SIXTY PERCENT OF MEDICAL WORKERS WANT SINGLE-PAYER HEALTHCARE

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Surveys/Surveys/tb/6814

Presidential candidates might consider proposing a health care reform package that relies on a single-payer system, if results of a MedPage Today poll reflect the country's mood.

When we asked visitors if it is time for the U.S. to adopt a single-payer health care system, 56% said, Yes, the current system cannot be fixed by half-way measures.

The 696 respondents represented most of the key segments of the health care equation -- including physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants, pharmacists, health care administrators, and patients.
 
696 people of which most are part of a union dont = a representation of America. You want national healthcare. the majority dont. i guess you can just force it on them when they don't agree. that type of government works well in china.
 
Chapdog said:
696 people of which most are part of a union dont = a representation of America. You want national healthcare. the majority dont. i guess you can just force it on them when they don't agree. that type of government works well in china.
Click to expand...

Whenever the 80% of America that wants single-payer healthcare pays it, and you suddenly find a lot of extra money just popping up all over the place that you would've been forced to send into insurance company profits otherwise, try not to cry.
 
Chapdog said:
696 people of which most are part of a union dont = a representation of America. You want national healthcare. the majority dont. i guess you can just force it on them when they don't agree. that type of government works well in china.
Click to expand...

"including physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants, pharmacists, health care administrators, and patients."

The only subset of this demographic that would be unionized would be nurses. And even most nurses aren't in unions.

Doctors, pharmicists, NPs, administrators, and patients aren't in unions.
 
We've been over this Watertwerp, once Americans (like those in Oregon ALREADY did) find out the astronomical tax increases needed to pay for healthcare, the polls will reverse themselves fucking quick.
 
Also Watermark deceives in this thread, it is 56%, NOT 60%. Plus the survey includes patients (and we know among the general populace it is much higher until they find out that THEY via taxes are the real "single payer").
 
TheDanold said:
We've been over this Watertwerp, once Americans (like those in Oregon ALREADY did) find out the astronomical tax increases needed to pay for healthcare, the polls will reverse themselves fucking quick.
Click to expand...

We can implement national healthcare without raising taxes. This has been proven before.
 
i have said that i dont favor national healtcare
I have said i do favor what we are doing in MA. providing coverage for all
I have also said I want to see cost of national heathcare. i want to see details. not just some massive pyramid scheme that winds up like social security.. poorly manages.. not locked down and always changing, poverty like pay, and bankrupt.
 
I read somewhere that insurance overhead is roughly 30%, compared to 1% for medicaid.

And it's somewhat interesting to consider, if you took 30% out of what we're paying for healthcare right now, our healthcare system would be almost as cheap as France's. France's is still considered an expensive program, though.
 
Watermark said:
I read somewhere that insurance overhead is roughly 30%, compared to 1% for medicaid.

And it's somewhat interesting to consider, if you took 30% out of what we're paying for healthcare right now, our healthcare system would be almost as cheap as France's. France's is still considered an expensive program, though.
Click to expand...

We have universal primary education, run/funded completely by government and overhead is running something close to 50% (only 50% of education tax dollars make it to the classroom), why would you think government run/funded healthcare would be so much better?

What REALLY pisses me off is MOST of that overhead is regulations that the government (and the same Liberals that want forced universal healthcare) forced on the private sector.
Basically poison the industry with regulation and ease of lawsuit suing to the point where healthcare workers spend a quarter of their time on paperwork and then when the system predictably spends money there say "Wow, they spend too much on overhead, government would do it so much cheaper!"

Government is the problem, NOT the solution.
 
Watermark said:
Urrrrgghhh...

Dano, link? Or are you just assuming again?
Click to expand...
I don't assume or make up facts, I feel strongly tempted to say you do, because I know you do, but I'm hoping that you'll actually read these, so I'll play nice just this once.

"Edgewood ISD is rated unacceptable in the classroom and in setting spending priorities! Only 43.3% of the budget is spent on instruction, according to the TEA.
In San Antonio ISD, only 50.3% of this district’s funds make it to the classroom! The total budget for SAISD in 2005-2006 is $476,957,479. "
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/index.php?id=2173

"According to one Institute of Medicine study, nurses on medical and surgical units spend just 1.7 hours in a 12-hour shift on direct patient care. The rest of it? Filling out forms, chasing down supplies, collecting information — much of it redundant. "
http://www.dwd.state.wi.us/healthcare/buried_by_paperwork.htm
Thank you "Patients Rights Act" and all the other government regulations that have helped our medical system get better and better over time!
 
Think of the decreasd confusion and lower processing costs if the health care industry only deals with one insurer ?
Seems sort of like a Rep[ublican goal of less beaucracy and simplification to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top