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.
Stossel: Market forces would ensure high quality of human organs, just as they do hot dogs
Summary: On Fox News'
Your World
, ABC anchor John Stossel advocated the legal sale of organs, citing the fact that "hot dogs don't spoil when we get to them" as evidence that "the market figures out ways to make these things work."
Claiming that "we have no shortages of anything else that faces the open market," ABC News 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel, on the July 13 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, advocated the legal sale of organs. Responding to Cavuto's concerns that some organs "might not be safe," Stossel cited the fact that "hot dogs don't spoil when we get to them" as evidence that "the market figures out ways to make these things work." Despite Stossel's earlier assertion that "I have two [kidneys]; I only need one," he was noncommittal when Cavuto asked: "Would you give me a kidney if I needed one?" Stossel said he "would consider" it. Even when Cavuto suggested the offer would be high, Stossel responded: "I don't know, we'll have to talk later."
malpractice premiums: as media matters for america has noted, the congressional budget office (cbo) has documented the minimal impact that increases in medical malpractice insurance premiums have on overall health care costs. a 2004 cbo report concluded that capping awards at $250,000 for non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits "would basically save only 0.4 percent of the amount that's spent now" on health care. according to the report, "[m]alpractice costs amounted to an estimated $24 billion in 2002, but that figure represents less than 2 percent of overall health care spending. thus, even a reduction of 25 percent to 30 percent in malpractice costs would lower health care costs by only about 0.4 percent to 0.5 percent, and the likely effect on health insurance premiums would be comparably small."
defensive medicine: as factcheck.org has noted, claims that "defensive medicine" drives up medical costs -- a principal bush administration argument for tort reform -- have been dismissed as inconclusive by the general accounting office (gao) and the cbo. the cbo went further, declaring that there is "no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending."
Where do you get these facts that you rely so heavily on? If you ae going to quote facts please tell me where you get your information so maybe I'll agree with you until them they are just assumptions made by you.
See post #279, from NRSKarenRN. She cited the facts that I used to write my post. The facts themselves come from the US Census bureau.
As to what the intent of the constitution was or was not at the time it was written, one thing is abundantly clear. As I pointed out in my previous post, there is no such thing as a "right" when the mere exercise of that right places a burden on someone else. Clearly, our forefathers intended a country where people could live in maximum freedom, with minimum interference from the government. They did not intend to set up a government that should act as big brother, and they certainly did not intend to set up a society where one group of people could be forced to support another group. Burn out, for all your eloquence in arguing your position, the one thing you failed to do was meet my challenge. Show me one right guaranteed by the US Constitution in which the mere exercise of that right by one individual places a burden on other individuals. That's all you have to do. Until then, I stand by my original assertion. Since provision of "health care to all" would necessarily place a burden on some so others could avail themselves of health care, it cannot be a right. The exercise of your rights cannot infringe on my rights.
An argument that keeps coming up is "since the government already takes money from me, why don't they spend it on healthcare?" This presumes that our government can provide universal health care at current levels without increasing taxation. An interesting argument. Our government is already deficit spending. How do you propose to add health care to the list of bills the government must pay without increasing taxation? The simple answer is that it cannot be done. So, in order to provide universal health care, the government is going to have to raise our taxes. Period. So what you are really saying is "the government is already taking some of my money in taxes, they should go ahead and take more so they can provide healthcare to all." Again, this brings up the interesting point that you are advocating not only a reduction in your take home pay through higher taxation, you are advocating an actual reduction in your own salary. There is no way that the government will continue to reimburse for health care at present levels. Therefore, reimbursement will fall. And when that happens, hospitals will have to make salary cuts to stay open. Which sector of the hospital represents the largest salary expense for hospitals? Nurses. Guess where the first cuts will come.
Now, along the way in this thread, I have made several points, which have essentially gone unanswered. These points are concerns I have where universal health care is concerned. Rather than just telling me I have blinders on, take an honest, open look at these concerns. Want to sway me to your side? Don't tell me I have blinders on, or that I lack compassion, or that I'm just greedy. All you have to do is answer these concerns, show me that I am wrong. Here they are again, so you don't have to hunt them down:
-Show me a right that, through mere exercise of that right, I impose a burden on others.
-Show me another system that meets the needs of 80-85% of our population that we call broken.
-Given their very poor track record of administration of social programs, demonstrate for me how our government will be able to run ALL healthcare in this nation effectively. Heck, just show me they will be able to do it as effectively as the current system.
-Show me a system that was improved by taking competition out of the equation.
-If a national healthcare program is not to be run by the government, who will run it?
-What of the rights of individual states, should they choose to "opt out" of the national health care program?
-Finally, when is enough enough? The plethora of proposed social programs reminds me of nothing more than the lyrics from the Creedence Clearwater Revival song Fortunate Son:
"And when you ask them, 'How much should we give?'
we have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. "necessitous men are not free men." people who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
in our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. we have accepted, so to speak, a second bill of rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all--regardless of station, race, or creed.
among these are:
the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
the right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
the right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
the right of every family to a decent home;
the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
the right to a good education.
all of these rights spell security. and after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
america's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.
source:the public papers & addresses of franklin d. roosevelt (samuel rosenman, ed.), vol xiii (ny: harper, 1950), 40-42
12 how. 152: "necessitous men," says the lord chancellor, in vernon v bethell, 2 eden 113 (1762), "are not, truly speaking, free men; but, to answer a present emergency, will submit to any terms that the crafty may impose on them."
We still have the right to a free vote, when this is taken away from us , then you will know what communism really is. I love and TRUST this country that gave my family refuge, warts and all.
Socialism has learned from its political mistakes but not its ideological failures. That's why all too many politicians run from the label, "liberal", all the while espousing the ideas.
At root, universal healthcare is a political agenda, not a practical solution.
Since the 1900's taking off in the 1930's this concept has been advanced in this nation by incrementalism.
You are being, if you'll excuse the turn of phrase, socialized to think that you shouldn't have a vote about your basic rights of liberty. Isn't that the issue here: how many have espoused the concept that, because healthcare is a 'right', individuals SHOULDN'T hold control over such an awesome enterprise, only the gov't holding such power can ensure such rights. That right is being advocated as belonging to the gov't with only a window dressing claim that you still have a say by which politicians get to control your basic rights.
The end result, instead of politicians beholding to the voters for their power, the voters will be beholding to the politicians for their basic rights. Too many people hold the disconnect that, by giving the gov't your rights, it will work, providing we keep the politicians out of the loop. That's just silly. The gov't is composed of those politicians.
You say, when your 'vote' is taken away from you, only THEN will such power be coercive. I agree. At issue however, is not 'revolution', but taking your vote away from you, incrementally, one vote at a time.
That is why the basic issue here is NOT providing healthcare to those in need, but removing the choice from everybody.
An all-powerful gov't, be it Post WWII Germany, Communist Russia, or an increasingly socialist agenda within the U.S., is NOT your ally; it is your enemy. Our founding fathers well understood that gov't, far from being a blessing, was an imposition. It simply follows that the MORE an imposition the gov't is allowed to have in your life, the less beneficial such gov't will become.
It's a matter of degrees. How close 'our' system resembles the ones you despised in your youth is a simple function of how many of your 'rights' the gov't feels entitled to wield in order to protect you from yourself.
At its basic issue, when the Constitution and our founding fathers discussed rights, it was an issue of individual rights vs. the imposition of gov't. Our founding fathers did not consider granting the gov't power to be protecting your rights, but rather, removing them.
If anybody wants to cite the bill of rights as a primer on this issue, I suggest reading the 10th Amendment. Our founding fathers well understood that the only way to ensure your rights was to ensure that YOU hold them; not the gov't.
For me, this whole issue has little to do with healthcare. That is a proxy fight. It has to do with an ongoing concept of redefining citizens as no longer worthy of managing their liberty without gov't 'assistance'. In the end, that's not simply foolish (in light of the 'universal' failure of such methods); it's highly uncompassionate.
The bottom line is this: Uncle Daddy will NEVER be as interested in protecting your rights as you. THAT is the founding principle of our gov't.
"Earlier today we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, We the people. It is a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed, on the seventeenth of September in 1787, I was not included in that We, the people. I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision I have finally been included in We, the people.
"Today I am an inquisitor. I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution."
-Opening of Barbara Jordan's address to the Judiciary Committee considering impeachment of then President Richard Nixon.
More people have been included in the blessings of liberty.
I think to include the families of those who die young and those who become sick or disabled in the right to healthcare promotes the general welfare.
Passgasser, I will address the first of your questions only..you can fight your own war and prove your own points. As to where in the constitution I base my argument is listed in the Preamble -the purpose of the constitution- right after provide for common defens, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE...
The ninth admendment of the Bill of Rights-makes it clear that people's rights are not restricted to just those specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The ninth admendment gave black people their freedom and gave women their rights. The ninth admendment gives us the right to life and the right to healthcare to maintain that life to promote the general welfare of the country. The fifth admendment gives us the power to change the constitution to include healthcare as a right. It is clear here that the framers wanted to give us the ability to change with the times but not the basic foundation of the constitution.
Tell me where you get the right to healthcare and others do not?
Passgasser, I will address the first of your questions only..you can fight your own war and prove your own points. As to where in the constitution I base my argument is listed in the Preamble -the purpose of the constitution- right after provide for common defens, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE...
The ninth admendment of the Bill of Rights-makes it clear that people's rights are not restricted to just those specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The ninth admendment gave black people their freedom and gave women their rights. The ninth admendment gives us the right to life and the right to healthcare to maintain that life to promote the general welfare of the country.
Tell me where you get the right to healthcare and others do not?
Thankyou for this clarification, I was thinking along the same lines.
-Show me another system that meets the needs of 80-85% of our population that we call broken.
My argument is that while 80% of the population may currently have access to health insurance one way or another, health care costs have risen drastically. Health insurance programs are raising premiums drastically which is why employers are pushing more of the costs onto employees. Individuals live in fear of not being able to afford either health insurance (with premiums that constitute a big chunk of their monthly income), out of pocket basic health services (with a general check-up or visit for a small problem costing upwards of $400), major health crisis (with life-saving efforts and hospital care ending up costing hundreds of thousands), or chronic health conditions (with monthly drug and/or care costs quickly outpacing diminishing potential for earning income).
Again, I'm not saying universal care is the answer. But there IS a problem. Again, that problem may 'solve itself' as people balk at these rising costs and the market shifts to accomodate. If some kind of nationwide campaign, change in regulations, incentive program or whatever can help, then the government is best positioned to make it happen.
-Given their very poor track record of administration of social programs, demonstrate for me how our government will be able to run ALL healthcare in this nation effectively. Heck, just show me they will be able to do it as effectively as the current system.
Social security has not been a total blow out. It's been very efficiently run for decades. The demographics of the country is changing and the system needs to change with that... and whether or not that happens we've yet to see. Also for decades, the public schools have done a pretty fine job of educating the mass of our population. Even today, as it struggles, many public schools still offer a good education. The US mail service has had to make changes over the years but it's alive and well, delivering mail across the US within just days. The DMV in my area has substantially decreased wait times and my registration renewals have been processed in a timely manner. Does that mean universal care is the way to go? No. But government programs are not all big economic black holes.
-Show me a system that was improved by taking competition out of the equation.
A well-planned system would include incentives and competition of sorts. Also, the point of a socially-provided "safety net" is to assist those who "lose out" in the competition. If I never need certain tax-funded assistance, I still don't begrudge having paid those taxes. Because one day I find myself in need, I hope there will be a safety net for me. Of course, there will be programs I disagree with and there will be misuse and waste. Again, continuing reassessment and regulation is needed, as in any endeavor, private or public.
-Finally, when is enough enough? The plethora of proposed social programs reminds me of nothing more than the lyrics from the Creedence Clearwater Revival song Fortunate Son:
"And when you ask them, 'How much should we give?'
Ooh, they only answer More! more! more! yoh,"
"Liberals" can feel the same way towards "conservatives." Personal responsibility is a good thing. We should encourage that and discourage blind total reliance on government-funded programs. If you make irresponsible choices, you shouldn't be rewarded by a bunch of free hand outs that make life more comfortable than if you'd worked harder. But how far do you take it? If I get very ill and my health insurance stops covering long term care after 6 months and I spend down my $100,000 savings/retirement funds and sell my house, one could still say that it was my responsibility to buy better insurance and save more money and that I shouldn't qualify for government assistance. I think most liberals and conversatives agree on much but get stuck on the ideology. For example, most consevatives aren't advocating the elimination of ALL government programs or letting people die in the streets and most liberals aren't advocating the dissolution of private ownership or handing out money like it grows on trees.
The freedom to pursue liberty unhinged by government has created more liberty and more wealth for more people than anything in history.
EVERYWHERE that free markets and individual incentives have been applied, the greater masses have moved, by leaps and bounds, towards properity.
EVERYWHERE those freedoms were taken from individuals and invested in gov't, wealth and prosperity have concentrated in the hands of a few and the needs of the masses have been largely ignored.
The VERY thing that most here would ascribe to capitalism: wealth without concern for the masses - THAT is the result of the cure you wish to impose.
Socialism doesn't need to meet the needs of the masses; it only needs the means to coerce the masses. And don't believe for a moment that telling me that MY healthcare must be mandated, not by my desire and means, but by gov't's design and restriction, isn't a form of coercion that is a necessary instrument of socialism.
Capitalism works because it is a symbiotic relationship: investors need consumers and they need consumers wealthy enough to afford their offerings and services.
Exxon made a record profit. Fine. But that profit, measured in billions, represented only 10% of it's gross collections. In order to realize that profit, Exxon had to have customers wealthy enough to buy billions upon billions of dollars worth of energy.
Healthcare execs are rich. Gov't made them that way. The regulations and mandated moves away from market forces create their bubble. More regulation is not the answer to that; less is.
No matter how you look at this picture, it comes down to this: with rights come responsibility. When you attempt to absolve the masses of responsibility, in reality, you only deprive them of their God given rights.
If the gov't hands out something to the people, that is not a 'right'; it's an accomodation. There is a world of difference between the two. BECAUSE I believe that everybody has a 'right' to healthcare, I, of necessity believe two additional things: 1. with that right comes responsibility, and 2. that right must be invested IN the individual.
Passgasser, I will address the first of your questions only..you can fight your own war and prove your own points. As to where in the constitution I base my argument is listed in the Preamble -the purpose of the constitution- right after provide for common defens, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE...
The ninth admendment of the Bill of Rights-makes it clear that people's rights are not restricted to just those specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The ninth admendment gave black people their freedom and gave women their rights. The ninth admendment gives us the right to life and the right to healthcare to maintain that life to promote the general welfare of the country. The fifth admendment gives us the power to change the constitution to include healthcare as a right. It is clear here that the framers wanted to give us the ability to change with the times but not the basic foundation of the constitution.
Tell me where you get the right to healthcare and others do not?
You have so misunderstood the 9th and 10th Amendments as to give them a completely opposite definition.
The 'rights retained by the people' stood in direct contradiction to powers assumed by the gov't. This was not a free pass for the gov't to assume more power but rather, in stark opposition, a bar for gov't to keep their grubby hands off.
The rights of the people ARE more than granted specifically in the Constitution. On that, we agree. But the Founding Fathers and the Constitution was expressing this concept as being a necessary restriction AGAINST gov't from assuming those rights and powers. The very import is to BAR the gov't from assuming these powers.
The fifth amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with the power to change the constitution. And if you concede that a change in the Constitution would be required to implement this socialist agenda, I agree, but that takes nothing short of an Amendment. In the meantime, for you to suggest that the fifth amendment had anything to do with granting more federal power, instead of a pointed exercise to limit that power, I have to wonder if we are even talking about the same document.
And for the record, the 9th Amendment was on the books during 3 successive generations of slavery. It was the 13th and 14th Amendments that irrevocably ended slavery.
Tell me where you get the right to healthcare and others do not?
Name me just one citizen in this country barred by the gov't from the right to pursue healthcare?
You seriously err to confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. You compound that error by imposing that mistranslation upon the Constitution.
With rights come the responsibility to avail yourself of those rights. Anything less is something considerably less than a 'right'.
Thankyou for this clarification, I was thinking along the same lines.
HM2VikingRN, RN
4,700 Posts
Somehow Stossel is just not credible.....
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607140010
Stossel: Market forces would ensure high quality of human organs, just as they do hot dogs
Claiming that "we have no shortages of anything else that faces the open market," ABC News 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel, on the July 13 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, advocated the legal sale of organs. Responding to Cavuto's concerns that some organs "might not be safe," Stossel cited the fact that "hot dogs don't spoil when we get to them" as evidence that "the market figures out ways to make these things work." Despite Stossel's earlier assertion that "I have two [kidneys]; I only need one," he was noncommittal when Cavuto asked: "Would you give me a kidney if I needed one?" Stossel said he "would consider" it. Even when Cavuto suggested the offer would be high, Stossel responded: "I don't know, we'll have to talk later."