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.
you keep going on and on about the constitution, the founding fathers etc etc etc. Although I have learned a lot, I would like to see some discussion on the economic effects of our current healthcare system vs universal health care. Pretty please.
I have. Again, reductions in reimbursement will force lowering of pay across the board in the health care industry. Increased taxation will be necessary. So, in the health care industry at least, pay will go down while taxes will go up. Speaking strictly for me, I will probably lose my home, will be forced to sell my cars, and won't be able to pay my student loans. Probably will be true for most physicians, AP nurses, and staff nurses. The companies that offer student loans will probably suffer a major blow. That blow will probably be fatal to many of them. Unless, of course, you want to raise our taxes yet again so that the government is forced to pay of the student loans of everyone in health care. This will probably force a number of people (myself included) to look for employment outside of the healthcare industry. As altruistic as I might be, I won't continue to work in an environment where I cannot support my family. My charity does not (and should not) extend to making my family suffer for the "good of others."
When the monopolistic health care plan is set up, the current health care insurance providers will go out of business. All those jobs will be gone. Unemployment rises. Welfare rolls increase.
As I recall, you were the one who suggested that universal health care did not have to be run by the government. So, I asked you to suggest an alternative. So far, you have not done so. Hence, I assume that our government will run the program. The same government that runs the nearly bankrupt social security program. The same government that controls the education system that ranks behind most industrialized nations. And on and on. Given the track record of our government at administering social programs, quality of health care will likely decline as well.
When the monopolistic health care plan is set up, the current health care insurance providers will go out of business. All those jobs will be gone. Unemployment rises. Welfare rolls increase.
If you use this argument to keep any changes from occurring then free market can't work either. Free market depends upon competition which means that certain companies and industries will sooner or later "lose" in the competition and anyone employed there will lose their jobs. It's natural to want to protect one's livelihood so we see protesting over the closing of factories and major downsizing that corporations must periodically do to stay competitive.
The same government that controls the education system that ranks behind most industrialized nations.
And most of those other industrialized nations also have public education. Is it that their governments just happen to be more competetent or are these countries also heading to disaster by allowing the government to continue to control the education system?
Your concerns about the possible problems with universal care are valid. However, do you seriously believe the government (that is, the citizenry prompting it's representatives) shouldn't do something to prompt change in the course of health care delivery today? Perhaps you're in favor of medical savings accounts?
It's not just indigent people who misuse the ERs that are squeezing hospitals.
Health plans are also squeezing service providers with low reimbursements. What I think you are saying is that universal care would create even MORE of this type of squeezing. The national health plan would say "We're going to pay X amount for this test, this treatment, take it or leave it." If that amount is too low to cover costs, service providers will continue to shave off costs, probably by cutting staff (nursing) and wages (of nurses). It's a valid concern. Let's talk about that as opposed to slippery slopes and the like.
Finally, Spacenurse, you cannot really be serious. Al Franken? I'll make you a deal. I won't quote Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or any of the other conservative talking heads. I'd rather think for myself anyway. But please, don't ask me to accept that a failed comedian is in any way qualified to tell me how to think.
Good lord, whose next? Barbara Streisand?
This is the governor of my state:
Mr. Franken is a candidate for the senate in the state that elected him:
I don't think we should let anyone tell us how to think. I am glad you don't.
I also think it can be good to hear the point of view of many people.
When the monopolistic health care plan is set up, the current health care insurance providers will go out of business. All those jobs will be gone. Unemployment rises. Welfare rolls increase.
As I recall, you were the one who suggested that universal health care did not have to be run by the government. So, I asked you to suggest an alternative. So far, you have not done so. Hence, I assume that our government will run the program. The same government that runs the nearly bankrupt social security program. The same government that controls the education system that ranks behind most industrialized nations. And on and on. Given the track record of our government at administering social programs, quality of health care will likely decline as well.
The HMO's and health insurance industry does nothing constructive.
They are in the businessed tape, denials of care, and other non productive activities for profit.
Many good smart people work for them who should be offered retraining. Some may want to become nurses.
■ The 20 largest HMOs in the U.S. made $10.8 billion in profits in 2005. The top seven U.S. health insurers made a combined $10 billion, nearly triple their profits of five years earlier. 12 top HMO executives pocketed $222.6 million in direct compensation in 2005 (source: Institute for Health and Socio-economic Policy).
■ William McGuire, CEO, UnitedHealth, the nation's second leading health insurer, had $1.6 billion in stock options at the end of 2005 (source -IHSP).
■ Donations from healthcare industry to Democratic and Republican campaigns for 2006-$72.3 million (source -Modern Healthcare, Dec. 18, 2006).
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.
~faith,
Timothy.
I think we may agree here more than we disagree. I agree that these admendments were to keep government out of peoples lives. I also believe that this was to include private individuals or corporations from doing what we were afraid the government would do. For example, the government was permissive to allow slavery to take place in this country. The government did not take an active stand and allowed a whole race of people to be owned , enslaved by private individuals. Until the government stepped in and said "Hey this is wrong we are taking the black man's rights away from him." Through admendments and a war orchestrated by the government Individuals were no longer allowed control over another individuals life.
Today, the government sits back and allows private insurance companies to dictate and exploit the working class by determining what costs they will cover in our medical care and where to draw the line for the profit margins and investors, while totally dening the lower class or nonworkers access because they can not contribute enough to make a profit. While the government does not directly deny the health care , they allow it to happen just like they allowed slavery to exist. If the government does nothing to stop this who can? If our own laws and constitution can not protect us against private companies dictating our medical care where do we turn?
I think we may agree here more than we disagree. I agree that these admendments were to keep government out of peoples lives. I also believe that this was to include private individuals or corporations from doing what we were afraid the government would do. For example, the government was permissive to allow slavery to take place in this country. The government did not take an active stand and allowed a whole race of people to be owned , enslaved by private individuals. Until the government stepped in and said "Hey this is wrong we are taking the black man's rights away from him." Through admendments and a war orchestrated by the government Individuals were no longer allowed control over another individuals life.
Today, the government sits back and allows private insurance companies to dictate and exploit the working class by determining what costs they will cover in our medical care and where to draw the line for the profit margins and investors, while totally dening the lower class or nonworkers access because they can not contribute enough to make a profit. While the government does not directly deny the health care , they allow it to happen just like they allowed slavery to exist. If the government does nothing to stop this who can? If our own laws and constitution can not protect us against private companies dictating our medical care where do we turn?
you keep going on and on about the constitution, the founding fathers etc etc etc. Although I have learned a lot, I would like to see some discussion on the economic effects of our current healthcare system vs universal health care. Pretty please.
Constitution? What Constitution? The one being walked all over upon by the current "conservative" administration? Yeah, okay. (Not criticizing you UK, but it's funny when people start pointing to the constitution to try to solidify their points, yet ignore what the constitution states when it goes against what they want to see happen).
I also come from a country where there is a public health system. You have a choice of whether you wish to pay for private care in a private hospital, or receive free care in a public hospital. Yes, you may have to wait for care, but it is based on urgency. I believe the private system here is a ripoff. You pay for your insurance, but you have to pay upfront and then be reimbursed by the insurance company. And we have what is called "the gap", whereby a hospital can charge what they like and the company will only give what they consider a standard amount for the care you receive.
Do the insurance companies in the US have this "gap" as well?
Wouldn't it be better to have the choice of going public or private
Actually, I don't think that the US educational system is a failure. The difference between here and Germany for example is that we have made a commitment to a free public education through HS. In Germany students are subject to high stakes testing at about age 13. If you fail the test you are on your way to becoming a baker or whatever and are out of the university bound track. If you select out the more average students you will achieve an increase in your overall test scores. Our system allows for the late bloomer effect.
I certainly think that there are areas in need of improvement in our educational system but I think that they are more in addressing the root causes of educational achievement gaps. (race economic or whatever.) IF we are really interested in fixing educational problems in our country then we need to get serious about improved access to health care and reduction of poverty.
.thumb.gif.041bac93584716f6dc9882dcd8cf500a.gif){kind=small}
passgasser
88 Posts
I have. Again, reductions in reimbursement will force lowering of pay across the board in the health care industry. Increased taxation will be necessary. So, in the health care industry at least, pay will go down while taxes will go up. Speaking strictly for me, I will probably lose my home, will be forced to sell my cars, and won't be able to pay my student loans. Probably will be true for most physicians, AP nurses, and staff nurses. The companies that offer student loans will probably suffer a major blow. That blow will probably be fatal to many of them. Unless, of course, you want to raise our taxes yet again so that the government is forced to pay of the student loans of everyone in health care. This will probably force a number of people (myself included) to look for employment outside of the healthcare industry. As altruistic as I might be, I won't continue to work in an environment where I cannot support my family. My charity does not (and should not) extend to making my family suffer for the "good of others."
When the monopolistic health care plan is set up, the current health care insurance providers will go out of business. All those jobs will be gone. Unemployment rises. Welfare rolls increase.
As I recall, you were the one who suggested that universal health care did not have to be run by the government. So, I asked you to suggest an alternative. So far, you have not done so. Hence, I assume that our government will run the program. The same government that runs the nearly bankrupt social security program. The same government that controls the education system that ranks behind most industrialized nations. And on and on. Given the track record of our government at administering social programs, quality of health care will likely decline as well.