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.
think of the great things we can accomplish when we work together towards a goal...
i think that its way past the time to start working together in a pragmatic fashion to achieve an improved health care system that leaves noboby behind. for example health care for america as described by jacob hacker would:
the health care for america proposal would cover 46.5 million uninsured people without
increasing national spending for health care, largely through lower provider reimbursement,
administrative simplification and other features of the proposal. the spending effects of the
proposal include:
• spending for health care services and prescription drugs nationally would increase by
$53.2 billion in 2007 as the uninsured become covered;
• administrative simplification would reduce administrative costs by about $25.4 billion
in 2007;
• there would be additional savings of $27.9 billion due to changes in provider payments,
requiring people to have and use a medical home, and government negotiation of
prescription drug prices for people covered through hca.
federal government health spending would increase under the health care for america
proposal by $49.3 billion, after accounting for all offsets. total program spending under hca
would be $417.7 billion in 2007 including benefits and administration. these costs would be
offset by the following:
• employer payroll taxes for firms that do not provide coverage ($106.8 billion);
• premiums for individuals covered through hca ($80.3 billion);
• federal and state government savings to medicaid and schip that would be transferred
to hca ($160.1 billion); and
•
other savings and new federal revenues under the proposal ($21.2 billion).
we estimate that state and local governments would save $21.2 billion as a result of savings to
programs that traditionally serve the uninsured (i.e., safety net programs).
1. this proposal opens an option for business to pursue better coverage at lower prices.
2. brings everyone into the system as a contributing member.
3. adopts a nationwide pay or play standard for business. (taxpayers would no longer subsidize walmarts and other big box retailers bottom line by paying for schip or medicaid for walmart employees).
think about this as a new model:
i once heard an allegory about mealtime in heaven and hell. it turns out that in both places, meals are served at a huge round table with lots of delicious food in the center. the food is out of reach, but everyone’s got really long forks.
in hell, everyone starves because, while people can reach the food with their forks, the forks are much longer than their arms, so nobody can turn a fork around and eat what’s on the end of it.
in heaven, faced with the same problem, people eat well. how?
by feeding each other.
protecting the rights of individuals has always been a core american value. yet in recent years the emphasis on individualism has been pushed to the point where, like the diners in hell, we’re starving. this political and social philosophy is hurting our nation, endangering our future and that of our children, and, paradoxically, making it harder for individuals to get a fair shot at the american dream.
How do you see this country in 100 years? In 500 years? Will we have a nirvana society in the year 5000?
I don't know that I agree that "profit is the best thing invented by man". Perhaps 'the want of profit', which could very easily mean 'the want of money', ....root of all evil?
The need for money is not the same as the want of money.
My biggest problem is that we are way overtaxed. As healthcare providers we know there really isnt anything more important than health so why isnt public health our priority? Arguably more important than even education and in my opinion definitely more important than wars or foreign aid.
So my position is either cut taxes by 50 percent or provide healthcare to all who need it. We dont call public school systems, "government restricted education" as we shouldnt call universal health government restricted healthcare.
But Timothy is right. As long as we are giving our money to the Neocons, supporting corporations like Exxon and Haliburton and spending billions for wars, we cant afford it.
How do you see this country in 100 years? In 500 years? Will we have a nirvana society in the year 5000?
I don't know that I agree that "profit is the best thing invented by man". Perhaps 'the want of profit', which could very easily mean 'the want of money', ....root of all evil?
The need for money is not the same as the want of money.
In 100 yrs? For the next 20-30, I think the entitlement bandwagon will keep getting riders, at the expense of the pullers. At the maximum point of boomer retirement, the whole system will crack.
Incredible taxation and benefit limitation will ensue, to shore up the system. SS and Medicare will be means-tested. The gov't will wildly print dollars to make payments that are, as a result, greatly deflated in value while still technically meeting their margin calls.
Move out another 20 yrs, and the system will collapse. The key is the 70.5 rule. You MUST withdraw from your 401(k) by 70.5 yrs of age or pay taxes. Once the boomers begin to reach THAT age and are FORCED to withdraw from the market, the whole pyramid scheme will collapse on itself.
By 2060 the Federal gov't will be completely discredited and the States and individuals, now left with no credible national benefactor, will be forced into self-reliance.
Self-reliance is what built this nation. 20-30 yrs after the Great Federal Collapse of 2050-2060, the nation will rise up again.
By 2100, the Constitution will be back in vogue.
It'll stay that way until the nation is strong enough and prosperous enough that people again forget how we got that way and start to advocate selling us down the river, for our own good.
You asked.
I can't tell you about 500 yrs. It depends on whether or not America ultimately goes the route of Rome, or Greece.
We regulate public utilities for the common good and they seem to work efficiently and without any difficulty. Health care can operate under the same model....
My biggest problem is that we are way overtaxed. As healthcare providers we know there really isnt anything more important than health so why isnt public health our priority? Arguably more important than even education and in my opinion definitely more important than wars or foreign aid.
So my position is either cut taxes by 50 percent or provide healthcare to all who need it. We dont call public school systems, "government restricted education" as we shouldnt call universal health government restricted healthcare.
But Timothy is right. As long as we are giving our money to the Neocons, supporting corporations like Exxon and Haliburton and spending billions for wars, we cant afford it.
We regulate public utilities for the common good and they seem to work efficiently and without any difficulty. Health care can operate under the same model....
For example, we regulated MA Bell and got really good service. Everybody that wanted one could get a black rotary phone with local service at a decent price. If you paid significantly more, you could make long distance phone calls. You could save MUCH more if you called long distance at arcane times.
All in all, a functional system.
Then, we deregulated it.
NOW.
All kinds of phones, different colors, wireless, different plans, different extras: call waiting, call forwarding, caller ID.
Cell phones.
VOIP phones.
And the price? WOW. MY long distance is all but free and I never worry about when I have to call.
Make no mistake. You could have a 'functional' system at a steep price with the gov't. I haven't said otherwise.
But why have the waiting times, the lack of choice and the excessive expense of a massive monopoly that doesn't give a darn about you. Functional or not, compared with deregulation, MA Bell was a fair share in a dismal outcome, at least by comparison.
Why settle for the black rotary phone when you can have a cell phone with your own distinctive ring?
You can, and people did, make the argument that a heavily regulated Ma Bell was necessary to ensure that most people had access to a telephone. You could make the argument, and many did, that by deregulating, some people wouldn't be able to afford phone service any longer. You could make the argument, and some did, that only the government, through heavy regulation, could provide this service.
However. The latest census data reports that even among the poorest of our poor, many more have cell phones than not.
How about another example: should I compare the Post Office with Fed Ex next?
Following your free market philosophy is driving health care inflation up at a dramatic pace. The OECD countries are doing quite well at controlling medical inflation with UHC. Medicare is fixable. Tricare, The VA and FEBP all hold inflationary increases down to a level that is on par with the OECD d/t a combination of large groups, bulk purchasing of prescription medicatioons and administrative efficiency.
More to the point, the TRUSTEES of the SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM disagree with your assessment.
Alan Greenspan, in the book he published this year, stated that the SOONER Social Security becomes insolvent, the better. At least at THAT POINT, we can sit down and make some realistic decisions about where to go from there.
More people under 30 believe in UFO than believe they will ever see a Social Security check.
In order to keep the system solvent through 2042 we must continue our current budget expenses AND SIMULTANEOUSLY, pay off a third of our national debt. Why? Because the so-called SS trust fund holds a third of that debt, and they will be calling in the markers between 2017 and 2042.
Your advice: there is no problem.
If YOUR retirement expert told you to relax, you have ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD to worry about retirement, tell me, would you consider that good advice?
If you are depending on SS for your retirement, and you are under 40, let me suggest to you that the math that you learned in fifth grade should tell you something doesn't add up.
I'll be more blunt. Progressives say 'no worries' because they aren't concerned. They welcome the crash of the system because they believe people will clamor for more gov't, as a result. Once you get people used to reliance upon gov't instead of themselves, then each new gov't failure is an excuse for an even greater gov't intervention.
We dont call public school systems, "government restricted education"
I do.
Radio talk show host Neil Boortz routinely says that the most frequent form of child abuse that occurs in the United States is sending your children to government schools.
Private schools provide superior education, at a fraction of the cost. Plus, they allow parents real input into the flavor of that education.
I'm all for a complete voucher system for schools. Not to mention, eliminating the Federal Dept of Education. How your children are educated should be none of Washington's business.
If the mediocre school system is your example of what the government will do with health care, then I'm very afraid. Will the gov't just declare my health as passing some minimum standard, whether it is, or not?
"A letter seen by The Times reveals that a group of London hospitals has been told by NHS managers to postpone surgery for as long as possible in order to cut the trust's debt. Other hospitals are telling patients that they are no longer eligible for operations in order to make savings."
"Employees and businesses would pay for the plan by sharing the cost of a new 14.5% employment tax on wages. Wisconsin businesses would have to compete with out-of-state businesses and foreign rivals while shouldering a 29.8% combined federal-state payroll tax, nearly double the 15.3% payroll tax paid by non-Wisconsin firms for Social Security and Medicare combined."
"Millions of patients could be denied some NHS treatments because they are overweight or smoke.
A survey of 116 primary care trusts found that nine are refusing joint replacements to obese patients and four have blocked orthopaedic surgery for smokers. The trusts, which cover six million patients between them, are almost all heavily in debt."
at 
HM2VikingRN, RN
4,700 Posts
we're in this together......
think of the great things we can accomplish when we work together towards a goal...
i think that its way past the time to start working together in a pragmatic fashion to achieve an improved health care system that leaves noboby behind. for example health care for america as described by jacob hacker would: