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.
insurance company's either reimburse at a flat rate based on the code or as a percentage of. i know many a time we had to up the price so that we could get the retail value, now while its highly illegal, and extremely immoral, it does happen and it happens a lot in many offices.
quote]
this behavior is the number one cause of health care inflation. raise the prices charged to the insured in order to pay for the cost of the care for the uninsured. this just substantiated the case for single payer. :wink2:
Been really busy lately, but have tried to keep up on this thread. As I see it, there have been a number of objections raised by those of us who don't really think that we need to scrap a system that serves 85% of our population. I would point out (again) that there is no other system that serves that high a number of our population that people believe needs to be scrapped. Just for fun, I'd like to list those objections for which there has been no really good response:
-One of the reasons we have been given for the high cost of healthcare in this nation is the wasteful amount of healthcare dollars being spent on administration by the healthcare insurance companies. We are told that this expenditure on administration runs as high as 30%. The solution we are given is to turn over all healthcare to the government. This is the same government whose social agencies spend as much as 60% of their total budget on administration. "Trust us, it won't be that high with healthcare." Why not? Given that many of the social agencies serve only a small percentage of the population, it is far more likely that a healthcare administration, charged with taking care of 100% of our healthcare will spend as much as twice what is now spent in administration. Want me to trust the government? Fine. Fix the agencies that exist now, cut their administrative expenditures to less than 30% of their total budget. Then I might begin to accept your premise.
-On that same line, the government also has a long history of vastly underestimating the cost of social programs. It has recently been determined that the Medicare prescription drug benefit is going to cost 1.2 trillion, more than double the original estimate. What will be the cost of complete healthcare for all?
-When the PATRIOT act was passed, there was a great outcry over our supposed loss of privacy. Yet the very same people who raised these objections want the government to take over our healthcare. How do you propose that the government do this without having access to our healthcare information? This actual loss of privacy will be an elephant, compared to the imagined mouse detractors of the PATRIOT act are so worried about.
-Considering the administrative fees and the government's ability to underestimate what social programs will cost, it is impossible to even imagine our government taking on this responsibility without a significant tax increase. I am taxed enough thank you. I don't wish to seem heartless, but am frankly tired of people wanting to add more and more social expenditures to our national budget, and requiring me to pay for it.
-On those same lines, when exactly are my taxes enough? When am I allowed to keep some of what I earn for myself and my family without being called greedy and heartless? How high a taxation level is too high, or is there any such limit? Do we continue to raise taxes to the point that all income is 100% taxed, and the government provides for all our needs?
-Many of you have talked about the difficulties others (or even yourselves) have had under the present system. The answer you have is to call healthcare a right, and make sure it is available to all. Of course, that ignores a fundamental principle I have pointed out before, namely the fact that there are no rights conferred on some that others must support. But more to the point, how many other families, in addition to my own, must I be responsible for? And why?
-There are certain inescapable financial conclusions that may be drawn from having the government take over all healthcare. The first is that taxes for everyone will go up, as I already stated. But it is also true that reimbursement will go down, and that reduction will be reflected somewhere. If you think that it will be reflected in the salaries of CEO's and other hospital executives, you are sadly mistaken. It will be reflected in a reduction in the salaries of those who provide the care, from doctors to nurses to x-ray techs, and so on,
Given all that, I cannot see how one can support the idea of a federally run, national single-payer healthcare system. While it would create an advantage for a few, for the vast majority of our nation, it would impose hardships in the form of higher taxation, lower wages (in the healthcare industry), less choice, and greater governmental interference in, and hence control over, our lives. No, I don't see that as an improvement.
Let me ask one more question, and I'd really like an answer: What's next? If this gets passed, and a national healthcare plan is enacted, will this finally be enough? Will this be the end to the establishment of social programs in the name of "leveling the playing field?" If not, what is next? What is the next issue that I will be called upon to pay for, because after all there are those who don't have what I have? I would remind you all of a cliché, that is elegant in it's truth: A guarantee of equal opportunity does not guarantee equal outcomes.
Oh, by the way you can hate on Wal-Mart all you want but they bring alot of goods to POOR people at very affordable prices, but I guess you have a real problem with that. I guess you dont want those poor poor people to be able to afford the things that you can, how shameful of you! Arent you just ridden with guilt?
lets blame wal-mart and halliburton for everythnig wrong in America shall we.
I actually like giving tax subsidies to oil companies and walmart because they are central to our economy and industry. I would rather give tax incentives to those companies than welfare crap.
I just hope that most America voters don't truly believe that it is the governments job to feed us, shelter us, educate us, keep us healthy, and provide for our happiness.
As far as the "evil greedy corporations," when was that last time a poor person paid your salary.
I hope that most voters in America are not getting their political training from you tube. Wasn't The Bill of Rights aka the 1st 10 amendments to the Constitution put there specifically to limit governmental power?
I totally agree that the bureaucracy involved in health care could use some major tweaking. But if someone believes that our government can get its hands of billions of tax dollars for health care and not create major waste, their smoking crack. Ever hear of "earmarks" into bills?
Yeah, what you watch on you-tube is 100% accurate reporting, even the 9/11 conspiracy right? that is why all the leftists try to get you to watch it, so that reality can be distorted and the socialist agenda can be gradually implemented. The secular progressive left seems to think that america should be a socialist country and that health care is a constitutional right. After they get their way with health care another government entitlement program will be next.
.Also, our country managed to end slavery and gave women the right to vote, SURPRISE! we survived as a country, reforms are what has kept this country free, not the status quo.
Now ingelein is trying to say there is a moral equivalency between ending slavery and universal healthcare, lol. What other reforms do you want? Gay Marriage? Sorry 90% of America is not interested in reforms like that, but the leftists seem intent on gradually introducing it over time and making doing the best they can to make you feel guilty for not accepting anything they put forward.
With no one but Politicians policing the system we would end up just as bad as Canada and the UK.
No John, you have got it all wrong...Universal Healthcare in America will save all of mankind and will work flawlessly, like a well oiled machine. After that we can start giving universal healthcare to illegal aliens, along with college scholarships.. Oh I am sorry, did I say illegal aliens, what i meant to say was "Undocumented Migrants Seeking Citizenship". Please forgive me for that I hope that I didn't offend anyones "sensitivities".
have said and cited sources that show that the Wealthy pay a lower marginal tax rate than the middle/working classes. There is no soak the rich mentality in my data. There is a call for true progressivity in the tax system.
LOL - Accurate reporting from a rag like the New York Times. That rag doesn't have any agenda does it? Wait, wasn't that rag the same rag had a front page that told the terrorists in Europe we were listening in all their phone calls?
The Free Market put us into the predicament we are in today.It was an experiment ruined by a human trait, GREED.Also, I disagree that kids who have been privatley educated do much better on national tests.All my four children, all publicly educated , all college grads, ranked in the 98-100th percentile throughout school. My daughter aced the LSATS. We as Americans with intelligence can come up with a Universal Healthcare plan, we as Americans can reform where reform is needed, but first we need to VOTE in people of EXCELLENCE, we should not make the same mistakes by locking ourselves into any one ideology. Change and the freedom to change, reform, etc is what made this country great and will keep it that way, we are stagnating in an old political/economic ideology, FREE MARKET, Milton Friedman type , its not working.
LOL -- The free market is what this country is BUILT ON - that is what AMERICA is all about and you are sitting here saying its not working because of the uninsured. So the free market doesnt work, what is the solution? What is you're solution mr. president..SOCIALISM? Is that what you advocate? So the free market is motivated by GREED --- And you being a lib are motivated by GUILT.
I would rather be greedy as opposed to feeling guilty for everyone else's problems - how much can one self loathe before becoming a miserable person.
You seem to be a nice smart young man and do you know you could have said all that without being insulting, demeaning or rude? Now relax, I plan on having a good German beer and ponder the nature of man......
Is this the only response that can be generated from the comments regarding getting rid of the "old free market system" that is the foundation of the United States? Pretty weak - I want to hear the thoughts on said statement, more importantly what particularly was going through saids mind when said statement was made.
...All the assorted health care proposals can be boiled down to two fundamental alternatives which go down very different paths.
One is the proposals (and throw in many of the state versions, including the much hyped Massachusetts and California plans) that expand the role of the big insurers and reinforce the role of the private market in health care -- those same players that created the present problem by placing increased revenues and profits above patient health.
The other approach, a single-payer system such as Medicare, works. It's far simpler, more comprehensive and more cost effective -- a patient-based, not commercially driven direction...
Specializes in Pulmonology/Critical Care, Internal Med.
ingelein- sorry for being rude, reading your comments seemed pretty rude towards myself I may have taken them the wrong way. Enjoy that beer.
Viking- actually most of the insurance companies take their cues from Medicare, so actually no, it woudln't help. Medicare usually pays more for items. However, Medicare also has a far greater amount of restrictions on what can be billed Part A vs Part B. Part B your pretty much screwed you bascially HAVE to go into a Hospital to get a lot of things ordinary insurances would give you. By going to the hospital you are actually raising total cost instead of lowering it, examples would be compression socks for patients with DVTS, or Venous Stasis Ulcers. They can only be gotten under Part A.
Spacenurse-I don't know I kind of think the Mass. form would be better. I would rather have private insurance over a govt plan any day. I would rather get it thought my work. One thing I ran into in Georgia is the innability of seperate companies to pool together employees to make one giant pool to help keep costs down. I wish all the uninsured could be lumped together and go toward getting insurance that would be more manageable and paid for by both employer and by employee.
HM2VikingRN, RN
4,700 Posts