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.
As a nurse from outside the US I didn't realise that health was such a political subject. Interesting...
It will be an even bigger issue soon enough. The architect of the failed 1992/93 attempt to nationalize healthcare was none other then Hillary Clinton.
As our Presidential campaign picks up during the summer and fall, this will become an even bigger political issue because, for ill or good, it will be tied to Clinton (and discussed in that political context).
Remember this: no matter what polls say (for example, a majority of Americans favor universal healthcare generally, but when specifically polled about universal healthcare if it means curtailing or rationing any access for them individually, that number drops significantly below 50%; this fact has been previously quoted and cited in this thread.) - no matter what polls may say, people inherently fear change; it's a basic characteristic of our humanity.
People inherently fear change. This is a potent power and both a boon and frustration for all vested political interests. IT is why healthcare reform didn't pass in 1992-1993. IT is also why Social Security reform didn't pass in 2005. It is why adding prescription drugs to Medicare only passed with repeated and bipartisan assurances that in no way could such a change effect a negative outcome to recipients, something universal healthcare (just like the 2005 SS reforms) simply could not and cannot realistically promise. And, it is why universal healthcare as an option continues to remain in doubt here in the U.S.
For those with nothing to lose under the current system, there is nothing to fear. This proposed change, indeed ANY proposed change, is better than the alternative. That is the small minority. For the vast majority, there is indeed much to fear from such a change. THAT is the operational political condition in play.
There are also underpinnings in the American psyche that are distinctly different from the European cultured West, a culture that has embraced universal healthcare. Those underpinnings have been derisively named a 'cowboy' mentality. What so many in European cultures fail to realize is that that derogatory label is seen all too often in America as an unintended compliment.
It is that 'rugged individualist' mentality that rises along with an inherent fear of change that has and will continue to frustrate the passage of universal healthcare here. I don't see any viable mechanism that can change that. For better or worse, we are who we are.
So, while it IS a political issue, there are simply bigger and more overwhelming forces in play.
I know this argument is becoming circular, but again, was it unconstitutional to take away the right to own slaves? Was it unconstitutional to give women and black Americans the right to vote? There was a huge backlash when these changes were made and we became a better Nation for it.Sometimes if we as a people do a wrong to other people the government has stepped in and righted this wrong. These were CHANGES to better our society, we retained our Democratic form of government.
This is a fallacious argument, based on the idea that we all have the right to healthcare, regardless of ability to pay. So far, no one has been able to successfully argue that this right even exists.
In recognition of a woman's right to vote, the constitution places no burden on any other citizen. It simply recognizes that women have equal standing in this nation as citizens to participate in our government. In abolishing slavery, the constitution goes even further, in that it relieved an unjust burden placed on one part of the population that benefited another part of the population, and this is central to my argument.
In owning a slave, one takes from that person the fundamental right to choose a path in life, to decide what how they will work towards self-sufficiency. It also takes away the fundamental right of self-determination of what one will do with the fruits of one's own labor. By abolishing slavery, the government recognized this fundamental wrong, and removed the burden from the black population in the south. In the end, the constitution denies that anyone has a right that to place a burden on one sector of our society to the benefit of another sector.
All of which supports a central theme of my argument, which so far you and others have steadfastly ignored. By granting universal health care as a "right," you place a burden on the majority of our society to the benefit of a small minority. Granting universal health care means that the majority will lose the freedom to choose health care plans. Worse, it means that in some measure, the majority will lose at least some of their freedom to decide how they will allocate the fruits of their own labor. By force of law, a form of involuntary servitude will be forced on a majority of the population. Hardly what the constitution intended.
So far, no one has even really challenged this fundamental point. Unless and until such time as someone can present a valid argument that supports healthcare as a right, regardless of ability to pay, or someone can demonstrate that we can grant such a right without placing a burden on others, no such right exists.
i am glad to see that there are at least some in our profession who know what economics do and don't do for people. i currently pay appox. $600/month for my health care insurance. the whole 40 million american's without insurance problem isn’t really the problem that it’s been made out to be. most are like me, only they are playing craps, they don’t get any healthcare and pray really hard they don't get sick. pass some type of national health care for them and the number will jump overnight to somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 million plus - because once someone is willing to pay it for me, i'm done paying out the $600. i personally know many people who are in business for themselves and just don’t see the need for paying money every month for something they don’t think they are going to use anytime soon. most have no idea what it really costs when they do get sick.
as far as the "evil" drug companies, why don't we just stop them!!! those evil people; you don't mind that no further drug development, do you? yes, i have heard that's not true, but please let me know what drug england, canada, etc...have developed recently?
we pay more, we get more. whether the world likes us or not, we are american's; and we are not ugly american's. we are generous and caring. so when someone from canada is on the 6 month wait list for their emergency open heart, we do it. our doctors, hospitals and most of all nurses, volunteer more and give more than anyone else in the world.
one last note, i am married to a german, straight from the fatherland, and you better believe that anyone in that country who can afford it, pays extra for the "private" insurance. they have nationalized healthcare which resembles something like a picture from a bad sci-fi movie after a plague hits. over crowded waiting rooms, crying babies, and don't be what the government considers old and need something they don't think will extend your life "enough" to justify the cost to them.
why people don't understand how letting the government control more and more of what we believe we have a right to, leads first to socialism and then to communism. please tell me you remember the wonderful societies they where/are.
go supply side capitalism. and yes i have fallen flat on my face from this type of society. i had a home health agency; i opened unfortunately just a year to late and got hit bad during the transition to pps from the cost per visit system. no one i hired had a right to a job, health care, or anything else. they could work anywhere. i did provide the health insurance and feel this was the best time of my life, even though i am still paying some things back. but, because we live under this system, i am doing even better. i picked myself up, dusted myself off and worked for all that i have. there is nowhere in the world like it.
it's all connected - please educate yourselves on how it all works together. how we all really are better off when we do it ourselves.
And, in case anyone was wondering, yes there is precedent for what I am saying (you have no rights that would necessarily place a burden on others).
In the case of CBS versus the DNC, 1973, the court basically said that there was no requirement for broadcasters to provide airtime to folks who had a viewpoint they wanted to air. In other words, you have the right of free speech. However, should there be a cost involved in how you want to exercise that right, you, not the government, the taxpayers, or the broadcasting companies, are responsible to bear that cost.
"The Court spoke to this reality when, in Red Lion, we said 'it is idle to posit an unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish.' Id., at 388."
We did not need a Constitutional ammendment to create Medicare in 1964.
I am very glad it included renal dialysis.
My sister was and is self employed. She pays for her health insurance and that of her employees.
If not for Medicare paying for her three times a week dialysis she would be dead. No business, husband a widower, kids and grandchildren missing a wonderful loving and fun person.
I think people don't realize that with Medicare for all everyone pays and everyone benefits. There are improvements.
No more insurance comanies long authorization or denial process.
I was supported by tax money for 18 weeks after an injury because I was waiting for authorization to see an orthopedic MD, for an MRI, to see the MD again, for physical therapy. EACH authorization took two weeks then I had to wait a week for an appointment.
Medicare does not require authorization to treat. Providers must meet certain clinical standards to participate.
While I became more disabled and pain increased I collected state disability. In my state all workers pay for state disability and collect if disabled.
Healthcare could be the same.
I now pay extra for the "Premier" policies offered by "The Blues". BUT I know a couple whose baby was born at a hospital. When she was suferring with croup they took her to the ER there. It was out of the network. WHY should parents not be allowed to take a baby to the hospital of birth? They weren't told the ER is privately contracted by the hospital. Sorry with Medicare you can go anywhere.
NO denials. I advise people not to give up their Medicare for an HMO.
We taxpayers pay for the healthcare of the large percentage of working young adults who choose not to buy insurance.
They are often in accidents, sometimes become very ill.
They are usually renters with very small savings. Driving new cars and taking vacation trips we pay for their care when the end up in places like the ICU where I work. I am glad there is a way for them to get care but it would be better if they and the ones who don't get hurt just had their Medicare payroll deduction.
Everybody in.
Nobody out.
It is too bad that some think it takes away from them to live in a country where all of us have access to healthcare.
I am sad so many people waste their working lives working for health insurance companies. These corporations do nothing worthwhile or useful.
… Clinton asked at one point for a show of hands from the audience to see how many would prefer employer-based health insurance, how many would prefer a system in which individuals purchased insurance, with help from the government if necessary, and how many would prefer a system modeled on Medicare.
The audience overwhelmingly favored moving toward a Medicare-like system for all Americans. But Clinton, recalling the famous "Harry and Louise" ads run by opponents of her early-'90s health-care plan, warned that until there is greater political consensus, the same kind of attacks could sink any new efforts to provide universal coverage..
Universal Health care does not require a constitutional amendment process to be adopted. Enactment of the medicare system shows that. The larger issue that we have to come to terms with is "Do we want government to use our mutually shared resources (ie taxes) for the benefit/advancement of the upper 1% who own the corporatocracy or do we want our resources used more wisely and efficiently through a single payer system that benefits the beneficiaries?" Frankly I am sick of the corporatists feeding vociferously at the public trough and then claiming "I made it on my own why can't you"
Overcrowding of emergency rooms in Canada is increasingly mirrored by the
same problem in the United States, though underreported in this country.
Physicians at the Los Angeles County–USC Medical Center have testified
that some emergency room patients can wait up to four days for a bed and
that others may die before receiving care (17). Of the millions of Americans
crowding U.S. emergency rooms, many have problems that could have been
prevented by earlier care; they end up being charged the highest rates for
emergency care, then are released with often inadequate follow-up care (18).
Comprehensive and reliable provincial databases on waiting times show that
in recent years, waiting times have decreased while services have increased.
For example, coronary bypass surgery increased by 66 percent between
1991 and 1997 in Manitoba, while waiting times were reduced for that
procedure and also shortened for five other elective procedures—carotid
endarterectomy, cholecystectomy, hernia repair, tonsillectomy, and transurethral
resection of the prostate (21).
• Although there is a widespread myth that many Canadians seek medical
care in the United States, a three-state study reported in 2002 found that
this number is very low for either outpatient or hospital care, and largely
due to these Canadians needing medical care while traveling in the United
States (22).
While claiming greater efficiency and value than fee-for-service Medicare,
Medicare + Choice HMOs are subsidized by government, and still exit the
market if not sufficiently profitable. Between 1998 and 2000, the government paid them 13 percent more than traditional Medicare costs, and still many
HMOs withdrew from the market, leaving 2.4 million seniors to find alternative
coverage and often other health care providers (42).
• Medicare Advantage, the successor to Medicare + Choice plans, continues to claim greater efficiency and value than fee-for-service Medicare, but is still subsidized by federal payments well in excess of traditional Medicare’s funding. The average overpayment to a Medicare Advantage plan is 107 percent of fee-for-service Medicare in 2004, with some high cost counties receiving overpayments of 132 percent (e.g., San Francisco
this is a list of the 8 corporate welfare recipients that were listed in the first article of the inquirer series, comparing corporate welfare received to the number of people layed off in that time (1990-1994). welfare recieved employmentgm $110,600,000 -104,000ibm 58,000,000 -100,000at&t 35,000,000 -1,077 * #ge 25,400,000 -80,000amoco 23,600,000 -8,300 *dupont 15,200,000 -29,961motorola 15,100,000 +9,600 *citicorp 9,600,000 -15,700
this is a list of the 8 corporate welfare recipients that were listed in the first article of the inquirer series, comparing corporate welfare received to the number of people layed off in that time (1990-1994). welfare recieved employmentgm $110,600,000 -104,000ibm 58,000,000 -100,000at&t 35,000,000 -1,077 * #ge 25,400,000 -80,000amoco 23,600,000 -8,300 *dupont 15,200,000 -29,961motorola 15,100,000 +9,600 *citicorp 9,600,000 -15,700
Tiwi
162 Posts
As a nurse from outside the US I didn't realise that health was such a political subject. Interesting...