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.
Did you work many years in the UK as a RN....and if you did what have been the major differences you have seen between nursing here in the USA and the UK. It would be enlightening to hear different nursing in different parts of the world.
Walmart has joined the Universal Healthcare Movement! They have teamed up with other big businesses and union leaders with the goal of affordable, accessible, quality healthcare for all Americans by 2012. Its starting to happen ladies and gentlemen!:monkeydance:
EXACTLY! I said in a previous post that this current healthcare system is also hurting big business and definatly small business, they ALSO will join the bandwagon for universal healthcare, maybe they will actually ship some manufacturing jobs back home, maybe.So the Capitalists are jumping on board!Strange world, huh?
According to this historical review, pre-paid health care (the pre-cursor to HMOs) began primarily as health services organized for specific employee groups. The company offers health services to retain employees and to help keep their employees healthy and able to work, while the employees had easy access to health services. Meanwhile, the contracted health care providers were guaranteed a specific patient pool. As this proved a successful model, this type of coverage was opened to other employers and to individuals.
1982 California legislation enacted allowing selective contracting for Medicaid and private insurance, paving the way for other states to enact similar laws facilitating Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs) (5)
The concept of allowing private insurance and Medicaid to create certain contracts to get better deals may not be a bad concept on some level. However, I'm thinking that as it was practiced, it disadvantaged health care providers. If a majority of potential patients are part of a PPO, then the health care provider has little choice but to negotiate on reimbursements, cutting prices to get the business. This is different from an HMO which has to concern itself with balancing the budget from all angles. The PPO, on the other hand, needn't concern itself with whether or not it's reimbursement for services cover the actual costs involved. Theoretically, the service provider can choose to not do business with groups whose reimbursements are too low. In practice, though, it seems service providers are rather limited in their options. Low reimbursements from health plan A, low reimbursements from health plan B, or no patients and no reimbursements.
Hey all you Conservatives and Capitalists, you've gone up a notch in my opinion, Wal Mart, AT&T and Kelly Services, all advocating Universal Healthcare, no comments, opinions?Where are you?
Yes, I'd think many employers would be all for universal care. Thus, the cost of health insurance is removed from them and shifts to taxpayers. Not that that is a horrible scenario. While it may seem that our health insurance is "free" through our employers, it does cost them and that ultimately will be reflected in employee pay, profit margins to stock holders (where our future retirement money is supposed to be growing for us), etc. Employers may be paying several hundred dollars per month for each employee's health insurance. Some employers simply pass it all on to employees and the employees often then don't buy in because the full cost is too high.
I don't think universal health care is the only solution to help keep costs in check but it does seem that there's some serious tweaking to do so that most people can afford basic health care and to figure out how best to finance long term health care, on-going chronic conditions and ultra-expensive life-saving procedures which threaten to run many into poverty and thus ending up on government subsidies in the end anyway. As I've noted before, I don't think we can come with a perfect system that 'saves' everyone, but it does seem it would possible to reduce the number of people priced out of health care.
Hey all you Conservatives and Capitalists, you've gone up a notch in my opinion, Wal Mart, AT&T and Kelly Services, all advocating Universal Healthcare, no comments, opinions?Where are you?
It's a no-brainer. I'm sure the big three auto makers are on board, as well.
This whole debate comes down to cost/benefit. For average citizens, it will be a hard sell that giving up their healthcare freedoms for cost containment is a good exercise in cost/benefit. As a result, don't count on universal healthcare anytime soon. Wal-mart doesn't get to vote: citizens do.
But from a pure cost/benefit point of view: Wal-mart is taking a beating for not coming to the plate for its employees. OF COURSE, the gov't riding to the rescue is wonderful for their stock holders.
In our current healthcare environment, 85% of the population has access to quality healthcare and 100% to emergency care (That number is much higher in that many of the 15% uninsured are purposely uninsured). Under universal rationing, only the very rich - Wal-mart shareholders - will be able to opt out.
So, if eliminating obligations by transferring them to gov't can make my shares worth millions more, who cares if it cost ME personally a few thousand more to opt out of the mess I'm helping to create. From a pure intellectual perspective, this idea is the very worst of excess about capitalism that the liberals normally complain about. I am astounded that liberals would sign on to the corporate concept of 'let them eat cake' just because it minimally satisfies a particular agenda.
I actually agree with spacenurse that CEO salaries are egregious. THIS proposal is in the same category: since CEOs can afford lavish healthcare, who cares what the assembly line employee gets, so long at it greatly improves MY bottom line.
Cost/benefit is a function of motivation. Capitalism works because it motivates people. I have never argued against regulation to curb the excesses of such motivation: to wit, to heck with you, I got mine.
Even in THIS debate, as some have argued that there are gaps in the system that affect them personally, my attitude has not been: to heck with you, I'm insured. My attitude has been that those issues should well BE addressed, but not by bringing the whole system down.
I'm not a blanket capitalist, no holds barred, even though I AM a laissez-faire capitalist: generally speaking, let the markets dictate. That is NOT to say I oppose all regulation on free markets: child labor laws, OHSA, etc. etc.; there are several key regulations needed to keep abuses in check. I agree with them.
But regulating abuse is NOT the same as granting the government control of the markets.
That big business would wish to dump their burdens on gov't IS a form of abuse. I don't countenance abusive capitalism anymore than I do socialism.
Look, IF the gov't wanted to pass a rule that says: all of Timothy's debts are vital gov't functions that should be paid for BY gov't - I might philosophically object, but I doubt that I would actively prevent the gov't from paying my bills. That doesn't make it right. It just means that from a strictly greedy cost/benefit analysis, what a great deal for me.
I'm just surprised that suspicious liberals would mistake frank greed on the part of business as an actual moral accomodation. . . Again, I agree with spacenurse: such greed SHOULD be regulated into check.
Bottom line, I oppose 'let them eat cake' from anybody that proposes it, no matter what their agenda is. . . At a minimum, I'm being intellectually consistent. But, it's nice to see liberals giving Wal-mart a free pass. . .
It's a no-brainer. I'm sure the big three auto makers are on board, as well.
I am astounded that liberals would sign on to the corporate concept of 'let them eat cake' just because it minimally satisfies a particular agenda.
I actually agree with spacenurse that CEO salaries are egregious. THIS proposal is in the same category: since CEOs can afford lavish healthcare, who cares what the assembly line employee gets, so long at it greatly improves MY bottom line.
Cost/benefit is a function of motivation. Capitalism works because it motivates people. I have never argued against regulation to curb the excesses of such motivation: to wit, to heck with you, I got mine.
Even in THIS debate, as some have argued that there are gaps in the system that affect them personally, my attitude has not been: to heck with you, I'm insured. My attitude has been that those issues should well BE addressed, but not by bringing the whole system down.
That big business would wish to dump their burdens on gov't IS a form of abuse. I don't countenance abusive capitalism anymore than I do socialism.
I'm just surprised that suspicious liberals would mistake frank greed on the part of business as an actual moral accomodation. . . Again, I agree with spacenurse: such greed SHOULD be regulated into check.
Bottom line, I oppose 'let them eat cake' from anybody that proposes it, no matter what their agenda is. . . At a minimum, I'm being intellectually consistent. But, it's nice to see liberals giving Wal-mart a free pass. . .
~faith,
Timothy.
Free pass for Wal Mart? I dont think so,NO body believes that the large corporations are advocating universal healthcare for altruistic reasons. I also do not shop at Wal Mart and wont start now.Good business sense and greed IS the reason most businesses are going to jump on this bandwagon. NO ONE is fooled.Private healthcare costs have been devastating to them also. The only ones who benefited was the insurance companies and drug companies . I am sure it wont take Wal Mart, or AT&T, or others, any time at at to recoup profits that they lost on private healthcare ,when universal healthcare comes to pass. They have a large cushion, unlike others.
The whole argument here is that no one should eat cake while some eat crumbs, why not let everyone partake of some good healthy bread. No one wants YOUR healthcare to go down the tubes, the goal here is to make a system that is going to provide EQUALLY GOOD healthcare FOR ALL, not equally bad for all. IT CAN BE DONE. Oh yes, and how did Capitalism motivate Wal Mart employees?Like you said the CEOs reaped all the benefits, so Capitalism is good for some and to heck with the rest.
The whole argument here is that no one should eat cake while some eat crumbs, why not let everyone partake of some good healthy bread. No one wants YOUR healthcare to go down the tubes.
Because capitalism has the capacity to make bread.
Socialism can only manage gruel.
It's not of matter of choosing which system can make quality bread. It's matter of bread, or gruel.
Of COURSE socialism wants to diminish my healthcare. If this were just about providing healthcare for some, it would be a different argument. Instead, it's about defining healthcare for all. It's not about practical improvement to healthcare, but rather, about an ideological hijacking of that care.
The opposite extreme from, 'to heck with them, I got mine' is 'nobody gets more than me'. Both extremes are, at their core, selfish, or at least, self absorbed.
Because capitalism has the capacity to make bread.
And it charges a very high price for it. As mentioned in an earlier post greed needs to be regulated in healthcare, but how can we regulate it in healthcare when it is what motivates capitalism..the whole economy? Up until today capitalism has worked well in this country but it has also caused the demise of the middle class leaving us currently with a almost 2 tier class society (those that have and those that have not) . Look at the wages of atheletes, newscasters, CEO's, can compare that to the workers pennies that are used to support this country. I believe capitalism has had it's day in our society and that greed in the end will be the cause of the collapse of our economy. Communism, socialism, capitalism none of them will have proven to work. The big question will be...what is next.
And it charges a very high price for it. As mentioned in an earlier post greed needs to be regulated in healthcare, but how can we regulate it in healthcare when it is what motivates capitalism..the whole economy? Up until today capitalism has worked well in this country but it has also caused the demise of the middle class leaving us currently with a almost 2 tier class society (those that have and those that have not) . Look at the wages of atheletes, newscasters, CEO's, can compare that to the workers pennies that are used to support this country. I believe capitalism has had it's day in our society and that greed in the end will be the cause of the collapse of our economy. Communism, socialism, capitalism none of them will have proven to work. The big question will be...what is next.
Your kidding, right. America's poor fare better then all but the very upper class in any socialist system.
And capitalism CREATED the middle class. Before capitalism, there were serfs and lords. Period.
Today's middle class is by far the greatest mass of our society AND they are upwardly mobile. The middle class is the greatest success of capitalism.
That middle class is what is at stake in the concept of trading it away to make everybody equally poor.
.thumb.gif.041bac93584716f6dc9882dcd8cf500a.gif){kind=small}
Hope10
6 Posts
How long have you been in the USA?
Did you work many years in the UK as a RN....and if you did what have been the major differences you have seen between nursing here in the USA and the UK. It would be enlightening to hear different nursing in different parts of the world.
Hope10