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.
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.
Then understand one of MY key points. There are better ways to reach universality. Much better ways.
UHC has NOTHING to do with universality. It is, and always has been, a proxy fight over political ideology.
The debate turns you off because, at its essence, the idea of gov't control has nothing to do with actual health care so much as it does gov't control.
Ask Viking if he can envision ANY solution for health care that DOESN'T involve total Federal control of health care dollars. Do YOU think no such solutions exist absent total Federal control?
how does anybody make a profit selling phones to people that are completely broke and phoneless? but, they do. more people in poverty have cell phones than not.
how does anybody make a profit selling cars to people that are completely broke, but carless? but, they do. more families in poverty have cars than not.
how does anybody make a profit selling television sets to people that are completely broke and tv-less? but, they do. the average poor household has a television set.
see the thing about the free market is that a competitive market will expand to capture the absolute maximum audience. socialists think of the free market as a bunch of rich people smoking cigars and slapping themselves on the backs for how they 'got' the little guy.
except.
in a truly free market (not the gov't protected market of health insurance), the dirty little secret is the rich cannot become rich without having a market to sell their products.
the rich can't become rich while the poor become poor if you need a growing middle class to buy your products. it's a symbiotic relationship. you need somebody rich to have the assets and desire (to be rich) to craft a product to sell to you. they need you to have enough money to buy their products.
the market will reach out for the maximum market to compete in. it's the way it's always worked. it is the best combination of quality and price, for the absolute most people.
the gov't simply cannot provide a better price, higher quality, or, more universal coverage. the gov't just isn't that good a competitor, much less a monopoly.
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.
gov't restricted health care just isn't very compassionate.
~faith,
timothy.
:yeah:great review of econ 101 for anyone who forgot--
how are schools paid for, or fire departments, or police, or libraries, we don't have a right to these services either, do we?
glad you got it!!:bowingpur
no, we do not have a "right"....in the above cases, local communities have decided, based on the voice of voters, what is best for them, and that they can afford.
i live in a small city [here in virginia, cities are free standing--not in a county. wierd, but relevant, so bear with me] my city is surrounded by four large counties.
whem dh and i moved here from fl, we looked at taxes and services for all five governments. some have paid ems and fire, some volunteer; some take trash to a dump, others have curbside on demand pickup; some have great public transportation, others none; some have a+ schools, others--not. the city has two out of three hospitals. you get the idea.
we chose to buy our home in the city, despite higher taxes, for libraries, schools, paid 24-hr ems, parks, garbage pickup, and other services. we pay for these through higher taxes.
the counties have made other decsions-that work for them.
none of this is a "right". a local area could decide it can't afford paid law enforcement, or libraries, or parks, or whatever. this is the voters' choice".
this is also the reason the federal government should guard the borders, print the money, control international trade and stay the h*ll out of everyday life.
let the flaming about how i am so rich and lucky begin..
no, we do not have a "right"....in the above cases, local communities have decided, based on the voice of voters, what is best for them, and that they can afford.
i live in a small city [here in virginia, cities are free standing--not in a county. wierd, but relevant, so bear with me] my city is surrounded by four large counties.
whem dh and i moved here from fl, we looked at taxes and services for all five governments. some have paid ems and fire, some volunteer; some take trash to a dump, others have curbside on demand pickup; some have great public transportation, others none; some have a+ schools, others--not. the city has two out of three hospitals. you get the idea.
we chose to buy our home in the city, despite higher taxes, for libraries, schools, paid 24-hr ems, parks, garbage pickup, and other services. we pay for these through higher taxes.
the counties have made other decsions-that work for them.
none of this is a "right". a local area could decide it can't afford paid law enforcement, or libraries, or parks, or whatever. this is the voters' choice".
this is also the reason the federal government should guard the borders, print the money, control international trade and stay the h*ll out of everyday life.
let the flaming about how i am so rich and lucky begin..
i was being facetious.i do think it is our right as citizens of an advanced country to have theses services , as well as health care that all can afford.
I was being facetious.I do think it is our right as citizens of an advanced country to have theses services , as well as health care that all can afford.
Then it's time to set priorities. Much as some people wish it were so, government does not have an unlimited supply of money, (or any supply of its own) and can't provide everything that everybody wants or thinks they have a "right" to. Perhaps you need to trade in your library card, paid fire and EMS protection, 4-lane highways and public parks so that everyone can have healthcare. Individuals, families and businesses must exist on a budget within their means. Government needs to do the same.
i was being facetious.i do think it is our right as citizens of and advanced country to have theses services , as well as health care that all can afford.
"we hold these truths [rights] to be self-evident, that [men] people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". end quote
if i need a source on this one, i give up!!
can anyone here channel the spirits of tom jefferson, tom paine, or ben franklin????
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.
especially when you consider:
won’t this result in rationing like in canada?
the u.s. supreme court recently established that rationing is fundamental to the way managed care conducts business. rationing in u.s. health care is based on income: if you can afford care you get it, if you can’t, you don’t. a recent study by the prestigious institute of medicine found that 18,000 americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance. that’s rationing. no other industrialized nation rations health care to the degree that the u.s. does.
"we hold these truths [rights] to be self-evident, that [men] people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". end quote
if i need a source on this one, i give up!!
can anyone here channel the spirits of tom jefferson, tom paine, or ben franklin????
life= health care that is affordable to all.without this people do die.no histrionics here, it is a fact.life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.none of us were alive when this was written, none of us know exactly what they were refering to. sadly their meaning was not self evident, so many folks use this to support their own agenda.
So that makes every retail grocery store, pharmacy chain, fast food restaurant, clothing store, auto dealership, cell-phone company, etc., etc., etc. amoral?
How about the amorality of excessive, confiscatory taxation?
"we hold these truths [rights] to be self-evident, that [men] people are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". end quote
if i need a source on this one, i give up!!
can anyone here channel the spirits of tom jefferson, tom paine, or ben franklin????
jefferson supported public hospitals for seaman. funded in part by the seaman and shipping companies with a significant governmental funding contribution to make up the difference.
tom paine in the rights of man argued for a strong social safety net.
i haven't read enough of franklin's writings to comment about what i think his position would be on these matters.
so that makes every retail grocery store, pharmacy chain, fast food restaurant, clothing store, auto dealership, cell-phone company, etc., etc., etc. amoral?
how about the amorality of excessive, confiscatory taxation?
please quote me in full context:
rationing in u.s. health care is based on income: if you can afford care you get it, if you can't, you don't. a recent study by the prestigious institute of medicine found that 18,000 americans die every year because they don't have health insurance. that's rationing. no other industrialized nation rations health care to the degree that the u.s. does.http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...#canada_ration
ZASHAGALKA, RN
3,322 Posts
Then understand one of MY key points. There are better ways to reach universality. Much better ways.
UHC has NOTHING to do with universality. It is, and always has been, a proxy fight over political ideology.
The debate turns you off because, at its essence, the idea of gov't control has nothing to do with actual health care so much as it does gov't control.
Ask Viking if he can envision ANY solution for health care that DOESN'T involve total Federal control of health care dollars. Do YOU think no such solutions exist absent total Federal control?
~faith,
Timothy.