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.
Of course, life is not fair! Does that mean we shouldn't have universal coverage? It's like watching a burning building and not lifting a finger to help with people inside dying, then justifying it by saying life is not fair. I'm idealistic I know, but I do think that we all have an obligation to help each other out. I'd much rather have my money going to help others than for a bridge going nowhere in Alaska. Do I totaly trust our goverment. Nope. But to me 85% of people covered is not enough, period.
Of course, life is not fair! Does that mean we shouldn't have universal coverage? It's like watching a burning building and not lifting a finger to help with people inside dying, then justifying it by saying life is not fair. I'm idealistic I know, but I do think that we all have an obligation to help each other out. I'd much rather have my money going to help others than for a bridge going nowhere in Alaska. Do I totaly trust our goverment. Nope. But to me 85% of people covered is not enough, period.
No. It's like looking at a grease fire on the stove and suggesting we put out THAT fire by smothering it instead of throwing water on it. . .else we burn the whole house down in the process.
I'm all in favor of putting out the fire, I am just cautioning that, even if you believe that water is the way to go, it might not be quite the best method in this case.
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
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.
I wonder what the RN salary and working conditions are like in these countries?
Of course, life is not fair! Does that mean we shouldn't have universal coverage? It's like watching a burning building and not lifting a finger to help with people inside dying, then justifying it by saying life is not fair. I'm idealistic I know, but I do think that we all have an obligation to help each other out. I'd much rather have my money going to help others than for a bridge going nowhere in Alaska. Do I totaly trust our goverment. Nope. But to me 85% of people covered is not enough, period.
Yes I agree life is not fair. Why do some always say those who advocate universal healthcare are BLINDLY going ahead or BLINDLY following, why do we not give each other more credit for being intelligent? There are MANY folks out there who have given this YEARS of thought and planning, plus we have the advantage of learning by other countries mistakes in thier own healthplans. To be optimistic based on FACT is not being blind or uninformed. No one , not even myself ,has said that to trust TOTALLY in anything, except that we will all one day face death, is prudent. We all hopefully make desicions based onthe past, current and changing inormation, life is fluid, things need to be reevaluated and reformed if nessessary.
I wonder what the RN salary and working conditions are like in these countries?
Does anyone have a good idea on how to get these foriegn nurses to post here and give us their INFORMED opinions and experiences in their workplaces? Good or bad, it would be great to hear from nurses .
Does anyone have a good idea on how to get these foriegn nurses to post here and give us their INFORMED opinions and experiences in their workplaces? Good or bad, it would be great to hear from nurses .
I think this is a great idea!
I have worked with many nurses from other continents. They sign on for two years. Some have stayed, usually marrying an American.
One from London was appalled at a decubitus claiming it was substandard nursing care in the US. Well the patient had been in a nursing home.
An older English nurse told us she saw plenty of bedsores in England.
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.
For many time is of the essence. Lives are at stake. I would like to hope that one day I could afford my blood pressure medicine and pray every day this is not the one I will stroke out on. I am sure you don't any more taxes but one day you may be the one needing more care than your insurance is willing to pay ..maybe a helping hand in your time of need would be appreciated. After all you would have worked hard and paid the whole time and probably think you deserve the care you are being denied.
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 think that this stat points out that some of the people most likely to be underinsured and using the medicaid system would be young pregnant women. They and their SO are probably underemployed or without health coverage so when nature is taking its course the hospital SW will get her on medicaid to pay for delivery of the baby.
Professional and specialist nurses had average monthly earnings of NOK 28 800, which corresponds to an increase of NOK 1 100 or 3.8 per cent. In comparison nursing assistants and care assistants had monthly earnings of NOK 23 100, an increase of NOK 800 or 3.7 per cent. Average monthly earnings for physiotherapists and related associate professionals working full-time were NOK 25 500. This was an increase of NOK 1 100 or 4.6 per cent.
Chapter 1: The relationship between economic freedom and political freedom:
"It is widely believed that politics and economics are separate and largely unconnected; that individual freedom is a political problem and material welfare an economic problem; and that any kind of political arrangements can be combined with any kind of economic arrangements. The chief contemporary manifestation of this idea is the advocacy of "democratic socialism" by many who condemn out of hand the restrictions on individual freedom imposed by "totalitarian socialism" in Russia, and who are persuaded that it is possible for a country to adopt the essential features of Russian economic arrangements and yet to ensure individual freedom through political arrangements. The thesis of this chapter is that such a view is a delusion, that there is an intimate connection between economics and politics, that only certain arrangements are possible and that, in particular, a society which is socialist cannot also be democratic, in the sense of guaranteeing individual freedom.
Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.
The first of these roles of economic freedom needs special emphasis because intellectuals in particular have a strong bias against regarding this aspect of freedom as important. They tend to express contempt for what they regard as material aspects of life, and to regard their own pursuit of allegedly higher values as on a different plane of significance and as deserving of special attention. For most citizens of the country, however, if not for the intellectual, the direct importance of economic freedom is at least comparable in significance to the indirect importance of economic freedom as a means to political freedom. . .
Viewed as a means to the end of political freedom, economic arrangements are important because of their effect on the concentration or dispersion of power. The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other. . .
So long as effective freedom of exchange is maintained, the central feature of the market organization of economic activity is that it prevents one person from interfering with another in respect of most of his activities. The consumer is protected from coercion by the seller because of the presence of other sellers with whom he can deal. The seller is protected from coercion by the consumer because of other consumers to whom he can sell. The employee is protected from coercion by the employer because of other employers for whom he can work, and so on. And the market does this impersonally and without centralized authority.
Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it does this task so well. It gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. . .
A society that puts equality in the sense of outcome ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality or freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom. But a society that puts freedom first will, end up with both greater freedom and greater equality. Freedom means diversity but also mobility. It preserves the opportunity for today's less well off to become tomorrow's rich, and enables almost everyone, from top to bottom, to enjoy a richer and fuller life."
according to the study, "investing in pennsylvania's families: economic opportunity for all," 25 percent of the state's "working families," or 1.4 million pennsylvanians -- including nearly 700,000 children -- are living 200 percent below the federal poverty line.
withasmilelpn
582 Posts
Of course, life is not fair! Does that mean we shouldn't have universal coverage? It's like watching a burning building and not lifting a finger to help with people inside dying, then justifying it by saying life is not fair. I'm idealistic I know, but I do think that we all have an obligation to help each other out. I'd much rather have my money going to help others than for a bridge going nowhere in Alaska. Do I totaly trust our goverment. Nope. But to me 85% of people covered is not enough, period.