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 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.
Amen, We agree.
I think our citizens should have access to health care that all can afford.
THAT is why I'm against the gov't taking control of health care. We have never disagreed about the goal, only the methods.
The gov't is not the best method to do such a thing. Even if it were, it should be done on the local level, close to the voters. The further you move control away from the voter, the less control the average voter has.
THAT is why the push for federal control. The average voter has almost NO control of their federal representatives. As an average, non-lobby, non-corporation citizen, call your Congressman's office and ask to speak to them. A few might actually get their representative; most won't.
Call your city councilman or your State Representative and see if you can actually talk to THEM. You probably will.
It's about control. Keep it free market or keep it local.
Making if Federal makes NO SENSE unless it's about choice. The feds can't do it better than your community. They don't even KNOW your community. To the Federal gov't, you are an actuarial table and little more.
jefferson certainly wrote of the duty to aid the poor both as individuals and through government:
"with respect to marine hospitals... such establishments have been made by the general government in the several states,... a portion of seaman's wages is drawn for their support, and the government furnishes what is deficient." --thomas jefferson to james ronaldson, 1813. me 13:205
"this world abounds indeed with misery;
to lighten its burthen, we must divide it with one another."
--thomas jefferson to maria cosway, 1786. me 5:441
"among the first of [nature's]
laws, is that which bids us to succor those in distress."
--thomas jefferson to william carmichael, 1790. me 8:22
"though we cannot relieve all the distressed,
we should relieve as many as we can."
--thomas jefferson to maria copway, 1786. me 5:443
"those who want the dispositions to give, easily find reasons why they ought not to give." --thomas jefferson to maria cosway, 1786. me 5:444
even the physicians' bills have been sent to the public to be paid. no wonder that jails are crowded, and taxes and poor-rates increased. under such systems, nothing is to be looked for but what has already happened; and as to reformation, whenever it come, it must be from the nation, and not from the government.
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.
~faith,
Timothy.
How is it illogical. I did not say more government control. I said more centralized and therefor more transparent control. The problem is not government control, it's the difficulty we now have in supervising government control. BTW it is illogical to build a straw man. (Attributing points to another's argument, then refuting those points.)
IT MAKES NO SENSE to say that, in order to avoid an amoral method of rationing, we must turn the whole process over to a purposely amoral gov't entity.
You can't have it both ways: 'Separation of Church and State' AND the gov't doing your 'moral' bidding.
With the free market, both parties have a choice. Morality is preserved by either party, at their discretion and only with the approval of the other party to the trade.
How is it illogical. I did not say more government control. I said more centralized and therefor more transparent control. The problem is not government control, it's the difficulty we now have in supervising government control. BTW it is illogical to build a straw man. (Attributing points to another's argument, then refuting those points.)
I pointed out the flaw in your argument: more gov't control is NOT less gov't control.
Jim Hightower told the story in one of his books how an antitax group attempted to shut down the public library system through an intiative. The referendum failed in a rather dramatic fashion because voters recognized that the library system is a public resource. I think the library system is a metaphor for health care.
If you want a book you can get it. Instead of every library owning the every book sometimes they share those resources at the county and/or state level. If the patron (patient) wants access they make a request. Sometimes you have to wait your turn but you always end up getting the book through interlibrary loan.
We pool our resources and end up with more because once in awhile we do with a little less as individuals. The same model has lessons for restructuring our health care system.
If there is an opportunity to make continuious money from healthcare through insurance, some corporation would already be doing it.
Don't blame government involvement, because history has proven that governmental powers and our elected officials don't hesitate to change laws and regulations for their own profit.
Can we say lobbyist?
If there are government rules and regulations putting a crimp on big corporation profit- they would have been changed already.
Companies touting so called "health care plans" are making a fortune. Deductibles and requirements are so very high that premiums are paid, but no one gets healthcare.
Again, if money were to be made, politicians and corporations would already have the roadmap for it.
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.
we as a nation can also decide, based on the voice of the voters, that we want some form of uhc. i'm not saying that we should vote for that, i'm just saying that we can. or perhaps some uhc-type plan might be voted into place in individual states.
i prefer to use the word "right" as a chosen political freedom as opposed to some way of being that all people should expect to miraculously be granted them. the "right to free speech" means that policies will support the ability for citizens to say what they like even when others would like to make them stop talking. thus, we as a country (or state, or municipality) can decide that all members of that community have a "right to affordable health care." as with all rights, there are also responsibilities, costs and risks. what one person considers free speech, another considers slander. what one person considers affordable, another considers too expensive.
i'm writing off the cuff, so please be gentle with critiques. :chair:
I pointed out the flaw in your argument: more gov't control is NOT less gov't control.
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. (bold added)
Woodenpug's argument as I understood it was that the government has control (influence through regulation and legislation) anyway, so through a simple, centralized system, it might be more obvious to the general public where the government is influencing health care delivery and thus people would be more likely to exert their influence. Where as it is, the public is often in the dark about how government is influencing health care delivery. Thus the argument that a centralized system COULD possibly mean more public oversight.
I also hear you say "gov't is anti-choice" again and again. For some services, having just one provider or one option IS more effective and efficient. It makes more sense to have just one highway from point A to point B, not three or four parallel highways, each run by a different company to compete for our business. Certainly, most would agree that we don't want every service to have only one option, but we should discuss it case by case and not immediately dismiss "no choice" as always the worst option, given the realities that we have to work with.
Using the library example, I might be limited to the selection of the public library, but in most cases, their selection will be wider than any collection I could put together myself. And I do have the choice to buy every book that I want and create my own personal library. But I think it's not practical to grant a library tax refund to all who prove that they don't use the library because they'd rather exercise their choice to buy books instead of use the library. Meanwhile, having a public library means that even if I don't have the extra money to buy books, I can access the (limited) books provided through the library service. That will make it easier for me to research ways to improve my situation. It can provide me with useful stimulation when I can't afford to do much else besides watch TV at home. I can see the argument of UHC being similar. You CAN buy more if you want - have more choices - but if for some reason you're low on resources, you still have more options (access to book) than you would without the public service. And, yes, I recognize that when I have more, I pay more for that (through taxes). But it's worth it to me.
Where exactly to draw the line on how far public services should go is something we as individuals will always find areas to disagree on. It's possible that health care is one of those services. That's something that we are discussing here.
we as a nation can also decide, based on the voice of the voters, that we want some form of uhc. i'm not saying that we should vote for that, i'm just saying that we can. or perhaps some uhc-type plan might be voted into place in individual states.
i prefer to use the word "right" as a chosen political freedom as opposed to some way of being that all people should expect to miraculously be granted them. the "right to free speech" means that policies will support the ability for citizens to say what they like even when others would like to make them stop talking. thus, we as a country (or state, or municipality) can decide that all members of that community have a "right to affordable health care." as with all rights, there are also responsibilities, costs and risks. what one person considers free speech, another considers slander. what one person considers affordable, another considers too expensive.
i'm writing off the cuff, so please be gentle with critiques. :chair:
ZASHAGALKA, RN
3,322 Posts
Amen, We agree.
I think our citizens should have access to health care that all can afford.
THAT is why I'm against the gov't taking control of health care. We have never disagreed about the goal, only the methods.
The gov't is not the best method to do such a thing. Even if it were, it should be done on the local level, close to the voters. The further you move control away from the voter, the less control the average voter has.
THAT is why the push for federal control. The average voter has almost NO control of their federal representatives. As an average, non-lobby, non-corporation citizen, call your Congressman's office and ask to speak to them. A few might actually get their representative; most won't.
Call your city councilman or your State Representative and see if you can actually talk to THEM. You probably will.
It's about control. Keep it free market or keep it local.
Making if Federal makes NO SENSE unless it's about choice. The feds can't do it better than your community. They don't even KNOW your community. To the Federal gov't, you are an actuarial table and little more.
Gov't restricted health care is anti-choice.
~faith,
Timothy.