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.
so after reading a few threads i decided to brush up on universal healthcare as i began to think what i learned way back in high school and college sociology was incorrect; lucky for me i learned it's not.
"most countries have eliminated insurance entirely and choose to fund health care directly from taxation. other countries with insurance-based systems effectively meet the cost of insuring those unable to insure themselves via social security arrangements funded from taxation, either by directly paying their medical bills or by paying for insurance premiums for those affected."
"the primary source of funding for universal healthcare is general taxation revenue."
Great example from the north, a land where great liberal thinking has created the perfect utopia for the sick. In Canada they have universal health care, but the lines are extremely long. The government did what it does best, passed a law to force all patients to be seen within four hours of admission. Now the patients are stacked in ambulances out side of the hospital and not admitted because the load is too high to see them within the mandated time frame. See, problem solved. Not admitted, and clock does not start until admitted. Ohh, but what about the ambulance being out of service while granny has an MI? Well, they could always pass a law that granny can only code on Thursdays. Governments are always so good at this kind of stuff, huh?
Where does this thought come from? Now you are saying that not only will people stay sicker-more will die when receiving greater access to health care?
Please, you gotta explain this one to me.
Anyone one can walk into the ER, but it really does no good if you are not seen. Access describes the service you will receive socialized medicine. You will have access if you can wait for it. You will have the standard of care dictated by the government and you will have the quality of care dictated by the people that brought you the IRS.
Tim, again, I appreciate your input. The ideas you mention sound pretty good. I'm still not gung ho about MSAs, but I am for the idea of health insurance being for catastrophic events only. And then perhaps more of a UHC type program for some kinds of chronic care (like adult day health care for example which allow family caregivers to work full-time) - and public health measures such as childhood immunizations.
I personally tend to get rather turned off, though, when you start to preach the wonders of the free market and of choice and the horrors of socialism and big government. It feels like being prosthelytized to (did I spell that right?). If anyone is going to have a conversion experience, it generally won't be from a patronizing speech that overgeneralizes (government involvement is ALWAYS bad) and uses scare tactics (you might die waiting for your health care!).
I admit that some proponents of liberal/leftist ideology use the same tactics (for profit business is ALWAYS bad; you might die waiting for your insurance approval!) and that turns me off as well.
Thanks to all for the mostly civil discussion on these important matters!!!!
Does it matter if EVERYBODY is covered if 47 million people won't get the care they need because of wait lists? More people will stay sick and more people will DIE waiting for care under a rationed system than can access the system today.
~faith,
Timothy.
Anyone one can walk into the ER, but it really does no good if you are not seen. Access describes the service you will receive socialized medicine. You will have access if you can wait for it. You will have the standard of care dictated by the government and you will have the quality of care dictated by the people that brought you the IRS.
IRS was formed in 1953- so the same people are going to run UHC?
WE are the government. WE the people. For a fact, political systems can change and be changed. Why not bring in political issues from other years- 1924, 1888, 1789, etc.? Is this the same government, or are we going to stop this example at the year 1053?
It will happen, now, later, eventually we will have UHC.
As a society, we have to grow.
Of course no nation is perfect, nor do they have perfect systems. It is an impossibility. It took years for democracy to advance as it has, and we are still growing.
Capitalism has created "health care plans" that are not helping anyone. Capitalism has found a way to make a $ off poor, working uninsured.
So far, on this thread, I haven't seen any answers except increased taxation.
It does seem that an idealized theoretical system call a "free market" is compared to real world examples of "socialized health care." Those real world examples stand up fairly well to the idealized theory of a "free market." That is what the facts show and links to those facts are listed in several posts. UHC would put the government control, which exists, has always existed, and will always exist, into a centralized, highly transparent system. Currently, it is all but impossible to see the incredible amount of control the government has over health care. The real world "free market" simply gives you the illusion of government non-involvement. If you truly favor less government control over health care, you would favor UHC or another system where the laws affecting health care would be more transparent.
so after reading a few threads i decided to brush up on universal healthcare as i began to think what i learned way back in high school and college sociology was incorrect; lucky for me i learned it's not.
"most countries have eliminated insurance entirely and choose to fund health care directly from taxation. other countries with insurance-based systems effectively meet the cost of insuring those unable to insure themselves via social security arrangements funded from taxation, either by directly paying their medical bills or by paying for insurance premiums for those affected."
"the primary source of funding for universal healthcare is general taxation revenue."
how are schools paid for, or fire departments, or police, or libraries, we don't have a right to these services either, do we?
Great example from the north, a land where great liberal thinking has created the perfect utopia for the sick. In Canada they have universal health care, but the lines are extremely long. The government did what it does best, passed a law to force all patients to be seen within four hours of admission. Now the patients are stacked in ambulances out side of the hospital and not admitted because the load is too high to see them within the mandated time frame. See, problem solved. Not admitted, and clock does not start until admitted. Ohh, but what about the ambulance being out of service while granny has an MI? Well, they could always pass a law that granny can only code on Thursdays. Governments are always so good at this kind of stuff, huh?
So where are all the stacked bodies waiting for health care in Germany, France, Sweden ,all the Scandinavian countries countries for that matter ? My relatives in Canada and Germany have told me they would NOT trade their system for ours any day. Fear mongering .
How are schools paid for, or fire departments, or police, or libraries, we don't have a right to these services either, do we?
wow..here I thought we were talking about universal healthcare. Thanks for that quick lesson on where my tax money already goes. I'm well aware.
As for my opinions on universal healthcare, they are just that my opinions. I am entitled to them just as everyone else on this site is entitled to theirs. No one person's opinion is right or wrong. I was simply supplying some facts for someone who may not know that most countries pay for their universal healthcare by taxing the working population. People need to be informed about this b/c healthcare has beome a huge platform in the upcoming election. And as far as I'm concerned to each his own. I couldn't care less whether someone is for or against this. I have my opinion and that is all that matters.
By Ingelein: How are schools paid for, or fire departments, or police, or libraries, we don't have a right to these services either, do we?
By Amj:
wow..here I thought we were talking about universal healthcare. Thanks for that quick lesson on where my tax money already goes. I'm well aware.
As for my opinions on universal healthcare, they are just that my opinions. I am entitled to them just as everyone else on this site is entitled to theirs. No one person's opinion is right or wrong. I was simply supplying some facts for someone who may not know that most countries pay for their universal healthcare by taxing the working population. People need to be informed about this b/c healthcare has beome a huge platform in the upcoming election. And as far as I'm concerned to each his own. I couldn't care less whether someone is for or against this. I have my opinion and that is all that matters.
Of course you are entitled to your opinion,this is a debate, is it not? I was asking a legitimate question, it was not meant to be a personal attack for Pete's sake. You are CORRECT, health care has become a huge problem, I am personally living this problem in real time.
I couldn't have said it better myself. My main problem with universal healthcare is how do we pay for it? It is paid for by taxing the people. Though I would love to live in a world where everyone receives adequate healthcare I'm not willing to pay for the healthcare of the bum down the street who won't get a job b/c they feel they are entitled to a better one. It doesn't give those w/o a job any more motivation to find one. B/c now they are virtually recieving free healthcare from everyone who works and pays taxes. Nice thought, but no thanks.
Where does this thought come from? Now you are saying that not only will people stay sicker-more will die when receiving greater access to health care?
Please, you gotta explain this one to me.
Gov't restricted care isn't greater access to health care. It's not even close. On balance, it is MUCH LESS access to care. If you give access to a minority AT THE COST OF ACCESS to the majority, on balance, you have decreased access.
'Access to a waiting list is NOT access to health care'. - Canadian Supreme Court.
There are better ways to give access to the minority than taking away choice from the majority.
It does seem that an idealized theoretical system call a "free market" is compared to real world examples of "socialized health care." Those real world examples stand up fairly well to the idealized theory of a "free market." That is what the facts show and links to those facts are listed in several posts. UHC would put the government control, which exists, has always existed, and will always exist, into a centralized, highly transparent system. Currently, it is all but impossible to see the incredible amount of control the government has over health care. The real world "free market" simply gives you the illusion of government non-involvement. If you truly favor less government control over health care, you would favor UHC or another system where the laws affecting health care would be more transparent.
As you say, that gov't control now exists, and always existed. I find it ironic, having pointed out the problem, you make a rather illogical conclusion: more of the problem is the solution.
You point out the problem: gov't control. Gov't restricted health care is gov't control; it IS anti-choice.
amj12
75 Posts
so after reading a few threads i decided to brush up on universal healthcare as i began to think what i learned way back in high school and college sociology was incorrect; lucky for me i learned it's not.
"most countries have eliminated insurance entirely and choose to fund health care directly from taxation. other countries with insurance-based systems effectively meet the cost of insuring those unable to insure themselves via social security arrangements funded from taxation, either by directly paying their medical bills or by paying for insurance premiums for those affected."
"the primary source of funding for universal healthcare is general taxation revenue."