a practical solution, but an ideological one.
For example, the gov't uses the tax code to encourage all sorts of behavior: tax breaks for kids, for homes, for retirement accts.
Even traditional employee provided health insurance took off as a result of the tax breaks that encouraged it.
They also use the tax code to discourage some behavior: luxury tax, gift taxes, penalties for early withdrawing from retirement accounts and penalties for not paying IRS timely throughout the year.
So, President Bush, in his SOU address, proposes taking the tax benefits of health insurance from the exclusive hands of employers and placing it in the hands of individuals AND penalizing expensive health care plans by capping the level of tax break (soaking it to the rich in liberal speak).
Such a solution would allow many that cannot get insurance through an employer, or who get bad insurance from their employers, to opt out and be their own agents. A good solution?
Well, the left is howling. Why? Any proposed solution to get more people insured that doesn't include the ideology of socialism makes those socialistic changes less likely. Therefore, the practical solution of providing more people with health insurance isn't worth the cost such a solution might have to a socialist agenda.
Ultimately, this issue of universal coverage comes down to a case of ideology being more important than the cause itself. The cause itself is just a tool.
For the last three months I have been paying over $100 dollars for my blood pressure medicine because my insurance company says my doctor should not have me on this type of medication, instead of A (which is more expensive) I should be using B(which I had adverse reactions to). So now until the proper paper work gets delivered to the insurance company I either go without medicine (which I sometimes have to do)while I pay over $300 a month in healthinsurance. Gee and I am one of the lucky ones. The patients that I take care of have better insurance coverage than I do. Something is wrong.
Reason 492 to get the insurance companies out of healthcare. How can they dictate what you need? Have they ever examined you? NO! If the insurance industry, lawyers, government, and the big drug companies were not so involved in healthcare then it would most likely be more available and affordable for everyone. However, since it'll be a cold day in h*** before that happens, then I'm for everyone having some kind of health insurance. I know that if I could get coverage, I would probably feel different about this issue buuuuuuuuuut since I can't get health coverage, I ALL FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE.
.thumb.gif.041bac93584716f6dc9882dcd8cf500a.gif){kind=small}
ZASHAGALKA, RN
3,322 Posts
I have no faith in corporate America whatsover. Corporate America, however, isn't an entity; it's a bunch of entities. Therefore, I can pick and choose from corporations that at least must give lip service to my needs and wants in order to garner business.
With Uncle Daddy, the thing that disappears is choice. When choice disappears, so does any concept of actually caring about MY needs. And that leads to a complete lack of compassion, real or feigned. I just don't TRUST anybody, corporate America or Uncle daddy to have my best interest at heart when such choices are made. With corporate America, their choices are counterbalanced by MY choice to go to a competitor with my business. When Uncle Daddy takes my choice away from me, that's not freedom, it's dictatorial. He has NO RIGHT to make my choice for me. NONE. I detest the concept at its very roots. Our forefathers committed to revolution for less.
An all-powerful government is not a friend of the people; it's the enemy. Our forefathers were well aware of this, having stripped the government of the right to do a whole host of things, including the very thing being discussed here. At its roots, universal healthcare is tyranny. It's not about providing healthcare for some, but about standardizing it at the lowest common denominator for all. Wanting to help those less fortunate is one thing. Doing so by using MY wallet and removing MY choice is another. By its very definition, charity cannot be coerced. By its very definition, dictating MY choices has nothing to do with charity and everything to do with control. Anytime the government tells you that it can run your life for you better than you: it's time to be very afraid. That's the nature of power. When you empower the government at the expense of the people, you empower the government to be an enemy of the people.
Not only have I never been 'outsourced', I would not consider such an outcome to be a negative consequence in my life. I'm not committed to any corporation; why should they be committed to me? Instead, I chose a job and a career path that more or less ensures my marketability to a variety of corporations in a variety of economic situations. Come layoff or depression, people still need nurses, and need them in great numbers.
~faith,
Timothy.