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.
Health insurance as we talk about it usually means a comprehensive health plan that negotiates in bulk for lower rates and offers a wide spectrum of health services for a monthly premium and set co-pays. So what happens when everyone is covered by these types of plans. If everyone is paying the negotiated "lower rates" then what exactly are the "original rates"?
I see merit in the thought that the predominance of this type of "third-party payor" system has contributed to the increasing cost of health services. Health service providers end up charging more for services because the vast majority of their customers are with health plans that never pay full price. Health service providers have no choice but to either accept the minimal reimbursements or go out of business. If health service providers can't afford an attractive pay rate for local nurses and doctors, then they'll hire nurses and doctors from overseas.
What is a solution? I'm not sure. Universal plans also struggle with cost containment and paying good wages. I guess the advantage of universal plans or univeral health insurance coverage is that the access to care is more equal. These solutions are trying to offer a solution for those stuck between making too much for public assistance but not enough to currently afford many kinds of health care costs, whether through a health plan or direct payment.
There is some argument over how many people actually have health insurance. I think part of the "health care crisis" is that many who do have health insurance live in fear of losing it or of rates continuing to grow and being priced out. So it's not just about making sure everyone has health insurance, it's about creating a system where basic health care costs are affordable. But what is "basic"? (diabetes care? dialysis? chemotherapy? gene therapy?) And what is "affordable?"
What does it matter if it is 12 or 14% of the population that goes without insurance..If one person is denied medical care (I mean the availablitiy of care when they are getting sick and not showing up dying in the E.R.) it is an autrocity. Then the doctors will blame the patietn for not getting proper care earlier but they couldn't because no doctor will take him with no insurance and if they go to the ER without dying the are treated minimally and released with no follow ups that will take care of them. Then when they code in ICU the doctor will say "Does the family really want us to do this?" and the last words of the patient were "Do everything..I don't want to die." Then as the nurse taking care of this individual doing everthing under the sun with no help from the other nurses on my unit I get the questions "Why are you doing this...Wasn't he slow or something like that.. If we really told the family had bad this is maybe they would stop it "
The supervisor told the ER doctor that this really bad patient is about to code and the comment was "Tell the nurse to push some atropine and I'll grab a cup of coffee then be over." This patient was 52 years old and died. Where was there any compassion for his life?Would his outcome have been different if he had insurance? Sometimes the callousness of this profession makes me sick.
Health insurance as we talk about it usually means a comprehensive health plan that negotiates in bulk for lower rates and offers a wide spectrum of health services for a monthly premium and set co-pays. So what happens when everyone is covered by these types of plans. If everyone is paying the negotiated "lower rates" then what exactly are the "original rates"?
I see merit in the thought that the predominance of this type of "third-party payor" system has contributed to the increasing cost of health services. Health service providers end up charging more for services because the vast majority of their customers are with health plans that never pay full price. Health service providers have no choice but to either accept the minimal reimbursements or go out of business. If health service providers can't afford an attractive pay rate for local nurses and doctors, then they'll hire nurses and doctors from overseas.
What is a solution? I'm not sure. Universal plans also struggle with cost containment and paying good wages. I guess the advantage of universal plans or univeral health insurance coverage is that the access to care is more equal. These solutions are trying to offer a solution for those stuck between making too much for public assistance but not enough to currently afford many kinds of health care costs, whether through a health plan or direct payment.
There is some argument over how many people actually have health insurance. I think part of the "health care crisis" is that many who do have health insurance live in fear of losing it or of rates continuing to grow and being priced out. So it's not just about making sure everyone has health insurance, it's about creating a system where basic health care costs are affordable. But what is "basic"? (diabetes care? dialysis? chemotherapy? gene therapy?) And what is "affordable?"
Basic care: having access to a physician for diagnosis and treatment of a medical condition and affordable medications.
I pay for my insurance. So, what you are saying is that everyone is "entitled" to medical care. That it is a right to have all of the medical care you can use. At who's expense will this be? Yours? If it's mandated that everyone receive all of the medical attention that they need. The government will be taking that money from those that work for a living. So what you are saying is rob my wages to pay for someone else's medical expenses. Maybe we need define medicine. Is it a busness or is it an entitlement? Then if it's an entitlement, you better put that donut down! Ban alcohol, smoking, fatty foods, etc. Because if Uncle Sugar is paying the bills, he gets the last say on how you live your life.
Manofcare - Different viewpoints on this issue are needed and appreciated. I was just going to ignore your comments because they don't seem very constructive but you are expressing views that many people hold, so I'm addressing some of your comments.
So, what you are saying is that everyone is "entitled" to medical care.That it is a right to have all of the medical care you can use.
It's a valid question to ask where to draw the line on what medical care would be covered in a universal system. It's also a valid question to ask if medical care would be "free" or if there would still be usage fees involved at point of care - such as a co-pay. Any health plan, whether a private insurance company or a government administered program would need to consider how to discourage people's natural tendency to take advantage of a system and misuse it.
The government will be taking that money from those that work for a living. So what you are saying is rob my wages to pay for someone else's medical expenses.
Yes, people who work for a living pay the costs of social infrastructure and any other government programs. And yes, that money might pay for someone else's medical expenses. It might even be for someone who doesn't work. On the other hand, if you found yourself in a position where you couldn't afford medical care, someone else's tax dollars would help pay your expenses. Any program needs continous monitoring and changing to minimize waste. Is the government perfect at this? Heck no. But these days, dealing with my privately owned health insurance company is a bigger hassle than dealing with the DMV for me!
I'm not saying universal health care is the answer but it's reasonable to discuss the pros and cons and other alternatives. So let's discuss these things reasonably.
if we could just deny human nature to create the "communist man." i just know we could do it, even though the former ussr couldn't. they failed to create the person without self-interest, and with the appropriate motivation to work for the motherland as a productive worker for the common good of all. i also think that all persons should have the same pay. ditch diggers, lawyers, rn's, brain surgeons because under the true thinking of communism, who should be entitled to earn more than the other? a ditch digger has his dignity as well as a rn. let's start the movement to work for minimum wage to save the greedy corporations the money nursing fees cost, so they could be passed as savings to the medical consumer. i know i want my brain surgery to go to the doctor who was motivated by the interest of common good. i'll just bet he's a good one! we all know that a free system of healthcare will be the best! i know i always appreciate something free, don't you? i treat the free things just as significantly as the costly things. the free shades from burger king are just as important to me as the oakley's. i just think if healthcare were free, anytime i get a headache, toothache, well i'd just go to the emergency room. heck, it's free! then maybe we could get free food, free cars, free condoms. no, wouldn't need condoms because child birth would be free, treatment for std's would be free. gee, if everything is free, why should i work? you guys hurry up and get the free stuff. i'm feeling kind of lazy, and not wanting to work. i'd kind of like to lay up on the couch and have you support me for the rest of my life. after all, i deserve it, because it's me. until you guys make it happen, i'll still plan on going to work as an rn. just let me know if it's going to happen soon. i have a test tomorrow and it's going to be hard. why study for minimum wage? if i can make as much money digging a ditch, i'll quit the program. i already know how to use a shovel! not!
you post smacks of ignorance of the argument. socialized or universal health care is [color=mediumturquoise]not communism, it's not even socialism. it's a way to provide healthcare to a countries population, not run a country or pay its laborers.
I pay for my insurance. So, what you are saying is that everyone is "entitled" to medical care. That it is a right to have all of the medical care you can use. At who's expense will this be? Yours? If it's mandated that everyone receive all of the medical attention that they need. The government will be taking that money from those that work for a living. So what you are saying is rob my wages to pay for someone else's medical expenses. Maybe we need define medicine. Is it a busness or is it an entitlement? Then if it's an entitlement, you better put that donut down! Ban alcohol, smoking, fatty foods, etc. Because if Uncle Sugar is paying the bills, he gets the last say on how you live your life.
Maybe if you had read the entire thread you would realize that some of us believe that healthcare is a constitutional right given to us in the Bill of Rights when we are guarnteed the right to life. I believe this encompasses
the availability of healthcare to all Americans to sustain that life. What is the deal about Medicare already about 20% of each of my paychecks goes to Medicare to support someones else's medical expenses. If our society was not so full of greed and self interest maybe Uncle Sam wouldn't do the things he has. Greed will be the down fall of capitalism.
Burn out. Please refer to my post about communisn. I believe you have just proven my point about creating communist man.
I read your post but I am sorry I don't make the connection. I didn't realize that the right to life, the Bill of Rights and equal rights were part of Karl Marx Communist Manifesto. I thought these rights were guaranteed under the United States Constitution fought for in the Revolutionary war and expanded to include everyone in the Civil War. Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream ..was he a communist man? Why would equal access to healthcare for everyone make anyone a communist? Please do not quote me to support your ideas because I don't support them.
There is no statistical difference in the number of impoverished from 2004 to 2005. From that, we can infer that this is yet another indicator that our economy is not in as bad a shape as we have been told by some. That flies in the face of the arguments that underpin this very thread.
The poverty rate for those 18 and under remains higher than the rate for those 18 - 64. That fact tells us a couple of things. First, those who have the least resources to raise kids continue to have more children than those who have better financial resources. (A point I'll get to in a moment.) Second, unless this is a very new statistic, if the percentage of impoverished is lower (and remaining fairly stable) for those 18 - 64, then a significant number of children raised in poverty seem to be able to lift themselves out of it. A very telling statistic, indeed. So much for the fable of being "trapped" in poverty.
But let's get back to the point about the impoverished having more children that people with greater resources, because it is strong support for something I have long felt. Namely, making health care universally available at the expense of the taxpayer probably won't make much difference to the status quo. Not because health care won't be available (an erroneous argument anyway) but because people still will not avail themselves of it.
Consider this: There are, in nearly every state I have ever been to, various programs to assist the impoverished with family planning. These range from state run programs to private charitable organizations. They range from being very low cost to free. Even with the existance of these programs, according to the facts posted by others, the impoverished continue to have more children than those with greater resources.
Given these facts, what evidence do you have that ready availability of free preventative health care would actually be used by a greater percentage of people in the country? I've been a lot of places. There is an attitude towards health care that seems to cut across all racial, gender, and economic boundaries. I've heard it from those with health insurance and those without, and it boils down to this: "I don't go to the doctor unless and until I get too sick to stand it." Unless this attitude is changed, all the "universal health care" in the world won't change who is and who is not going for preventative health care.
One other point: One or two of you have come out and said that our constitution guarantees a right to access to health care, regardless of ability to pay. If that's true, then every argument against universal health care falls, and I'll shut up and join the fight on your side. To make that happen, you only have to do one thing: Show me. Show me where in the constitution we are guaranteed a right to health care. (Remember, in the late 1700's, when the constitution was being written, there was health care. Not as advanced as it is today, but it was available. And there were people too poor to afford going to the doctor.) So, show me.
I'll even make it easier. You don't have to show me a health care right specifically. Just show me one right, any right, guaranteed by the constitution, that requires one group of people to forfeit anything so another group can exercise that right. In other words, show me a right the constitution guarantees me that just by exercising that right, I force you to pay for that exercise. Do that, and I'll join in your fight. Otherwise, let me gently suggest that you go back and review the constitutional rights, what they are, what they are not, and what their limitations are.
jjjoy, LPN
2,801 Posts
Health insurance as we talk about it usually means a comprehensive health plan that negotiates in bulk for lower rates and offers a wide spectrum of health services for a monthly premium and set co-pays. So what happens when everyone is covered by these types of plans. If everyone is paying the negotiated "lower rates" then what exactly are the "original rates"?
I see merit in the thought that the predominance of this type of "third-party payor" system has contributed to the increasing cost of health services. Health service providers end up charging more for services because the vast majority of their customers are with health plans that never pay full price. Health service providers have no choice but to either accept the minimal reimbursements or go out of business. If health service providers can't afford an attractive pay rate for local nurses and doctors, then they'll hire nurses and doctors from overseas.
What is a solution? I'm not sure. Universal plans also struggle with cost containment and paying good wages. I guess the advantage of universal plans or univeral health insurance coverage is that the access to care is more equal. These solutions are trying to offer a solution for those stuck between making too much for public assistance but not enough to currently afford many kinds of health care costs, whether through a health plan or direct payment.
There is some argument over how many people actually have health insurance. I think part of the "health care crisis" is that many who do have health insurance live in fear of losing it or of rates continuing to grow and being priced out. So it's not just about making sure everyone has health insurance, it's about creating a system where basic health care costs are affordable. But what is "basic"? (diabetes care? dialysis? chemotherapy? gene therapy?) And what is "affordable?"