Schwarzenegger Calls for Universal Coverage

[MmacFN]

Schwarzenegger Calls for Universal Coverage
By LAURA KURTZMAN
AP


SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Jan. 8) - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday proposed to extend health coverage to nearly all of California's 6.5 million uninsured people, promising to spread the cost among businesses, individuals, hospitals, doctors, insurers and government.

The plan contains elements that are likely to provoke opposition from a wide range of powerful interests, including doctors, hospitals and insurers, as well as employers and unions. But it also contains incentives for each of them.

All children, regardless of their immigration status, would be covered through an expansion of the state and federal Healthy Families program.

"I don't think it is a question or a debate if they ought to be covered. ... The federal courts have made that decision - that no one can be turned away," Schwarzenegger said. "The question really isn't to treat them or not to treat them. The question really is how can you treat them in the most cost-effective way."

Under Schwarzenegger's plan, all Californians would be required to have insurance, although the poorest would be subsidized. Businesses with 10 or more employees would have to offer insurance to their workers or pay 4 percent of their payroll into a state fund. Smaller businesses would be exempt.

Also, insurers would no longer be allowed to deny coverage to people because of their medical problems.

Business groups and Republican legislators are likely to object to the extra costs imposed on businesses.

The state would subsidize the estimated 1.2 million poor people who do not currently qualify for state health coverage. They would be able to buy insurance through a state-run pool and would have to make a small contribution toward their premiums.

Schwarzenegger is betting that his plan will save $10 billion a year by cutting health care costs. He says the savings would offset the new fees he is asking doctors and hospitals to pay - 4 percent of revenue for hospitals and 2 percent for doctors.

The state also would increase what it pays doctors and hospitals through Medi-Cal, the state insurance plan for the poor.

The governor was supposed to give his address in person to a panel of health care officials. Instead, he spoke via video link since he is still recuperating from broken leg suffered in a skiing accident.

Article can be found HERE (http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/schwarzenegger-calls-for-universal/n20070108154709990009)

[Outdoor1]

Save money, yea right. Just another reason for 10 million more to cross the border ILLEGALLY.

[MmacFN]

exactly

Welcome to america, we will bankrupt our medical system to save the illegals.

Crazy talk i tell you!

[DebbieC]

Call me naive, but when I heard about this on NPR, I never once thought about illegals. I just thought about all those gazillion Americans who can't afford health insurance, those who don't get it through their jobs.

All the Governator has to do is require green cards, or proof of citizenship to fix that loophole.

You guys are cynical, very cynical.

Debbie

P.S. how is my syntax and grammer?

[MmacFN]

hey Deb

Well thats the kicker.

The plan CALLS for taking care of the illegals. If im cynical its only b/c i know this scenario all too well from Canada.

If you get "free healthcare" for being "unable to pay" be it illegal or poor, whats the incentive to EVER pay? None. So waht happens is fewer people take jobs which have health insurance (or they dont buy it) and the system baloons to 10X its intended pop. All the sudden yer paying taxes up the whazoo, essentially, being forced to pay for those who dont want to.

Im all for helping people, but on a CASE by CASE basis, not a blanket policy. If a person can work they can get insurance even at MacDonalds.

[FutrCRNA]

:werd:

[DebbieC]

Sorry about that...the whole piece on it on NPR, which was pretty involved, lots of commentary by various people, etc., never once mentioned it applying to illegals. Interesting omission.

What about all the people employed by small businesses who get paid above minimum wage, as compared to McDonalds, but far from enough to pay for their own health insurance? Have you priced privately bought health insurance for a family??? Although I generally agree with you...it's a choice to be employed where health insurance is a benefit or not....younger people tend to blow off having health insurance till they get sick, and then the shit hits the fan. Thank goodness for CHIP, free or pro-rated insurance for kids.

Is it reasonable to require that all businesses provide health insurance as a benefit?

I still think that the whole pricing structure for health insurance in this country is geared to monumental profits for the insurance companies. Just like Big Pharma. I see no problem with governmental involvement in modifying that. That's a far cry from universal nationalized health insurance.

Regarding illegals, I don't think they should be serviced by the system in this country. I think that everyone should be green carded at every service entry point. Every single one. That would quickly staunch the deluge of illegal immigration. I'm including schools, work places, clinics, etc. And as far as migrant illegal workers go, well, it's time to for the farmers to have to obey the law. You can't expect to be able to control the flow of illegals and their use of the social benefits of the USA at the same time luring them to the USA with guarenteed employment. And as far as 'no one else will do the work', well, pay more, duh. I know that lots of illegals pay taxes, etc. But there are so many that do not, yet take advantage of health care, etc.

You want to get the benefits of living in the USA, well then, become a citizen. Otherwise, nada.

[MmacFN]

Hey Deb


I understand what your saying.

However, its a CHOICE to have kids when you cannot afford healthcare (read: to take care of them) for them. Then its ABUSE to expect everyone whos made the right choices to pay for you.

Life is all about choices. No matter your environment at the end of the day, we all make choices which we KNOW are right or wrong. Part of being a grownup is taking responsibility for ones actions. One of the biggest issues in Canada and the US (in my opinion) is that people no longer seem to think they have to 'pay the piper' and take responsibility as someone will foot the bill.

Its just not right and its bankrupting both the healthcare system and whole states.

Good discussion I enjoy these kind of arguments, nothing personal of course!

PS i love NPR, but they are quite democratic slanted. It may be that is why they omitted that part, CNN didnt. (im neither rep. or dem.)

[lisagore]

I thought it was interesting that the Doctor's will contribute 2% and also get an incentive. What does that mean? I'll scratch your back if you will scratch ours? The doctors are going to get paid no matter what? What kind of cycle are we creating?

He's right that all people are guaranteed coverage in emergencies, the hospitals eat this cost every day through our ER's, etc. There are so many people who come in and give fake ID's, fake addresses, etc they use the ER for primary care. It's a wonder the hospital's can stay afloat. In the past, when I have seen customers approached with the concept that it would be good for their continuity of care and cheaper for them to go see their PCP many patients point out that their visits are free. No concept that tax payers are "paying for their visit". (It's also called the red credit card.) Reeducation falls short many times here.

It would be great if all the people who receive this benefit were drug tested and their cards revoked for positive screens! or for that matter it delves into the topic of people who are receiving government supplements of any kind. We all get drug tested to work to pay the taxes that will pay for these programs, maybe they should be drug tested to receive those benefits? Opening a can of worms, sorry!:yikes:

The bottom line is that when a country has blanketed health care for all who live there, the quality of care diminishes. It doesn't create competition for pricing, for a "job well done", or speed of service. There are many people who cross the border from Canada to get their total knees and joints done in the USA because they are on such long waiting lists in their country in could be years to a total joint. This is a serious issue that I would encourage everyone to research before making up their mind about national health care. I have also lived in Germany for two years and this is the case there also. And in Australia. These countries also have a cash payment plan too. The people who can afford to, can have surgery as quickly as they can pay, bumping healthcare plan recipients. Think about this as the haves and have-nots?

I have a personal example. I was sent to Hawaii for duty for two weeks one time 1996. The HMO Tri Care was brand new there and not even available to the continental US. The Colonel who was in charge of the clinic I was stationed with asked me how to motivate the Doctor's because they didn't care about customer service. Me, being a reservist, I had a civilian perspective: I simply replied: 'Well Sir, As soon as these Doctor's realize that the servicemen have an option not to choose ONLY military hospitals and doctors, then they will take notice and try harder to keep their customers, otherwise their jobs are at stake and you won't need them.' The Colonel thought for a minute then said, "That's something we have never really pointed out to them (the doctors) I think that is a perspective they all need to hear because it makes sense."

This new California plan sounds like it may help some people on paper but the resounding repercussions are too numerous to contemplate tonight. Sorry I ran on and on but this idea needs to really be thought out in my opinion. Again, sorry!!!! :sad6:

Anyone know if the country (Austria I believe) where Arnold is from has national health care?

[deepz]

..... when a country has blanketed health care for all who live there, the quality of care diminishes. ......


It would be a mistake to believe that the quality of America's health care is all that high. We pay per capita twice as much as Canada, yet by all metrics our overall quality of care is far lower. Check our ranking in infant mortality, for example -- below CUBA.

Time for a change.

[lisagore]

Hey Deepz,

I understand what you are saying and respect it, we certainly don't need to drop any further, though. I didn't mean to convey that our health-care is superior to everyone elses, simply that what we do have could take a turn for the worse in some ways. I agree it is time to change. Thanks for not thrashing me. Just my opinion.:wave:

[FutrCRNA]

Is it reasonable to require that all businesses provide health insurance as a benefit?


No, it's not, because then healthcare doesn't become a benefit it becomes a right. And it would still be some of the people (the employers) paying for all of the people (the employees). We seem to think in this country that healthcare is a right to which we are entitled, in many cases free of charge. And we wonder why hospitals have become businesses that focus on the "bottom line". We're so quick to blame the pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies for sky-rocketing costs. Maybe they are rat bastards who have contributed to the problem, but I think the general population's sense of entitlement is a bigger part of it. We seem to think we deserve the best care delivered immediately at the lowest price.

I have relatives in England, which has a national healthcare system. They seem okay with it (but it's all they know) and one of my uncles once used the following analogy: Think of healthcare like a car. Everyone deserves a car, but a Honda will get you from point A to point B just as easily as a Mercedes. It might not have all the bells and whistles, but it got you where you needed to be.

So where does the concept of universal coverage end? When is it ever enough? Or will everyone soon be expecting a Ferrari to get them from point A to point B?

[kmchugh]

This will be a long post, sorry about that.

There is a rather large movement afoot in the US, started and fueled by some politicians, that somehow we need to “provide” healthcare to everyone in the US. Every person should be able to access all levels of healthcare, regardless of ability to pay. Nonsense. In order to advance such an agenda, the politicians have had to sell us not one, but several bills of goods. Unfortunately, up to this point, those with this agenda have done such a good job selling this that it has become political suicide to even argue some of the points that have become “commonly known.”

First is that our healthcare system is broken, a mantra repeated by some here. To prove this, supporters point to the fact that 15% of the population does not have health insurance. Of course, this in no way means that this 15% goes without healthcare. It simply means that they either choose to pay for it themselves, or don’t pay for it at all. (Translation: You and I pay for it.) And, supporters don’t really want you to do the math. Logically, if 15% do not have insurance of some kind, that means that 85% of us do. Show me anything else in this country that, to one degree or another, covers 85% of the population that we consider “broken.”

Next is the idea that the entire 15% not covered don’t have health insurance because they can’t afford it. Poppycock. Many can afford it, but as Mike pointed out, make a choice not to spend the money on it. I can’t even begin to relate how many uninsured patients I see who claim not to be able to afford health insurance, but who smoke two packs of cigarettes a day, and/or who drive new cars. So its not a matter of an inability to afford the insurance, it is a matter of deciding what they feel is more important in their lives. All of us have seen it. When I bring it up, I am often told that these patients are the “statistical anomalies,” and that most who don’t have healthcare truly cannot afford it. Fine. But why is it that I run into so many of these statistical anomalies?

Perhaps the biggest lie we have been sold by politicians, however, is that we all have a “right” to healthcare, regardless of ability to pay. The very idea violates our constitution at a fundamental level, a fact that folks like the Clintons hope you won’t see. And many don’t see it, because they don’t understand what a “right” is. A fundamental principle of our constitution is that “my rights end where your nose begins.” I have no rights that, through simple exercise of those rights, infringe on the rights of others. Think about it. You have the right of free speech, but you don’t have the right to force me to listen to that speech. And no matter how important you think your message is, you don’t have the right to force me (or the taxpayers) to pay to get your message out. The courts have long upheld this principle. The same holds true here.

To exercise your “right to healthcare,” you must force me (or other taxpayers) to pay for that right. It infringes on my rights. Therefore, constitutionally, you have no such right, and the government has no right to force the issue.

KM

[gobucks1013]

...But why is it that I run into so many of these statistical anomalies?...


Because those are the folks with the entitlment attitude that feel they should get everything for free. They bilk the system out of millions. Those are the people for whom welfare is a "career choice". Mike talked about making responsible choices in his post and he's right, however we are talking about a population of people who could give a rat's-ass about being accountable for their lifestyle. Many of them look at having kids as a way to get more assistance. A child = a check.

These are the people who have no problem calling an ambulance over their crotch rot then taking up a valuable ER bed in some overextended hospital so that they can sit there for hours and demand the staff do this and that for them. "I'm hungry, I want a tray, my boyfriend wants a tray, my cousin needs a bus pass..." Anyone who has any ER experience knows exactly what I'm talking about. They flash that welfare card like it's their golden ticket.

These are the people I'm tired of footing the bill for. The sooner our government gets the balls to stand up to these people and say "NO" to them for once, the better. It's not a complete solution to the entire problem, but it sure as hell is a start.

[944S]

NPR never left out the fact that illegals were covered. It was explicitely stated in the second paragraph which can be found here (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6749432).

For the record I am not for taking care of illegals but the only answer to stop the problem is to stop the border crossing. Carding is a nobel idea and I personally have flown several "illegals" but, how were we to really know their status? Most have papers whether they are legit of not. If you were in a MVA and did not have your paperwork on you would you want to be denied care?

It is also peculiar that everyone seems to have forgotten we are paying for the illegal's healthcare anyway when they show up to the ER. We can't deny them coverage per the law. At least with the California plan there would be some managed care rather then just ER visits which has to be more economical.

As for the entitlement attitude yes there is plenty of that. But at the same time there are entirely too many people who are declared ineligible for health insurance because of preexisting disease. If your family member had MS, ALS, CA, or diabetes for no fault of their own and all of a sudden they were unable to even buy insurance you might feel differently. This problem is rampent in my state of TN, due to the grossly mismanaged state healthcare system being cut. They are working on the problem and HIPPA partially helps but not entirely.

[MmacFN]

Hey D

Well im from Canada and i can tell you its NO panacea if healthcare. They do a slightly better job at prevention but there are many who die of cancer b/c it wasn't dx'd until a year later when they could get the CT/MRI in to see the oncologist. Canada's healthcare model is not the answer and i can tell you, noone wants to work within such an oppressive/depressive atmosphere of daily cost cutting and employees known as NUMBERS sucking $$ from the taxbase.

Statistics are are great thing, except they are easily skewed based on the researcher or the reader. The US has many people flooding the border who come with major issues. Many illegals in the country with serious health problems. These people use the ER as their "doctors office" and somehow can sue in the US even tho they are here illegally.

Before looking at remodeling the entire system (which in Canada = 40% income tax and in my province a 15% sales tax), maybe we should solve some of the issues that plague the current one?

I agree Deepz, the WHO stats show the US well below the best and probably one of the best is Germany. However, the answer isnt changing the whole system, the answer lies in being honest and recognizing (and addressing) the problems with the system.

- Liability out of control
- Illegals have more if a "right" to healthcare than Americans
- ERs are being abused and are at the mercy of lawyers
- People not being MADE to be responsible for their actions
- Smokers and morbidly obese people continually tx'd for problems they keep perpetuating with bad choices
- The waste inherent in a system which spends well over 70% of healthcare dollars on the last YEAR of a persons life which is "quality free"

Before spending billions of dollars on a "new" system why not actually look at the issues with the current one?



It would be a mistake to believe that the quality of America's health care is all that high. We pay per capita twice as much as Canada, yet by all metrics our overall quality of care is far lower. Check our ranking in infant mortality, for example -- below CUBA.

Time for a change.

[deepz]

The so-called Singapore Solution: three tiers

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1120352

[MmacFN]

Hey 944

Well i know what your saying, ive flown these ppl as well.

Some things ill comment on:


For the record I am not for taking care of illegals but the only answer to stop the problem is to stop the border crossing.

Exactly, yet noone wants to address it. Here in AZ they have had HUGE protests FILLED will illegals when the bill passed (voted in by the PEOPLE here legally) that illegals should not have access to services. Now here we have a street of thousands of illegals yet INS is nowhere in sight to deport them all.

This angers me b/c im a Canadian in the US legally paying taxes and contributing to the economy. Before I got a Green card (which cost me 6K BTW), I was on a temp work visa good for one year at a time. If i worked more than the job on my visa i could be deported. If i did not check in and renew my visa within 10 days of it ending they would deport me (and made no quams about saying that either). Now with a green card i have to send in to INS/homeland security my new address. If i do not do this i will be deported and not allowed back in the country, I have 2 weeks to inform them or im officially "Illegal". Yet somehow, a STREET FULL OF PEOPLE SHOUTING that they are ILLEGALS arent rounded up and deported. I might be a little bitter. :aargh4:



Carding is a nobel idea and I personally have flown several "illegals" but, how were we to really know their status? Most have papers whether they are legit of not. If you were in a MVA and did not have your paperwork on you would you want to be denied care?

I agree. Transport them, stabalize them (even if thats on a vent) and ship them back to their country. Dont keep them in the US for decades and pay the healthcare costs.


It is also peculiar that everyone seems to have forgotten we are paying for the illegal's healthcare anyway when they show up to the ER. We can't deny them coverage per the law. At least with the California plan there would be some managed care rather then just ER visits which has to be more economical.

We might be paying, but that dosent make the MASSIVE abuse of the system OK. The laws governing how the ER is responsible for pts need to change. An emergency isnt a replacement for a family doc and they need to be turned away at the ER. Change the system dont accomodate the behavior.


As for the entitlement attitude yes there is plenty of that. But at the same time there are entirely too many people who are declared ineligible for health insurance because of preexisting disease. If your family member had MS, ALS, CA, or diabetes for no fault of their own and all of a sudden they were unable to even buy insurance you might feel differently.

Yes, anyone with these type of problems should be taken care of.

[MmacFN]

:congrats:


This will be a long post, sorry about that.

There is a rather large movement afoot in the US, started and fueled by some politicians, that somehow we need to “provide” healthcare to everyone in the US. Every person should be able to access all levels of healthcare, regardless of ability to pay. Nonsense. In order to advance such an agenda, the politicians have had to sell us not one, but several bills of goods. Unfortunately, up to this point, those with this agenda have done such a good job selling this that it has become political suicide to even argue some of the points that have become “commonly known.”

First is that our healthcare system is broken, a mantra repeated by some here. To prove this, supporters point to the fact that 15% of the population does not have health insurance. Of course, this in no way means that this 15% goes without healthcare. It simply means that they either choose to pay for it themselves, or don’t pay for it at all. (Translation: You and I pay for it.) And, supporters don’t really want you to do the math. Logically, if 15% do not have insurance of some kind, that means that 85% of us do. Show me anything else in this country that, to one degree or another, covers 85% of the population that we consider “broken.”

Next is the idea that the entire 15% not covered don’t have health insurance because they can’t afford it. Poppycock. Many can afford it, but as Mike pointed out, make a choice not to spend the money on it. I can’t even begin to relate how many uninsured patients I see who claim not to be able to afford health insurance, but who smoke two packs of cigarettes a day, and/or who drive new cars. So its not a matter of an inability to afford the insurance, it is a matter of deciding what they feel is more important in their lives. All of us have seen it. When I bring it up, I am often told that these patients are the “statistical anomalies,” and that most who don’t have healthcare truly cannot afford it. Fine. But why is it that I run into so many of these statistical anomalies?

Perhaps the biggest lie we have been sold by politicians, however, is that we all have a “right” to healthcare, regardless of ability to pay. The very idea violates our constitution at a fundamental level, a fact that folks like the Clintons hope you won’t see. And many don’t see it, because they don’t understand what a “right” is. A fundamental principle of our constitution is that “my rights end where your nose begins.” I have no rights that, through simple exercise of those rights, infringe on the rights of others. Think about it. You have the right of free speech, but you don’t have the right to force me to listen to that speech. And no matter how important you think your message is, you don’t have the right to force me (or the taxpayers) to pay to get your message out. The courts have long upheld this principle. The same holds true here.

To exercise your “right to healthcare,” you must force me (or other taxpayers) to pay for that right. It infringes on my rights. Therefore, constitutionally, you have no such right, and the government has no right to force the issue.

KM

[deepz]

So ... why would your argument not also apply to a free public education? Why should I pay taxes so your kids can go to school?

[MmacFN]

Ahhh

This is a good argument.

While i do hate paying taxes for other peoples children to goto school, education is intregral to a number of things which totally relate to me:

- Uneducated people are using the welfare system (costing me)
- Uneducated people will often be without insurance (costing me)
- An uneducated future population will contribute less to the economy, the brain trust and the stability of the USA

There are many more but these are a few. Education cannot be compared to healthcare. People dont abuse the education system, they make a choice not to take advantage of it. Always back to choices.

I would support an increase in taxes for education (even though i will never have kids) but not for universal healthcare or welfare.

[RN29306]

I was about to type up my opinion about education but Mike pretty much covered it.

Nice summation Mike.

[deepz]

...... Education cannot be compared to healthcare. .......


Not so fast there, Podnuh. Of course it can. Educated kids raise the overall economic level of a society, yes; they earn wages and pay taxes. Kids who lack immunizations and basic preventive care have the opposite effect.

Universal preventive care, such as Dr Lundberg proposes as the first of three tiers of coverage, is nothing more than enlightened self-interest. What helps ghetto kids avoid brain damage and become productive tax payers will leave more money in the pot to support me in my old age.

[RAYMAN]

The sooner our government gets the balls to stand up to these people and say "NO" to them for once, the better.


But they won't and never will........why? Because they want their votes. As long as they can make people think they want to do this and pack their ass in a bus and take them to the polling station to vote, they never will...ala Bill Clinton. He's not a democrat, he's a socialist, especially his wife. But brilliant politicians. The cult of personality. But back to the original topic, the government will never stand up to these people cause they want to keep their jobs. As long as people keep voting the same fools back in office because they are too lazy to learn anything about them other than what the tv commercials say.....ahh nuts.

[MmacFN]

Ahh

Ok thats a bit different. I agree with preventative care. That i would put money into.

On the otherhand, you can lead a horse to water but you cant make them drink. Look at all the fools who still smoke or are massively overweight. Not one of them dosent know its bad for you, the choose to take the risk.

[deepz]

.....fools who still smoke or are massively overweight. Not one of them dosent know its bad for you, the choose to take the risk.


Uhh, let me guess -- you've never been fat, have you, Mike?

[MmacFN]

Hell yah!

I was a butterball in junior high school and lost the weight. Hell, Im 20 lbs overweight right now! However I dont blame it on anyone but myself. I CHOOSE to put crap in my mouth and skipped the gym for the last 6 months. So now, Im back in the gym and losing weight.

Its all about choices. At the end of the day, people should be made responsible for their own actions, if there are no consequences then there is no incentive to avoid it. I saw it weekly in the ICU and ER when people would come in for their 3rd and 4th bypass cause their havent changed their habits asking for dessert, smokers on O2 still SOB asking to go out for a smoke. They blame the Doctor, the pills didnt work, sue fast food restaurants etc etc, Its disgraceful, in my opinion.


Uhh, let me guess -- you've never been fat, have you, Mike?

[LouCRNA]

...Look at all the fools who still smoke or are massively overweight. Not one of them dosent know its bad for you, the choose to take the risk.

I usually try to keep my opinions out of these flammable subjects, but Mike I just gotta address the above statement. I'm sure there are some things you do, some risks you take, that I wouldn't take. Let's say, for example, riding a motorcycle. There's a risk inherent to it, but you do it and you enjoy it I'm sure, despite the risk. As a matter of fact, according to CDC and National Center for Injury Prevention and Control data, for your age group (25-35) and gender, MVAs, not smoking and not obesity, are the number one cause of mortality. If you had an accident, should healthcare be denied to you because you were taking an unnecessary risk? How about EVER having sex, especially unprotected sex, outside the confines of an initially virginal & monogamous relationship. It's a huge health risk. Last stats I recall, you're chances are about 1:3 (for females) of contracting some sort of STD, even with protection. Should you not be afforded healthcare because of the choice you made to have sex? Should race car drivers, football players, and suntanners be denied healthcare coverage because they are taking unnecessary risks? Do I still deserve healthcare if I slip in the shower because I don't have those little sticky non-skid fish covering the shower floor? What gives any of us the right to say that our choices for what risks we will undertake are ok, while the choices our fat, chain-smoking neighbors take are not?

While I agree with you on the issue of a universal healthcare plan, and I agree that healthcare is not an inherent right, I just think it isn't right to start judging the choices that people make, and basing their worthiness for healthcare on it.

[MmacFN]

Hey Lou

I understand what your saying but i guess to me, its apples and oranges.

Cancer and secondary illnesses related to smoking and morbid obescity (heart disease) constitute a signifigant amount of healthcare dollars and are the #1 and #2 killers of the population. Taking a shower without the stickies on the floor, riding a motorcycle and unprotected sex combined do not cost society near as much.

The 10 leading causes of death in the US are:

Heart disease: 654,092 Cancer: 550,270
Cancer: 550,270
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 150,147
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 123,884
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 108,694
Diabetes: 72,815
Alzheimer's disease: 65,829
Influenza/Pneumonia: 61,472
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 42,762
Septicemia: 33,464


1,2 and 3 are related to smoking and morbid obescity. Thats 859266 people a year compared to accidents which is 100000. Two are almost completely preventable while many accidents are not.

As for judging someone? Sure, it happens on a daily basis in our society right from the white towers of universities to the gutters in any city. Here is the thing though, Im not judging people, im pointing out bad choices which people should be accountable for and all the rest of us are paying for. Its much safer to ride a motorcycle or take a shower without stickies than it is to smoke or over-eat :)

[goodytwoshoes]

Wow. I only pop in on this site once in a while, (trying to keep my nose in the books these days,) but I can't believe there has yet to be a dissenting opinion on this issue of "illegals." Among this community of extremely well educated professionals, (of whom I have developed much respect while reading most of your posts,) I am shocked that no one sees any hypocrisy inherent in many of these arguments. On this especially, Martin Luther King day, can't we see that we AMERICANS--only a few generations, really, of true Americans, were ALL immigrants at some point. OK you're going to talk about "legal" vs "illegal," but hey, just b/c a few generations ago native americans weren't standing guard making us sign some bs paperwork that we were now "official" americans doensn't make it right to deny some human beings opportunities that you are "entitled to," simply bc of what tiny spot on the earth you happened to be born in. Or because your ancestors happened to dominate through force another culture to take over the land in which they lived. I am so lucky to be born in the US, but for the billions of 3rd world children that weren't so lucky, well, there but for the grace of god, go I. The majority of 3rd world immigrants would be delighted to pay taxes, if it meant opportunities to WORK and other rights given by birthright to Americans, such as being born in a hospital instead of a muddy field hundreds of miles from health care.

I can tell that this isn't a popular opinion, but I just thought I'd jump into the mix! I'm working super hard these days to get through anesthesia school, so that one day I can see some more of the world and hopefully try to bridge this HUGE gap between North America and the 3rd world. Aren't we all HUMAN beings who fundamentally-morally-want the same things? A safe home, healthy families?
Happy MLK day, all!

[LouCRNA]

Wow. I only pop in on this site once in a while, (trying to keep my nose in the books these days,) but I can't believe there has yet to be a dissenting opinion on this issue of "illegals." Among this community of extremely well educated professionals, (of whom I have developed much respect while reading most of your posts,) I am shocked that no one sees any hypocrisy inherent in many of these arguments. On this especially, Martin Luther King day, can't we see that we AMERICANS--only a few generations, really, of true Americans, were ALL immigrants at some point. OK you're going to talk about "legal" vs "illegal," but hey, just b/c a few generations ago native americans weren't standing guard making us sign some bs paperwork that we were now "official" americans doensn't make it right to deny some human beings opportunities that you are "entitled to," simply bc of what tiny spot on the earth you happened to be born in. Or because your ancestors happened to dominate through force another culture to take over the land in which they lived. I am so lucky to be born in the US, but for the billions of 3rd world children that weren't so lucky, well, there but for the grace of god, go I. The majority of 3rd world immigrants would be delighted to pay taxes, if it meant opportunities to WORK and other rights given by birthright to Americans, such as being born in a hospital instead of a muddy field hundreds of miles from health care.

I can tell that this isn't a popular opinion, but I just thought I'd jump into the mix! I'm working super hard these days to get through anesthesia school, so that one day I can see some more of the world and hopefully try to bridge this HUGE gap between North America and the 3rd world. Aren't we all HUMAN beings who fundamentally-morally-want the same things? A safe home, healthy families?
Happy MLK day, all!

Interesting opinion, goodytwoshoes. I don't agree, but an interesting and well-expressed opinion nonetheless.

[deepz]

......I am shocked that no one sees any hypocrisy inherent in many of these arguments.....


For those among us who rely solely on FoxNews or Rush for their worldview, here's a small antidote:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/15/navarrette/index.html


.

[WickedNurseRed]

Thanks for posting that, deepz. I read Navarette's column in my local paper, and while I often don't agree with his point of view, his arguments are thoughtful and well-written. BTW - for those unfamiliar with him, he's not some bleeding heart sympathizer. He's actually quite conservative and supported Bush in the last election (a decision I'm sure he regrets now).

The problem I have with the primary theme of many of the arguments posted here is the black-and-white, us vs. them mentality. Like many problems, it's complex and there's certainly not an easy solution. Poverty in itsself is very complicated and not simply a "choice" as many tend to believe. Don't get me wrong, I cringe at the thought of paying Mr. I-blew-up-my-meth-lab's hospital bill, especially when he's requiring extensive life support measures with little to no chance of survival. But at the same time, there are many folks just trying to get by, take care of their families, and avoid that one devastating hospital bill that will push them below the poverty line.

Although our perspectives are often quite jaded with the extreme bad examples we see day-to-day working in healthcare, we need to keep in mind that not everyone makes choices that render them unhealthy and dependent. Assuming everyone who gets heart disease or cancer deserves it because he/she made bad choices is simply wrong. Many do contribute, but many others are just victims of bad genes.

The poor in our countries have been shut out of our minds and driven from the mainstream of our societies, because we have allowed them to become invisible. ~Martin Luther King, Jr., Nobel Prize lecture, 11 December 1968

[MmacFN]

Nicely said wicked.

I agree with you and didnt intend to generalize. For those who honestly need the help (and its usually very obvious) i dont mind helping ppl in a tough situation. Those arent the people im talking about. Its the people who intentionally abuse it thats the problem and i think they are far more common than those who are genuine.


Thanks for posting that, deepz. I read Navarette's column in my local paper, and while I often don't agree with his point of view, his arguments are thoughtful and well-written. BTW - for those unfamiliar with him, he's not some bleeding heart sympathizer. He's actually quite conservative and supported Bush in the last election (a decision I'm sure he regrets now).

The problem I have with the primary theme of many of the arguments posted here is the black-and-white, us vs. them mentality. Like many problems, it's complex and there's certainly not an easy solution. Poverty in itsself is very complicated and not simply a "choice" as many tend to believe. Don't get me wrong, I cringe at the thought of paying Mr. I-blew-up-my-meth-lab's hospital bill, especially when he's requiring extensive life support measures with little to no chance of survival. But at the same time, there are many folks just trying to get by, take care of their families, and avoid that one devastating hospital bill that will push them below the poverty line.

Although our perspectives are often quite jaded with the extreme bad examples we see day-to-day working in healthcare, we need to keep in mind that not everyone makes choices that render them unhealthy and dependent. Assuming everyone who gets heart disease or cancer deserves it because he/she made bad choices is simply wrong. Many do contribute, but many others are just victims of bad genes.

The poor in our countries have been shut out of our minds and driven from the mainstream of our societies, because we have allowed them to become invisible. ~Martin Luther King, Jr., Nobel Prize lecture, 11 December 1968

[MmacFN]

Hey!

Its awesome that you put your opinions out there, keep em coming!

While many Americans may be immigrants, the fact is there are 2 ways to become one, Legal and Illegal. I did it legally, it took 5 years and well over 6K of my own money as well as jumping through a tun of hoops to get a green card. The whole time I work, pay taxes and support the economy.

There are literally hundreds of people with needed skills who are on wait lists to come to this country from all around the world. They want to support the economy and the USA. They want to do it legally and are patiently waiting. I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who immigrates here illegally when I did it the right way and so many others want to as well.

We will have to agree to disagree :)



Wow. I only pop in on this site once in a while, (trying to keep my nose in the books these days,) but I can't believe there has yet to be a dissenting opinion on this issue of "illegals." Among this community of extremely well educated professionals, (of whom I have developed much respect while reading most of your posts,) I am shocked that no one sees any hypocrisy inherent in many of these arguments. On this especially, Martin Luther King day, can't we see that we AMERICANS--only a few generations, really, of true Americans, were ALL immigrants at some point. OK you're going to talk about "legal" vs "illegal," but hey, just b/c a few generations ago native americans weren't standing guard making us sign some bs paperwork that we were now "official" americans doensn't make it right to deny some human beings opportunities that you are "entitled to," simply bc of what tiny spot on the earth you happened to be born in. Or because your ancestors happened to dominate through force another culture to take over the land in which they lived. I am so lucky to be born in the US, but for the billions of 3rd world children that weren't so lucky, well, there but for the grace of god, go I. The majority of 3rd world immigrants would be delighted to pay taxes, if it meant opportunities to WORK and other rights given by birthright to Americans, such as being born in a hospital instead of a muddy field hundreds of miles from health care.

I can tell that this isn't a popular opinion, but I just thought I'd jump into the mix! I'm working super hard these days to get through anesthesia school, so that one day I can see some more of the world and hopefully try to bridge this HUGE gap between North America and the 3rd world. Aren't we all HUMAN beings who fundamentally-morally-want the same things? A safe home, healthy families?
Happy MLK day, all!

[DebbieC]

I completely agree with Mike re: immigrants going through the process of becoming legal. My father came from Ireland with his parents, and they all went through the process of becoming citizens. Likewise, my husband and his family came from Italy, and they went through the process of becoming citizens. I am not anti-immigration, how can any melting-pot American be?, but I am against illegal immigration. When the illegals loudly bemoan entitlement, it really chaps my behind.

I don't see how this is against anything MLK stood for.

I also think that universal preventive health care is the way to go.

Lastly, I agree that many people who do not have health insurance are in that bind due to conscious choices.

[RAYMAN]

When I was in the U. S. Navy, I went to many different countries. Even though many people spoke English, their official language was the same as their native language had always been....they aren't gonna change to make anyone happy. You gonna come here...great! Learn the language, be legal, get a job, and pay taxes!

Cigarettes: $3/pak x 30 days = $100/month. hhhhmmmm...that would go a long way toward health insurance premiums.

[goodytwoshoes]

deepz thanks for the article-it is so true that we need to look at the logistics of the policies, not just anecdotes and opinions. (my own humble opinion, included.)
Also great way to sneak in a Casablanca quote! :)

[MmacFN]

D

This is a fun argument :)

That article strays signficantly from the core of the problem. It isnt about SS, its about the other costs to the economy which effect the whole.

Lets break it down:


For more than a decade, I've written about the need to reform Social Security. And I've blamed older generations of Americans for not fixing a program they know is unsustainable into the future.
True! People have not taken care of the system so it will continue. Not related to illegals at all.


The folks who [illegals], we are told, wrecked our schools, ruined our environment and lowered our wages are now poised to steal our Social Security.
Its undeniable that in CA and AZ english is close to being the primary language for less than 60% of the pop. Depending on the stat you read anywhere for 20-30% of the pop. 1 in 16 people in AZ are illegal alone. 44% of immigration into AZ is illegals. The vast majority of illegals spend money to bring more of their family over and they have large families (children) b/c its a very important part of hispanic culture. However, it is silliness to say that this isnt a MAJOR strain on our school systems, healthcare and welfare systems. Of COURSE it is. In So. AZ 1 in 3 healthcare dollars goes to illegal healthcare or welfare.

They do not pay into ANY of these services as they do not pay taxes. Its consumption without contribution, which, oddly enough, is illegal if your here legally and work for a living (u have to pay taxes).


The worry is that, if Congress passes guest-worker legislation that gives some number of illegal immigrants a "work-authorized" Social Security number, the worker might be in a position, if he met eligibility requirements, to apply for Social Security benefits, including those earned while in the country illegally.
Here is the kicker. If you are not legally here you should be deported. If the law changes by VOTE OF THE PEOPLE and makes it legal, then its OK.


Supporters of totalization point out that current U.S. law bans illegal immigrants from collecting Social Security benefits.

Ok. It is very common in AZ (i cant speak for other places) to run the border, get on ACCESS (welfare) or have a baby in US, then move back to mexico and collect the ACCESS (welfare) checks by way of a PO box or fake address in So. AZ. These are people working the system, nothing more nothing less. If we caught americans doing that they would be jailed for fraud.


They're right about that. But there is no law prohibiting illegal immigrants with bogus Social Security numbers from paying into the system, something they and their employers do to the tune of more than $7 billion per year in payroll taxes.
Love to see the stats like this which are absolutley unprovable. What did he do? Poll all the illegals with fake SS numbers and figure out their contributions? Really that statement is just fictious.

HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States)are some stats and the issues at hand

HERE (http://debatepedia.com/index.php/Illegal_Mexican_Immigration_and_the_US_Economy)is a summary of the ongoing debate (both sides)

Here is a couple articles against from the center for immigration studies:


Medical Costs To Be 18.7% Of US Economy In 2014 Economists and actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Health Statistics Group are projecting much higher spending for medical care in the US economy by 2014.
National health spending growth is anticipated to remain stable at just over 7.0 percent through 2006, the result of diverging public- and private-sector spending trends. The faster public-sector spending growth is exemplified by the introduction of the new Medicare drug benefit in 2006. While this benefit is anticipated to have only a minor impact on overall health spending, it will result in a significant shift in funding from private payers and Medicaid to Medicare. By 2014, total health spending is projected to constitute 18.7 percent of gross domestic product, from 15.3 percent in 2003.
Of course medical costs will continue to rise beyond 2014. But 2014 is not even 10 years away. Think ahead another 10 years . Young people are going to become wage slaves for the old.
The US government's portion of total medical costs in the USA will rise from 45.6% of 2004 to 49.4% in 2014.
By 2014, overall medical payments are projected at about $3.6 trillion -- with the government footing $1.8 trillion, or 49.4 percent, and private funding covering just over 50 percent, the report said.
Keep in mind that George W. Bush just proposed a 2.57 trillion dollar US federal budget for 2006.
Scared you do not have or may lose medical insurance? You should be. The cost of medical insurance is rising quite rapidly. In fact, health insurance premiums rose 11.2% in 2004. That is a scary increase. The per person costs for medical care will be very high in 2014.
The new report, published yesterday, says spending for health cost will reach a projected $11,045 per person annually by 2014, up from $6,423 now. Nationally, health expenditures were $1.8 trillion last year. By 2014, they are expected to be $3.6 trillion, meaning the government would be paying about $1.8 trillion for health care. President Bush's entire proposed federal budget for next year is $2.57 trillion.
Think about that $11,045 per person figure. The cost is obviously higher for old folks. But working people need to pay for the medical care of older people who are no longer working. So for a person who is working who has a family which includes members that do not work that person has to be earning a really high income to be breaking even in their net financial lifetime effect on society. This illustrates why illegal immigrants who have low educational achievements, low productivity, and hence earn low wages are no bargain. They will cost far more over their lifetimes than they will pay in taxes.
Is the rising cost of health care an argument for total federal take-over of health care?
"The whole idea of money moving from a private share to a public share is interesting," said Paul Fronstin, a senior research associate with the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonpartisan research group. "It seems to me it gives proponents of national health insurance ammunition to further make their argument that the government is already spending half; why not go the full amount and provide coverage for everybody?"
My guess is that the federal government will be in such a deep financial hole in 8 years that the idea of taking over paying for the health care of the entire population will be considered financially impossible. In 2014 the government will already be spending over 9.3% of the GDP on health care (the total will be 18.7% with the government paying 49.4% of that). It would need to grab over another 9% of the economy in taxes to be able to nationalise all of health care. But the tax increases needed just to support the existing expected increase in old age entitlements will make further tax increases for other non-old age entitlements impossible to enact.
Increased medical spending for old folks is coming at the expense of government funding of health care for old folks as Medicaid budgets for the poor are cut.
Health care costs for public programs are already straining many state budgets: Texas Gov. Rick Perry last week said his state and others may go bankrupt unless they get additional federal assistance for their Medicaid programs. Many states have already made cuts to Medicaid. And they may have to do more: President Bush's 2006 budget proposes shaving $40 billion from the federal share of Medicaid over 10 years by cracking down on state accounting methods.
Poor folks are politically less organized and less informed than old folks. The poor can not hope to compete for limited dollars in entitlements spending. Don't be poor in 2014. It will not be fun.
Financial disaster is approaching. What is the solution? A huge increase in medical research spending could produce far more effective and therefore much cheaper treatments for diseases. I believe that science holds the only hope for solutions that can have a big enough effect to prevent America from becoming a massive old age home with most of its people working as wage slaves to pay for medical care.
Update: Rising Medicaid costs are taking money away from education.
Medicaid spending has shot up 63 percent in the last five years, so that federal and state outlays together now total more than $300 billion a year. With no change in current law, the Congressional Budget Office says, the cost will grow an average of 7.7 percent a year in the next decade.
Governors desperately want to slow the growth of Medicaid, which they say is eating up state tax revenues they want to use for education.
Education is going to experience budget cuts in the coming decades as medical expenses eat up more of state and federal budgets. Think education spending is too low now? It will go lower per student. The money will be channeled to pay for health care of poor folks and old folks.
My modest proposal to reduce the cost of Medicaid: Deport all the illegal aliens. Illegals are driving up the number of medically uninsured. Being medically uninsured is much more common among immigrants. That means everyone else pays more taxes to pay for Medicaid for immigrants. The cost of a single year's tax paid health care for illegal aliens would pay for a barrier to keep out illegals on the full length of the US-Mexican border. Then we'd just have to authorize police to round up illegals and we'd remove millions of people from public subsidy.
By Randall Parker at 2005 February 23 11:43 PM Economics Health |
And another:


Medical Costs To Be 18.7% Of US Economy In 2014 Economists and actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Health Statistics Group are projecting much higher spending for medical care in the US economy by 2014.
National health spending growth is anticipated to remain stable at just over 7.0 percent through 2006, the result of diverging public- and private-sector spending trends. The faster public-sector spending growth is exemplified by the introduction of the new Medicare drug benefit in 2006. While this benefit is anticipated to have only a minor impact on overall health spending, it will result in a significant shift in funding from private payers and Medicaid to Medicare. By 2014, total health spending is projected to constitute 18.7 percent of gross domestic product, from 15.3 percent in 2003.
Of course medical costs will continue to rise beyond 2014. But 2014 is not even 10 years away. Think ahead another 10 years . Young people are going to become wage slaves for the old.
The US government's portion of total medical costs in the USA will rise from 45.6% of 2004 to 49.4% in 2014.
By 2014, overall medical payments are projected at about $3.6 trillion -- with the government footing $1.8 trillion, or 49.4 percent, and private funding covering just over 50 percent, the report said.
Keep in mind that George W. Bush just proposed a 2.57 trillion dollar US federal budget for 2006.
Scared you do not have or may lose medical insurance? You should be. The cost of medical insurance is rising quite rapidly. In fact, health insurance premiums rose 11.2% in 2004. That is a scary increase. The per person costs for medical care will be very high in 2014.
The new report, published yesterday, says spending for health cost will reach a projected $11,045 per person annually by 2014, up from $6,423 now. Nationally, health expenditures were $1.8 trillion last year. By 2014, they are expected to be $3.6 trillion, meaning the government would be paying about $1.8 trillion for health care. President Bush's entire proposed federal budget for next year is $2.57 trillion.
Think about that $11,045 per person figure. The cost is obviously higher for old folks. But working people need to pay for the medical care of older people who are no longer working. So for a person who is working who has a family which includes members that do not work that person has to be earning a really high income to be breaking even in their net financial lifetime effect on society. This illustrates why illegal immigrants who have low educational achievements, low productivity, and hence earn low wages are no bargain. They will cost far more over their lifetimes than they will pay in taxes.
Is the rising cost of health care an argument for total federal take-over of health care?
"The whole idea of money moving from a private share to a public share is interesting," said Paul Fronstin, a senior research associate with the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonpartisan research group. "It seems to me it gives proponents of national health insurance ammunition to further make their argument that the government is already spending half; why not go the full amount and provide coverage for everybody?"
My guess is that the federal government will be in such a deep financial hole in 8 years that the idea of taking over paying for the health care of the entire population will be considered financially impossible. In 2014 the government will already be spending over 9.3% of the GDP on health care (the total will be 18.7% with the government paying 49.4% of that). It would need to grab over another 9% of the economy in taxes to be able to nationalise all of health care. But the tax increases needed just to support the existing expected increase in old age entitlements will make further tax increases for other non-old age entitlements impossible to enact.
Increased medical spending for old folks is coming at the expense of government funding of health care for old folks as Medicaid budgets for the poor are cut.
Health care costs for public programs are already straining many state budgets: Texas Gov. Rick Perry last week said his state and others may go bankrupt unless they get additional federal assistance for their Medicaid programs. Many states have already made cuts to Medicaid. And they may have to do more: President Bush's 2006 budget proposes shaving $40 billion from the federal share of Medicaid over 10 years by cracking down on state accounting methods.
Poor folks are politically less organized and less informed than old folks. The poor can not hope to compete for limited dollars in entitlements spending. Don't be poor in 2014. It will not be fun.
Financial disaster is approaching. What is the solution? A huge increase in medical research spending could produce far more effective and therefore much cheaper treatments for diseases. I believe that science holds the only hope for solutions that can have a big enough effect to prevent America from becoming a massive old age home with most of its people working as wage slaves to pay for medical care.
Update: Rising Medicaid costs are taking money away from education.
Medicaid spending has shot up 63 percent in the last five years, so that federal and state outlays together now total more than $300 billion a year. With no change in current law, the Congressional Budget Office says, the cost will grow an average of 7.7 percent a year in the next decade.
Governors desperately want to slow the growth of Medicaid, which they say is eating up state tax revenues they want to use for education.
Education is going to experience budget cuts in the coming decades as medical expenses eat up more of state and federal budgets. Think education spending is too low now? It will go lower per student. The money will be channeled to pay for health care of poor folks and old folks.
My modest proposal to reduce the cost of Medicaid: Deport all the illegal aliens. Illegals are driving up the number of medically uninsured. Being medically uninsured is much more common among immigrants. That means everyone else pays more taxes to pay for Medicaid for immigrants. The cost of a single year's tax paid health care for illegal aliens would pay for a barrier to keep out illegals on the full length of the US-Mexican border. Then we'd just have to authorize police to round up illegals and we'd remove millions of people from public subsidy.
By Randall Parker at 2005 February 23 11:43 PM Economics Health |



For those among us who rely solely on FoxNews or Rush for their worldview, here's a small antidote:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/15/navarrette/index.html


.

[kmchugh]

Sorry, been pretty busy the last few days, and though I have followed this thread, have not had much time to reply. Let’s deal with Deepz’s point first:


So ... why would your argument not also apply to a free public education? Why should I pay taxes so your kids can go to school?
On the surface, this may appear to be a powerful argument, but it is really an argument against national health care, at best. To begin with, there is a small but growing minority who make exactly the argument you are making. “I don’t have children, why should I be forced to pay for the education of other’s children?” The bottom line is that they are being forced to pay for someone else’s “right.” By my own argument, then, I would be forced to say that education is not a right. I do believe that by becoming involved in the education system, the federal government has overstepped it’s constitutional authority. Your counter argument is that since they overstepped their bounds here, why not there? That’s a weak argument, at best. My response is simple: I’m already being taxed enough due to an overreaching federal government, I don’t wish to see that increase.

Perhaps it would be better to force the federal government to stay within its constitutional boundaries, rather than continuing its evolution to an all encompassing behemoth that controls more and more of our lives. Education is one of those areas the framers of the constitution specifically had in mind when they recognized that the states should maintain sovereign control over most of what happened within the state. So, am I saying we should do away with government involvement in education? Not at all. What I am saying is the federal government should relinquish its hold over education, returning control to the state level.

You should also consider that there is a fundamental difference between education and health care, whether it is recognized or not. If an individual decides that a nicer car, or cigarettes, or whatever, is more important than healthcare, then that is a decision they are constitutionally free to make. However, they must bear the consequences of that decision, should they need health care. However, when they decide that the nicer car, or cigarettes, or whatever is more important than their child’s education, the child, and by extension, society bears the consequences of that decision, creating another illiterate, unemployable member of that society.

Finally, though, your argument is the best possible argument against having a governmentally directed and controlled healthcare system. By any objective measure, our federally mandated and directed education system fares far worse than does our current healthcare system when measured against the international community. Our students score worse than the students of most of the developed world when tested in subjects like mathematics, science, even something as fundamental as reading. Are you sure you want to hold this up as an excuse for allowing the government to be involved in our health care? So that we can slide even further down the “international ladder?”

Where illegal immigrants are concerned, like most of you, I would not be in favor at all of denying them lifesaving health care. Neither do I see illegal immigrants as the fundamental cause of the problems with our healthcare system. I do, however, see that illegal immigrants are yet another drain on our already heavily burdened hospitals. I think all of us have seen the illegal immigrant who comes to our hospital for care (of whatever type), knowing all the while that the name, address, and in some cases social security number, they have given are false. Knowing they are going to leave on discharge from the hospital, and never pay a dime towards the bill they have accumulated. And knowing there is nothing the hospital can do about it.

I don’t know if you realize it, but if you had someone you were caring for you knew was an illegal immigrant, and you reported them to INS, there would probably be no consequence to the immigrant. On the other hand, you could suffer severely, losing your license because you, in doing what is only your civic duty (reporting a criminal), violated HIPPA regulations. Something is severely wrong here. I believe that where illegals are concerned, care should be provided with an aim to sufficient stabilization to allow the immigrant to be deported home, where the health care system of the country where they are a citizen can adequately care for them.

And I have not even mentioned the security questions that arise where illegal immigrants are concerned.

Kevin McHugh

[Idaho-RN]

Hey everyone,

I hate to throw a new twist in the mix, but what do you all think about say a H. Clinton (or someone else) being elected and getting socialized medicine as a federal initiative. Now, I am not going to be totally ignorant in thinking that it will happen soon, but in the future this might be something we have to deal with. I told my wife if this ever happens I will have to quit the medical field in general and get a degree in something else. So what do you think???

Phil

[FutrCRNA]

Well said, Kevin!

[MmacFN]

Thats a tough one.

If it did happen and things went the same way theya bre currently in Canada you would see CRNA wages decrease by 20-40% as well as wages for every other healthcare profession. Why? Cause taxes would increase signifigantly for it to happen so your take home pay would be much less.

Moreover, its a horrid system to work in.

I too would consider leaving healthcare.


Hey everyone,

I hate to throw a new twist in the mix, but what do you all think about say a H. Clinton (or someone else) being elected and getting socialized medicine as a federal initiative. Now, I am not going to be totally ignorant in thinking that it will happen soon, but in the future this might be something we have to deal with. I told my wife if this ever happens I will have to quit the medical field in general and get a degree in something else. So what do you think???

Phil

[Idaho-RN]

I lived in Europe for 2 years and I can assure you their medical system is worse than our current one. Most of the people I knew carried private insurance anyway, b/c the social aspect was so horrible.

Phil

[deepz]

.......if this ever happens I will have to quit the medical field in general and get a degree in something else. So what do you think???.........


Do what the smart Canadians do (not you, Mike -- not that you aren't perfectly bright!): become a dentist.

Dentistry in Canada isn't socialized. Cash business. Surgeons in Canada don't own the yachts, the airplanes, the condos in Miami -- the dentists do.

.

[MmacFN]

hey D

you are SOOOOO right. They typically mnake 3-4 times that of the physicians!