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.
Take the insurance companies out of the equation and there would be sufficient funding to maintain our present standards and indeed, expand them. We pay more per capita than anybody else, but most of it goes to fund the bloated insurance companies. Take the "for profit" factor out of healthcare, then we'll talk.
Take the insurance companies out of the equation and there would be sufficient funding to maintain our present standards and indeed, expand them. We pay more per capita than anybody else, but most of it goes to fund the bloated insurance companies. Take the "for profit" factor out of healthcare, then we'll talk.
It's a fantasy that you can trade the administration by private concerns for the administration by gov't and get any 'savings'.
If you want to take the gross profits out of the system, I agree that we need to take the '3rd party payor' out of the system. I see no particular benefit in handing it off to gov't.
The only way to benefit is to put the policing of prices directly in the hands of the consumer. Healthcare needs more free market reforms, not more of the same.
On the one hand, you decry what amounts to removal of free market processes from the current system, on the other, you advocate even further removal in the hands of gov't. Instead of addressing such problems, you aim to permanently entrench them.
The result you will get is more of the same. Much more.
Only, once you destroy the market basis of the system, those that advocate gov't control of healthcare will just advocate more and more control. It's a never-ending process. Yes, healthcare is worse now (under universal care) than it was before, but with even MORE control, we can make it better. That is a utopian fantasy with no basis in reality.
That's the nature of socialism and it's the danger of socialism. Fortunately, we have ample evidence of such failures. Unfortunately, too few people learn the lessons of history until they are long down the road of repeating them.
The lessons of history, lest you forget, is that socialism is NOT compassionate. You trade opportunity for a fair share in a dismal outcome. Given the alternatives available, that's neither compassionate nor fair. It's just cruel.
an extensive system of social security (though usually not to the extent advocated by [color=#003399]democratic socialists or other socialist groups), notably to counteract the effects of poverty and to insure the citizens against loss of income following illness or unemployment. (see [color=#003399]welfare state)
government-owned or subsidised programs of education, healthcare, child care, etc. for all citizens.
canada is also referenced as a highly successful social democracy.
in the us there are several states that are arguably successful examples of an american version of social democracy. (for example, mn and wi). equality of result is not the goal of social democracy but rather the removal of social and economic barriers to the achievement of individual potential. establishing a healthy and well educated citizenry should be the ultimate goal of society. (human capital is our greatest resource.) i think that the proof is in the pudding just by contrasting health outcomes. citizens of social democracies with strong safety nets tend to be healthier and live longer more satisfying and productive lives.
The largest study of health insurance ever conducted, done over 15 years by the RAND corporation, randomly sorted individuals into different insurance plans with varying levels of generosity. Those in the most expansive plans received 40 percent more care than those in the least -- and their health outcomes were no better. The only exception was for the poor, whose health outcomes were hurt by cost-sharing and improved by more generous plans. The Dartmouth Atlas studies showed that regional variations in medical culture and doctor density led to, among other odd effects, 30 percent of seniors in Miami seeing more than 10 specialists in their last six months of life, compared to just seven percent of those in Oregon. Even with this huge variation in care, outcomes among the two populations were no different. The research is clear: Not only is more care not always better, it is sometimes worse -- and it is always more expensive.
If one does a travel assignment or moves temporarily to work in a country that has universal health care, is she eligible for those benefits or are they just for citizens? For example, I moved to Canada for 6 months because my BF lives there, and I got a job as nurse there, would I be eligible to take advantage of the universal healthcare? Hope this question is clear
Specializes in ICU of all kinds, CVICU, Cath Lab, ER..
It has been my experience that your insurance is provided by the travel company. I was a travel nurse for about 3 years... ask me anything you want to know. One important caveat: GET IT IN WRITING, SIGNED BY SOMEONE IN ADMINISTRATION...
I am planning on doing a stint abroad coz I am getting restless. I guess I wanted to know just in case I did not go with an agency and decided to hire onto a hospital by myself.
I'm in Canada and I believe the way it works is you are eligable for our universal healthcare after 3 months of residency in a province (at least in BC where I am.). I think though you have to be a landed immigrant.
Check under the provincial health care website of the province you would be going to.
Fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American, and 49 percent favored allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
Those two issues continue to divide the party, though, with more than 40 percent opposed to both. Fabrizio emphasized that "the devil is in the details" on healthcare, and that providing a plan that pleases the entire 51 percent would be difficult.
That's like me saying that some Democrats support the war in Iraq. . .
I'm afraid that is one of those kinds of stats that Mark Twain talked about, the ones that come right after lies and darn lies. . .
NOW ask those RINOs if they would be willing to wait 6 months for an MRI, or otherwise cheapen down their own care, and just like Democrats, you'd see gov't restricted healthcare approval sink . . . When you talk about all the supposed platitudes and bury the true costs, you can make a poll say anything.
This country is not nearly ready for gov't restricted healthcare. We may be generous as a nation, but we aren't a nation that tolerates being walked over in the name of our generosity, or in any other name, for that matter.
Gov't restricted healthcare is uncompassionate healthcare. It is less fair. For everyone.
Sorry but I can't understand how it is fair for people the work for decades only to be forced into bankrupcy because of cancer, heart disease, or an accident.
sanctuary, BSN, MSN, RN
467 Posts
Take the insurance companies out of the equation and there would be sufficient funding to maintain our present standards and indeed, expand them. We pay more per capita than anybody else, but most of it goes to fund the bloated insurance companies. Take the "for profit" factor out of healthcare, then we'll talk.