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.
kitkat, if that's what your doctor is like then I am sad for you. I have been lucky enough to have some excellent doctors, and my service was never compromised because I didn't pay them directly. I have only once been unsatisfied with my doctor in Canada and I changed soon enough. I know if I only went to work for the paycheque, I would've quit a LOOOOOONNNNNNGGGG time ago! LOL!
As far as healthcare being a right.... well, that actually is how I feel. I feel that basic healthcare is a right just like elementary education. I feel that a healthy society makes a strong nation so it is not only morally right, it is in my best interests. That's the Canadian side of me and it is something I don't think will change, no matter how much time I spend living in the US.:) Even the Fraser institute admits that over 90% of us feel the same.
Now on to why you should care that health care costs drive people into bankruptcy: simply put, you wind up paying for it. Those people already got the services and now the hospitals and doctors need the money for it, so you and I get to see our health care costs rise. You should care because it is in your best interest.
I just included the info about the Fraser institute so you would be aware. It's like expecting unbiased reports about Judaism from Osama Bin Laden. I do think it's a shame that your school does not encourage different views. One of the core concepts of my nursing program was diversity and that meant conservatives as well.
Kitkat24, I will happily concede that you can find enough articles out there that support your view to clog up this entire site ... The problem that I have with them is that they are all obviously right-wing "propaganda" as much as (if not more than) the liberal "propaganda" you complain so much about. You don't really consider these articles you are posting to be unbiased information, do you?
You are so worried about waiting times for elective surgery and treatment in Canada -- what about the people in the US who wait forever because they just flat can't afford the treatment? Maybe we ought to average that into waiting times ...
You found an article that talked about a couple people in Canada who can't get the latest, most expensive oral medication for diabetes in Canada -- what about all the people in the US with chronic conditions like diabetes who aren't getting any medication or ongoing treatment at all, because they can't afford it? You know that they are out there ...
You found an article that attempted to discredit the PNHP recommendations that we move away from a system dominated by private-for-profit insurance companies and into a more efficient, economical single-payer system by quoting a spokesperson for the private insurance companies' trade organization as saying it wouldn't work. Well, duh!!!!!! What would you expect that person to say??
You are concerned that a single-payer system would not treat us as valued customers -- but my private insurance has cost a fortune all these years (many different companies), and on the rare (thank goodness! ) occasions that I've had to use my insurance I have been treated as, at best, a captive audience and, at worst, dirt under their feet. Certainly not as a "valued customer ..."
You drew the conclusion that the Canadian system must not be so great because the recent WHO study ranked the US healthcare system as #37 and the Canadian system as #30. What kind of healthcare systems do they have in countries #1-29?? We are the only developed country ON THE PLANET that does not consider healthcare to be a basic right of citizenship ... (Actually, I'm surprised you even quoted the WHO study, because the WHO is one of those international "liberal" organizations that the conservatives love to hate!)
My main objection (of many) to our current system is the idea that a large chunk of the money spent on healthcare in the country gets siphoned right off the top to put profits in shareholders' pockets. The primary objective of private insurance companies is NOT to make sure that you and I get whatever healthcare we need, but to make as big a profit as possible for their shareholders. They do that by charging as much in premiums as they can get away with, and by paying for as little healthcare as they can get away with. That may be a recipe for financial success, but it ain't much of a healthcare "system" ...
I feel that a universal healthcare system as well as our current system both have their pros and cons. If you take a look at any country's healthcare system you will find it has its flaws. Maybe it would be a good idea to combine all of them into one to make the "perfect system", maybe not. But I do feel that the perfect system hasn't been established yet otherwise everyone would using it.
The universal system, like they use in Canada may not be all its cracked up to be, for a big reason being they are running out of money - what happens then? Beds/floors are being closed b/c hospitals need to allocate their funds appropriately...and in the end there are people who arent getting the care they need just as it is here. I feel before we go making any major switches in our system we should find ways to conserve or more efficeintly allocate our healthcare dollars, to benefit a greater amount of people.
Im not sure this benefits anyone but its how I feel, I believe making any major switches like that (esp. w/out looking at the over all picture, how its going to be a few-15 years from now) is a bad idea.
Focus on what we do have to work with and use it wisely.
Well, I have been working many hours, and haven't been back here for awhile.
I guess that I find it amusing that intellectual intelligent nurses would find that Fraser is a biased right-wing propaganda organization, and they cannot see that acadamia, and scholarly journals, and college educators are indoctrinologists for the left-wing, propaganda machine, because they are.
The difference is, that while I acknowledge that Fraser in Canada has a bias, most of you refuse to admit that academia, scholarly journals, college educators, and unions are all indoctrinologists for left-wing, liberal, propaganda machines. These groups attempt to breed you all into socialists and communists believing that redistrubution of wealth is the cure for all of our health ailments. Poverty is not causation of health problems, lifestyle choices are.
Maybe, we should all live in the same houses, drive the same cars, eat the same foods, wear the same clothes, and nobody should have any more, or less than their neighbor. Do you think that health would then be equivalent across the board?
And the difference is too, that I seek out the opposite opinion of what the indoctrinologists attempt to brain-wash me with in my college and union. I will not be a puppet and believe whole-heartedly all of the garbage that they want me to believe without questions like a sheep led to the slaughter.
Ever wanted to know, exactly WHY we are not given both sides of the story from our colleges and our unions and attempted to be educated rather than spoon fed beliefs? If not, then why not?
Kitkat, it isn't that I don't think scholarly journals have biases. It's that I don't think they are trying to breed me into a crazy pinko socialist. You seem to take one comment and then jump 50 yards into left field. Believing in universal healthcare does not believe I want to live in a communist society. I like to make the money I do, and make no apologies for it (and I have already pointed out that our system saves me money compared to what you have to pay, so I am probably a cruel capitalist). I included the info about the Fraser institute because it is a politically based think tank, and as such makes no pretenses about being unbiased.
Like I said, my uni did encourage looking at both sides of the issue. I have told you about that book and how it looks at the pros AND cons of the system. I think you're the one fixated on one side of the issue. I don't think I have seen you say that there are ANY benefits to a universal system.
I was a dirty-commie-pinko-socialist (by your apparent standards, kitkat24) long before I even went into nursing, so you can't blame _that_ on the Liberal Nursing & Academia "indoctrinologists" (??? :roll ). THAT happened as a result of my living my life, opening my eyes and taking a good look around me here in the good ol' USofA, quitting blindly swallowing what I had been told all my life, and seeking out other opinions and viewpoints. Actually, it mostly came from my Christian religious beliefs and study of the Bible (what Jesus preaches in the Bible is a lot closer to socialism than to anything else).
It's not that I "cannot see" the bias in a lot of nursing literature; it's just that I don't take personal offense and start foaming at the mouth about it. Just as I don't take personal offense and start foaming at the mouth at the existence of right-wing think tanks and media outlets -- I just take everyone's biases into account when I consider what they have to say.
_All_ of the schools I've attended, from public high school onward, have encouraged me to look at all sides of an issue to arrive at a personal opinion, and that's how I've ended up where I'm at (politically/philosophically) today. There have been many instructors and professors who have held personal views different from mine and discussed them in class, and I didn't feel that this was some horrible plot that needed to be stamped out ... I engaged them in debate if it was an issue important to me, or I kept my mouth shut and went on about my business. Silly me, I thought that was part of the point of higher education, to be exposed to ideas and opinions different from my own ...
Also, I'm not sure when we switched from talking about healthcare delivery systems to causes of healthcare problems ...
DOCTORS and nurses are being gagged under a Queensland Health code of conduct while the public health crisis continues to escalate, the Australian Medical Association says.
The group's Townsville president, Dr William Frischman, yesterday accused Queensland Health of being steeped in a culture of cover-ups and secrecy under "dictatorial" rules prohibiting employees from speaking publicly about problems.
The claims came weeks after leading heart surgeon Dr Con Aroney, president of the Cardiac Society, said he was bullied by senior staff at Queensland Health after he was highly critical in a letter to Premier Peter Beattie of what he said was poor access of Queenslanders to cardiac services.
Parliamentary Health Secretary Lindy Nelson-Carr defended Queensland Health, saying many avenues were open to employees to air their grievances such as the Crime and Misconduct Commission, the Health Rights Commission, the Queensland Nurses Union and the Australian Services Union.
"As far as cover-ups, we are the most accountable government that Queensland has ever had. We publish waiting lists and we encourage people to use the avenues available to them for any of their concerns," Ms Nelson-Carr said.
Dr Frischman said the "first step to correct a problem is to admit that it's there".
"Things are made very difficult by the fact that Queensland Health itself is a very political organisation where the doctors and nurses who work there are gagged from being able to answer back," he said.
In 2002 Palm Island Hospital superintendent Dr Margaret Purcell, who helped expose widespread paedophilia on the island, also claimed she was threatened with dismissal by a senior Queensland Health official.
"There are staff afraid to speak out because of everything that's happening and because they see what's happening to their colleagues," Dr Frischman said.
"Queensland Health is a bureaucracy that will not listen to the people who work there.
"People who work in Queensland Health have lost all faith in their employers."
But Ms Nelson-Carr said the AMA was "slamming the Government's good record".
Hang on - Wait a minute - this is my home state!!!!
Is it true? - probably some of it is true but I can tell you now that these sorts of claims and counter claims are all part of the politicking for more money. Our state elections are this Saturday so - what better way to get a bit more funding for your unit???
This is just us keeping the ruddy goverment accountable. You will see stories like this all the time. It is part of our political landscape that we "knock" whoever is in goverment to ensure they are doing the job WE want them to.
The U.S. pays roughly 3 times per capita or more than any other country on this planet for health care, yet in many metrics, out country is not even in the top ten of total health care quality devliered. Look up comparative international infant mortality studies if you don't believe me. By extrapolation, our healthcare costs make most US businesses uncompetitive in the world market. In my state, Minnesota, HMO's, by law, have to be "non-profit" However, they all contract out to other company-owned entities for very profitable services. Here in the USA the godalmighty dollar trumps ethics continuously. For years, insurance companies were able to charge full price for less than full coverage (think pre-existing exclusions). For the resident Republican party line girl (kitkat24); before you loop all obese patients in the same pool of poor life-style choices, I suggest you do some serious catching up in recent studies. For what it's worth, I used to vote mostly republican until Reagan veered the party hard right, but became predominantly anti-republican when the party deserted the middle class.
For the ultra leftists, universal health care will never have the support of the majority americans if it mandates heart transplants for 85 year old patients. I saw a lot of good ideas in this forum, and I do believe it is possible to come up with a solution, but only after a devastating catastrophe or after we get the mega millions out of politics.
I would submit that the Democratic party left the middle to head to ultra-liberal ideals. The Democrat party left middle-class Americans. They left the hard-working, not take a penny from the government, true union factory workers years ago. They chose instead the fringe leftsist and joined in their social and fiscal policies. My mamma & daddy didn't leave the Democrats. They left her.
And, I submit facts from previous articles that I have submitted online, but that rarchie may not have accessed. Canadians have the government run system that the US liberals want. Canadians aren't happy with their system either. Enviornics polls in 2002 shows that Canadians want to support low income persons in poverty, but guess what? They are unwilling to have their taxes increased anymore. Interesting... That article shows that Canadians my be implementing co-pays, deductibles, and personal "out-of-pocket" funding to help with their enormous healthcare costs.
I'll quote the article again, which includes in it the resource:
Begin article quote:
According to a recent poll entitled The National Pulse on Health Strategy, 80 per cent of Canadians want major reforms of the health care system:
"Two-thirds of Canadians (66 per cent) tend to be supportive, more or less, of a host of new models of financing in order to reduce stress on the system-for example, where everyone (except those with low incomes) pays a small amount for health care services out of their own pockets. They also tend to support strategies such as using nurses or other health practitioners rather than physicians to provide certain services. Just under half (45 per cent) tend to be supportive of market-oriented reforms-greater efficiency, accountability and customer service, including private sector companies delivering health care services" (Environics, October 17, 2002).
The National Post reported that the same Environics poll found that fewer than half of respondents would support increasing taxes to pay for health reforms. But notably, only 10 per cent of Canadians would accept a health care system that excluded those who could not afford to pay for services.
These results need not be seen as a contradiction. As Jane Armstrong, senior vice president of Environics Research Group, says, "Canadians, ever-constant champions of fair play and equity, are devoted to maintaining a system that ensures access to quality health care for all.... They're willing to make changes, even if this includes new and varied ways of financing the system as well as a greater dependence on market forces such as private companies delivering certain health services." (Environics, October 17, 2002)
Another recent poll, by Decima Research (October 25, 2002) found that more than half (55 per cent) of Canadians were opposed to paying higher personal income taxes even if these funds were designated to pay for health care. An even larger majority of respondents (67 per cent) also believed they would have to rely on their own personal savings to pay for their use of health services in the future.
These public opinion polls appear to indicate that Canadians want a system of health care that provides high-quality medical services and is financially sustainable over the long term at an acceptable economic price, without excluding poorer people from access to medically necessary services. And in a typically pragmatic way, Canadians are not worried whether it is the private sector or the public sector that achieves this; they just want results. In fact, when Canadians do express a preference for either private or public approaches to health reform, the majority are willing to fund their future medical needs themselves rather than pay higher taxes to expand the Medicare model of health care.
And as far as the almighty dollar trumping ethics? I submit Peter Singer who is an ultra-utilitarian "the Greater good" type. He believes in socialism. He also believes that if you have mental retardation that a turkey or a pig or a cow life is more valuable than the human being with the cognitive disability. He believes we should give all our money away. Interestingly, he believes, preaches, and writes books for college "ETHICS" courses all over this great capitalist country of ours.
And, other articles that I have also submitted in this forum indicate that in socialist countries as well as in countries that have universal healthcare, it is better to let disabled people and old people just die off... as they are parasitic to the universal healthcare plan. Hmmm, I thought the plan was for an ethical system.
For our horrific, capitalist, money hungry, system, Rarchie, we certainly do take care of our US American citizens that have disabilities. They have unlimited access to specialist (I am sure that you are familiar with Gillette Speciality Healthcare). ~Which includes some of the WORLD's BEST orthopedic doctors and Physiatrists and therapists~ They have free transportation to healthcare appointments (MD, Therapy, etc), and they have free healthcare under Medicaid. Yeah, that is ethically a problem. *sarcasm*
Let's have an unbiased poll of significantly disabled Canadians, and Swedish folks and see what their access to specialists is.
Signing off...
kitkat
(Apparently the "resident Republican"....
I would prefer to be called the Conservative borderline Libertarian)
I wonder if I should seek treatment for that. It will probably soon be labeled a psychiatric disorder if our State Universities have any control over it.:roll
For our horrific, capitalist, money hungry, system, Rarchie, we certainly do take care of our US American citizens that have disabilities. They have unlimited access to specialist (I am sure that you are familiar with Gillette Speciality Healthcare). ~Which includes some of the WORLD's BEST orthopedic doctors and Physiatrists and therapists~ They have free transportation to healthcare appointments (MD, Therapy, etc), and they have free healthcare under Medicaid. Yeah, that is ethically a problem. *sarcasm*
You ARE aware, Kitkat24, that the Medicaid program you are praising above because it provides such good care for disabled citizens is the same type of government-funded, single-payer system that you've been ranting against this entire thread, right??? It sure ain't the free market that is providing those services -- it's the heavy hand of evil Big Brother, your sworn enemy. :roll
YOU are aware Elkpark, that I have said in previous comments that I do support helping care for severely disabled and elderly. YOU also must be aware of the misrepresentation of the high number of uninsured and who that group represents, correct?
They report to you the high number of uninsured in the US and it is accepted without question. That "uninsured statistic in California represents 30-year-old single men that have an earned income of $50,000.00 per year. Is that who we should provide free single-payer universal government run healthcare to?
I also support medicaid reform. Or, do you think that we should pay for section 8 housing, SSI of $530.00 per month, and free medical/dental to alcoholics and drug addicts, whom by the 7th of each month have squandered their $530.00 on drugs or alcohol?
I can tell you that access to medical care here has nothing to do with money whether you are disabled or not. Trust me, there are a lot of SEVERELY disabled children that would probably be dead today if they lived in the US, because we allow the parents to make the decision to continue care (even when a baby has no brain left) cause they don't have to worry about the bill. I work with these kids and find it very hard sometimes, not because I think the disabled are less worthy, but because I wonder about how long we are supposed to continue to treat a baby whose body wants to die. I wonder about how much pain we are entitled to cause them in the name of life.
I would encourage you to look at Toronto hospital for Sick Children's website if you are interested in seeing the types of programs and specialists available for disabled children, and all children for that matter. My cousin's daughter (and the rest of the family) are flown in from halfway across the country free of charge for treatment there (she has cancer and is nearly blind). They have nothing but positive comments relating to their treatment.
Canadians do want reform of the healthcare system in certain areas to decrease waste and improve finances, but even the Fraser Institute admits that we OVERWHELMINGLY want to maintain our system as a universal one, where money does not determine access to care. Looking at ways to improve a system doesn't mean you don't believe in it. It means you want to get the most out of it.
) occasions that I've had to use my insurance I have been treated as, at best, a captive audience and, at worst, dirt under their feet. Certainly not as a "valued customer ..." 
fergus51
6,620 Posts
kitkat, if that's what your doctor is like then I am sad for you. I have been lucky enough to have some excellent doctors, and my service was never compromised because I didn't pay them directly. I have only once been unsatisfied with my doctor in Canada and I changed soon enough. I know if I only went to work for the paycheque, I would've quit a LOOOOOONNNNNNGGGG time ago!
LOL!
As far as healthcare being a right.... well, that actually is how I feel. I feel that basic healthcare is a right just like elementary education. I feel that a healthy society makes a strong nation so it is not only morally right, it is in my best interests. That's the Canadian side of me and it is something I don't think will change, no matter how much time I spend living in the US.:) Even the Fraser institute admits that over 90% of us feel the same.
Now on to why you should care that health care costs drive people into bankruptcy: simply put, you wind up paying for it. Those people already got the services and now the hospitals and doctors need the money for it, so you and I get to see our health care costs rise. You should care because it is in your best interest.
I just included the info about the Fraser institute so you would be aware. It's like expecting unbiased reports about Judaism from Osama Bin Laden. I do think it's a shame that your school does not encourage different views. One of the core concepts of my nursing program was diversity and that meant conservatives as well.