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.
: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.
If I thought dumbing down healthcare was compassionate for anybody, I'd consider it. It's not. This isn't about providing aid to the poor; it's about taking power and choice from the people.
We have laws that ensure emergency care. NO miscarrying mother is turned away from care in this nation. EMTALA.
We already provide coverage for about 25% of the population.
The poorest don't pay for healthcare anyway. MEDICAID.
The elderly don't pay, or at least, not nearly a full amount: MEDICARE.
Disabled don't pay: DISABILITY.
I've never discussed 'remortgaging' a home with a patient. In fact, I've never discussed money for services with them in any way. The care is provided first. Unless I look, I don't even know who the "self pay" patients are.
There isn't a healthcare problem in this nation: we have some of the best healthcare in the world. There is a healthcare financing problem. At its heart, the problem isn't not enough socialism, but the result of the direct removal of capitalism from the system: because the ultimate consumers don't pay the bill, they don't care what it costs.
Thank GOD for you in Canada that, because we haven't communized (and I AM well read, that's the correct term) our system, we have the incentives to develop the innovations that you and the rest of the world adopt every day. Thank GOD for you that America bears the brunt of the cost of developing wonder drugs for your use.
I'm glad you think that government is the answer and that your gov't actually cares about you. If I need to see my doc, I can call Monday morning and have an appt for that afternoon. If I needed surgery, I could have it scheduled this week. If I needed a CT scan, I could get it today, Sunday. MRI: Monday. If I wanted some elective surgery: no problem. If I need a specialist: my doc on Monday could refer me and most times, I'd have an appt by the end of the week. The concept of 'waiting' for rationed healthcare is simply not here, neither is it compassionate.
I'm not "rich". I grew up in a working class family and I'm very middle class. I work very hard for what I have. Me, and 85% of the population manage to get health coverage without mandatory membership in a country club.
There ARE problems in our system that need to be addressed. But socializing the healthcare system isn't a practical solution but an ideological one. There are easier ways to fix and correct the system. It's not like your system is a panacea. You have your own problems. Ours at least, are not related to the rationing of access. To the extent that there is an access problem here for people that don't choose to be uninsured: that doesn't include access to emergency care and those are real issues to address.
It's much easier to addess how best to include more in this system then how best to ration overstrained and underfunded systems.
My opinion isn't a minority opinion. Spacenurse pointed this out earlier: 6 in 10 people are not in favor of universal healthcare IF it means the rationing that is endemic to your system. And it does. That's the nature of socialism: inefficiency and lack of compassion. That's not to say that YOU aren't compassionate, but your system works against you.
If it were just a matter of the higher taxes, that would be bad enough, but ultimately, money is just money. In fact, you've traded not just more taxes for yourself, but less care, as well.
Bottom line: both the Canadian and American systems ration care. The American system does so by dollars, and the Canadian system does so by queuing. The difference is the American system doesn't ration healthcare for all, or even most patients. The problem with rationing in America effects 15% of the population. In Canada: 100%.
Yes. And I would like to know whether the schools practically anywhere else are government supported.
Maybe the United States can no longer educate it's citizens as well as we once did.
Perhaps we cannot figure out a healthcare system like every other industrialized nation.
The U.S. spends more to educate its students then any other nation. The reason why the U.S. can no longer educate its citizens as we once did is because of the gov't. How other schools in other nations are funded isn't really the issue: the issue is how much meddling those nations do in their classrooms.
But since Uncle Daddy pays, Uncle Daddy feels he has the right to dictate.
Vouchers would be cheaper on the gov't and would vastly improve the system. The NEA has lied to its teachers. Their salaries are awful BECAUSE the gov't has a monopoly on those salaries. Vouchers would create competition and for competent teachers, that competition would allow their salaries to rise. The voucher system suffers so much backlash because the gov't systems know full well they cannot compete. They can't compete because they are bloated, incompetent, and broken. That's NOT a model I want for healthcare, thank you very much.
I'm surprised you didn't take my bait on SS. I think the current SS system SHOULD be dumped to the curb. It's ineffective and unsustainable and there are better ways to finance retirement. SS was designed for a 16:1 ratio of workers to retirees. It cannot hold up in a 3:1 system. There are better financial tools for that. See it's not that I'm 'uncompassionate' to retirees, it's that I think taking their money throughout their lifetimes and then giving it back, ONLY IF YOU LIVE THAT LONG, and only uncompounded, IS NOT compassion.
Between me and my employer, 15% of my salary go to SS. If I put that much into my own retirement acct, even if just 100% backed no risk bond funds: I'd retire a millionaire. So, I don't think it compassion that the gov't is trading millionaire status for its citizens in exchange for a few hundred measly dollars a month. Look at the Galveston opt out of SS system: Galveston municipal retirees, because they opted out before the law changed in 1983, now retire on, in effect, 90% salary PLUS health insurance, PLUS 4X salary life insurance, PLUS a reserve account for survivors to inherit. THAT'S COMPASSIONATE.
SS is not. Besides, it's not like I'll see that check, in any case.
"THAT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE in individual lives. When a Galveston county commissioner died in 2001, his widow received a $255 death benefit from Social Security -- and nothing else. The Galveston Plan, however, paid her a lump-sum survivorship benefit of $150,000, plus she is entitled to a reserve account of $125,000, available to her at any time. Her benefits are more than 1,000 times better than what Social Security offered.
The actual retirement benefits of participants in the Galveston plan also outstrip Social Security. Someone earning $51,000 a year would retire with a lifetime income of $3,800 a month or roughly 90 % of their pre-retirement income. That compares to the $1,500 a month (36 % of pre-retirement income) they would get under Social Security.
The program also benefits lower-income workers. A worker with an annual income of $18,000 takes in some $1,400 a month from the Galveston plan -- 90 % of his pre-retirement level. That same person would get only $782 a month (54.8 % of his pre-retirement earnings) from Social Security. "
Look at the mail: It took FEDEX to revolutionize mail delivery. If not for private incentives, no way UPS would be delivering overnight mail. They have had to keep up with the COMPETITION. Universal healthcare has as its essential component the banning of competition.
You pointed out the FDA and water laws: neither of these are the gov't providing services, but regulating them. Gov't regulation has its place to curb excesses. I never disagreed with that. But, it's private business that makes drugs, not the FDA. It's local, municipal systems that manage and supply water, not the Fed gov't. Comparing regulating services with supplying service is apples and oranges.
These comments aren't completely off topic. They are comparisons to the fact that the private system can do things more efficiently and more compassionately than gov't.
If I thought dumbing down healthcare was compassionate for anybody, I'd consider it. It's not. This isn't about providing aid to the poor; it's about taking power and choice from the people.
We have laws that ensure emergency care. NO miscarrying mother is turned away from care in this nation. EMTALA.(right she just can't get proper medical care before the miscarriage because she has no insurance)
We already provide coverage for about 25% of the population.
The poorest don't pay for healthcare anyway. MEDICAID.
The elderly don't pay, or at least, not nearly a full amount: MEDICARE.
Disabled don't pay: DISABILITY.
(And the ones that pay get far less benefits for what they have to pay for..we are still left with huge deductable and co pays after the hughe(SP)
premiums)
So are you saying then that you are quite satisfied with the status quo
and the way things are? Let's not change anything nothing is wrong?
Putting the blinders on here aren't you or are those rose colored glasses. Not everyone has the same wonderful benefits that you do and I work as a nurse just like you..why not the same benefits? I would like what you have...why shouldn't I be just as entitled as you?
Private companies can do it more effectively and efficiently for the selected few. Let's face it the private companies can not and will not do it for the entire country. Healthcare is too important to treat as a commodity. Everyone should be accessable to resources
out there to maintain their life. I pay $300 a month for healthinsurance for my family and still can not afford my blood pressure medicine that my insurance will not pay for.
So are you saying then that you are quite satisfied with the status quo and the way things are? Let's not change anything nothing is wrong? Putting the blinders on here aren't you or are those rose colored glasses. Not everyone has the same wonderful benefits that you do and I work as a nurse just like you..why not the same benefits? I would like what you have...why shouldn't I be just as entitled as you?
Private companies can do it more effectively and efficiently for the selected few. Let's face it the private companies can not and will not do it for the entire country. Healthcare is too important to treat as a commodity. Everyone should be accessable to resources out there to maintain their life. I pay $300 a month for healthinsurance for my family and still can not afford my blood pressure medicine that my insurance will not pay for.
I'm am quite satisfied with MY health care.
If you are a nurse and you want what I have, come work at my hospital. You have choices. You ARE just as entitled as I am. That's the point.
Selected few? 85% of Americans either have gov't funded insurance or private insurance. That's the selected majority. The rest have access to the system for emergencies. And many have access to free or income based clinics.
Healthcare IS a commodity, whether the gov't pays for it, or you do. It WILL be rationed, either by dollars, or queuing for services. The only question is if the majority can have access without the rationing, as happens here, or if EVERYBODY gets the same, poor care.
There are problems and they can be addressed. Universal healthcare is by no means the most practical way to do so. It's merely the most ideological way.
Well, Spacenurse, I'm glad you brought up both the postal service and public schools, because both prove my points quite nicely.
Now, I don't know anything about you, including your age, so it might be that you are not old enough to remember the history of the postal service in the 60's, 70's and 80's. To begin with, the postal service isn't really a government agency, but is government supported. Prior to about the mid-70's, the postal service held a virtual monopoly on delivery of mail and parcels. As a result, they were slow, inefficient, often rude, and non-responsive. It was well known that it could take up to a week for a letter to just go across town. The only options that were really available were first class or special delivery (at a VERY premium rate). Special delivery didn't guarantee that your mail would get there any quicker, just that it would be delivered immediately on arrival to the destination city, even on Sunday. However, if they didn't live up to that guarantee, you had no recourse.
In about the mid-70's, some private corporations like UPS and Fed-Ex came along, and offered competitive services to the postal service. They were somewhat more expensive, but they offered a variety of different options for how quickly and by what means your package would be sent. Initially, the government tried to keep a cap on how competitive these companies could be by limiting the size of their cargo jets, yet they still took a fair sized bite out of the postal service's business. Then, in the early 80's, congress lifted the restrictions on the cargo jets these companies could fly, and their business exploded. They offered better, friendlier, more efficient, and quicker delivery of packages than the post office had ever done. They set up such efficient flight routes and distribution centers that a package sent from almost anywhere in the US could be delivered to almost anywhere else in the US overnight. Such a service was unheard of even as a pipe dream idea in the postal service. And they did it cheaper than the US Postal Service. Some were even using these delivery services in lieu of the postal service for the delivery of regular mail. There was talk of the demise of the postal service.
In the end, the postal service was forced to modernize in order to compete, or face complete collapse. When it was a monolithic entity that had no competition, it was slow, inefficient and unresponsive. Lost mail was common. It set its own prices, and was therefore expensive for the time, particularly where the delivery of packages was concerned. When private business was allowed to compete, it nearly killed the US Postal Service. Ultimately, it was competition that saved the postal service, when it recognized that if it did not become more responsive to the needs of the consumer, it would die.
Now, look at public schooling. You really want to set this up as an example of why the government should take over health care? By any measure, our public schooling system fares far worse than our present health care system when measured against other industrialized nations. Public school students routinely score far below the students of other nations in subjects ranging from math to science, even to subjects as basic as reading comprehension. What has our response been? Let's throw more money at the problem. Thank you, no. If the experience of public schooling is any indication, I'd just as soon the government stayed out of the health care business.
The NEA has convinced itself, if not the rest of us, that it knows better than we do what our children ought to learn. They don't want their members to be tested for teaching competency. They certainly don't want any program, such as a voucher program, to create real competition for them. You see, competition forces innovation, which requires work. Competition would force them to abandon much of what they hold dear. They don't really believe that parents should have any input to their own child's education. They really believe that it is easier, if not better for the kids, to teach to the lowest common denominator. They don't want to set up classes that are individualized to the needs of the kids. Yet as the experience of the postal service has taught us, competition is healthy. It leads to innovation and improvement. It forces the system to be more responsive to the needs of the consumer.
Thank you, Spacenurse, for so ably supporting what I have said. The government needs to stay out of our health care. The system in place now, while not perfect, is far better for far more people than any centralized health care monolith.
Where on earth did I give you the impression I wanted to do away with any of those things? What I did say was that the government was poor at doing most of them unless it is motivated by competition to do better. And you are right, corporations are driven by the need to satisfy investors. And to do that, they must satisfy customers. The government does not have to satisfy anyone, and without competition doesn't even try.
Corporations have no compassion. They owe profits the their shareholders.
Oh, but government agencies are loaded with compassion. Try telling that to disabled vets who have to go to the VA. They owe nothing to anyone, and will remind you of that in a minute.
Oh, but government agencies are loaded with compassion. Try telling that to disabled vets who have to go to the VA. They owe nothing to anyone, and will remind you of that in a minute.
The government owes US! I think the Presidents plan to privatize Social Security didn't happen because the voters made it clear we didn't want it.
We nurses are patient advocates. We need to make our elected representatives know how important the healthcare of our veterans is. AND the healthcare of everyone. When only pro healthcare candidates can get elected we will have the healthcare we deserve. Ans we will save money.
A national health insurance plan would allow every veteran to choose their provider. To choose their hospital.
I am very aware of what goes on at the VA. I worked at the VA during the Viet Nam war. Now I volunteer at a rehab facility where the VA sends many patients.
4724 members have viewed this topic. I was asking anyone who wants to answer.
It was mentioned that Medicare insures our elderly. Why not everyone?
pickledpepperRN
4,491 Posts
Yes. And I would like to know whether the schools practically anywhere else are government supported.
Maybe the United States can no longer educate it's citizens as well as we once did.
Perhaps we cannot figure out a healthcare system like every other industrialized nation.