7 Minutes to understand Universal Health Care...

  1. http://www.uctv.tv/library-popup.asp?showid=12070 or
    http://www.uctv.tv/ondemand/
    lenoir - nma pediatric lecture: universal health care in california
    (#12070)


    join us for a lively discussion on universal health care in california. what is best for our state? our distinguished speakers include: sanford a. lakoff, ph.d., professor emeritus of political science; dustin corcoran, vp of government relations for the california medical association; and robert n. hamburger, m.d., professor of pediatrics emeritus.
    watch it now using realplayer.
    this seminar discusses current efforts to bring universal access to health care in california. the first 8 minutes presents a concise case for single payer. the other portions of the program discuss other options and approaches. well worth the time to watch. it is also playing on uctv for access to better video quality.
    •  
  2. 87 Comments

  3. by   HairCanada
    Ok I live in Ontario, and I am a consumer of a well established Government controlled health Care system....and to put in kindly in a posting without profanity..I will just say, I am...hummm....disatisfied!

    Let me ask propose this: Please name one major Government run institution which you feel delivers a timely, cost effective, and quality contolled product better than its private owned counter part?

    Social Security?
    The military?
    FEMA?
    Post Office?
    IRS?

    The basic problem with governmet run programs is that they are run by the government!!! They have no one to answer to, therefore they basically have no fiscal responsibility to anyone, if they squander all the money , they either tax us more, or stop the service. They become corrupt and beaurocratic to the point that there is no quality, or timely delivery of the service. Also consider the long list of other documented problems including consumer abuses!

    I agree that our current system needs adjusting, but "universal healthcare" is a nice idea ..and a great catch phrase that comes around every election time, but the reality is,...eveybody wants it, but nobody wants to pay for it, ...and people some how believe that the Gov can just "print more money" to make it happen. This is not reality folks!

    Let me break it down, in my tax bracket a Nurse making $60,000 pays about $15,000..of tax into the "FREE HEALTHCARE"...now add my spouse../another 50,000 Income, and that is another $12,000 into the "free system"..........for for a married couple paying together $27,000 a year for "free healthcare" meds are not included in the free healthcare fyi


    what kind of insurance could you buy in your state for a $27,000 a year premium????????????????????????????????????:angryf ire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire
  4. by   HairCanada
    Sorry to put such a flaming post, but this is somehting that i am very sensitive about.

    Also I am sorry that I do not have any constructive ideas for the problem.

    I know that blind venting is kind of useless, but hey,...at least it is a perspective from someone who is actually under that kind of system!!
  5. by   hushpupgrl
    HairCanada,
    thank you for your post! i am so happy that someone else will actually portray the true picture of universal healthcare. during my years of undergraduate study(i majored in economics), i spent countless hours studying the economics of universal healthcare and everything i found out matches exactly what you are saying. there really is no easy solution to the healthcare crisis, but thinking the government is going to solve the problem is crazy.
  6. by   ZASHAGALKA
    7 seconds to understand universal healthcare: Higher costs, less care, more wait, gov't control, abuse and disdain over your health, uncompassionate for all. In short, a fair share in a dismal system.

    Free is never free. What you give up costs as well.

    1 second response: no, thanks.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  7. by   banditrn
    Quote from HairCanada
    Ok I live in Ontario, and I am a consumer of a well established Government controlled health Care system....and to put in kindly in a posting without profanity..I will just say, I am...hummm....disatisfied!

    Let me ask propose this: Please name one major Government run institution which you feel delivers a timely, cost effective, and quality contolled product better than its private owned counter part?

    Social Security?
    The military?
    FEMA?
    Post Office?
    IRS?

    The basic problem with governmet run programs is that they are run by the government!!! They have no one to answer to, therefore they basically have no fiscal responsibility to anyone, if they squander all the money , they either tax us more, or stop the service. They become corrupt and beaurocratic to the point that there is no quality, or timely delivery of the service. Also consider the long list of other documented problems including consumer abuses!

    I agree that our current system needs adjusting, but "universal healthcare" is a nice idea ..and a great catch phrase that comes around every election time, but the reality is,...eveybody wants it, but nobody wants to pay for it, ...and people some how believe that the Gov can just "print more money" to make it happen. This is not reality folks!

    Let me break it down, in my tax bracket a Nurse making $60,000 pays about $15,000..of tax into the "FREE HEALTHCARE"...now add my spouse../another 50,000 Income, and that is another $12,000 into the "free system"..........for for a married couple paying together $27,000 a year for "free healthcare" meds are not included in the free healthcare fyi


    what kind of insurance could you buy in your state for a $27,000 a year premium????????????????????????????????????:angryf ire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire :angryfire
    Haircanada - thank you, thank you for your post! Your post is so valuable because it shows the way the US is headed if people don't wake up!!

    We're going to be pushed into this by the large number of people who are on government paid healthcare, or medicaid at this time, and the number is getting larger every year.

    There are factions of our society that seem to want to make it easier and easier for able-bodied individuals to 'live off the system' instead of making them accountable to the folks that are paying for all of it. I believe it's a cultural break-down within our society that has de-valued family units. and given the government more and more control over our lives.
  8. by   Simplepleasures
    Quote from HairCanada
    Sorry to put such a flaming post, but this is somehting that i am very sensitive about.

    Also I am sorry that I do not have any constructive ideas for the problem.

    I know that blind venting is kind of useless, but hey,...at least it is a perspective from someone who is actually under that kind of system!!
    Hair Canada, give us your informed opinion, do you think the people of Canada will ever vote to go to the American style of private healthcare?
  9. by   HM2VikingRN
    i posted the link to this program because i thought it was important to have a reasonably informed starting point for discussion about this issue. i sincerely hoped that there would be an effort to watch the program and think about ways to improve the health insurance system of the us. i think that there is a real tendency to view health insurance and health care as a commodity instead of a mutually shared societal responsibility. access to health care is not charity as witnessed by the large number of uninsureds with ft working spouses.

    dr. hamburgs arguments for single payer (which have yet to be debated on this thread.):
    cost shifting to pay for the uninsured care costs is an unsustainable spiral and harmful to the economy.

    16-26% profit/administration costs for current system vs. 1-2% overhead for a medicare for all model.

    us spends double per capita on health insurance than france and other oecd countries with markedly worse outcomes on infant mortality and decreased life expectancy.

    current system places responsible businesses that offer insurance to employees at a competitive disadvantage with irresponsible businesses.

    73% of the uninured live in a household with a full time worker.

    uniform benefits prevent adverse selection and cherry picking by insurers.

    consumers benefit by bulk buying power of the larger group.

    public accountability for health care expenditures.

    tinkering on the edges makes things worse.

    provider and clinic choice is assured.

    consumers benefit by predictable and reliable coverage.

    everyone is covered.

    simplified and streamlined reimbursement processes for providers.

    public accountability for quality and cost of health care.

    evidenced base health care is emphasized.

    this is not socialized medicine but it is a streamlined reimbursement process.

    massachusetts physicians endorsed single payer with a 64% plurality.

    56% of americans prefer a nhi model in recent polls.

    i have yet to see anyone offer an alternative model for fixing the current system that delivers universal coverage with decreased administrative costs.
    http://healthypolicy.typepad.com/blo..._health_c.html
    the health system in france is regarded as delivering high quality services, with freedom of choice and generally no waiting lists for treatments.
    --page 69, sourced to a 2000 study by a trio of academics
    and: in germany, "waiting lists and explicit rationing decisions are virtually unknown."
    --page 70, citing a world health organization study.
    http://healthypolicy.typepad.com/blo..._health_c.html
    a 2002 health affairs paper examined hospitals near the border, as well as national surveys to tease out how many canadians actually visit the u.s. to receive elective procedures.
    in terms of hospitals along the border offering advanced treatments or special diagnostic technology (i.e. ct scans and mris), about 640 canadians were seen, along with 270 for procedures like cataract surgery. they compare this to about 375,000 and 44,000 similar procedures in the region of quebec alone during the same period. if you divide the total number of canadians seeking those treatments in the us, divided by the number in quebec alone that's about 0.09%. not even a tenth of a percent.

    but the most striking stats come from the canadian national population health survey (nphs). from the article:
    only 90 of 18,000 respondents to the 1996 canadian nphs indicated that they had received care in the united states during the previous twelve months, and only twenty had indicated that they had gone to the united states expressly for the purpose of getting that care.
    only 20 of 18,000 sought care in the united states. i can't believe how many people are coming over here! their system but be truly awful.
    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Mar 24, '07
  10. by   HM2VikingRN
    http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrig...da-health.html
    among the health care systems of the world's wealthiest industrialized countries, the united states' is the most expensive; even worse, it fails to provide health care for all americans. canada, on the other hand, provides excellent, comprehensive coverage to all of its citizens. its system, administered jointly by the federal government and the twelve provincial governments, provides canadian business with an enormous competitive advantage....
    a look at the facts leaves little doubt that the canadian system is superior. an average of 6.3 out of every 1,000 babies born die before the age of 1 in canada, as opposed to 8.3 in the united states. life expectancies in canada are 81 years for women and 74.5 for men, compared with 78.9 and 72.1 years, respectively, in the united states. yet the organization for economic cooperation and development, an international monitoring group, reports that while canada spends just 10.2 percent of its gross domestic product on health care services for all its citizens, the united states spends 14.1 percent and still has millions of citizens with inadequate or nonexistent coverage.
    it isn't just the individual that benefits from canada's comprehensive health program. the canadian system affords business many advantages, including reduced employee costs and an expanded, healthier labor pool. according to a march 1995 study by kpmg peat marwick called "a comparison of business costs in canada and the united states," canadian employers spend less on employersponsored benefits than their american counterparts. "costs for hospital, surgical, medical and major medical insurance premiums are the prime reason for the difference in costs," the study says. "these insurance premiums represent a cost of 8.2% of gross pay in the united states compared with 1.0% in canada."
    ...
    the workers' compensation premium for a canadian autoworker in london, ontario, is 4.56 percent of his or her wages; for an american autoworker in minneapolis, it is 9.07 percent, according to the kpmg comparative report.
    business should be free to conduct business, and in canada this is so. there is no need for every company to have personnel employed just to handle the paper burden of private sector workers' compensation or health care.
  11. by   anonymurse
    HM2Viking, I know this is an important personal crusade of yours, but in saying "I have yet to see anyone offer an alternative model for fixing the current system that delivers universal coverage with decreased administrative costs," you are begging the question of proof your proposals will work as advertised in the US without unforeseen adverse effects. This is central to the issue, because the change-over would be such a total commitment, and reversal may not even be possible should it prove desirable.
  12. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from anonymurse
    HM2Viking, I know this is an important personal crusade of yours,
    All is well. It's a personal crusade of MINE to ensure that the best system of empowering the poor and downtrodden to improve their lives doesn't fall to the idol of government mediocrity.

    Be that in the form of healthcare or any other mass socialism program.

    Socialism is a failure. It IS uncompassionate to the masses.

    The chief danger in the concept of 'security' is that, if sought in the exchange of freedom, neither freedom nor security will result. Hey, that's quite profound. I should be in a book of quotes.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  13. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    All is well. It's a personal crusade of MINE to ensure that the best system of empowering the poor and downtrodden to improve their lives doesn't fall to the idol of government mediocrity.

    Be that in the form of healthcare or any other mass socialism program.

    Socialism is a failure. It IS uncompassionate to the masses.

    The chief danger in the concept of 'security' is that, if sought in the exchange of freedom, neither freedom nor security will result. Hey, that's quite profound. I should be in a book of quotes.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    What is the proof that you cannot have both a basic minimum of security and freedom?

    We have a democratic republic. If we the people allow a dictatorship we lose our freedom.
    Having clean air to breath, water and food, shelter, education, and healthcare does not take away my freedom.
  14. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    What is the proof that you cannot have both a basic minimum of security and freedom?
    I didn't say that at all. You CAN have both. You just can't trade one for the other.

    Freedom is an essential ingredient of security and security is an essential ingredient of freedom.

    A sellout of either is a sellout of both.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.

close