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.
Regarding Spanish healthcareI only have second hand anecdotal information.
My stepmother and Dad toured Europe while she needed twicw weekly chemotherapy. The dose was dependent on the CBC result.
Her MD arrainged for her treatment in Italy, France, Portugal, Spain and France.
Only in Spain was there a problem.
The outpatient center was not ready for her, lost her blood, and made her return the next day. An employee let them know he didn't like Americans and Mexicans are worse. (My Dad spoke fluent Spanish learned from Mexican Americans so it must have been his accent)
They actually asked a hotel employee who referred them to a hospital where she was treated the next day. They didn;t have to pay because the original incompetent clinic had already been paid.
This is what I was told. I can't imagine traveling so far when undergoing chemo but that was years ago. She is fine now.
Spain is where my coworker's father was from. So that explains alot. Remind me not to get sick if I ever visit Spain..lol.
"nurses know they earn less and patients suffer when bureacrats run hospitals." Only a left wing trade union run by a non nurse and ex teamster would propose to saddle American families with a health care model that leaves nurses underpaid (and fleeing their countries to come work in ours!") and patients waiting in lines for months for services most Americans walk in and schedule a week ahead of time, and claim that's progress.
How many foreign nurses come here from socialized government run health care systems like CNA advocates? Tens of thousands every
year.
Now, how many nurses leave America to work abroad in such systems? Do you know anyone - we don't!
As Ronald Reagan said "if communism is so good, why to they have to build walls to keep people in?"
He spotted what left wing trade unionists' like Markowitz missed: people vote with their feet. Our system has flaws, but people come from all over the world to get care in the US. They leave socialized ("single payer") systems for our care, and nurses leave those countries to work here. Why? Because our system works worse than theirs? Or because it works better?
If the unionized bureaucrats take over health care they'll run it like... Well, like UMC in Las Vegas and RFK in LA - government run hospitals with unionized public employees where wages are lower than non union private hospitals down the road, and care is so bad at RFK patients jump off stretchers and run away, while the hospitals bleed millions of tax payer dollars in red ink every year.
If the union wanted to fix healthcare, they would address junk lawsuits that cost every patient, doctor and nurse money every year by taking dollars that could be spent bedside and diverting it to trial lawyers. The union opposes tort reform, which benefits no one but rich trial lawyers, who can already afford the health care "paw paw" can't. That costs hospitals and doctors more and more in insurance costs every year - costs that come right out of our pockets if we pay for medication, office visits or insurance.
Who pays the costs of junk lawsuits? You do. Every time you buy medicine or medical supplies, and every time you pay an insurance premium which went up because of last years' junk lawsuits.
When the union can point to costs that it helps hold down on the hospital, then it has standing to complain about healthcare costs. When they suggest one work rule that costs the hospital less and not more and improves productivity rather than just requiring more people longer to do the same job, then they may be more credible. Until then, let's call it like it is: NNOC is the radical left wing CNA trade unions' Trojan horse to socialize our healthcare system so it gets more members and more dues - not a voice for "reform." Change is fine as long as its an improvement - socialized, unionized, bureacratized healthcare is change no one can afford- including "paw paw."
Specializes in Spinal Cord injuries, Emergency+EMS.
you point aobut government run hospitals in the US system - they by default become the 'sink ' hospitals where the can't , don't won't pays congregate ...
has the 2 week cancer referrals rule ( and it's subsequeent targets), the 2 week rapid acces chest pain rule, 4 hour A+E target 12 hour trolley wait target ( a 12 hour ED hold in a UK hospital brings down the full weight of the system oi nthe hospital in question ) , partial and full booking for clinic appointments and elective admissions and the whole 18 weeks flying circus passed you by .... ?
junk lawsuits is a symptom of the US legal system where punitive damages are a way of life rather tha damages being seen as indemnity or as near to indemnity as you can get , million dollar workups etc however are a sympton of fee for service ...
The evidence shows as usual that single payer/UHC plans are better at containing costs.
The antiunion diatribe posted was just one more example of a rant wthout evidence to back it up. Of course consumer driven health care and markets will fix everything despite the evidence that our unregulated health care system leads to third best outcomes.
The United States is the only industrialized country that doesn't provide healthcare for it's citizens. There are and estimated 47 million without health insurance in the U.S. and thousands more that if a catastrophic illness happened in their family they would be bankrupt. I believe that universal healthcare must be achieved soon in the United States. With an aging poplous we simply can not ignore the problem of healthcare any longer. The free market system does not work as it excludes the too many with rising premiums and less needed care. Healthcare premiums have increased four times faster than wages. While no solution is perfect universal healthcare can provide equal healthcare for all.
My wife is a type one brittle diabetic and on medicare. I would say that rather than low income we are middle class as are others on medicare. Medicare is for middle class as well as low income people. The people on medicare are former hardworking people that paid social security taxes through their working life. As you probably know type one diabetes is not caused by life style. Diabetes as well as other conditions can be treated if patients have acess to the healthcare they need. Unfortunatley in the free market system we have now it excludes those that need it. This is why we need a true universal healthcare system in the United States. Healthcare should be a right and not a privelage.
With the government meeting ALL YOUR NEEDS, however, there is no motivation to do more. THAT is the chief flaw in socialism. WHO is going to provide all these services once nobody has to work anymore?
THERE is NO FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to the services of others.
~faith,
Timothy.
Until the government buys everyone a new house and a corvette I hardly think this is a concern
Mine will be lost within all these posts! But thats a good thing; it means people are concerned and active.
We already basically have Universal Helathcare in that there is also Indigent Qualifications and Medicaid for the unemployable/unemployed.
The problem is all the employers who shirk offering insurance benefits, and even more of a problem is the greed of insurance companies and the greed of overbilling physicians.
Insurance denies too many claims. Cobra is astronomically expensive and who can afford it in between jobs?
You have got to be kidding me! Why don't you look up the 2001 white paper the Tory Party published comparing the NHS to the rest of the civilized world? The data does not lie, the NHS is terrible compared to other countries/systems. And don't even start on me about how the waiting times have come down. I know that Labour has consistently cooked the books in that regard, as I would expect.
The primary reason is the amount of money spent. The UK spends 7% of GDP on healthcare and the USA spends 16%. No mystery there.
I am not asking the government to meet all my needs. You fail to understand what I am saying in promoting universal healthcare. Our taxes will pay for it. I would rather that my taxes go to something to benefit our country and its citizens. Look at where they go now to and unjustified war in Iraq. As far as your socialism remark universal healthcare will not make us a socialistic nation. Look at it this way we already believe that every child is entitled to an education in this country. The puplic school system is supported by state and federal funds via our taxes. Our country claims to be moral and based on Christian values if so, it is time we put those values into practice. If you are in the medical field as a doctor or nurse soley to make more money you are in the wrong profession. I feel the first priority for a doctor or nurse should be to help people. If helping people is not your first priority over all others then you are in the wrong profession and should for the good of all seek another profession.
the classic 'i'm all right jack' mentality that hampers any kind of sensible reform of anything in the USA, how any one can think that a health system bloated with layers of pointless adminstration to creating bills for making bills is efficient ...
people love to quote these friend of a friend anecdotes, but quitesimply this is not the case , certainly with respect to the NHS although some of the time driven targets are arbitrary ( e.g. 4 hour A+E target) other targets have meaningful impact on service provision e.g. 2 week rule for cancer rule out, the rapid access chest pain rules and now 18 weeks for electives
how anyone can think a system which allows Emergency department holds for days on end is good ... ?
how anyone can think a system which enslaves people with a pre-existing medical condition to the employer they had when it was first diagnosed is good ?
18 weeks for "electives" does that include stents? lol
Inpatient waiting times
The number of patients for whom English commissioners are responsible waiting over the 26 weeks standard for inpatient admission at the end of May 2008 was 42 (compared to the total of 535,000).
The number of patients for whom English commissioners are responsible waiting over 13 weeks at the end of May 2008 was 40,000, an increase of 2,800 (7.6%) from April 2008, but a fall of 72,500 (64.4%) from May 2007.
Specializes in ICU, Paeds ICU, Correctional, Education.
Great to see this discussion is still alive. Universal health care is fundamental to a civilised, respectful, caring and intelligent social order. Need I say more.
molse001
230 Posts
Spain is where my coworker's father was from. So that explains alot. Remind me not to get sick if I ever visit Spain..lol.