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.
"Quick Health fill a niche for uninsured individuals.
Want to order a visit with a doctor?Your first 15 minutes will be $39.
The secret to cheaper care , said Manelkern ( owner of cliinics) is cutting overhead, fancy doctors offices, high rent and pricey equipement, such as Xray machines. Another trick he says , is limiting services that cut down malpractice insurance-which it turns out , actually costs the business less than his coverage for worker's compensation.
The retail clinics are a patchwork solution that speak to the rise of uninsured and the worsening of the health care crisis."
I'm all for these clinics, if they used PA's/NP's they would be even cheaper.
What would you think about good solid Universal Healthcare for all, with this type of supplementary care for some and cadillac care for those with the means to afford it?
"The reason more employers dont already provide care is that they cant afford it. The reasons many individuals turn down health insurance that employers do offer is that they dont think they can afford it,which is another way of saying they think they should spend their money on something else, perhaps an essential item such as food, clothing or shelter.
Any plan that does not seriously address the underlying costs of healthcare will only move responsibility for those costs from one place to another."
"Quick Health fill a niche for uninsured individuals.
Want to order a visit with a doctor?Your first 15 minutes will be $39.
The secret to cheaper care , said Manelkern ( owner of cliinics) is cutting overhead, fancy doctors offices, high rent and pricey equipement, such as Xray machines. Another trick he says , is limiting services that cut down malpractice insurance-which it turns out , actually costs the business less than his coverage for worker's compensation.
The retail clinics are a patchwork solution that speak to the rise of uninsured and the worsening of the health care crisis."
Great idea. And I agree with alt jon (sp?), use NP's and PA's. I espicially like it because it's inovative and it doesn't require more tax dollars to fund. And what about this: making all the dollars spent by pt's at these clinics tax deductible.
a majority of americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every american, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest new york times/cbs news poll.
do you really believe the "government stays out of your life", as you say is your right? Think about seat belt laws, smoking bans, trans fat bans... All for our greater good, I guess, but are we really "free" any more? I say no. So why not NHS. This would afford everyone access to health care, not just the people who can afford it. We have a lot of people, especially children that go without necessary healthcare due to lack of funds. Anyone who says otherwise might as well call themself Ostrich!
for four decades, american women have entered the paid workforce--on men's terms, not their own--yet we have done precious little as a society to restructure the workplace or family life. the consequence of this "stalled revolution," a term coined by sociologist arlie hochschild, is a profound "care deficit." a broken healthcare system, which has left 47 million americans without health coverage, means this care crisis is often a matter of life and death. today the care crisis has replaced the feminine mystique as women's "problem that has no name." it is the elephant in the room--at home, at work and in national politics--gigantic but ignored.
three decades after congress passed comprehensive childcare legislation in 1971--nixon vetoed it--childcare has simply dropped off the national agenda.
...
the fact is, market fundamentalism--the irrational belief that markets solve all problems--has succeeded in dismantling federal regulations and services but has failed to answer the question, who will care for america's children and elderly?
...
as a result, this country's family policies lag far behind those of the rest of the world. a just-released study by researchers at harvard and mcgill found that of 173 countries studied, 168 guarantee paid maternal leave--with the united states joining lesotho and swaziland among the laggards. at least 145 countries mandate paid sick days for short- or long-term illnesses--but not the united states. one hundred thirty-four countries legislate a maximum length for the workweek; not us.
...
universal health care is part of the family friendly organizational transformation of society that progressives are seeking.....
when the head of exxonmobil earned $368 million in a year, or more per hour than his workers earned per year—the democracy promise goes unfulfilled. indeed, the rich today have become the super-rich and the middle-class families feel as if they’re running up a down escalator. data and trends on economic inequality are clear:
real median income for men has fallen for five straight years. in 1980, the wealthiest five percent of households had 16.5 percent of all income; in 1990 it was 18.5 percent; in 2000, 22.2 percent.
between 2000-2006, labor productivity grew by 18 percent, but inflation-adjusted weekly wages rose only one percent.
more than 2000 companies have illegally backdated stock options to boost executive pay packages.
the irs is eliminating the jobs of almost half its lawyers who audit the tax returns of the wealthiest americans.
those with annual incomes of over a million dollars got an $85,000 annual tax rebate because of the bush tax cuts, while people earning $50,000 a year received
a couple hundred bucks.
the number of poor has increased from 31 million to 37 million since 2000; the number of those without health insurance rose from 41 million to 47 million.
a nobel-award winning economist called all this “a form of looting.”
the calcutta-ization of the
american economy is not the result of some “unseen hand” based on market forces—comparable western economies like canada, great britain and germany do not see such disparities—but the
result of the purposeful policies, not the unseen hand. not since the gilded age when wealthy businessmen essentially appointed u.s. senators (before direct elections) has big business held
such sway in america and washington. scores of laws—from cutting job training programs, eroding the minimum wage, reversing ergonomic standards, cutting taxes on the rich and social
programs for the poor—contribute to the tilt from labor to capital.
it is beyond doubt that george bush is redistributing wealth far more than george mcgovern was
ever accused of—except up, not down. america is moving further away from lincoln’s stated goal
that america should be a place where all would have “an open field and a fair chance [for their]
17. create a living wage. raise the minimum wage to a living wage indexed to inflation and reviewed biennially.
18. tax all income equally and eliminate the alternative minimum tax. adjust the tax code to treat labor and capital comparably and end this tax on the middle class.
19. review corporate compensation. mandate that only independent directors on a corporate board can vote for increases in executive pay and subject these to shareholder approval.
20. expand the right to organize at work. allow employees to form a union if a majority signs recognition cards, and impose penalties on employers who use intimidation and firings to discourage organizing.
By Dr. Marcia Angell, Past Editor New England Journal of Medicine
Myth #1: We can’t afford a national health care system, and if we try it, we will have to ration care.
My answer is that we can’t afford not to have a national health care system. A single-payer system would be far more efficient, since it would eliminate excess administrative costs, profits, cost-shifting and unnecessary duplication. Furthermore, it would permit the establishment of an overall budget and the fair and rational distribution of resources. We should remember that we now pay for health care in multiple ways – through our paychecks, the prices of goods and services, taxes at all levels of government, and out-of-pocket. It makes more sense to pay just once.
Myth #2: Innovative technologies would be scarce under a single-payer system, we would have long waiting lists for operations and procedures, and in general, medical care would be threadbare and less available.
This misconception is based on the fact that there are indeed waits for elective procedures in some countries with national health systems, such as the U. K. and Canada. But that’s because they spend far less on health care than we do. (The U. K. spends about a third of what we do per person.) If they were to put the same amount of money as we do into their systems, there would be no waits and all their citizens would have immediate access to all the care they need. For them, the problem is not the system; it’s the money. For us, it’s not the money; it’s the system.
Myth #3: A single-payer system amounts to socialized medicine, which would subject doctors and other providers to onerous, bureaucratic regulations.
But in fact, although a national program would be publicly funded, providers would not work for the government. That’s currently the case with Medicare, which is publicly funded, but privately delivered. As for onerous regulations, nothing could be more onerous both to patients and providers than the multiple, intrusive regulations imposed on them by the private insurance industry. Indeed, many doctors who once opposed a single-payer system are now coming to see it as a far preferable option.
Myth #4: Claims the government can’t do anything right.
Some Americans like to say that, without thinking of all the ways in which government functions very well indeed, and without considering the alternatives. I would not want to see, for example, the NIH, the National Park Service, or the IRS privatized. We should remember that the government is elected by the public and we are responsible for it. An investor-owned insurance company reports to its owners, not to the public.
pickledpepperRN
4,491 Posts
The CEO of my hospital told us that more than 50% of our hospitals revenue is from Medicare.
What is the "product" insurance companies provide?