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 what are you going to do if Socialized Medicine is passed in this country? Will you start a revolution? I think you would have been a great leader in the revolutionary war.
NO, I'll vote the idiots out of office if I can (although I will probably have nothing to do with them being in office in the first place). Like it or not, I'm invested in this government and normally I like it and am justly proud of it. It could be lots more thrifty with MY money, but then, nothing's perfect.
As Churchill said, Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
And then, I'll suck up paying more money for less care and waiting weeks to get that care. I'll also suck up being paid less because the gov't will have a monopoly on my salary. And I'll suck up living in a nation with less economic power because of stagnating taxation.
And then, I'll listen to the same liberals that pushed this disaster on us gripe and complain that our 10-15% unemployment rate is unfair to the poor, and the government should really do something about it.
Speaking as someone who works in a country with a two tier system - both public AND private health care - what you do to make the public system streamlined and workable is keep the pressure on your elected representatives. If things go wrong scream to the politicians, if there is too much abuse of the system - scream to the politicians - if the patient care ratio is too high - scream to the politicians - gives the pollies a real headache and makes health care one of the "avoid at any cost" political portfolios but then, aren't we paying them to work things out?
THIS is how it can work.
We could have an American style system beholdin' to the citizens.
Unfortunately Spacenurse, the system can give people who live outside our country the wrong impression of how the system works. They see all these claims of system failure and lack of this or that facility written up in the papers and think that we are living in a system that is teetering on the edge of disaster and do not see that this is us the public putting pressure on politicians to boost the system.
Yes there are waiting lists. If you are seventy, a smoker already had one stent then resumed smoking immediately despite promising not to, became non-compliant with medications, started having chest pains but did not come into hospital straight away because "they won't give you no booze in hospital" then expect to go on the END of the waiting list. If however you are a 42 year old then expect to be whisked through the system so fast that the doors will spin. Even if you are diabetic or overweight.
Specializes in Diabetes ED, (CDE), CCU, Pulmonary/HIV.
The worst part of our healthcare system now is its irrationality. Tens of thousands of people with diabetes do not have healthcare insurance The cost of admission to the ICU to treat one episode of DKA would more than pay for that person's insulin & healthcare checkups for life.
The system won't pay for routine care, but once the untreated diabetic needs hemodialysis for kidney faillure, they are declared to be disabled and then receive medicaid/medicare which will cover all meds after it's too late for prevention.
There are many Canadians who cross the border to the US to pay for procedures (hip or knee replacements, for example) that require long waits in Canada.
overcrowding of emergency rooms in canada is increasingly mirrored by the
same problem in the united states, though underreported in this country.
physicians at the los angeles county-usc medical center have testified
that some emergency room patients can wait up to four days for a bed and
that others may die before receiving care (17). of the millions of americans
crowding u.s. emergency rooms, many have problems that could have been
prevented by earlier care; they end up being charged the highest rates for
emergency care, then are released with often inadequate follow-up care (18).
* though admittedly the canadian system is underfunded, and extended waits
for some elective services may be a problem in some parts of the country,
these problems are often exaggerated by its detractors based on unreliable
self-reported data. in 1998, fewer than 1 percent of canadians were on waiting
lists, with fewer than 10 percent of these waiting longer than four months
(19). waiting times in the united states, even for the privately insured, are
now increasing for checkups as well as for sick visits (20).
68 / geyman
* comprehensive and reliable provincial databases on waiting times show that
in recent years, waiting times have decreased while services have increased.
for example, coronary bypass surgery increased by 66 percent between
1991 and 1997 in manitoba, while waiting times were reduced for that
procedure and also shortened for five other elective procedures--carotid
endarterectomy, cholecystectomy, hernia repair, tonsillectomy, and transurethral
resection of the prostate (21).
* although there is a widespread myth that many canadians seek medical
care in the united states, a three-state study reported in 2002 found that
this number is very low for either outpatient or hospital care, and largely
due to these canadians needing medical care while traveling in the united
states (22).
* as private interests lobby for an increased role in countries with national
health insurance, their success adversely affects the public system. in canada,
for example, the waiting list for cataract surgery by surgeons who operate
only in the public system is 10 weeks, compared with 26 weeks for those
who operate in both the public and private systems as they preferentially care
for private patients (23).
19. tuohy, c., et al.
how does private finance affect public health care systems?
marshalling the evidence from oecd systems. canadian health economics
research association, toronto, may 2001.
20. center for studying health system change. press release. washington, d.c.,
september 5, 2002.
21. rachlis, m., et al. revitalizing medicare: shared problems, public solutions, p. 25.
tommy douglas research institute, vancouver, january 2001.
22. katz, s. j., et al. phantoms in the snow: canadians' use of health care services in
the united states. health aff. (millwood) 21(3): 35-41, 2002.
23. canadian health services research foundation. a parallel private system would
reduce waiting times in the public system. mythbusters series no. 2. toronto, 2001.
all debunk the myth about excessive waiting times in the canadian single payer system. see http://pnhp.org/facts/myths_memes.pdf for a debunking of the arguments against single payer.
All debunk the myth about excessive waiting times in the canadian single payer system.
Facts are stubborn things......
American ERs are inundated for the same reason the Canadian system is: people understand that, because of EMTALA, there is no need to pay for such services and too many people use those services BECAUSE they consider them 'free'.
From your link:
"Though admittedly the Canadian system is underfunded, and extended waits for some elective services may be a problem in some parts of the country, these problems are often exaggerated by its detractors based on unreliable self-reported data. In 1998, fewer than 1 percent of Canadians were on waiting lists, with fewer than 10 percent of these waiting longer than four months (19)."
Admittedly . . . the system is underfunded, there are extensive waits for elective procedures, up to four month waiting lists and we choose to ignore the data that doesn't fit our spin.
"* Long waits and reduced quality. In Britain, over 800,000 patients are waiting for hospital care. In Canada, the average wait between a general practitioner referral and a specialty consultation has been over 17 weeks. Beyond queuing for care or services, single-payer systems are often characterized by strict drug formularies, limited treatment options, and discrimination by age in the provision of care. Price controls, a routine feature of such systems, also result in reduced drug, technology, and medical device research.
* Funding crises. Because individuals remain insulated from the direct costs of health care, as in many third-party payment systems, health care appears to be “free.” As a result, demand expands while government officials devise ways to control costs. The shortest route is by providing fewer products and services through explicit and implicit rationing.
* New inequalities. Beyond favoritism in the provision of care for the politically well-connected, single-payer health care systems often restrain costs by limiting surgeries for the elderly, restricting dialysis, withholding care from very premature infants, reducing the number of intensive care beds, limiting MRI availability, and restricting access to specialists.
* Labor strikes and personnel shortages. In 2004, in British Columbia, Canada, a health worker strike resulted in the cancellation of 5,300 surgeries and numerous MRI examinations, CT scans, and lab tests. Canadians have a shortage of physicians, and the recruitment and retention of doctors in Britain has become a chronic problem.
* Outdated facilities and medical equipment. Advances in medical technology are often seen in terms of their costs rather than their benefits, and investment is slower. For example, an estimated 60 percent of radiological equipment in Canada is technically outdated.
* Politicization and lost liberty. Patient autonomy is curtailed in favor of the judgment of an elite few, who dictate what health care needs and desires ought to be while imposing social controls over activities deemed undesirable or at odds with an expanding definition of “public health.” Over time, government officials will claim a compelling interest in many areas now considered private."
Interesting non supported claims from that site Timothy. I have this bad habit of checking sources and this is what I discovered about that source
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a New Rightthink tank. Its stated mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of "free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." It is widely considered one of the world's most influential public policy research institutes.
So, might be more than a little political bias colouring the facts but let us look a little further
So, might be more than a little political bias colouring the facts but let us look a little further.
As opposed to the unbiased political agenda of the link I was responding to:
Physicians for a National Healthcare Program. . .
Per your link: "It (Heritage Foundation) is widely considered one of the world's most influential public policy research institutes."
I might point out that since this whole issue is merely an elaborate proxy fight regarding political ideologies (socialism vs. capitalism), how many non-agendized sources do you suppose exist?
I admit, I'm an unrepentant capitalist. Everywhere it's tried, the result has been a marked improvement in the lives of everybody tied to the system. That's compassionate.
Whereas, everywhere socialism is tried, it ultimately ends in failure and the denial of rights and respect for everybody tied to the system. That's NOT compassionate.
I reject this socialist ideology BECAUSE it's not in the best interest of anybody, rich or poor. That's the nature of socialism. I reject this socialist ideology BECAUSE I'm compassionate.
NO, I'll vote the idiots out of office if I can (although I will probably have nothing to do with them being in office in the first place). Like it or not, I'm invested in this government and normally I like it and am justly proud of it. It could be lots more thrifty with MY money, but then, nothing's perfect.
As Churchill said, Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
And then, I'll suck up paying more money for less care and waiting weeks to get that care. I'll also suck up being paid less because the gov't will have a monopoly on my salary. And I'll suck up living in a nation with less economic power because of stagnating taxation.
And then, I'll listen to the same liberals that pushed this disaster on us gripe and complain that our 10-15% unemployment rate is unfair to the poor, and the government should really do something about it.
~faith,
Timothy.
I agree with Timothy on one point, yes let the people speak with their VOTE as they did in 2006.2008 will prove to be a very interesting year.
Hey ahsitters, dont mind Timothy McCarthy here, he sees communists under every chair.
I was willing to let this go as a joke, but following hard on the heels of that, was this:
This is what frustrates me about some conservative ideas. They somehow seem to have a dissconnect when it comes to compassion.
In other words, since I don’t agree with you, the only answer must be that I am heartless and without compassion. Timothy must be a commie fearing McCarthyite. Both are cheap shots, based in the realization that one's own arguments are failing.
Do you suppose that it might be possible that I am a compassionate person, in spite of my stance on this issue? Perhaps I’ve looked at the history of government involvement in social programs, and thought about proposals for "universal health care" and decided that this is not the direction our country should go. Maybe I am more compassionate than even you, in that in my analysis of these programs, I’ve discovered that far more people will be harmed by such programs than will ever be helped.
It seems that whenever some proponents of universal health care get involved in a discussion like this, and find their arguments running out of steam, they pull out the old "you are heartless and have no compassion" argument, in hopes of quieting the valid points raised by their opponents. How about we leave the darts for the sports bars, and stick to the points that are being made?
ZASHAGALKA, RN
3,322 Posts
NO, I'll vote the idiots out of office if I can (although I will probably have nothing to do with them being in office in the first place). Like it or not, I'm invested in this government and normally I like it and am justly proud of it. It could be lots more thrifty with MY money, but then, nothing's perfect.
As Churchill said, Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.
And then, I'll suck up paying more money for less care and waiting weeks to get that care. I'll also suck up being paid less because the gov't will have a monopoly on my salary. And I'll suck up living in a nation with less economic power because of stagnating taxation.
And then, I'll listen to the same liberals that pushed this disaster on us gripe and complain that our 10-15% unemployment rate is unfair to the poor, and the government should really do something about it.
~faith,
Timothy.