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.
Jamie Vollmer tells a story about what happened to him at a presentation about school reform. (He was highly critical of public education)
She began quietly, “We are told, sir, that you manage a company that makes good ice cream.”
I smugly replied, “Best ice cream in America, Ma’am.”
“How nice,” she said. “Is it rich and smooth?”
“Sixteen percent butterfat,” I crowed.
“Premium ingredients?” she inquired.
“Super-premium! Nothing but triple A.” I was on a roll. I never saw the next line coming.
“Mr. Vollmer,” she said, leaning forward with a wicked eyebrow raised to the sky, “when you are standing on your receiving dock and you see an inferior shipment of blueberries arrive, what do you do?”
In the silence of that room, I could hear the trap snap…. I was dead meat, but I wasn’t going to lie.
“I send them back.”
“That’s right!” she barked, “and we can never send back our blueberries. We take them big, small, rich, poor, gifted, exceptional, abused, frightened, confident, homeless, rude, and brilliant. We take them with ADHD, junior rheumatoid arthritis, and English as their second language.We take them all! Every one! And that, Mr. Vollmer, is why it’s not a business. It’s school!”
Schools, like our health care system need to meet the needs of everyone on an equitable and fair basis in order to close gaps that interfere with achieving the full potential of individuals.
Education is both an individual civil right and a core responsibility of government in all 50 states under the individual state constitutions.
Given the role of the schools in preparing students for the new economy means teaching students to analyze problems, evaluate data, and develop solutions to problems. Teaching critical thinking is hardly "indoctrination." It is teaching students to figure things out for themselves.
Schools, like our health care system need to meet the needs of everyone on an equitable and fair basis in order to close gaps that interfere with achieving the full potential of individuals.
Education is both an individual civil right and a core responsibility of government in all 50 states under the individual state constitutions.
Given the role of the schools in preparing students for the new economy means teaching students to analyze problems, evaluate data, and develop solutions to problems. Teaching critical thinking is hardly "indoctrination." It is teaching students to figure things out for themselves.
I would like to bring up a situation in NYC public schools, that is unprecedened any place else in the country.
NY, being a cosmopolitan type of city, and rather liberal in its thinking, two years ago opened up a "specialty" public school, that it based on the Muslim religion. That's right folks, a NYC public school, opened up a school with a "Muslim Flair", to teach about the Muslim faith so Americans learn to "understand" the Muslim faith and not be "afraid" of it.
The school is called the "Kahil Gibran" school, after the poet. For those of you who are not familiar with the NYC public school system, it is not unusual to have "specialty schools" as part of the public school systems. However, those schools have tradionnally been education special schools, like the science and math. This really crosses the line.
I can just imagine the uproar if the public school system opened up a St. 'Something', public school to teach the students about Christianity, and/or Catholicism. If you know what I mean. No amount of public disfavor over this school was able to stop it. Brings a new meaning to the words, "home grown terrorism".
Just thought that I would interject something that was probably not know outside of the NYC area. And another point to ponder about what has been done to our public school system in the name of "Political Correctness". JMHO.
Separation of church and state. No reason such a school could not be private, but I agree that public schools have no place teaching religion.Religious groups meeting after school on school property, I see nothing wrong with it, as long as faculty members are not the head of such groups. Prayer should be allowed in such groups, no harm to anyone who CHOOSES to be a member of that extracurricular group. Also I see no reason why the various religions of the world cant be represented at special times like holidays, as long as ALL have a say.
You're not choosing anything except jail time if you don't pay that money. Call up the state and federal governments and tell them this year you don't want to support someone elses children so you choose not to pay the taxes.
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.
"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.
~faith,
Timothy.
Regarding self care- that is already being done by the uninsured. Uninsured are already treating their own ailments, whether successfully or unsuccessfully, only time tells.
Re you 18 hour wait, sincerely glad for you. And, stating the obvious, you know that 18 weeks would be nothing for the uninsured, who cannot see a Physician, much less a specialist.
All of the stats, graphs, and studies aren't adding or subtracting from the bottom line: We will have universal health care, and it will eventually be paid for by society as a whole. So, instead of jumping through free market/competition/mandatory insurance....and all of the above, isn't it time to just go ahead and start the ball rolling?
We know it will take decades and possibly centuries to work out the kinks and fine tune, so shouldn't we just get started?
i think universal health care speaks to the issue of social capital as well:
for another take on this idea see:
there is a new concept: "social capital" -- originally coined by j. s. coleman, now expanded by professor kawachi of harvard and his colleagues, and recently spotlighted in a
when researchers get into the streets and survey people's opinions, they can rate communities and neighborhoods on the results.
a community has high social capital if people say they trust one another and help each other out, and if they belong to local groups (service groups, tenant associations, unions, etc.) which have an impact; the community has an atmosphere of cohesiveness.
a community has low social capital if residents don't belong to organizations, don't trust each other and say others try to take advantage of them. researchers like kawachi also check out health statistics and crime rates. he and his colleagues have found that communities with low social capital also have worse health, higher mortality rates, and higher rates of violent crime.
The reason is too few people are personally responsible for the community at large. Personal responsibility should be just that personal responisbility not community responsibility.
I don't understand the hostility for personal responsibility to the well-being of the community at large. Dean Baker makes the following observation:
The uninsured consistently utilize the ER for primary care and most do not pay the bill. Universal health care will not be paid for by society as a whole. It will be paid for by middle and upper income Americans so that people who refuse to work or pull their own weight can have yet a nother free handout on the backs of the American taxpayer.
Regarding self care- that is already being done by the uninsured. Uninsured are already treating their own ailments, whether successfully or unsuccessfully, only time tells.
Re you 18 hour wait, sincerely glad for you. And, stating the obvious, you know that 18 weeks would be nothing for the uninsured, who cannot see a Physician, much less a specialist.
All of the stats, graphs, and studies aren't adding or subtracting from the bottom line: We will have universal health care, and it will eventually be paid for by society as a whole. So, instead of jumping through free market/competition/mandatory insurance....and all of the above, isn't it time to just go ahead and start the ball rolling?
We know it will take decades and possibly centuries to work out the kinks and fine tune, so shouldn't we just get started?
The uninsured consistently utilize the ER for primary care and most do not pay the bill. Universal health care will not be paid for by society as a whole. It will be paid for by middle and upper income Americans so that people who refuse to work or pull their own weight can have yet a nother free handout on the backs of the American taxpayer.
Do you really believe that the uninsured simply refuse to work or pull their own weight? If you have the opportunity, please do some research. The issue isn't laziness, it is the unaffordability of health care for working poor, and many middle class.
The uninsured utilize the ER because they cannot afford to see a Physician, or, if they did see a Physician, they cannot afford any testing or treatments prescribed.
It seems most people have accepted these as facts, and the discussion appears to be government involvement or encourage competition to assist in health care for all. (Simple person trying to simplify-am I correct?)
The candidates have outlined their potential plans-but there are so many issues we all need to work out for ourselves.
After all, the way of health care will greatly affect all of our lives, one way or the other. There is no going back. Fork in the road. Could possibly change our country's entire way of life/thinking/future
You're not choosing anything except jail time if you don't pay that money. Call up the state and federal governments and tell them this year you don't want to support someone elses children so you choose not to pay the taxes.
You're right. I didn't express myself well.
Let me rephrase what I said. I support the policy of taxes providing public education for all children. And I will continue to support such policies. Current policy does allow parents to opt out of public education. Yes, if they put their kids in a private school, they have to pay extra for that, but there *is* a choice. It's impractical for everyone to ask for their "share" of funds going to tax-funded programs that they don't use or approve of. How many people would want to take back their tax monies going to war or farm subsidies or foreign aid or public libraries or...
Alternatively, we have to go through the frustratingly slow and imperfect system of local and national policy change. I can see why people support the idea of small government. But "small" is a relative term. We want the government to be big enough to be effective but not too big. And again, we as individuals and groups disagree over what big enough and too big are exactly.
I think rather than health insurance vouchers it would be better to have health care vouchers to pay the provider. The clinic, hospital, or independent practitioner.
The details would have to be worked out in terms of need. I just had my physical so after the mammogram I am free for a year unless I am sick or injured.
So how to determine when need exists?
Solved!
It covers everyone. It cuts costs. It can get through Congress. Why Universal Health Care Vouchers is the next big idea.
HM2VikingRN, RN
4,700 Posts
Claims that competition will improve education are not supported by the avalable evidence.
If anything when educational research is compared on an apples to apples basis the private schools underperform the public schools: