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.
in other words between 200-400% of poverty premiums would be assessed on a sliding scale basis. a single parent family would be 460$/month at 400% of poverty and above. at 400% of poverty and above the maximum premium for a 2 parent family would be 670$/month. given that current family coverage for epdta standards is approximately 1000/month this would net to a substantial savings for all plan participants. whats not to love about this plan!
There's never been a law yet that didn't have a ridiculous consequence in some unusual situation; there's probably never been a government program that didn't accidentally benefit someone it wasn't intended to. Most people who work in government understand that what you do about it is fix the problem -- you don't just attack the whole government. Molly Ivins
You're right. There's NEVER been a gov't program that didn't have ridiculous consequences. All the more reason not to trust the gov't.
The best fix is to eliminate gov't. In most instances, the gov't IS THE PROBLEM. The solution? Remove the problem.
But, by giving parents DIRECT control of how those dollars are spent, schools would compete for those dollars.
Competition will yield the best combination of price and quality.
As a result, the States could fund education for half of what they currently spend.
The trick is to get the Federal gov't completely out of the equation. Education is a State issue. The vast majority of school dollars come from property and sales tax, at least here in Texas. If the funding is mostly local, then why on earth is the control in Federal hands?
As IF the Feds know better the needs of my community than my community.
Vouchers would lead to superior education at less cost. What it WOULDN'T do is give liberals a venue to indoctrinate my children. THAT is why moving away from the public school system is such a heated idea.
It's the same with health care: it comes down to choice. Advocating for gov't control means DEPRIVING the ultimate consumer from choice. I advocate choice: let the parents choose.
I trust parents to choose better for THEIR children than I do ANYBODY ELSE. Washington does NOT have a more vested interest in children than parents.
I trust MY ability to choose my own health care much more than I do Washington's ability choose for me a 'black rotary phone' health care plan.
when people stopped paying with their own real money, the spiral upward of medical care costs began..because "someone else" was paying.[/size]
that factors in to an extent. but also health care simply costs a lot more. there are a lot more options and those options are expensive to develop, implement, etc ... mris & cts not just x-rays, by-pass and pci instead of death by mi, long term chronic care, etc. providers tried bilking the insurance companies (and this includes medicare) by padding costs. then insurance companies got serious about what they would and wouldn't pay. and through that all, procedures, supplies, tests and drugs multiplied in number and complexity... and cost. so health insurance becomes less profitable and companies have to squeeze more and more to keep costs down. they use bulk negotiation powers to induce provides to accept reduced payments for services and then providers struggle to recoup their costs. for profit organizations have no incentive to provide care for those who won't help their bottom line. and non-profits struggle to cover their costs, which tend to be heavier since they usually end up taking care of those who couldn't get help from the for-profits.
removing third party payors from the equation would help reduce costs but there would still be tough decisions to make. i just want to acknowledge that because sometimes proponents of either side of an argument tend to come across as ignoring the pitfalls of the system they advocate and dismissing the concerns of those who resist that system. there are no perfect answers. in any solution, someone somewhere will end up getting the short end of the stick. so we can't use the argument that if anyone loses ever that the system has totally failed and needs to be scrapped. it may be obvious to some but i find it useful to remind myself of that.
In regard to the private/public school topic... yes many parochial schools do a better job than public schools at a lower price. Sometimes the school tuition is subsidized by the affiliated religious organization. I know of many small parochial schools that aren't considered to be strong academically and the local public schools offer more opportunities for their students. So there are no guarantees that private always provides better education than public.
Also, private schools have the option of turning away students who don't behave, who don't do well on entry exams, or if all of their seats are full. Public schools don't have any of these options. And usually, if a parent is motivated and concerned enough to look for and make the extra effort to send their child to parochial school, then they are also more likely to be supportive of the students.
What about choice? I choose to help provide public education for all children in this country through the taxes that I pay. Even if I don't have kids. I'm not going to ask for my money back even though I'm not directly benefiting public education. So we're all paying for that. Parents have the option of sending their kids to the public school that they help pay for, or they can send their kids to a private school and pay for that extra service.
Does the public school system need an overhaul? Yes! But the same problems that plague the public schools can just as easily come about in with private schools as they compete for voucher dollars. Sure some schools would get a great reputation and everyone would want to go there... like the public schools in affluent neighborhoods.
The great schools would fill up quick but there would still be lots of students needing to find a school. If the only schools left available are low quality, what *choice* is there now? It's back to square one.
. So there are no guarantees that private always provides better education than public.
Does the public school system need an overhaul? Yes! But the same problems that plague the public schools can just as easily come about in with private schools as they compete for voucher dollars. Sure some schools would get a great reputation and everyone would want to go there... like the public schools in affluent neighborhoods.
The great schools would fill up quick but there would still be lots of students needing to find a school. If the only schools left available are low quality, what *choice* is there now? It's back to square one.
Milwaukee, 2008 Voucher Brief, Did Compromise Voucher Law Achieve Intended Purpose?
The great schools would fill up quick but there would still be lots of students needing to find a school. If the only schools left available are low quality, what *choice* is there now? It's back to square one.
I disagree. You are projecting current availability of private schools onto the VAST amount of choice you'd have if parents could direct their children's education dollars.
Competition will expand to fill the need.
For example. Are all the good cell phone plans 'filled up' now? All the good restaurants in your town?
There may be SOME competition for limited space in better places. True. But to say that it would be a game of musical chairs and some kids would be left out isn't exactly true.
It comes down to choice. The gov't plan removes all choice: your children must be education in a humanist 'feel good' environment. What if I don't WANT my child being taught outright lies, such as evolution and global warming? Sorry, that's the law - it's on the secular humanist agenda.
See, at issue is that some of you simply don't think I should have a say in what my children are taught. The whole issue of denying choice is to veto my say, as a parent.
"Millions of people with arthritis, asthma and even heart failure will be urged to treat themselves as part of a Government plan to save billions of pounds from the NHS budget.
Instead of going to hospital or consulting a doctor, patients will be encouraged to carry out "self care" as the Department of Health (DoH) tries to meet Treasury targets to curb spending."
"Plans to eliminate excessive waiting times in the National Health Service stand no chance of succeeding, an independent think-tank claims today.
In a serious blow to Gordon Brown's credibility, Civitas says the target of a maximum 18-week delay from GP referral to treatment by December is an "impossibility".
~~~
UNDERSTAND THIS: The NHS set an EIGHTEEN WEEK STANDARD as a reasonable delay between diagnosis by a GP and actual referral for treatment. AND THEY CAN'T MEET THIS GOAL.
I don't know what's worse: setting a 4.5 month standard as a 'reasonable' wait in the first place, or, failing to meet it.
How many of you are truly willing to wait 4.5 months for a referral, and that's only IF the gov't meets it's rationing goals. If not, who knows how long you'll wait?
Unlimited demand = unlimited supply (impossible) or rationed supply. It's a law of economics. Congress can't change that.
The last time I needed surgery, the wait time from seeing my GP to seeing the specialist was 18 HOURS; not 18 WEEKS. I saw my GP on Thurs, saw the Surgeon on FRI, and had surgery the following Monday. Given a choice, I would choose 18 HOURS over 18 WEEKS. Which, of course, is why gov't restricted health care first requires the removal of choice.
"A woman with breast cancer could be denied free treatment on the NHS because she wants to improve her chance of survival by paying for an extra drug herself.
She said: "If I want to pay for Avastin, I must pay for everything. It's immoral that the drugs are out there and freely available to certain people, yet they say I cannot have it."
The Government is opposed to patients receiving private treatment on top of NHS care because they believe it could lead to people on the same ward receiving different drugs based on their ability to pay."
It wouldn't be 'fair' for her to get this treatment by paying for it herself. She should just die fair and square, like everyone else, instead of making such a big deal out of it.
How immoral is this? Well, it's the government and the government isn't allowed to have morals, right?
But you see, allowing her to seek a better chance at survival is "in direct contravention with the principles and values of the NHS."
South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust said: "If a patient chooses to go private for certain drugs they elect to become a private patient for the course of their treatment for that condition. That is the trust policy."
I disagree. You are projecting current availability of private schools onto the VAST amount of choice you'd have if parents could direct their children's education dollars...
For example. Are all the good cell phone plans 'filled up' now? All the good restaurants in your town? ...
There may be SOME competition for limited space in better places. True. But to say that it would be a game of musical chairs and some kids would be left out isn't exactly true.
You have a point there. But cell phones are profit generating, not subsidized by vouchers backed by our tax dollars. To maximize their profit, reputable sought-after schools could raise their fees well above the voucher amount... thus becoming more or less the same as current exclusive private schools.
Restaurants... well, there are some parts of town that don't have anything better than Burger King and Taco Bell. Nicer restaurants, even just a Chili's, know that some communities won't be profitable for them. I'm not saying that public education has managed to offer equal educational opportunities across all communities, but I don't see how vouchers would increase the opportunities across all communities either.
It comes down to choice. The gov't plan removes all choice: your children must be education in a humanist feel good environment. What if I don't WANT my child being taught outright lies, such as evolution and global warming? Sorry, that's the law - it's on the secular humanist agenda... See, at issue is that some of you simply don't think I should have a say in what my children are taught. The whole issue of denying choice is veto my say, as a parent.
"Some of you simply don't think"... There are lots of people out there who think lots of things, but your statement sounds accusatory or presumptuous. Do you seriously think that most public education supporters have nefarious underlying motives to properly indoctrinate all children? If that were the case, wouldn't more people be lobbying to abolish parochial schools altogether?
While you may not like the current standards in public education and you may not like having your tax dollars support it, there *is* a choice of whether or not to send *your* kids there. And while the school may teach evolution - and students should be aware of the theory if they're ever going to be among other scientists or read scientific literature - the schools don't require students to believe it. If they do, you as a parent can take that up with your school's officials.
And "secular humanist agenda"? Sounds kinda like the "vast right-wing conspiracy." There probably are forces out there pushing such an agenda. Just like there are forces out there that would like to see the US run as a theocracy. But lets keep this to folks like you and me who just want the best for the most people. We may (and do) disagree on how to do and what will and won't work, but please let's not make presumptions about our motives.
i think what the nhs stories speak to is the importance of transparency in managing health care resources. healthy systems talk about their problems as a means of identifying causes, developing interventions and evaluating the effectiveness of the interventions.
molly ivins quote about fixing the problem is true for government and true for the private sector. if there is a problem fix it; don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. i think the fifteenth amendment speaks to the very real role of regulation in protecting the rights of citizens.
no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
when we design an effective uhc plan as a nation one of the effects will be to establish constitutive intent. congress will be acting to protect citizens from arbitrary actions by either government or the private sector through establishment of laws designed to assure access to health care. net effect of these laws would extend 15th amendment protections of a guarantee of due process and review of health care coverage issues. in other words "we the people" would have a definite method to attain protection from arbitrary actions. no market based proposal can deliver that kind of protection.
HM2VikingRN, RN
4,700 Posts
here is a snapshot of the premium structure as envisioned by jacob hacker and confirmed by independent analysis.
http://www.sharedprosperity.org/hcfa/lewin.pdf