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.
Well Timothy is in that wonderful 85% where he can afford healthcare because he has an insurance policy or is independently wealthy and doesn't need an insurance policy. This is wonderful for Timothy and I'm happy for him. At one time, I had Timothy's mind set and I still do with many things. However, I'm in that 15% where I cannot get health insurance and I'm not independently wealthy so I get to pay for my healthcare out of a very small pocket. It wasn't until 18 years ago that I didn't believe in universal healthcare. What changed? Well I ended up in the emergency room practicing near death with status epilepticus. Sure they they didn't discriminate against me as being self-pay, uninsured, and unwealthy. However, when I went to take care of the bills, I almost had another seizure. The hospital also wasn't as nice about when I told them that I couldn't pay it in full at the time. It took me 5 years to get it paid off and the hospital tried to send me to collections twice-not because I wasn't paying monthly on it but because I couldn't pay it off fast enough. I was so mad that I almost went down there with a shotgun to take the accounting department out. I didn't deadbeat them and I won't deadbeat other medical facilities that I use either. I wasn't raised that way. Yes I'm in that unlucky 15% and yes I'm for universal healthcare because I cannot get covered any other way.
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.
~faith,
Timothy.
Please give examples.
I'm not certain if you are referring to a totalitarian regime or a democracy.
In other words are you referring to China and Cuba? Or Canada, Great Britian, Japan, France, and the other industrialized nations?
I'm not certain if you are referring to a totalitarian regime or a democracy.
In other words are you referring to China and Cuba? Or Canada, Great Britian, Japan, France, and the other industrialized nations?
I am referring to all examples, whether dictated or voted in. It's a matter of degree.
Cuba is in shambles because it is a total socialist system.
The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its socialism.
China only avoided collapse because they realized that they needed SOME capitalism to keep their dictatorship propped up.
The United States has had greater economic growth then Europe combined in the last decade BECAUSE, by degrees, we are more capitalist oriented. (Even though America has some socialist tendencies, we do not hold them to the degree that Europe does.)
Europe is struggling with relatively high unemployment and unsustainable social welfare that is sapping its economic strength. That is bad for everyone there. Ultimately, they will have to address their runaway socialism. They have no choice. They might be able to put it off a decade or two. The Soviet Union managed to put off their collapse for decades. The result is the same.
Look at the United States: we too will have to deal with our socialist systems. SS and Medicare will collapse without major reforms or more and more economic drain to prop them up. Not this decade. Probably, not the next. Certainly, before I retire.
In every nation, socialist policies are an ineffective drain on the working and innovative potential of its citizens. The degrees of that strain are directly relational to the degree of socialization.
Socialism will not result in better healthcare. It will degrade, and ultimately destroy, available healthcare for all. That is the very nature of socialism. The World is replete with historical examples. Everywhere universal healthcare has been adopted: there is MORE rationing of care and frequent and ever greater policy debates about how to continue to prop up the system. No matter how well funded, all such programs become underfunded because they remove human innovation and financial incentives from the process.
Human motivation is the study of personal incentives. It cannot be aggregated or collectivized. NO system that ignores personal incentive can survive the collapse of motivation that results.
The moral of socialism is this: no matter how fanciful an idea, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Economic realities do not bend to idealistic ignorance. That's not a putdown, but it is evident that there is a disconnect in all the complaints about capitalism, with its incentives for work ethic and innovation, as to how American and the West became prosperous in the first place. The West became prospersous because we were individually MOTIVATED to do so. Removing motivation from any system has both a real price, and a price in unintended consequences.
Socialism is a failed policy. It's not compassionate. It is antithetical to the liberty and financial freedom of its people, rich and poor alike. It's that simple.
Well Timothy is in that wonderful 85% where he can afford healthcare because he has an insurance policy or is independently wealthy and doesn't need an insurance policy. This is wonderful for Timothy and I'm happy for him. At one time, I had Timothy's mind set and I still do with many things. However, I'm in that 15% where I cannot get health insurance and I'm not independently wealthy so I get to pay for my healthcare out of a very small pocket. It wasn't until 18 years ago that I didn't believe in universal healthcare. What changed? Well I ended up in the emergency room practicing near death with status epilepticus. Sure they they didn't discriminate against me as being self-pay, uninsured, and unwealthy. However, when I went to take care of the bills, I almost had another seizure. The hospital also wasn't as nice about when I told them that I couldn't pay it in full at the time. It took me 5 years to get it paid off and the hospital tried to send me to collections twice-not because I wasn't paying monthly on it but because I couldn't pay it off fast enough. I was so mad that I almost went down there with a shotgun to take the accounting department out. I didn't deadbeat them and I won't deadbeat other medical facilities that I use either. I wasn't raised that way. Yes I'm in that unlucky 15% and yes I'm for universal healthcare because I cannot get covered any other way.
Fuzzy
Fuzzy, I am sorry for all you have had to go through to get healthcare, BUT our accounts dont seem to matter to the anti universal healthcare folks.Yet they get upset when we infer they are not compassionate in their stance.I dont buy that 15% uninsured number either, I suspect its much higher.
We just can't know for sure what exactly makes a country "successful" or not. There are so many variables and different ways one might define success. There is the accessibility and presence of natural resources. There is the cultural heritage of the peoples in the country. There is the influence of neighboring countries. And much more. All in all, though, the general citizenry of developed countries have a good quality of life, no matter if they are more "left-leaning" or "right-leaning" than others.
Capitalism certainly has proven many advantages. But I don't think socialist-type programs have proven to be total disasters. Pure capitalism without regulation would lead to monopolies and considerable lack of choice and access. Tax-funded regulation is already on that "slippery slope" to socialism, isn't it? I know those folks against universal health care have other reasons than just that it "stinks of" socialism. So let's stick to those practical arguments. On the other hand, implying that not supporting universal health care reflects a lack of compassion isn't fair either.
Publicly-funded education worked very well in this country for many decades. Over time, things have changed and it seems we need to re-think our system. That doesn't mean that publicly-funded education is a "failure." I would also say that our current health care dilemma also doesn't necessarily mean that "private"-ly provided health care and insurance is a failure, either. But it does seem that we need to re-think it as well.
Tim, you keep saying 85% coverage is pretty darn good. I agree. Couldn't you also use that argument for public programs? That some degree of "waste" is inevitable? There's more than enough evidence that private companies can be quite wasteful as well. In either case, as consumers and as citizens we have ways to pressure for change in either private or government services. Nothing is going to be 100% perfect. The question in any proposal is at what point is it considered problematic enough to need to change. I don't believe in the idea of "if only one person is saved by proposal XYZ it's worth it" because there are often many other less obvious costs to other people. At some point, we have to admit that we can't solve every problem and some unlucky people will get the short end of the stick and have to deal with it. Hopefully, not the same people all the time.
What I want to see is some kind of basic safety net. Which is why I support some kind of social security system. Because you're right back at square one if your investments don't turn out.
Personally, I'm for low cost preventive care - perhaps subsidized or at least some sort of government incentives to keep basic costs low. How low? I'm sure that would be a point of major debate. I also propose the government either provide or incentivize the provision of very low-interest loans for health care services. To me, that makes more sense than HSAs. HSAs taking considerable planning ahead. HSAs mean estimating your health care costs in the next year and making arrangements through your employer to deduct that before taxes. If you can manage that, you probably are financially savvy enough to be able to afford your health care and you're just trying to save some more. Very commendable. But if a person is living paycheck to paycheck and has been unable to create some kind of nestegg, then making HSAs work for them seems to be asking an awful lot.
In order to help folks get past the "free" mentality that we may tend to get, I'd discourage non-HMO insurance to provide HMO-like services. HMO's provide full spectrum care. Other health insurance, then, should only be catastrophic or high deductible. It's true that we've gotten used to paying only $10-20 to see a doctor because our health insurance covers the difference. On the other hand, I do think it's a bit much to expect average folks to pay $80 out of pocket to see a doctor for 10 minutes because you just need a prescription for a UTI or the like.
I don't have answers. Just a few half-baked ideas and lots of questions without easy answers!
ZASHAGALKA, I should have noticed where you are from earlier and then I could have understood you better. Yes as you invited I have been to your great Republic of Texas a.k.a. the State of Texas and found that the people there do not "cotton" to YANKEES very well and was even accused of taking jobs away from god fearin Texans..so no thank you I'll stay where I am. I also understand that Exxon has a 40 billion dollar profit this quarter
so I imagine in your area of the country you do not feel what the rest of us feel. Yes you state that healthcare is a commodity, I believe that health care is a right provided in the Bill of Rights when it gives me the right to life. Universal health care right now may just be an idealogical idea but at one time the concept of the United States was nothing more than an idealogical idea. I believe that you are afraid of the idea of universal health care becasue it will put you and the rest of Texas in the same boat as the rest of us. At least I may have to wait in line for service under universal health care but I at least have the HOPE that I will get health care..right now I am at the mercy of my insurance company to decided if and what they want to pay and if I even will receive the care ordered by my doctor.
Tell me please, where is the peoples choice in that?
I am referring to all examples, whether dictated or voted in. It's a matter of degree.
Cuba is in shambles because it is a total socialist system.
The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its socialism.
China only avoided collapse because they realized that they needed SOME capitalism to keep their dictatorship propped up.
The United States has had greater economic growth then Europe combined in the last decade BECAUSE, by degrees, we are more capitalist oriented. (Even though America has some socialist tendencies, we do not hold them to the degree that Europe does.)
Europe is struggling with relatively high unemployment and unsustainable social welfare that is sapping its economic strength. That is bad for everyone there. Ultimately, they will have to address their runaway socialism. They have no choice. They might be able to put it off a decade or two. The Soviet Union managed to put off their collapse for decades. The result is the same.
Look at the United States: we too will have to deal with our socialist systems. SS and Medicare will collapse without major reforms or more and more economic drain to prop them up. Not this decade. Probably, not the next. Certainly, before I retire.
In every nation, socialist policies are an ineffective drain on the working and innovative potential of its citizens. The degrees of that strain are directly relational to the degree of socialization.
Socialism will not result in better healthcare. It will degrade, and ultimately destroy, available healthcare for all. That is the very nature of socialism. The World is replete with historical examples. Everywhere universal healthcare has been adopted: there is MORE rationing of care and frequent and ever greater policy debates about how to continue to prop up the system. No matter how well funded, all such programs become underfunded because they remove human innovation and financial incentives from the process.
Human motivation is the study of personal incentives. It cannot be aggregated or collectivized. NO system that ignores personal incentive can survive the collapse of motivation that results.
The moral of socialism is this: no matter how fanciful an idea, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Economic realities do not bend to idealistic ignorance. That's not a putdown, but it is evident that there is a disconnect in all the complaints about capitalism, with its incentives for work ethic and innovation, as to how American and the West became prosperous in the first place. The West became prospersous because we were individually MOTIVATED to do so. Removing motivation from any system has both a real price, and a price in unintended consequences.
Socialism is a failed policy. It's not compassionate. It is antithetical to the liberty and financial freedom of its people, rich and poor alike. It's that simple.
~faith,
Timothy.
This is so far wrong that it amounts to wishful thinking. I will not debate this here on the general board as it truly belongs in Current Events but let it stand that I do not agree with many parts of this assertion.
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.
I just thought this was worth repeating.
So, Ingelein infers from my position on universal healthcare that I lack compassion. That’s fine. At the end of the day, if this is the worst thing that happens to me, I’ll consider today to have been a pretty good day. A few other points worth repeating:
Our government has shown itself to have a very poor ability to administer programs, particularly social programs, with any efficiency at all. This is particularly true when the programs have no competition. The examples offered by those who disagree only served to prove my point. The postal service, until faced with competition that threatened to kill it, was inefficient, slow, even lackadaisical.
The greatest fear of those who control and run the public school system is that someone will institute a program that will force them to compete for students. As the system stands, public schools are unresponsive to parental concerns, and consistently produce students who score well below their international counterparts in testing of basic knowledge. The fundamental mission of schools is to educate, and any objective measure shows them to be failing.
One I found particularly funny was the offering of the VA as an example of how "well" the government could do in the provision of healthcare. When I pointed out how woefully inadequate and uncaring the VA as a system truly was, the response I got was "well, we as voters have to force our politicians to make it better!" To belabor the obvious, you can’t have it both ways. Either the VA is a stellar example of providing healthcare (and I shudder to even type the phrase) or it is a system so badly in need of change that we need to threaten our elected officials with their political lives to force it to change. Which is it?
One can look elsewhere for other examples. But the central point remains. A "universal healthcare system" particularly one administered and overseen by our government, is not the answer to the problems our healthcare system faces. When a monopoly is formed, whether that monopoly is run by private concerns or by the government, that monopoly has no reason to be responsive. It has no real reason to be efficient. It has no reason to be reasonably priced. It has no reason to provide the "best" service. After all, where else can the consumer go? (And if another example is needed, consider what phone service was like before the breakup of the monolithic Bell Corporation.)
In the end, if Ingelein considers me to be lacking in compassion, that’s fine. I see it a little differently. I believe the real lack of compassion arises out of wanting to build a system that will ultimately realize real benefits for a few, at the expense of the rest of us. I’d rather think for myself and allow Ingelien to consider me lacking in compassion than to allow others to use my emotions to lead me around by the nose.
(If you look at the site put up by Indiana, it breaks down percentages of uninsured by state. The numbers range from 5% uninsured to 20% uninsured. So even if you look at the state to state numbers, anywhere from 80% to 95% of the people carry health insurance.)
First off, let's admit there's no perfect solution. The VA has many problems. If you can afford to go elsewhere you probably will. On the other hand, for those vets without many resources, the VA does provide them with health care that they otherwise wouldn't have access to. Yes, there is a trade off between quality and affordability.
Does that mean that if some kind of universal health care is adopted that US research and development will come to a screeching halt leaving us stranded with nothing but outdated technologies? No. Does that mean that you may be denied the latest and greated technologies if you can't afford to pay extra? Could very well be. Yep, rationing. And that would cause lots of uproar over what types of treatments would be approved for subsidies and what wouldn't. In the UK, there was protesting over a new breast cancer drug that wasn't approved by the NHS. So, universal programs certainly do not solve all problems of access. I do imagine that if some kind of universal health system were implemented in the US, that there would still be private options if you're willing to pay extra for it.
People often gripe about paying for universal government services... why do I have to pay for other people's health care? educating other people's children? Etc. Again, I don't believe in free hand-outs willy-nilly, but there is something to be said for offering services that support society at a basic level. I want other people's children to be educated in a system that brings some degree of communal experience to our upcoming population - not even more fragmented by a wide diversity of private school experiences. I want other people, and myself if I find myself with few resources, to have access to affordable health care and not having to decide between paying for their prescription drugs (at say $300-500/month) and their rent. If I never personally access the public school system (no kids or private school) or Medicaid or the like, I'm still okay with having paid taxes to support them. Do I like to see such programs abused or wasting funds? No. Do they need to be continually monitored and pressured to stay on track? Yes.
Yes, people can spend down their assets and qualify for other types of health programs. Where that line is, what type of health care needs will force that scenario, is what is part of the question in considering health care reform.
I grew up Republican and against universal healthcare, but since I have been a nurse, I am starting to change my mind.
We had a 50 YO pt. last year with a stomach problem that could be fixed in the university hospital. (I work in a small hospital.) She spent most of last year in and out of the hospital with no health insurance and no money. My hospital would foot the bill because she would come to the ER, not able to eat or drink and in terrible pain. Finally, in Oct. the big hospital accepted her for the special surgery (for free), and I haven't seen her since. She could have been a productive worker paying taxes all last year, but she couldn't afford her operation.
Another man, 45, has a broken shoulder that isn't healing well. He's a painter with no insurance. He's in terrible pain and paints with only one hand because he can't afford to have his shoulder fixed.
On the other hand, we have 95 YO's who can't feed themselves or recognize anyone, and yet they come to the hospital several times a year for a week or so at a time with pneumonia, etc., and taxpayers have no problem paying for them.
It doesn't make sense. We have socialized healthcare for the least productive among us, but no healthcare for the productive ones unless they have good employers.
We have socialized healthcare for the least productive among us, but no healthcare for the productive ones unless they have good employers.
Fuzzy
370 Posts
Well Timothy is in that wonderful 85% where he can afford healthcare because he has an insurance policy or is independently wealthy and doesn't need an insurance policy. This is wonderful for Timothy and I'm happy for him. At one time, I had Timothy's mind set and I still do with many things. However, I'm in that 15% where I cannot get health insurance and I'm not independently wealthy so I get to pay for my healthcare out of a very small pocket. It wasn't until 18 years ago that I didn't believe in universal healthcare. What changed? Well I ended up in the emergency room practicing near death with status epilepticus. Sure they they didn't discriminate against me as being self-pay, uninsured, and unwealthy. However, when I went to take care of the bills, I almost had another seizure. The hospital also wasn't as nice about when I told them that I couldn't pay it in full at the time. It took me 5 years to get it paid off and the hospital tried to send me to collections twice-not because I wasn't paying monthly on it but because I couldn't pay it off fast enough. I was so mad that I almost went down there with a shotgun to take the accounting department out. I didn't deadbeat them and I won't deadbeat other medical facilities that I use either. I wasn't raised that way. Yes I'm in that unlucky 15% and yes I'm for universal healthcare because I cannot get covered any other way.
Fuzzy