By design, a monopoly produces a different kind of worker. Unwilling to have their wages capped and freedoms restricted, the best inevitably leave. Mediocrity, unfortunately, gives rise to fewer malcontents and thus is a prerequisite for stability in the system. Put it this way: if a socialized system wants to survive, it must expunge the most driven and gifted from its midst. When wages, moreover, are tied to a negotiated deal with labour, rather than, in the case of a competitive market, to the individual physician's performance, the position of the mediocre practitioner is further reinforced.
Interesting. Yeah, "after all, just go to an emergency room" and then not have enough money left to pay for the medications, perhaps do without food for the rest of the month or just don't pay your rent because the hospital will want their money. Now if you're an illegal immigrant you've got it made. Use and abuse the system, who cares, you'll never receive a bill, we can bill someone that doesn't exist. :angryfire
This is exactly why it's not time to just let it go. It's called it's time for a change to benefit Americans.
Specializes in ICU, Paeds ICU, Correctional, Education.
Additionally, there are a lot of things we are able to do to protect ourselves from crime, but are not able to do for ourselves when it comes to healthcare...i.e. I can put in an alarm system, lock my car, and buy a gun, but I can't stitch my own cuts or perform my own colonoscopy.
How scary is that??? Buy a gun..... if you couldn't buy a gun then perhaps government law enforcement agencies could cope and healthcare would be better able to serve.
How scary is that??? Buy a gun..... if you couldn't buy a gun then perhaps government law enforcement agencies could cope and healthcare would be better able to serve.
If we couldnt buy a gun; then government would be the only ones with guns. You think that would be a better America?
We will all benefit when needs are met. Then those who prove their ability and willingness to earn a higher education will not be prevented from rising to the best of their ability because they cannot afford it.
Specializes in ICU, Paeds ICU, Correctional, Education.
If we couldnt buy a gun; then government would be the only ones with guns. You think that would be a better America?
I'm not too sure but I live in a country where firearms are illegal and we rarely see firearm wounds in hospitals, we don't have (touch wood) children that turn up at school with them and certainly politicians (government?) don't have them. The police have them but they have to report any reason for them leaving their holsters. If they are fired there is a huge enquiry and it gets reported on the news. I guess it gets down to a culture that either rejects or accepts the implications of freely available objects of killing for a society. Ultimately I think any society would be better off without them.
I'm not too sure but I live in a country where firearms are illegal and we rarely see firearm wounds in hospitals, we don't have (touch wood) children that turn up at school with them and certainly politicians (government?) don't have them. The police have them but they have to report any reason for them leaving their holsters. If they are fired there is a huge enquiry and it gets reported on the news. I guess it gets down to a culture that either rejects or accepts the implications of freely available objects of killing for a society. Ultimately I think any society would be better off without them.
Well I have to disagree. The founding fathers of my felt that they and the citizens of the United States should in fact be allowed to have and own firearms. I am happy for you that you believe your country will have no need to stand against tyranny and oppression. If you do; however, how will you do so?
"The Australian government offered to buy back all of the listed firearms. They then imposed a 1% tax on everybody to raise the money necessary to secure the "illegal" firearms. The massive 500 million buy back program was quickly, but poorly, implemented. Of the estimated 7 million firearms, roughly 40% are now prohibited. Close to 2.8 million firearms should have been surrendered to authorities. Was it a success? Hardly. Less than 25%, or 640,000 weapons, were turned in.
Gun Control and left-wing politicians said great things about the new law. A university of criminology professor stated, "It is probable that the crime rate will drop by up to 20 percent."
Nothing of the sort happened, in fact just the opposite took place. In 1997, just 12 months after the new laws went into effect, across Australia homicides jumped 3.2 percent, armed robberies were up a whopping 44 percent, assaults up 8.6 and in the state of Victoria there was a 300 percent increase in homicides. Prior to the new dictatorial anti-gun laws, statistics showed a steady decrease in armed robberies with firearms; now, there has been a dramatic increase in break-ins, especially against the elderly.
In 1998, in the state of South Australia, robbery with a firearm increased nearly 60 percent. In 1999, new figures reveal that the assault rates in the state of NSW has risen almost 20 percent.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the crime rate for burglary in America is now substantially less than Australia, Canada, and Britain. The data from a comprehensive study from the University of Chicago [Lott, Mustard] showed that in these same three countries, people were home almost half of the time when the burglaries were committed. In the US, it was less than 13%. Fear of firearms in the American home was the reason given."
Specializes in ICU, Paeds ICU, Correctional, Education.
well i have to disagree. the founding fathers of my felt that they and the citizens of the united states should in fact be allowed to have and own firearms. i am happy for you that you believe your country will have no need to stand against tyranny and oppression. if you do; however, how will you do so?
not to mention that crime rates apparently have risen...
gun deaths - international comparisons
gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
homicide
suicide
other (inc accident)
usa
(2001)
3.98
5.92
0.36
italy
(1997)
0.81
1.1
0.07
switzerland
(1998)
0.50
5.8
0.10
canada
(2002)
0.4
2.0
0.04
finland
(2003)
0.35
4.45
0.10
australia
(2001)
0.24
1.34
0.10
france
(2001)
0.21
3.4
0.49
england/wales
(2002)
0.15
0.2
0.03
scotland
(2002)
0.06
0.2
0.02
japan
(2002)
0.02
0.04
0
data taken from cukier and sidel (2006)
the global gun epidemic
. praeger security international. westport.
i think these figures speak for themselves. your sources have profound conflicts of interest, are out of context and cite events of more than 10 years ago. your first reference states that like us citizens, australians are gun owners. what rubbish! i get out quite a bit and i don't know one person who owns a gun. as for the founding fathers....would it be over 400 years? i understand the great esteem they are upheld with and i mean no disrespect but i think the world has changed since.
but back to healthcare costs.........
this is underscored by comparisons of the united states and canada. the costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries have been compared and estimated to be $495 (us) per resident in the united states compared to $195 per resident in canada. canada has always had stronger firearms regulation than the united states, particularly with respect to handguns. as a result, canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the united states has more than 77 million. while there are other factors affecting murder, suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in canada and the united states suggests that access to handguns may play a role. while the murder rate without guns in the us is roughly equivalent (1.3 times) that of canada, the murder rate with handguns is 15 times the canadian rate. http://www.guncontrol.ca/content/international.html
Just gotta add: we all come from different places, (both inside and out). I know just a handful of people who do NOT own a gun. In my world, guns are a necessity, and we would never be without one.
Specializes in ICU, Paeds ICU, Correctional, Education.
Thank you for your thoughts and research. The last resource cited makes the interesting point about the way crimes are reported and how the definitions of violent crimes have been widened in some countries. Very honest I think and hopefully the US has followed suit. I don't seem to be able to find any mention of guns in relation to violent crimes in either of the Australian sources that you have provided.
There is a small gun lobby sector in Australia but it is viewed by the wider population as being rednecked. We have no reason to have guns other than those who advocate their necessity for culling animals in rural areas. These are licensed under strict conditions and are not concealable. To own a handgun means that you have to be a member of a competetive club (rare as hen's teeth). The handgun must be kept in a safe at the club.
Most of the guns handed in at the buyback were rifles. Hand guns are not apparent although there are a few loose canons who are involved in criminal activities that own them but don't actually use them other than to threaten. It is illegal under all circumstances to own automatic or semiautomatic firearms.The major concern is that when people feel passionate or angry about something, a gun is the worst possible object to have at their disposal.
I appreciate the different cultures and that there is a point of no return in the US. I wonder where it will stop though. Meanwhile I am thankful that we are not driven by a fear and distrust culture and we remain optimistic about our communities and government.
sharona97, BSN, RN
1,300 Posts
This is exactly why it's not time to just let it go. It's called it's time for a change to benefit Americans.