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.
Require businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance.
Make insurance affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP, reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs.
Create regional Health Markets purchasing pools to give every American the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance.
Once these steps have been taken, require all American residents to get insurance.
Under the Edwards Plan:
Families without insurance will get coverage at an affordable price.
Families with insurance will pay less and get more security and choices.
Businesses and other employers will find it cheaper and easier to insure their workers.
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.
I can't either, however, I also don't see what that has to do with the gov't taking over, and ultimately, restricting healthcare for everybody.
See, YOU - you want to solve a problem. I applaud that.
But the whole gov't restricted healthcare idea: that is to advance an ideology of active gov't interventionism. healthcare is just a proxy in that fight.
Explain to me why I must give up the healthcare I have so that someone else can be covered? I know you don't subscribe to that but nevertheless, it is an essential tenet of gov't restricted healthcare: equality even if equality means a fair share in a dismal outcome.
I'm all for helping those that need it. I'm not for screwing up care for 85% in order to cover the 15% that already have access to EMTALA mandated care.
And I don't think the public could be sold on DMV style wait times for their care. I just don't see it happening. Harry and Louise will always be there, pointing out what GRH advocates don't want to be known about the true costs of such a program.
An employer, even a hospital, can close or sell to another corporation.
A laid off worker, including an RN can suffer an MI and be unable to work for a time. COBRA is expensive but those of us with savings would be OK for 18 months.
Then just before COBRA is expired that former worker may need open heart surgery. When the do the surgery a tumor is found.
The insurance company bills the person stating the tumor was a pre existing condition. No insurance company will sell a policy to that former worker. So the worker has to pay for chemotherapy until all savings is gone. A BMT takes the house. That former worker declares bankrupcy and has to move in with his daughter and her family.
I want guaranteed healthcare because the story is fact, not fiction.
I don't want any one else to lose everything they worked for all their life.
WE can help the sick while we are healthy so if we get sick healthy people can help us.
Is that so bad?
In Texan terms: "Everyone does better when everyone does better."
I can't either, however, I also don't see what that has to do with the gov't taking over, and ultimately, restricting healthcare for everybody.
Timothy.
As I've said before government doesn't have to take over, just make the payments.
As far as restrictions. Who cares. I've said before I'm restricted by my insurance company that tells me which doctors to see, what tests I can have, what hospital to go to on and on an on. We already have restricted health care, but for the rich who can pay their bills above and beyond what the insurance companies say. They will still have that right and hospitals and doctors that will provide it to them (such as the Hilton style hospitals and spas we have springing up everywhere.)
Aren't we already discussing this in another thread? Do we need another? But since you're not tired of saying the same thing over, I'm not either. :)
An employer, even a hospital, can close or sell to another corporation.
A laid off worker, including an RN can suffer an MI and be unable to work for a time. COBRA is expensive but those of us with savings would be OK for 18 months.
Then just before COBRA is expired that former worker may need open heart surgery. When the do the surgery a tumor is found.
The insurance company bills the person stating the tumor was a pre existing condition. No insurance company will sell a policy to that former worker. So the worker has to pay for chemotherapy until all savings is gone. A BMT takes the house. That former worker declares bankrupcy and has to move in with his daughter and her family.
I want guaranteed healthcare because the story is fact, not fiction.
I don't want any one else to lose everything they worked for all their life.
WE can help the sick while we are healthy so if we get sick healthy people can help us.
Is that so bad?
In Texan terms: "Everyone does better when everyone does better."
Me too. The argument of "why should my health care suffer for the person above" doesn't fly by me. It's selfish.
I think that we can rise to the occasion and provide healthcare for the person above, while not compromising our own personal health care and all of us becoming government employees deliverying DMV style care.
Are you seriously proposing that more than half of the members of the GOP are "RINO"s??? What does that say about the GOP?
A party that is part of the problem and not part of the solution.
The demand from both sides of the aisle is there to fix the problem(s). Being a "do-nothing" is no longer an option. We can no longer afford ideological purity from either the left or the right but need a pragmatic reach across the aisle to solve the problem.
Are you seriously proposing that more than half of the members of the GOP are "RINO"s??? What does that say about the GOP?
NO, that was tongue in cheek. What I said is that when you throw out concepts like, care for the poor: you will always get popular support. America is a generous nation.
But, America is also a nation that prides itself in concepts like, "don't tread on me".
And so, when the true costs of gov't restricted healthcare are explained, people balk. Those opinion polls, be that republican or democrat, tank.
Most Americans like their current health coverage. Most also agree that some form of coverage should be extended to everybody. That doesn't automatically confer that most Americans believe that their own coverage should be dramatically changed in order to make that happen.
Gov't Restricted Healthcare (GRH) cannot be sold to the masses. Most people have a healthy distrust of gov't. At its most basic, GRH is a statement of absolute trust in the power of gov't. There is not that much trust IN gov't in order to accomplish that.
Let me suggest that the concept of GRH is DOA in post-Watergate America. And will be, for years to come. Once the price is explained, GRH does not do nearly so well in the polls. With anybody.
Me too. The argument of "why should my health care suffer for the person above" doesn't fly by me. It's selfish.
For the record, you pondered why I would discuss this in a separate thread: I didn't create this thread, I was only responding to it.
As far as this quote above, I am entitled to behavior and actions with MY OWN EARNINGS that you might consider to be selfish. The thing about freedom is that I don't have to account for my freedoms to the gov't, to you, or to anybody.
You might consider my position selfish. I'm fine with that.
I consider the concept of GRH to be foolish. If it could accomplish its stated goals, I STILL would not be on board, but at least, I would not actively resist it. Alas, it cannot. The laws of supply and demand are more powerful than the laws of "have cake; eat it, too."
I choose not to spend money on foolish projects. I don't consider that to be selfish. I consider it to be prudent.
pickledpepperRN
4,491 Posts
The Edwards Plan:
Require businesses and other employers to either cover their employees or help finance their health insurance.
Make insurance affordable by creating new tax credits, expanding Medicaid and SCHIP, reforming insurance laws, and taking innovative steps to contain health care costs.
Create regional Health Markets purchasing pools to give every American the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance.
Once these steps have been taken, require all American residents to get insurance.
Under the Edwards Plan:
Families without insurance will get coverage at an affordable price.
Families with insurance will pay less and get more security and choices.
Businesses and other employers will find it cheaper and easier to insure their workers.
http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf