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.
With good health and an education you have the resources to meet your other needs....
With the government meeting ALL YOUR NEEDS, however, there is no motivation to do more. THAT is the chief flaw in socialism. WHO is going to provide all these services once nobody has to work anymore?
THERE is NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to the services of others.
Americans are basically generous people..............
THAT is why NEITHER of the Democrat nominees support anything near real "universal care". Why don't they? It's a political loser.
NEITHER Barry nor Hillary will bring you the gov't rationed care you so desire.
(How can Barry get through Congress something so DIVISIVE in his new era of non-divisive politics? Really. Think about it. CHANGING THE POLITICS OF USUAL means caving on everything that counts.)
~faith,
Timothy.
In case you haven't noticed, we already have rationed care. The haves have health care, and the havenots have Emergency Rooms. Even the haves use Emergency Rooms when they cannot access health care any other way, do to their Insurace Companies.
If individuals have good health and have received a good education than they have the resources to acquire their other needs through effective participation in the economy....
It is not that difficult to understand that health care and education are a public resource that should be managed for the common good.....
The best predictors for success in life are good health and educational attainment.
See PNHP for a discussion about the issues of rationing, accountability and transparency:
The U.S. Supreme Court recently established that rationing is fundamental to the way managed care conducts business. Rationing in U.S. health care is based on income: if you can afford care you get it, if you can’t, you don’t. A recent study by the prestigious Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance. That’s rationing. No other industrialized nation rations health care to the degree that the U.S. does.
Do I wish everyone had health insurance? Sure. Do I want socialized medicine..not really. I think there is a solution, I just don't have it. I'm watching how manditory health insurance works in MASS. I have a son and daughter (adults) that live there. There are some downfalls, but I think there are trying to fix them as they go. Not sure if that is the answer either. But I do enjoy the debates on this issue. :)
I think at issue here is an idea of cost versus benefit.
I think the liberal position is skewed to the idea of benefit, to heck with the cost.
I think the conservative side is more skewed towards costs (not just monetary).
There has to be a balance.
You can talk Americans into taking into account the benefits of a program such as gov't restricted healthcare (full coverage), but not absent the costs (restricted care for all).
For example, economist Walter Williams recently had an article that discussed JUST this idea:
"If we look to benefits only, we'll do darn near anything because there's always a benefit. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported there were 43,443 highway fatalities in 2005. If we had a maximum speed law of 15 miles per hour, the death toll wouldn't be nearly as high, probably not even as high as 500. You say, "Williams, that's a crazy idea."
You're right, but let's not call it crazy; it's more accurate to say: saving some 43,000 lives aren't worth the cost and inconvenience of a 15 mph speed limit.
Given a 1 percent risk of a $10,000 loss, how much are you willing to pay to try to prevent or insure against it? I doubt any reasonable person would be willing to pay $9,000, $5,000 or even $1,000, though he might be willing to pay $100. Surely there's a benefit to preventing a loss, but at what cost? "
There is an extreme cost in lives to unlimited speed, but that is offset by the handsome benefit of complete roadway freedom.
At the other end of the the spectrum, there is a handsome benefit in a 15mph speed limit (an almost 'universal consideration' of roadway lives), but that is offset by a rather extreme cost of a very limited mode of transportation.
The current debate for gov't restricted health care is akin to a demand that health care be given a dramatically lower "speed limit" in order to save lives. Americans might consider 43,000 lives important. I wouldn't even bother to debate that.
However.
Can you find enough Americans (used to driving 70 mph) willing to set their own health care "speed limit" at 15mph (or even 30, or 40?) in order to save those lives?
I think 1993's Hillarycare answered that. No.
Mind the benefit, dang the cost doesn't play. THERE might be a small benefit to some in gov't restricted care. That benefit is simply NOT WORTH the price to the majority. What is most constructive about this scenario is that you are not asking the minority that might benefit to bear the cost; you are asking the majority that won't benefit to bear that cost. If that cost were just dollars, we'd of had universal health care 50 yrs ago.
When that cost is lower quality and lessor access to care - the argument for gov't restricted health care is a lost cause. It is SUCH a lost cause, that neither Democrat candidate is offering anything CLOSE to true universal care. After all, they want to get elected.
Mr. Obama has directly said that he aims to 'work with the other side' in a new era of bipartisanship: translation - his ideas represent the extreme end of where he will actually settle/compromise. (You can't have it both ways; you cannot vote for someone because he is willing to soften the national dialogue in a new era of compromise and yet expect an uncompromising faithfulness to ideas you find valuable.)
Mrs. Clinton has said she has learned her lessons from Hillarycare. After already failing in a lost cause to 'end run' her ideas through a friendly Congress, she understands the pragmatism of at least a nod towards consensus.
Universal (gov't restricted) Health Care is NOT an election away, folks. It's not even close. The reason why is simple: the American people are unwilling to pay the cost of a 15mph speed limit.
The bottom line is this: if you empower the gov't to give you something, you implicitly empower it to take that something away. Or, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson: if the gov't is empowered to do all that it believes is good then, since gov't gets to define what is 'good', the gov't is also thusly empowered to do all evil (in the name of good).
i hardly think that health care reform will give us a 15 mph health care system. if anything the evidence shows the exact opposite.
in this survey, a team of respected researchers lead by gerard anderson examines health spending and health system capacity in 30 oecd nations. although the u.s. has by far the highest per capita health spending, it is near or below average in the number of doctors, nurses, hospital beds and hospital admissions per capita. as the authors point out, this disparity illustrates the much higher prices charged for health care in the united states.
I hardly think that health care reform will give us a 15 mph health care system.
And yet, no matter HOW BADLY you'd like, the Congress cannot amend the laws of economics. The law of supply and demand does not allow the creation of unlimited demand without ALSO creating unlimited supply (an impossibility) OR limiting supply: rationed care.
Walter William's analogy is fine so far as it goes. A more apt analogy is that gov't restricted health care is an attempt, in order to assure that EVERYBODY has transportation, to ban (or make relatively cost prohibitive) private automobiles and force the ENTIRE public to use the public transportation system.
A FEW people might benefit from the system that develops. HOWEVER.
MOST Americans will readily tell you that they believe everybody should have access to transportation. In order to achieve this lofty goal, most American are simply not ready to give up their private cars. More important, forcing most Americans to give up their private cars, in the name of UNIVERSAL transportation, is not the best way to get to that lofty goal.
THIS is why the argument skews towards 'universality' and tries to deny or gloss over the fact that it's universal access to the public transportation system at the price of eliminating access to private transportation.
In fact, banning private cars has NOTHING TO DO with achieving universal access. It's practically a Rube Goldberg solution.
See, this isn't about 'universal access' nearly so much as it's about government control. That's the dirty little secret of 'universal health care'. 'Universal access' is just an excuse to co-opt the system, and not a very practical one, at that. Although I highly doubt you'd admit it here, IF you could get rid of all private transportation in favor of public transportation, you would. It's the exact same mindset.
Yet another argument against the profit motive for health care:
Pay more for your care and (be more likely) to die sooner:
After all the research was reviewed, the evidence against for-profit hospitals was conclusive: for-profits had 19 percent higher costs and 2 percent higher death rates. The authors attribute these defects directly to the for-profit nature of the hospitals: The necessity to generate revenues to satisfy investors, the significantly higher administrative costs and the large executive bonuses, they say, “result in limitations of care that adversely affect patient outcomes.”
Yet another argument against the profit motive for health care
Profit is the best thing ever invented by man. It is THE essential element of motivated division of labor. In conjunction with competition, profit provides you the best combination of price and quality.
If 'the profit motive' isn't a good model for health care, then, WHY is it a good model for ANY basic commodity? Under this argument, shouldn't we nationalize housing, food, transportation, telecommunications, AND clothing/textiles?
Aren't ALL OF THESE THINGS essential commodities/services? What separates health care from any of these categories? Can't you make the SAME arguments with every basic necessity and thereby nationalize/socialize MOST of our economy?
THANK GOD profit provides you with all of these things in your life - and cheaply enough so that you have plenty of free money for non-essential profit driven things, like internet, cable, movies, etc.
If you define what it meant to be a king, 200 yrs ago, you are all kings: available, rich, and robust variety of food, state of the art communications and transportation, and an entertainment culture. THANK GOD profit has provided all of these things.
PROFIT is the best friend of any individual or group that wishes to increase quality and decrease costs. It is the REMOVAL OF PROFIT that removes the motivation to excel and results in mediocrity.
You want a real clear example? Your house vs public housing.
Our supermarkets vs the available food stores in any socialist society.
Another example? Your current health care vs gov't restricted health care.
I'll take my house, my health care, my food, my clothing, my communications, my transportation, and MY LIFE over a gov't provided substitute, any day.
PROFIT is a two way street. The free market only trades when BOTH parties see the individual profit of doing so. As opposed to forced gov't markets, where you have no choice. Freedom to choose is the blessing of profit.
Anti-profit is anti-choice. THAT is EXACTLY what is at stake in gov't restricted health care: removal of choice in the so-called name of universality. A fair share in a dismal outcome isn't very fair.
I'm watching how manditory health insurance works in MASS. I have a son and daughter (adults) that live there. There are some downfalls, but I think there are trying to fix them as they go. Not sure if that is the answer either. But I do enjoy the debates on this issue. :)
ZASHAGALKA, RN
3,322 Posts
removed by poster.