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.
The deregulation in Cali was not the cause of the blackouts; it was because that while the population grew, liberals refused to allow any new sources of energy to be built.
Timothy, you've told a few posters that they could 'shop around' for health insurance. Have you forgotten about pre-existing conditions and how you can be denied coverage because of it? Every state is different as to the laws as to how long employer based coverage can be denied, some as long as 12 -18 months and even more so when it comes to private based insurance. Although you can elect to have a 'pre-existing' condition exclusion exemption in your policy so that you could be insured but never have that condition covered. Think of the implications- chronic diseases such as diabetes not covered? If you didn't have the $ to pay for your meds, txs, etc, oh well? Everyone knows the costs associated with untreated diabetes- end up in ER, disabled, not working- huge costs to society that could've been avoided. You seem to be ok with ER treatment. Why is it such a stretch to extend preventative care to all as well?
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.
:yeah: :yeahthat:
Thank you, I have been reading this thread all day and have been very disturbed to see that in all this time no one has metioned before that "healthcare" is not an inanimate object that can be parceled out like apples or chairs. Healthcare is people that have worked hard, studied and sacrificed to better themselves providing a service to other people in their community. As with any service industry (and that is what "healthcare" truly is) those who have taken the time to learn to do it deserve compensation and respect. Besides the military I cannot think of any government worker, please I said worker not polititian, that gets much in the way of respect. How may people will continue to enter into the field when the working conditions are bad, pay is bad and there is no respect or trust in the field.
The other major concern I have with unversal health insurance is the potential for the government to start dictating "healthy living" in the interst of cost savings. This may seem extreme to some but it is already starting in the form of smoking bans, and other legislation recently passed to "protect" us. My understanding of the ideals of this country have always been that the government is charged with protecting me from outside threats, not from myself.
Others have said that it is sad that many Americans do not trust there goverment. I believe it is a wise person that does not follow any group blindly. This country came into existence due to people not trusting their government. It is my right to question, diagree, and vote out representatives I do not agree with.
I do agree that the current healthcare system has many flaws, and needs reform. Handing it over wholesale to the federal goevernment is not the answer. The federal government is good at many things, but administering personalized healthcare to millions in a cost effective manner is not one of them in my opinion
Thank you, I have been reading this thread all day and have been very disturbed to see that in all this time no one has metioned before that "healthcare" is not an inanimate object that can be parceled out like apples or chairs. Healthcare is people that have worked hard, studied and sacrificed to better themselves providing a service to other people in their community. As with any service industry (and that is what "healthcare" truly is) those who have taken the time to learn to do it deserve compensation and respect. Besides the military I cannot think of any government worker, please I said worker not polititian, that gets much in the way of respect. How may people will continue to enter into the field when the working conditions are bad, pay is bad and there is no respect or trust in the field.
The other major concern I have with unversal health insurance is the potential for the government to start dictating "healthy living" in the interst of cost savings. This may seem extreme to some but it is already starting in the form of smoking bans, and other legislation recently passed to "protect" us. My understanding of the ideals of this country have always been that the government is charged with protecting me from outside threats, not from myself.
Others have said that it is sad that many Americans do not trust there goverment. I believe it is a wise person that does not follow any group blindly. This country came into existence due to people not trusting their government. It is my right to question, diagree, and vote out representatives I do not agree with.
I do agree that the current healthcare system has many flaws, and needs reform. Handing it over wholesale to the federal goevernment is not the answer. The federal government is good at many things, but administering personalized healthcare to millions in a cost effective manner is not one of them in my opinion
1. Healthcare is just what is says , healthcare is not the PEOPLE who provide it, it is the ACT of providing care for ones health.
2. AS far as respect goes, why ever would you assume that nurses and other healthcare workers would not be given the same respect and compensation they do now?
3. Working conditions, again how can you say that working conditions would be any worse than they are now? Here I would invite nurses from countries that have universal healthcare to speak up and let us know what their working conditions are, good or bad. I have heard many nightmarish stories on this forum concerning current working conditions, I have one of my own also.
4.As far as government dictating healthy living, looks like that is already happening in Texas.I agree that the governments interventions concerning people using substances that harm themselves has gone too far.
5.As far as BLINDLY following any group, government included,you are also correct here, BUT BLINDLY following and having CONFIDENCE in our form of government,are two different things. I and others who feel that our government can come up with an equitable solution are NOT blind followers, on the contrary this is PROGRESSIVE thinking, advocating for positive CHANGE, and REFORM of programs that are not working adequately, as opposed to the status quo .
6.Yes we are ALL free to vote in or out of office those who we feel will represent the citizens of this country and what is better for all .I believe the 2006 elections were the people speaking , I think they may speak even louder in 2008.Should be very interesting.
Anyway this thread is about healthcare. healthcare.
I wasn't the one to bring non-health comparisons into the discussion; am I not permitted to respond to them?
Enron and the other utility companies cannot sell power that they don't have, and they can't make power out of nothing when they are not permitted to build more power plants.
1. healthcare is just what is says , healthcare is not the people who provide it, it is the act of providing care for ones health. if it is not the people then what is the point?
2. as far as respect goes, why ever would you assume that nurses and other healthcare workers would not be given the same respect and compensation they do now? if we try to increase the number of people being covered without anyone paying anymore the salaries of healthcare workers will decrease.
3. working conditions, again how can you say that working conditions would be any worse than they are now? here i would invite nurses from countries that have universal healthcare to speak up and let us know what their working conditions are, good or bad. i have heard many nightmarish stories on this forum concerning current working conditions, i have one of my own also. working conditions vary all over the range of posibilities at this time, from wonderful to horific and they will continue to do so, but if salaries decline more nurses and doctors will leave the field and staffing shortages will escalate.
4.as far as government dictating healthy living, looks like that is already happening in texas.i agree that the governments interventions concerning people using substances that harm themselves has gone too far. agreed
5.as far as blindly following any group, government included,you are also correct here, but blindly following and having confidence in our form of government,are two different things. i and others who feel that our government can come up with an equitable solution are not blind followers, on the contrary this is progressive thinking, advocating for positive change, and reform of programs that are not working adequately, as opposed to the status quo . i do not believe that single payor insurance will make the gaps any smaller, they will just be different. instead of people not being able to pay for services they will be denied treatment due to increased demands on the infastructure and wait times. we would just be exchanging one set of problems for another and a percentage of the population will still fall through the gaps in the system. if anyone has a perfect plan that will truly care for all people at a high standard of care and not bankrupt our country i am all for it.
6.yes we are all free to vote in or out of office those who we feel will represent the citizens of this country and what is better for all .i believe the 2006 elections were the people speaking , i think they may speak even louder in 2008.should be very interesting.
we all need to think about the potential benefits and drawbacks of any change of this magnitude and not just go for the idea and hope the details will work themselves out.
We all need to think about the potential benefits and drawbacks of any change of this magnitude and not just go for the idea and hope the details will work themselves out.
Dont worry, be happy, well seriously we as a country mangaged to free the slaves, give women the right to vote,I think we can hope not to implode from a change to universal healthcare.
I wasn't the one to bring non-health comparisons into the discussion; am I not permitted to respond to them?
Enron and the other utility companies cannot sell power that they don't have, and they can't make power out of nothing when they are not permitted to build more power plants.
I was chastising myself for responding.
Let me try to be clear.
My city did NOT privatize. We kept our rates down and had no blackouts as the link explained.
Most parts of the state did privatize their power. The highest electric bills were in San Diego where most elected representatives. local, state, & federal. identified themselves as conservative Republicans.
The mostly Democratic legislature approves of privatization and the Democratic governor signed it. They all made a mistake because corporations like Enron misled with promises to lower costs and provide electricity. It is really more currupt than that.
Energy supply within California kept pace with demand. The total amount of
electrical energy generated in California increased over 36% from 1991 to 2000, from 186 million MWh to 254 million MWh. The increase in generation has far exceeded the state's 13% population increase and 19% consumption increase over the same period. However due to drought and other factors, the availability of out-of-state energy supplies in 2000 was reduced.
In 2000 and 2001, when the state began experiencing blackouts, increased demand was not the problem. The key factor in determining whether outages occur is peak demand. In California, peak demand did not increase. In fact, peak demand was lower in 2000 than it was in 1998 or 1999. - http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/
ANYWAY, spacenurse you are off topic again. This is about healthcare. Healthcare you distracted old nurse!
What does everyone think of Pres. Bush's new proposal on health insurance? I've not seen it discussed yet on allnurses.....personally I think it is a step in the right direction but in all reality probably wont work in the end
I was shocked to find out the U.S. taxpayer picks up the tab (for childbirth) to this extent.
I understand medicaid covering children, the disabled and elderly, but the 'pregnant women' demographic - isnt this a population that, arguably, should be able to be working and have health insurance?
On the other hand, I do think prenatal care is important - no one should go without.....
IMHO, this stat just calls the whole system into question.
I was shocked to find out the U.S. taxpayer picks up the tab (for childbirth) to this extent.
I understand medicaid covering children, the disabled and elderly, but the 'pregnant women' demographic - isnt this a population that, arguably, should be able to be working and have health insurance?
On the other hand, I do think prenatal care is important - no one should go without.....
IMHO, this stat just calls the whole system into question.
I just think that this is a truer reflection of just exactly how many people do not have health insurance or access to health insurance. Even more reason to have universal coverage.
It is not that your objections are not valid or not heard. You have raised very legitimate objections. But as the spinsters say "At the end of the day"...I believe that the common good of the many outweigh the luxuries of the few.
Thank you for recognizing that there are valid objections out there. A large problem for me is that there are many like you who recognize these problems, yet are willing to rush headlong into change. And if the change creates a situation as bad or worse for the majority than the current system, so what? It still helps the minority. And certainly we can fix it as we go. But you ignore the fundamental point that in creation of this program, you reduce freedom for the vast majority. And that can only be fixed by not enacting that which is wrong to begin with.
People like myself and others in this thread have pointed out the very real possibility, even probability, that creation of a national healthcare program will likely create more problems than it could ever hope to solve. For myself, I think anything that decreases freedoms is wrong. And certainly, I think charging blindly ahead with change, even with the known problems it will cause, consequences be damned, is wrong.
While I have generally tried to avoid title like "liberal" or "conservative," and most particularly "socialist," it is true that the more social programs a government enacts, the more "socialist" that country is. Socialism itself flies in the face of the very principles of the constitution. Socialism is the outgrowth of a hive mentality, where all labor is supports the good of the hive, regardless of what harm may befall any individuals. Our constitution is based on the utilitarian ideal. It is based on the idea (which in many ways we have strayed from) that government is best when it governs least. It aims to increase freedom to the maximum without allowing harm to others. Universal health care, in more ways than one, serves only to reduce the freedom of the vast majority. And I don’t buy the idea that our current system supports only the "luxuries of the few." To begin with, since 85% of our population currently has some type of health coverage, you are suggesting a change that provides good for a small minority, at the expense of the vast majority.
And even if you are correct, even if my whole argument boils down to a desire on my part to protect my income from further taxation to protect my lifestyle (it does not, but lets be hypothetical for a moment), who are you to say what luxuries I can or cannot have? Who are you to decide how much money I should contribute to the "national good?" Who are you to tell me that all the hard work I have done in my life to get to where I am is now forfeit for "the good of the many?" (And before someone even questions the government’s taking our salaries for wars we think are wrong, remember that a constitutional responsibility of our government is provision of national defense. Acting as everyone's big brother is not.)
I also don’t accept that having universal "Chevy Cavalier" heath care coverage for everyone, with the option to buy additional coverage should I desire "Cadillac" health care is a viable alternative. The majority would not be able to afford what essentially are two healthcare premiums. Only the very wealthy would be able to afford the additional premiums, and so the chasm between the "haves" and the "have nots" that has today’s "progressives" so worried would only be widened. On very short order, the same people now crying for universal health care would cry out about the injustice that only the rich could afford the best health care. They would want the national healthcare plan to provide only the best for all of us, rich and poor alike. And so, taxation would again increase, and finally, in order to be truly "fair," healthcare plans outside of the national plan would be banned. (You can’t buy additional coverage in Canada for basic health care. The idea is not all that far fetched.) In the end, we all suffer.
:yeah: 
pickledpepperRN
4,491 Posts
Enron and all had nothing to do with it? http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/nw/?postId=5710&pageTitle=Power+price+shock+lingers
We had no blackouts here in Los Angeles. We kept our own power plants. - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_8_23/ai_70884782
Anyway this thread is about healthcare. healthcare.