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.
its important for those in the middle class to figure out how to have broad based prosperity ot there soon won't be a middle class.
correct--because they are beng taxed into extintion by those of you who believe that the government should control the re-distributon of my money!!
it sounds like you think current levels of taxation are too high. i can appreciate your perspective. i don't see how current levels of taxation, though, threaten the very existence of a middle class. countries with higher levels of national taxation still have a stable middle class. and while higher taxes may mean a little less spending money, a little less money in the bank, i don't see how they would push an otherwise middle-class family into financial instability.
meanwhile, we all benefit from many tax-supported services such as national security, public education (as i don't want to live in a society where half of the population is illiterate), interstate highways, national parks and more. if all such things were privatized, instead of taxes, we'd all be paying hefty toll road fees (or car repair costs for running over so many potholes), be forced to pay out of pocket for *any* kind of schooling & school books for our kids, have much steeper entry fees to our country's natural wonders, etc.
i'm not saying all services *should* be government-run. i'm just saying that increased taxes does not necessarily equal the demise of the middle-class.
to be fair, uhc isn't a panacea either. health care costs are high no matter what and we have tough choices to make whatever system we have.
but seriously, if you were very ill, would your insurance cover your care? what if you needed hundreds of dollars of medications each month? what if you lost your job? how much would similar insurance cost you each month? what if you needed extensive long term care? would your insurance cover that? or would you have to spend down all of your assets? are you okay with the fact that the bad luck of being ill could all to easily push someone from the middle class to being dependent upon government assistance?
how things look from my perspective is that if you don't have good insurance that is subsidized through your employer, then your premium payments or cost of care out of pocket could easily surpass any increase in taxes that some kind of uhc might create.
I thought of asking you all this also.It seems as though the pharmacies are now switching omeprazole and prilocec on their coverage,yet again.Finistride and flomax,yet another.I think they tally up monthly how much of a med is being used.When they see its common oops, we must change the brand.This is so time consuming,especially in ltcf's.Wonder how it will work,national health care in the nursing homes.You know,it is soo hard to even find dental care for the residents.Hope it all works out.Frankly,my insurance pays good,but my part thats always left unnegotiated usually wipes me dry. Change,I sure as he-- hope so!!!:angryfire
a fifth topic that i will mention briefly is health care costs. percapita health care expenditures in the united states already exceed $7,000 a year, or $28,000 for a family of four. in just over a decade, per person costs are projected to exceed $15,000 a year. there is no way that even a middle income family can pay these sorts of health care costs and still have enough money left over to sustain a reasonable standard of living.
oh, please--since over 80% of medicare money is spent on people in the last year of life.....and.......
is "averaged" into this per capita number........
is there a nurse reading this that can't do math??????
and you are right--no middle class family can sustain that, especially once they are paying for themselves and several other people who aren't contributing!!:angryfire
my main point remains if you have been richly blessed by society that a little gratitude is in order rather than resentment of those who have not been as fortunate. there but for the grace of god go i thinking.....which does lead to the follow on question of "how do we help others bridge that gap to make the jump into the middle class..."
social justice is a core nursing value.....
nobody makes it totally on their own.
we are all in this together......
one of the core definitions of insurance is the spreading of risk across a large group to defray risk to a managable level....we pay premiums to a group to defray the higher medical costs of both the young and the old in order to assure that their needs are met and when we are old that someone else will help cover our expenses...
i feel sad for those who believe that everyone is out to take advantage...living with that type of belief structure makes for a cold and lonely world....
which kind of world do you want to lie in? one with high social capial or one with low social capital?
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. (6) also, cohesive communities turn out to be more egalitarian.
oh, please--since over 80% of medicare money is spent on people in the last year of life.....and.......
is "averaged" into this per capita number........
is there a nurse reading this that can't do math??????
and you are right--no middle class family can sustain that, especially once they are paying for themselves and several other people who aren't contributing!!:angryfire
Its amoral to ration care based on ability to pay.....
Rationing care based on evidence based standards is a compromise that we can all live with...
The free market is the MOST moral way to ration care: unlike gov't control, the free market directly buffers supply and demand. The best combination of price and quality provides the absolute most people the absolute best coverage possible. You cannot get a better combination any other way.
The gov't would totally destroy that equation. As it always does. Socialism is a proven failure. You cannot get what you want out of a failed idea, no matter HOW BADLY you want it.
I simply do not believe that such an idea will work, if only the 'right' people run it. NOPE. The idea itself is fundamentally flawed.
The NHS is trying to privatize as fast as possible. Against the LAW, private practice is springing up all over Canada, and the gov't has all but decided to turn a blind eye because of the relief valve such care is providing to the system. France's care is on the brink of bankruptcy: their managers have stated, since 2004, that they will HAVE to cut the cost of the program.
Only Australia is relatively immune and that's because they adopted a two-tier system from the start. Private health care is still available there. Even so, the cost in taxation for their program is much more than Americans would willingly bear.
We CAN learn from the social health care failures around the world. THEY are all trying to return to a measure of privatization.
SORRY, I know all this side argument stuff is ridiculous, but I was trying to make a point with a certain poster who writes lengthy epistles using his own philosophy to argue why UHC is morally WRONG. I was trying to poke a hole in his argument, but I think that sometimes the bricks are laid really tightly. I dont know why I continue to bother :selfbonk:, I think this argument whether its morally right or morally wrong is getting to be like :deadhorse .
Back to the REAL argument of why we all need UHC.:doh:
The core argument FOR gov't restricted health care is that it is an issue of morality. In fact, it's incredibly immoral. It's root purpose is the denial of God. Who needs some god when Uncle Daddy is here for you.
You might not like this argument, but it's not MY argument; It's YOUR argument. YOU continually bring morality into play with YOUR viewpoint.
I am just rebutting:
Gov't control of health care is immoral. UHC is the WORST idea to provide universal coverage. For EVERY person you guys would like to point out doesn't have health insurance, UHC will deny coverage, by ration, to many more people. Deny until they die. After all, it's all about the numbers. MORE people will be harmed MORE BY UHC than by the current system.
BUT. We have to do SOMETHING. So, let's make a solution that is much worse than the problem.
We assist them in obtaining the tools necessary to be responsible for planning, budgeting, making care decisions for themselves and accepting the consequences of those decisions, just as employed and insured citizens do every day. Those tools include lessons in budgeting, saving and financial planning, as well as tax breaks and vouchers to assist with establishing healthcare savings accounts and purchasing healthcare services and/or coverage for themselves.
Until individuals of every economic status are responsible for their own expenses and budget, healthcare costs will never be brought under control.
it is actually against their interest for insurers to compete on giving us the best care. it's not simply that they're not doing it, but given the structure of the marketplace, they shouldn't do it.
I dont know why I continue to bother :selfbonk:, I think this argument whether its morally right or morally wrong is getting to be like :deadhorse .
it is actually against their interest for insurers to compete on giving us the best care. it's not simply that they're not doing it, but given the structure of the marketplace, they shouldn't do it.
jjjoy, LPN
2,801 Posts
it sounds like you think current levels of taxation are too high. i can appreciate your perspective. i don't see how current levels of taxation, though, threaten the very existence of a middle class. countries with higher levels of national taxation still have a stable middle class. and while higher taxes may mean a little less spending money, a little less money in the bank, i don't see how they would push an otherwise middle-class family into financial instability.
meanwhile, we all benefit from many tax-supported services such as national security, public education (as i don't want to live in a society where half of the population is illiterate), interstate highways, national parks and more. if all such things were privatized, instead of taxes, we'd all be paying hefty toll road fees (or car repair costs for running over so many potholes), be forced to pay out of pocket for *any* kind of schooling & school books for our kids, have much steeper entry fees to our country's natural wonders, etc.
i'm not saying all services *should* be government-run. i'm just saying that increased taxes does not necessarily equal the demise of the middle-class.
to be fair, uhc isn't a panacea either. health care costs are high no matter what and we have tough choices to make whatever system we have.
but seriously, if you were very ill, would your insurance cover your care? what if you needed hundreds of dollars of medications each month? what if you lost your job? how much would similar insurance cost you each month? what if you needed extensive long term care? would your insurance cover that? or would you have to spend down all of your assets? are you okay with the fact that the bad luck of being ill could all to easily push someone from the middle class to being dependent upon government assistance?
how things look from my perspective is that if you don't have good insurance that is subsidized through your employer, then your premium payments or cost of care out of pocket could easily surpass any increase in taxes that some kind of uhc might create.