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.
Spacenurse, ingelein, you are both correct, particularly about the cumulative aspect of dialogue over time. Never mind what I said. I have been reading this thread for a long time, and I'm just frustrated with those who are closed to the idea of universal coverage.
...In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments...
Ok, you are excused Muticollinarity, I was going to point out that you must never have been on a jury, with the idea of being in that room another 3 days, it does make the jurors look at the question with a different eye, and those minds ARE changed. Just one example of how discourse affects change.Becoming complacent because change just seems too hard is a sure fire way of losing. I am in a lawsuit with no money, just excellent lawyers and a strong conviction that if I can hang in there and argue my case effectivly, I will prevail. If I were to give up and allow my former employer to win, I would be guilty of perpetuating the wrongs that they did and continue to do.Oh well, I guess I am a blow hard.
"I think your missing the vision Timothy and passgasser."
Not at all. I see your vision, and I commend you for what you are trying to do. Whether I agree with you or not, I see the clarity of your purpose. However, I am acutely aware of one fact that history teaches. All too often, when enacting laws or programs to "improve the social condition" all we manage to do is create problems and issues worse than the one we initially tried to correct. I can see myriad problems with what you suggest.
To begin with, you suggest that a national healthcare program need not be run by the government. Fine, but if not the government, then who? A government sponsored, publically held corporation, like PBS? We have all seen how well that's done. PBS is so mismanaged, so poorly coordinated and planned, that without propping up by the government, it would have gone under looooooooooong ago. Or should we entrust it to a private corporation? You understand that in handing all healthcare coverage to one corporation, you have eliminated competition? You have eliminated the powerful market force that multiple choices bring? You have created a monopoly the sheer size and power of which would make the empires built by the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts look like mom and pop organizations by comparison. Along the way, you will have set back the anti-trust laws by about a hundred years.
Of course, those same anti-trust laws would prevent you from enacting your plan. About five minutes after the public corporation was formed, or the private corporation was selected, either to run our national health care, all the other health insurance companies would file immediate lawsuits. They would seek injunctions to prevent institution of the plan, citing unfair restriction of trade. And they would win those lawsuits.
You also suggest that by starting this program, we would all pay into it, and all reap its benefits. And are you really suggesting the passage of a law requiring everyone to purchase insurance? What about those who don't want to spend their money on that coverage? Are you really suggesting that we pass a law requiring people purchase health insurance? Do you think we can really do so without violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the constitition? And what of those who say they still can't afford the premiums? Do we provide them with healthcare free of charge, requiring the health insurance entity you set up to pay for it? How is that any different from any other welfare program, wherein a few benefit at the expense of others who are forced to pay? As I see it, one group reaps the benefits of the work of others.
And what of the rights of the individual states? The constitution is quite clear in its protection of states rights and authority. What if the people of, say, Wyoming, decide that they can do better than the national plan that is offered, and choose to opt out of the program? Further, they refuse to pay into the national plan, but rather decide to strike out on their own. Now you program has that much less money. Or are you going to pass laws to force the states to participate, thereby further reducing the authority and rights of the states. And if states can opt out, what about individuals like me, who feel they can do better for ourselves and our families? Can I opt out, and not pay the premiums to your plan, instead opting to choose my own insurance provider?
No, the law cannot compel people to buy goods OR services, no matter how good the intent. Certainly, the government cannot compel the people to buy goods or services from a selected company. Such a decision would make the ENRON scandal look like the height of ethical business conduct, would make the Halliburton scandal look like absolutely transparent government contracting.
What you suggest is ultimately nothing more than complete government control of the entire health care industry. The government has time and again proven itself to be a very poor steward of business. What you propose is really nothing more than increasing the individual reliance on our government. And time and time again, we have seen that increasing individual reliance on the government serves only to reduce self reliance.
Finally, consider this: No one agency can be all things to all people. While some would benefit from this, at least as many, probably more would find the establishment of national health care to be somewhat less beneficial. In trying to make everyone happy, what most often happens is that everyone ends up less that satisfied.
"I'm just frustrated with those who are closed to the idea of universal coverage."
I feel much the same way. I'm frustrated with those who are so open to the idea of "universal health care" they cannot see the greater problems that would be created. The loss of choice, the increased reliance on the government tit, the greater burden that others will be forced to bear to make your vision come true.
One question for you both, posed in another thread: 15% of our nation is reported not to have health insurance, and we are told that is the problem. However, do the math, and we find that 85% of our population is covered. I again challenge you both: Name one other system of any kind that covers 85% of our population. And if you can do that, name one that covers that same 85% that we consider to be broken.
Because, as the 20th century amply showed, communism doesn't work, anywhere it's tried.
As far as looking for a model similar to our public school system: that system is fundamentally broken. If you doubt that, look at how many American parents opt out of that system. And look how our public school students compare to those educated practically anywhere else.
When you play to the lowest common denominator, what you get is the lowest common demoninator.
Oh, and ask the NHS nurses in the UK what THEY think about their wonderful system.
But, here's hoping that Hillary burns herself on this third rail again.
"Close enough for government work" just isn't a phrase most people want associated with their health.
~faith,
Timothy.
:angryfire :angryfire :angryfire Last time I checked Canada and The UK weren't communist.( you might want to do some reading on communism before you thow that word around) Basic health care coverage ensures that everyone not just the rich have access to quality healthcare.
I thank god every day, in my little canadian hospital that I don't have to tell someone to remortgage their house to provide thier child with life saving chemotherapy, or turn away a misscarrying mother because she doesn't have the coverage to see an ob/gyn.
Yes I pay higher taxes but if my family has a health crisis i won't end up homeless or with a collection agency knocking down my door.
It's not communism it's compassion for all levels of society rich or poor.
I'll take my little hospital that spends it's money on pt's over a hospital that pockets profits any day.
:angryfire :angryfire :angryfire Last time I checked Canada and The UK weren't communist.( you might want to do some reading on communism before you thow that word around) Basic health care coverage ensures that everyone not just the rich have access to quality healthcare.
I thank god every day, in my little canadian hospital that I don't have to tell someone to remortgage their house to provide thier child with life saving chemotherapy, or turn away a misscarrying mother because she doesn't have the coverage to see an ob/gyn.
Yes I pay higher taxes but if my family has a health crisis i won't end up homeless or with a collection agency knocking down my door.
It's not communism it's compassion for all levels of society rich or poor.
I'll take my little hospital that spends it's money on pt's over a hospital that pockets profits any day.
Hey ahsitters, dont mind Timothy McCarthy here, he sees communists under every chair.:chair: Sorry, Zashagalka, I just couldnt resist, dont be mad.:chuckle
Multicollinearity, BSN, RN
3,119 Posts
Has anyone's mind ever been changed in this type of thread? Has anyone ever fundamentally changed his or her opinion? I doubt it.