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.
Like Timothy, I am against federal government subsidies paid to corporate America. That out of the way, let's look for a moment at the government you all want to run our health care program:
Of course, we all know that the government has a long history of denying problems. In Vietnam, we used a defoliant called Agent Orange. Agent Orange contained dioxin, one of the most toxic chemicals known to man. It is known to have both immediate and long term effects, and these effects can be suffered in spite of exposure to very small doses of the toxin. Yet for years, the government, the same government you all want to run our health care programs, denied all veterans' claims for disability due to Agent Orange exposure, saying that Agent Orange was not toxic to humans, and could not be the cause of symptomology clusters of troops exposed to the agent.
25 years later, another group of troops suffer similar clusters of symptomology. The only similiarity many of these troops had was participation in the first Gulf War. Today, these troops (including a couple of friends of mine) are suffering long term effects, including joint pain, debilitating fatigue, and others. Yet the government maintained for years that there was no such thing as "Gulf War Syndrome," and routinely denied any and all claims for disability based on this syndrome.
And now, completely away from the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs, we have this.
If you don't want to read the whole story, here it is in a nutshell. In 2005, the Conusmer Products Safety Commission tested various vinyl lunchboxes for lead. They discovered that many of these lunchboxes contained high levels of lead, including some with as much as 16 times what the federal government considered to be safe levels of lead. These were not the results that were released.
The CPSC determined that the lunch boxes were safe, and said so. They said so only after changing the testing protocol twice! A quote from the article itself:
"I don't think the Consumer Product Safety Commission has lived up to its role to protect kids from lead," said Dr. Bruce Lamphear, a lead poisoning specialist at the Children's Hospital Medical Center in Cincinnati, Ohio. "As a public agency, their work should be transparent. And if one is to err on the side of protecting children rather than protecting lunch box makers, then certainly you would want to lower the levels."
All other arguments aside for the moment, this is the government you want running our health care programs?
In my simplistic thinking, I will say who do you TRUST to do your bidding?People who you can vote in and out of office or a CEO of a corporation?Again such MISTRUST of our government is DEEPLY troubling.
Again such MISTRUST of our government is DEEPLY troubling.
This is the second time you have posted this thought, and both times, I have had the same thought in response.
Since you find mistrust of our government deeply troubling, may I make the following inferences?
-When news of the warrantless wiretapping program was leaked, I infer you immediately, out of trust for the government, assumed that they were acting in a constitutionally correct manner. (They were, by the way.)
-With the passage of the PATRIOT Act, I infer you immediately assumed it was nothing more than a bill designed to streamline how we did antiterrorism activities, without violating our constitutional rights. (It was, by the way.)
The point is this. I neither trust nor mistrust the government. In cases like the two above, I look at the actual activities or bills, rather than listen to the hoopla surrounding them, to determine whether the government has acted in an ethical manner.
When it comes to social programs, I look at the track record of the government, to determine whether the government will be able to effectively run such a program. In the case of universal health care, I conclude they are absolutely not worthy of my trust where my health is concerned. In matters of health care, they have a long history of being slow on the uptake, and long on denial of the existance of a problem. Further, when politicians become involved, ethics are for sale to the highest bidder, and safety of the electorate be damned.
There is also a long history of governmental fraud, waste, and abuse where management of social programs is concerned. Bureaucratic red tape in the government is legendary. The government has a long history of managing social programs into the ground, with administrative costs often taking more than 50% of the budget. The government discourages inventive thought, and rewards the increase of bureaucracy through what we used to call empire building. The goverment, as evidenced by the VA, the CPSC, and too many other agencies to name, has no need to be responsive, or even minimally polite to those seeking assistance from the agency. "Take it or leave it, but you have no other recourse" could truly be the motto of the social agencies run by our government. And if you don't believe me, go back through the thread and read the horror stories told by many here of the trouble they had getting deserved benefits from the government. What amazes me is that these same people, in spite of already having suffered what the government can do, still want to hand our entire health care system over to them.
At least where the CEO is concerned, s/he is ultimately responsible to the shareholders. In order to make them happy, s/he must show profits, and to do this, must keep customers happy. At the very least, under the present system, if I am unhappy with the options offered by my health insurance company, I am free to drop them and find insurance elsewhere. If enough customers do this, the CEO is out of a job. You would take this freedom from me.
I am a progressive, I believe in REFORM, I TRUST our government and those we ELECT to bring about the reform we the people DEMAND.Yes I am very frustrated that the Social Security Program is screwed up, that is why we need healthcare and other reforms. I refuse to believe we as a people cannot bring this about if enough like minded folks get together and stop putting so much energy into negativity and use this energy for the common good, or would this be too much like socialism to some?
how can health care be a right? health care is a rescource, it is limited by the number of people willing to go to school get and education and provide it, it is a service provided by other people, and there is only so much to go around. whether or not you think that everyone is "entitled" to health care or not, you can't argue the fact that there are only so many doctors and nurses and other health care professionals to go around. havent you heard about the nursing shortage? even if you give everyone a universal health care system, you still have to have the people to provide them that health care. so what if there aren't enough of those people to go around, and you are the one who ends up waiting months for your free health care? or if you are the nurse who takes a pay cut because you are now helping to fund this "free" health care that everyone has a right to? it is sad that there are people that work hard and have bad insurance and cant get a break, but that is life, and everything is not fair. that is the choice you make when you live in a capitalistic society. you have both the opportunity to succeed or fail. some have to work a lot harder to succeed. there is a place for people that want free health care and who want uncle sam to take care of them. its called the military. all the free health care the government thinks you should get. you get paid no matter how much or how little you work. unless you royally screw up, it is pretty hard to get kicked out.
Are the people in these countries unwilling to work hard?
Israel, Ireland, South Korea, Great Britain, Austria, Germany, Japan, Argentina, Brazil, The Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Finland, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Australia, Costa Rica, Portugal, Canada, New Zealand, and Sweden all have government provided health care.
I think we need to get as much corporate control out of politics as we can. The corporations don't care about this country, yet they buy politicians.
you missed the whole point of what i was saying. no, i wasnt talking about the people in other countries. i was talking about america. those other countries dont even have the same kind of government as we do.
you missed the whole point of what i was saying. no, i wasnt talking about the people in other countries. i was talking about america. those other countries dont even have the same kind of government as we do.
Andrea, I believe the point was that all those countries that have universal healthcare are filled with hard working people, yet they decided as a country that it was a good idea to give all the people healthcare wihout having to go through a private company to get it. Andrea, what do you think about using the money that is being wasted now in paying for all those beautiful office buildings, cushy CEO suites, huge CEO yearly bonuses and wages and using it to have a healthcare system for all? Do you realize that there are people who are turned down for medical procedures that are desperatly needed, by these private insurance companies? What is worse waiting 6 months for a surgery or NEVER getting the surgery? I think we can do better .Do you not think that we as a country can come up with a way to give all the people excellent healthcare? I think it is possible, we put a man on the moon,didnt we? Try reading up on Universal Healthcare,there are lots of links. You might be surprised, its not what you seem to think, by what you have posted here.
Please follow the link to http://pnhp.org/facts/myths_memes.pdf for an academic debunking of the waiting list myth about Canada. No system will ever be perfect BUT waiting for an elective procedure hardly qualifies as "life threatening." Inconvenient yes but not life threatening. It is simply immoral for American society to allocate access to health care by bake sale which is the situation many under/uninsureds face when confronted with a need for a transplant or cancer treatments.
It's not myth.
If it were a myth, then the Canadian gov't wasted a $4.5 Billion dollar pledge to reduce waiting lists.
There would be no need for a "Western Canada Waiting List Project" or the "Canada Wait Times" Advisory Group.
The Cleveland Clinic would not be doing more Canadian hip replacements than any Canadian hospital.
The Canadian Supreme Court would not have ruled that "access to a waiting list is not access to health care" after George Zeliotis was placed on a one-year list for a hip replacement. The Vancouver Fraser institute would not have said that the average wait time for surgery is 4.5 months...that's average...meaning half the people wait longer. They also would not have ruled that bans on private insurance are a violation of patient rights, and that these bans contribute to the 'mythical' wait times.
If it were a myth, there wouldn't be 13 years worth of "waiting list" surveys showing that the wait times are increasing in Canada.
There would be no need for a federal position called "Office of the Federal Wait Times Advisor," or for them to have started their two-phase project, which included the reduction of wait times as a goal of phase one.
All of the private businesses which provide the service of connecting Canadians to non-Canadian health-care providers would not be succeeding, and 30% of Canadian physicians would not have referred their patients out of the country for care that was not available in a time manner.
In a recent news article, a Canadian baby was placed on ECMO in Winnipeg...and this made the news? Four Ecmo facilities in the entire country? Neonatal ECMO didn't cross the border into Canada until 1988...almost 20 years after being used in the USA...now that's one heck of a wait.
You are missing a fundamental difference or two between the Federal Government and private industry. First of all, where the right of self-determination is concerned, under the status quo, you are free to make choices. Let’s compare two people, say passgasser and burn out. Our ages are different, our health problems are different, our lives are different. In looking at health care options, I may choose to pay X company X amount for X coverage. However, given your differing health concerns, you may choose to pay Y company Y amount for Y coverage. There is a choice. Followed to its logical conclusion, let us suppose that I am 25 with no health problems. I am free to take the risk to carry no health insurance, relying instead on my ability to pay out of pocket for any minor health concerns that may arise.
Under a system of universal health care, all the choices and freedom are lost. Neither of us is able to shop for a health care benefit plan that best suits our needs. We both pay the government Z amount, and both receive Z coverage. (Which, of course, ends up with a system of health care rationing, a point none of the supporters of universal health care want to discuss.) Neither of us is free to choose to carry no health insurance whatsoever. Health insurance is forced upon us, and the premium, set by the government, is taken from us by force of law.
Further, a single payer system sets up a monopoly. In fact, it sets up the biggest monopoly ever seen in this nation. That monopoly sets prices, both for the premiums we pay, and for the reimbursement it will pay to health care providers. In the history of monopolies, there has never been one that was benevolent. In every case, it set the bar for payment in very high, and set the bar for what it would pay very low. No one had any choices, they simply had to accept what was charged. Health care is no different.
And once again, we return to the issue of healthcare as a "right" regardless of ability to pay. There is a fundamental principle that underlies all the rights recognized by our constitution. That is that you have no rights that would infringe on my freedoms. I am free to worship as I please, but cannot force that religion on you (a concept that seems foreign to many on the religious right). I am free to speak my mind, but cannot force you to listen, nor can I force you (or the government) to pay for a forum to spread my message. In short, my rights end where yours begin.
Healthcare does not meet the requirements of this simple, fundamental constitutional test. In order to grant "free" health care to all, a burden is necessarily placed on one portion of our population in order to benefit another portion of the population, a proposition foreign to the very basic theory that underlies our constitution. You cannot have a right that infringes on the rights of others.
So, until you can demonstrate that such a program won’t perforce place a burden on one section of the population in order to benefit another section of the population, or until such time as you can show that the fundamental underpinnings of the constitution must be changed, one simple fact remains: Healthcare, regardless of ability to pay, is not a right.
Just because you say "we haven’t exercised our right to healthcare" does not mean any such right exists. In fact, a clear analysis of the principles that underlie the constitution seems to clearly say such a right does not exist.
Edited to add: I would also point out, using the very same logic and reasoning you are using, I could demonstrate why I have a right to a Hummer (not the cheaper H2 or H3), and since I can't afford it, the taxpayer must buy it for me. And since it is such an expensive vehicle to maintain and drive, why I have the right to have the taxpayer pay for all the maintenence and gas necessary to keep it on the road.
Would you please quit patronizing me,I find it rather insulting. You keep saying I am missing THE point when there are several points to be made.
You want to compare Burn outs and passgassers insurance well let's throw in for the sake of argument the federal employees health insurance (keeping in mind who employs and funds federal workers..we do). Burn out gets to chose from the ONE insurance offered to her from her employeer, the only choice here is Do you want single or family plan, She pays high premiums, high co pays, and is limited to only doctors that her insurance company says she can go to...still she goes without blood pressure medication because the co pay is still too high for all her medications. Pass gasser I am only assuming becasue I do not know for sure, gets options of health care plans, gets to chose which doctor he wants to go to, and is either healthy and requires no medications or has co pays that are manageable. He is the one that private health insurance companies make the most money off of..somene that does not need to use the system.
Federal employees which both burn out and passgasser support in tax dollars get numerous choices of health insurance plans with all sorts of pay options and deductables and can select one plan based on if they need better maternity benfits vs better dental plans. They can go to practically any hospital in the country, the government doesn't care if the money goes to new york or texas and to any doctor becasue they have so many options. They can select a plan that postal workers use or they select from more individualized plans. Now they have a choice.
Draw your only conclussions but I would say that the fedeal government offers a far better deal than the private employeer and private health insurance company and why is that? Could it be because the federal government does not have a vested interest in making money in health care industry and has no stockholders to report back to?
I am a progressive, I believe in REFORM, I TRUST our government and those we ELECT to bring about the reform we the people DEMAND.Yes I am very frustrated that the Social Security Program is screwed up, that is why we need healthcare and other reforms. I refuse to believe we as a people cannot bring this about if enough like minded folks get together and stop putting so much energy into negativity and use this energy for the common good, or would this be too much like socialism to some?
I think it interesting that you call yourself a progressive, yet what you advocate is regressive. Creation of a national healthcare agency would equate to the creation of a monopoly the likes of which has not been seen since the breakup of the Bell Corporation. Of course, we all know what happened when that corporation was broken up. More phone companies were created, competition began, phone service improved across the board, and ultimately prices went down. Creation of one, monolithic health care agency would eliminate all competition, meaning that one agency could set payments, both for how much the individual paid in and for how much it chose to reimburse. There would be no competition, and therefore no incentive to keep premiums down. And perhaps worst of all, you would give this monopoly force of law, so that no person could choose to opt out, no provider could choose to say I won’t accept patients on this plan. As I said before, we all get the healthcare equivalent of Chevy Cavalier coverage, with no options for anything else. And you consider this to be progressive?
I’d really like to see you address the issue of the creation of an all-powerful monopoly. I’d like you to demonstrate how, or even why, this monopoly, faced with no competition, would work to keep prices down. While you are at it, I’d like you also to address the fact that since this monopoly would be controlled by the government, what incentive it would have to keep red tape down, how it would be forced to be responsive to the people. Talk about elected officials all you want, remember that the employees of this organization will not be elected, but will instead be government employees. We all know how responsive they are. They can’t be fired, and they know it. They also would know that no matter how angry you might get at their inaction, there won’t be a damn thing you can do about it, because you have no other options.
And while you are addressing things, since you trust our government so much, would you please address the questions I asked in the last post? I really am interested in your answers. Here they are again:
-When news of the warrantless wiretapping program was leaked, I infer you immediately, out of trust for the government, assumed that they were acting in a constitutionally correct manner.
-With the passage of the PATRIOT Act, I infer you immediately assumed it was nothing more than a bill designed to streamline our antiterrorism activities, without violating our constitutional rights.
My point is this: Many of you keep repeating the mantra "we must have a universal health care plan." But when presented with real, valid objections to such a plan, you ignore them, and continue to repeat the mantra. I’ve raised several objections to such a plan. Most of those objections have not even been addressed, and your arguments for those you did address ended up being stronger arguments in favor of my position.
I’ll even be happy to go back over all my posts in this thread, and come up with one post in which my objections are outlined. But I will only do so if at least one of you promises to address these objections directly. Otherwise, you are forced to admit that my objections are valid. Does not mean you must abandon your position, just that there are valid objections over such a plan, and these should be addressed before we charge headlong into the establishment of a national program that I see has the potential to be a disaster.
passgasser
88 Posts
Like Timothy, I am against federal government subsidies paid to corporate America. That out of the way, let's look for a moment at the government you all want to run our health care program:
Of course, we all know that the government has a long history of denying problems. In Vietnam, we used a defoliant called Agent Orange. Agent Orange contained dioxin, one of the most toxic chemicals known to man. It is known to have both immediate and long term effects, and these effects can be suffered in spite of exposure to very small doses of the toxin. Yet for years, the government, the same government you all want to run our health care programs, denied all veterans' claims for disability due to Agent Orange exposure, saying that Agent Orange was not toxic to humans, and could not be the cause of symptomology clusters of troops exposed to the agent.
25 years later, another group of troops suffer similar clusters of symptomology. The only similiarity many of these troops had was participation in the first Gulf War. Today, these troops (including a couple of friends of mine) are suffering long term effects, including joint pain, debilitating fatigue, and others. Yet the government maintained for years that there was no such thing as "Gulf War Syndrome," and routinely denied any and all claims for disability based on this syndrome.
And now, completely away from the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs, we have this.
If you don't want to read the whole story, here it is in a nutshell. In 2005, the Conusmer Products Safety Commission tested various vinyl lunchboxes for lead. They discovered that many of these lunchboxes contained high levels of lead, including some with as much as 16 times what the federal government considered to be safe levels of lead. These were not the results that were released.
The CPSC determined that the lunch boxes were safe, and said so. They said so only after changing the testing protocol twice! A quote from the article itself:
"I don't think the Consumer Product Safety Commission has lived up to its role to protect kids from lead," said Dr. Bruce Lamphear, a lead poisoning specialist at the Children's Hospital Medical Center in Cincinnati, Ohio. "As a public agency, their work should be transparent. And if one is to err on the side of protecting children rather than protecting lunch box makers, then certainly you would want to lower the levels."
All other arguments aside for the moment, this is the government you want running our health care programs?