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.
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. quote]
thank you, jolie..:bowingpur
there will never be agreement on this issue, becuase we have two very different schools of thought here..:oornt:
the first states that care of each person is a communal responsibility best regulated by the government. nurses have to support this or they are uncaring or immoral. people who need help are primarily victims who deserve sympathy and support, regardless of what precipitated their need. no one is allowed to judge anyone, because there is not a moral absolute and all choices are of equal value. if not for taxation and government programs, people would be dying in the streets.
the second school of thought states that adults are responsible for themselves and their offspring, and that it is the duty of people of faith to provide assistance to those who cannot help themselves..i.e., "widows and orphans" in the judeo-christian context, the children and aged, the mentally and physically incompetent. this support is given with the expectation that those who can contribute should ["if one should not work, neither shall he eat"] and that the the others are to be protected. caring does not enable poor or dangerous choices. work is the rent you pay for your existance here on earth, which is just a short stay on your way to somewhere else.
as timothy has so eloquently stated, charity cannot be forced, and entitlements encourage a mentality of need and dependence. i'll continue to listen to rational opinions, but i doubt i can be convinced that everyone should have equality of outcome--its the pursuit of happiness, not the guarentee thereof that makes this country great.
new york city, august 19, 2004—consumer-directed health care (cdhc)—high-deductible plans often touted as the answer to spiraling health care costs—is not likely to curb health care costs, and could even worsen health outcomes by reducing patients' receipt of needed preventive care and care for chronic conditions, says a new report from the commonwealth fund.
a more effective and equitable alternative to increased cost-sharing for patients would be care management for high-cost patients, says commonwealth fund president karen davis in will consumer-directed health care improve health system performance?, noting that ten percent of individuals account for 69 percent of health care costs.
Do you believe that you are capable of managing your own budget and healthcare needs?
If so, do you believe that your fellow citizens are likewise capable?
Do you think that low-income equals ignorant or incapable? If the low-income citizens of this country are capable of managing every other aspect of their lives without well-meaning, but unnecessary intrusion, why don't you support enabling them to do the same with their healthcare?
BUT. We have to do SOMETHING. So, let's make a solution that is much worse than the problem.
Yep, that's what UHC proponents REALLY want. To make things worse. And they try so hard to make us believe that they really think it would have some upsides for a good number of people. Like not having to worry about getting ill or injured potentially starting a spiral to bankruptcy despite having made responsible choices such as working, having health insurance and getting regular check ups. Like not having to worry about how one will afford gap coverage in health insurance if they are without work for awhile.
But seriously...
Tim, anyone who has kept up with this discussion knows that you believe in minimal government interference and we know HM2Viking supports UHC. You each know that you're not going to convince the other. :banghead:So both of your arguments are more for those of us who are on the fence. Explain to us a different approach to deal with the problems of increasing medical costs (no matter who's paying or how well they negotiate modern medical technology is expensive). Explain to us how the current system isn't THAT bad (if that's your argument). Instead of "socialism vs. free market" - which will lead us in circles :argue: - let's talk about the pros and cons :down:of the different varieties of national health programs and the different varieties of private sector health care provision. If UHC is such a terrible idea, what specific alternatives :confused:are there that are politically viable (cuz that's a reality we have to deal with no matter how frustrating it is.)
I don't always agree with HM2Viking and I question the basis of some of the statistics posted, but I respect the fact that he is putting information and ideas out there and isn't just complaining about & criticizing other people's ideas of a solution as *hare-brained*, *misguided*, *idiotic*, *obviously ridiculous*, etc.:trout: I'm not saying you've used those words specifically, but the tone of your posts can be so caustic that I just want to disagree with you because I don't want to side with someone who is so quick to so negatively judge another's perspective. Just because someone supports some aspects of social assistance doesn't mean they want "Uncle Daddy" to take care of their every need. That's insulting and not conducive to constructive discussion. :chair:
The reason I'm bothering to spend so much time saying this and why I'm addressing you specifically is that I *know* you from other posts :typing in other areas. You have a lot of insight to share and I generally respect your input. But when I see your vehement and insulting replies in regard to anything that hints at socialism, I wonder where that other guy went. :innerconf
PS I hope I'm not coming across as the "feel good, never disagree with anyone ever" police. :uhoh21: :cheers:
Yep, that's what UHC proponents REALLY want. To make things worse.
I KNOW that isn't what proponents want. I am saying that is what they will get. I have said, over and over in this and many similar discussions here, that I'm not opposed to what proponents of UHC WANT; I'm opposed to method they wish to employ.
I'm opposed BECAUSE IT WON'T WORK. The laws of economics do not yield to extreme desire. Even if you want it, very VERY badly.
It's the simple law of supply and demand. IF you create unlimited demand (IT'S FREE!!!), then, you must also create unlimited supply (physically and financially impossible) or you must ration supply.
A plan to ration supply is restricted care, not universal care.
We have access to the best health care in the world. If you have an issue with access, then devise a method to increase access. Gov't restricted health care has NOTHING to do with access. You don't need to change the way 265 million Americans get coverage in order to cover 38 million uninsured.
You don't. Unless at issue is how you want to control the health care of the 265 million.
At issue is choice. Gov't restricted health care is anti-choice.
I didn't question the value of work. The mobility project data shows that once an individual is in the middle class there are substantial aids given by government policies that help that individual and their family stay there. Its hypocritical to deny the assistive role of government in maintaining ones social class.
So what is it...is the government helpng the middle class with substanial aid (then where is my aid because I do nothing but pay fees and am not entitled to any type of public assistance or help) or are they hurting them?
How about letting people choose to buy into Medicare at any age?
It already covers those over 65 years old and the disabled.
Why not let people choose what plan they want including Medicare?
At the same cost seniors pay for it?
We could choose Part "A", Part "B", or any combination.
Medicare would have to compete with the commercial insurance plans.
Because, while social security won't be bankrupt until 2017, Medicare will be bankrupt in the next few years.
We already spend more than 1 trillion dollars on Medicare and Social Security, alone. That is 1/3rd of the entire budget. How could we triple that coverage and not triple taxation, as well?
How are you going to get the average MIDDLE CLASS taxpayer to agree to triple his/her taxation?
These programs aren't sustainable. Don't believe me? FINE. Here is what YOUR Medicare TRUSTEES have to say, in their 2007 summary report:
"As we reported last year, Medicare's financial difficulties come sooner-and are much more severe-than those confronting Social Security. While both programs face demographic challenges, the impact is greater for Medicare because health care costs increase at older ages. Moreover, underlying health care costs per enrollee are projected to rise faster than the wages per worker on which payroll taxes and Social Security benefits are based. As a result, while Medicare's annual costs were 3.1 percent of GDP in 2006, or about 72 percent of Social Security's, they are projected to surpass Social Security expenditures in 2028 and exceed 11 percent of GDP in 2081."
At the current rate, and without expanding it, Medicare will surpass Social Security spending in 2 decades. We currently pay 7.2% SS tax and 1.5% Medicare tax, and NEITHER is enough to fund the programs, as they exist. Within 2 decades, we will have to cut expenses on both programs, or raise the taxation OF BOTH programs to above 7.5%, each. That's 15% of payroll before any income tax is taken out. And, since costs are passed on by employer, it is, in effect a 30% tax (your employer matches). Within 2 decades, the current liabilities will exceed 30% of your salary, for these two programs alone.
"The outlook for Social Security presents a fiscal challenge that pales in comparison to that posed by Medicare. The big news in this year's report is the triggering of the "Medicare funding warning." While the warning is new, it simply reflects the same dire financial outlook for the program we have been reporting for years and which was exacerbated by the recent addition of the Part D prescription drug benefit.
Projected Medicare costs are even more sensitive to population aging than Social Security's. But they are also projected to grow faster than those of Social Security over the entire projection period for a far more important second reason: the expectation that per capita health care costs will continue to grow faster than per capita GDP in the future, as they have in the past. As a result, this year's report-as did last year's-projects overall Medicare expenditures to increase from their 2007 level of 3.2 percent of GDP to 6.5 percent by 2030, and to 11.3 percent by the end of the 75-year period. In the absence of reform that greatly restrains these cost increases, taxes on the working age population and out-of-pocket payments by beneficiaries will both have to rise far faster than incomes in the decades ahead."
. . .
"On a cash-flow basis, last year's general revenue transfers to Medicare were equivalent to 12.3 percent of Federal income tax revenues. To fully fund currently projected Medicare costs would require-in addition to currently dedicated sources of income from payroll taxes, premiums and the like-the equivalent in such transfers of nearly double this percentage of Federal income tax revenues (again, projected at their historical average share of GDP over the past four decades) within 15 years and more than triple in 25 years. Such transfers would require that over the next 25 years either Federal spending on government programs other than Social Security and Medicare fall by almost 25 percent, or that income tax revenues increase by more than 25 percent from their historical shares of GDP."
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.
So, the insured are the "we", and the uninsured are "them".
Isn't this assuming that uninsured are all irresponsible, unemployed people?
Until individuals of every economic status are responsible for their own expenses and budget, healthcare costs will never be brought under control.
Ouch. those darn poor, working poor, and middle class. Aren't the poor being irresponsible just by being poor?
isn't this assuming that uninsured are all irresponsible, unemployed people?
(quote from mschrisco above)
absolutely not! my belief is that those of low income and limited financial means are far more capable of managing their own healthcare than any government program will ever be, just as middle and upper income families are. i believe in the capabilities of my fellow citizens. i absloutely do not believe that poor equals ingorant or incompetent, which is why i believe that we need to empower low-income americans to manage their own financial and healthcare affairs. this can be accomplished by providing them with the tools necessary to do so (education, tax breaks, vouchers, medical savings accounts, etc.) not by rounding them up into a doomed government mandated healthcare plan.
ouch. those darn poor, working poor, and middle class. aren't the poor being irresponsible just by being poor? (quote from mschrisco above)
those are your words, not mine, and an attitude i don't share.
:down:of the different varieties of national health programs and the different varieties of private sector health care provision. If UHC is such a terrible idea, what specific alternatives :confused:are there that are politically viable (cuz that's a reality we have to deal with no matter how frustrating it is.)
and isn't just complaining about & criticizing other people's ideas of a solution as *hare-brained*, *misguided*, *idiotic*, *obviously ridiculous*, etc.:trout: I'm not saying you've used those words specifically, but the tone of your posts can be so caustic that I just want to disagree with you because I don't want to side with someone who is so quick to so negatively judge another's perspective. Just because someone supports some aspects of social assistance doesn't mean they want "Uncle Daddy" to take care of their every need. That's insulting and not conducive to constructive discussion. :chair:
BlueRidgeHomeRN
829 Posts