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.
Specializes in ICU, Paeds ICU, Correctional, Education.
I agree that we should look out for those of us that cannot look out for themselves.
I disagree that extends to those that WON'T look out after themselves.
Health care is NOT a right; it's a personal responsibility.
Health care isn't a commodity; it's a service. If it's also a RIGHT, then others are entitled to the labor of those that provide health care. There is a definition of being entitled to the labor of others: slavery.
There are some fundamental issues of morality at play with such concepts. Rights do not occur absent responsibility. To say somebody has the 'right' to health care, regardless of their responsibility to secure it, is utterly meaningless.
~faith,
Timothy.
My nursing practice is driven by the care and compassion that eleviates pain and suffering and, wherever possible, promotes the restoration of health. It is the only philosphy of nursing that I know.The day I dissect this into who deserves it and who doesn't, that will be the day that I leave it to those that understand the true meaning of care. The notion of indivdual responsibility in health promotion and health care has proved to be a dismal failure in social terms backed up by mountains of evidence. My understanding of slavery is that it is work performed unwillingly and without remuneration. My work has never been performed unwillingly but on many occasions without remuneration. I would have thought that the historical foundations of the US provided a clear picture of what slavery is. I'm sure there are a number people in quite close proximity that could reflect on their own experiences and provide some enlightenment as to what slavery really is. The 'right' to health care regardless of responsibility might be meaningless to some but it is not to me. To hide behind individual responsibility demonstrates a lack of insight into the human condition.
My nursing practice is driven by the care and compassion that eleviates pain and suffering and, wherever possible, promotes the restoration of health. It is the only philosphy of nursing that I know.The day I dissect this into who deserves it and who doesn't, that will be the day that I leave it to those that understand the true meaning of care. The notion of indivdual responsibility in health promotion and health care has proved to be a dismal failure in social terms backed up by mountains of evidence. My understanding of slavery is that it is work performed unwillingly and without remuneration. My work has never been performed unwillingly but on many occasions without remuneration. I would have thought that the historical foundations of the US provided a clear picture of what slavery is. I'm sure there are a number people in quite close proximity that could reflect on their own experiences and provide some enlightenment as to what slavery really is. The 'right' to health care regardless of responsibility might be meaningless to some but it is not to me. To hide behind individual responsibility demonstrates a lack of insight into the human condition.
My nursing practice is driven by my professionalism: I work because I get paid to do so. I wouldn't work without renumeration because, no matter the noble cause, that's slavery.
I'm very good at what I do. I'm an expert. I'm a professional. I deserve to be paid as a professional.
If individual responsibility in health promotion and care is a dismal failure, then no amount of gov't subsidy will or can change that.
There are NO RIGHTS absent Responsibility. The two concepts are inter-related. They are intricately linked. To suggest otherwise means you don't understand the definition of a 'right'.
You say I lack insight into the human condition. I disagree. Socialism lacks insight into the basic motivations of the human condition. THAT is why it always fails. Even if it's just in health care.
Gov't does nothing better. It never has.
I'm not trying to antagonize you. I'm really not. Look, IF health care is a right, then why aren't all other basic necessities? Explain to me how food, shelter, clothing, and transportation aren't also rights, regardless of responsibility. Shouldn't the gov't provide all those things to everybody, regardless of need? After all, aren't they equal 'rights' as health care? Shouldn't we not trust the average person to be individually responsible for those things, as well?
our incentives are upside down...insurance companies make money through denial of health care not through competing to provide high quality care.....
there can be no solution to our health care problems without some action by government....(eg subsidy of expanded hours of urgent care centers...bulk negotiation for presecription drugs.....allowing employers and individuals to purchase their health insurance directly from febp and/or medicare)
our providers should be competing for patients based on the provision of high quality care not on the number of procedures performed...
incentives for providers and patients need to be placed on prevention rather than cure...
we need to get everyone paying into the health care system...
we need to attack the administrative cost monster.....
as i wrote yesterday:
as to the tax question every credible proposal that i have read speaks to the idea of replacing premiums with either a payroll tax or allowing employers and individuals the option to purchase health care insurance directly from medicare, or febp. if private insurers want to stay in the game they will have achieve dramatic administrative cost reductions. 1 dollar should buy at least 95 cents of health care instead of our current 70 cents. we simply cannot afford double digit administrative costs or health care inflation.
the oecd average is about 9% gdp for health care. we spend 16% of our gdp. a substantial driver of the difference is administrative inefficiency and duplication along with incomprehensible and inconsistent benefit plans.
My nursing practice is driven by my professionalism: I work because I get paid to do so. I wouldn't work without renumeration because, no matter the noble cause, that's slavery.
I'm very good at what I do. I'm an expert. I'm a professional. I deserve to be paid as a professional.
If individual responsibility in health promotion and care is a dismal failure, then no amount of gov't subsidy will or can change that.
There are NO RIGHTS absent Responsibility. The two concepts are inter-related. They are intricately linked. To suggest otherwise means you don't understand the definition of a 'right'.
You say I lack insight into the human condition. I disagree. Socialism lacks insight into the basic motivations of the human condition. THAT is why it always fails. Even if it's just in health care.
Gov't does nothing better. It never has.
I'm not trying to antagonize you. I'm really not. Look, IF health care is a right, then why aren't all other basic necessities? Explain to me how food, shelter, clothing, and transportation aren't also rights, regardless of responsibility. Shouldn't the gov't provide all those things to everybody, regardless of need? After all, aren't they equal 'rights' as health care? Shouldn't we not trust the average person to be individually responsible for those things, as well?
~faith,
Timothy.
Tell me again what is your answer to healthcare for the uninsured and poor? In your solution, do they receive any type of assistance?
meanwhile a very real fiscal crisis is looming: namely, medical care. the united states has one of the most inefficient systems in the industrialised world, with per-capita costs far higher than other nations and among the worst health outcomes. the system is privatised, one reason why it's so inefficient.
but "reforming" the health care system is not on the agenda. so we face an apparent paradox: the real and very serious fiscal crisis is no crisis, and the non-crisis requires drastic action to undermine an efficient system that is quite sound.
rational observers will seek differences between the social security and health care systems that might explain the paradox.
the reasons are simple. you can't go after a health system under the control of insurance companies and pharmaceutical corporations. that system is immune, even if it is causing tremendous financial problems, besides the human cost.
social security is of little value for the rich but is crucial for survival for working people, the poor, their dependents and the disabled. and as a government programme, it has such low administrative costs that it offers nothing to financial institutions. it benefits only the "underlying population," not the "substantial citizens," to borrow thorstein veblen's acid terminology.
the medical system, however, works very well for the people who matter in a system where health care is effectively rationed by wealth, and enormous profits flow to private power for highly inefficient management. the underlying population can be treated with lectures on responsibility.
the us congress has recently enacted bankruptcy reform that tightens the stranglehold on the underlying population. about half of us bankruptcies result from medical bills.
opinion and official policy are out of step. as in the past, most americans favour national health insurance. in a 2003 washington post-abc news poll, 80 per cent regarded universal health care as "more important than holding down taxes."
social security is based on an extremely dangerous principle: that you should care whether the disabled widow across town has food to eat. the social security "reformers" would rather have you concentrate on maximising your own consumption of goods and subordinating yourself to power. that's life. caring for other people, and taking community responsibility for things like health and retirement-that's just deeply subversive.
social security is based on an extremely dangerous principle: that you should care whether the disabled widow across town has food to eat. quote]
hold the phone-- welfare was first called "aid to deserving widows"..which is exactely what it says....no problem there from anyone here!
what i personally don't care about is whether or not an able bodied 23 year old male should be fed, clothed, and sheletered, and have his boo-boos treated with my tax dollars. there is a great solution to that type of problem--its' called a j-o-b! i and everyone i know who isn't ill has been on this "program" since they were 14 or 15 years old.....:angryfire
you guys cringe and go into spates of denial when i call nationalized health care unveiled socialism. however, here, you quote a known marxist in your defense of it.
i would have picked a better source.
this would be like me saying the free market is a better idea, see, rush limbaugh says so. actually, if you like, i could quote a link from him on the topic. . . would you find it credible?
You guys cringe and go into spates of denial when I call nationalized health care unveiled socialism. However, HERE, you quote a known marxist in your defense of it.
I would have picked a better source.
This would be like me saying the free market is a better idea, see, Rush Limbaugh says so. Actually, if you like, I could quote a link from him on the topic. . . would you find it credible?
you guys cringe and go into spates of denial when i call nationalized health care unveiled socialism. however, here, you quote a known marxist in your defense of it.
i would have picked a better source.
this would be like me saying the free market is a better idea, see, rush limbaugh says so. actually, if you like, i could quote a link from him on the topic. . . would you find it credible?
~faith,
timothy.
notice my opening: "[color=#333333]noam chomsky's opinion" let me explain what that means....it is noam chomsky's opinion.
[color=#333333]why the attack? i have never gone into "spates of denial. of course nationalized healthcare could be described as a form of [color=#333333]socialism. of this i never disagreed, who could? again, why the attack?
[color=#333333]i am sure you would have picked a better source, but better source for what? my opinion? again, note the opening of the post: "noam chomsky's opinion". i wasn't trying to pick a source. i simply added noam chomsky's opinion, and described it as such.
[color=#333333]feel free to add any quote/link you like. it is an open discussion, many thoughts and ideas being brought out.
[color=#333333]it is, after all, just a forum on the internet. and you know what they say about agrueing on the internet....
My nursing practice is driven by my professionalism: I work because I get paid to do so. I wouldn't work without renumeration because, no matter the noble cause, that's slavery.
I'm very good at what I do. I'm an expert. I'm a professional. I deserve to be paid as a professional.
If individual responsibility in health promotion and care is a dismal failure, then no amount of gov't subsidy will or can change that.
There are NO RIGHTS absent Responsibility. The two concepts are inter-related. They are intricately linked. To suggest otherwise means you don't understand the definition of a 'right'.
You say I lack insight into the human condition. I disagree. Socialism lacks insight into the basic motivations of the human condition. THAT is why it always fails. Even if it's just in health care.
Gov't does nothing better. It never has.
I'm not trying to antagonize you. I'm really not. Look, IF health care is a right, then why aren't all other basic necessities? Explain to me how food, shelter, clothing, and transportation aren't also rights, regardless of responsibility. Shouldn't the gov't provide all those things to everybody, regardless of need? After all, aren't they equal 'rights' as health care? Shouldn't we not trust the average person to be individually responsible for those things, as well?
~faith,
Timothy.
I too am an expert professional. I've been a CCRN for more than 20 years. I precept new nurses and teach ACLS, IABP, CRRT, and most important patient advocacy. I help them understand that no software program can substitute for the professional judgment of an experienced nurse.
Some of my ancestors were slaves.
I am not.
I do choose to work without monetary benefit.
I have gotten out of my bed to help with a trach tube or a colostomy the staff of a local homeless shelter didn't know how to deal with. This prevented their calling 911.
This in addition to scheduled volunteer activities.
With colleagues WE have ensured that the staff and some residents of shelters know BLS.
I feel much more put upon when my work is taxed for activities I believe are morally wrong. Is that slavery?
...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness....
Governments are instituted for the benefit of society.
WE THE PEOPLE!
What kind of philosophy is it that claims denying people the right to life and health is the only compassionate way to think?
Where am I going wrong?
How is it more compassionate to think it is OK for mentally ill and addicted people to die on the street than to work for their health?
:yeahthat:
CO2emission
100 Posts
My nursing practice is driven by the care and compassion that eleviates pain and suffering and, wherever possible, promotes the restoration of health. It is the only philosphy of nursing that I know.The day I dissect this into who deserves it and who doesn't, that will be the day that I leave it to those that understand the true meaning of care. The notion of indivdual responsibility in health promotion and health care has proved to be a dismal failure in social terms backed up by mountains of evidence. My understanding of slavery is that it is work performed unwillingly and without remuneration. My work has never been performed unwillingly but on many occasions without remuneration. I would have thought that the historical foundations of the US provided a clear picture of what slavery is. I'm sure there are a number people in quite close proximity that could reflect on their own experiences and provide some enlightenment as to what slavery really is. The 'right' to health care regardless of responsibility might be meaningless to some but it is not to me. To hide behind individual responsibility demonstrates a lack of insight into the human condition.