Definition of Single-payer Health Care vs Universal Health Care

Single-payer health care: A system of health care characterized by universal and comprehensive coverage. Single-payer health care is similar to the health services provided by Medicare in the US. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage their medical practices or hospitals.

Single-payer health care is distinct and different from socialized medicine in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government.

Read From Source Here


Universal Health Care

Universal health care is health care coverage for all eligible residents of a political region and often covers medical, dental and mental health care. These programs vary in their structure and funding mechanisms. Typically, most costs are met via a single-payer health care system or national health insurance, or else by compulsory regulated pluralist insurance (public, private or mutual) meeting certain regulated standards. Universal health care is implemented in all but one of the wealthy, industrialized countries, with the exception being the United States.

Read From Source Here

Universal Healthcare and Mistakes.

Do you think that Universal or Nationalized Healthcare is going to make things better? Sheer numbers of patients will cause more human error. Take a look at this example from 2003.

Surgical Tools Left in 1,500 Patients Per Year

A study done by researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard School of Public Health, in Boston was published in the January 16, 2003 New England Journal of Medicine reported on the high number of surgical tools left inside patients during surgery.

The study on medical mistakes found that operating room teams around the country leave sponges, clamps and other tools inside about 1,500 patients every year, largely because of stress from emergencies or complications discovered during surgery. The researchers checked insurance records from about 800,000 operations in Massachusetts for 16 years ending in 2001. They counted 61 forgotten pieces of surgical equipment in 54 patients. From that, they calculated a national estimate of 1,500 cases yearly. A total of $3 million was paid out in the Massachusetts cases, mostly in settlements.

The study showed that two-thirds of the mistakes happened even though the equipment was counted before and after the procedure, in keeping with the standard practice. It also claimed that these types of mistakes happen more often to fat patients, simply because there is more room inside them to lose equipment.

Most lost objects were sponges, but also included were metal clamps and electrodes. In two cases, 11-inch retractors, metal strips used to hold back tissue, were forgotten inside patients. The study found that emergency operations are nine times more likely to lead to such mistakes, and operating-room complications requiring a change in procedure are four times more likely. The lost objects were usually lodged around the abdomen or hips but sometimes in the chest, vagina or other cavities. They often caused tears, obstructions or infections. One patient died of complications.

Dr. Sidney Wolfe, health research director of the public-interest lobby group Public Citizen, said the real number of lost instruments may be even higher, because hospitals are not required to report such mistakes to public agencies. Dr. Kaveh Shojania, author of a 2001 federal study on medical mistakes, summed the report up by saying, "Something has to be done about this. It's just a very tough balance to decide."

CLICK HERE for SOURCE.

Surprising? Not really.

It's pretty sad when the things that surprise you involve beauty queens having moral values and intelligence and the things that don't surprise you involve a government with its hidden agendas and corrupt agencies.

The Washington Post today posted an article that states that federal officials were aware of AIG's bonus payments to its executives. Yes, those are the outlandishly high bonus payments that were supposed to be retaining bonuses that you would think would be given only in the case of good company performance. However, that is obviously not the case. Yes, this is the company that we gave billions in TARP money to and they gave it to foreign countries and used it for other things such as bonuses. Disgusting? Yes. Surprising? No.


Different subject, a little bit surprising until you get to the end...
Long after last summer's "Montauk Monster" rotted away, another mysterious animal carcass has washed up on a Long Island, N.Y., beach.

"The beast smelled like a mix of low-tide and rotten garbage. It really smelled horrific," wrote Montauk-Monster.com blogger Nicky Papers. "I couldn't help but take numerous pictures of it and video clips."

Papers then goes on to speculate that the dead animal may be a result of biological warfare, and carrying the H1N1 swine-flu virus.

If this is a genetic mishap from Plum Island, we’d like to sell the remains to an independent lab for study.

Note: to read more about Plum Island Click Here They state that "We're equally proud of our safety record. Not once in our nearly 50 years of operation has an animal pathogen escaped from the island."

Unfortunately, it would not be surprising to me that this "Monauk Monster" could be from Plum Island. When you look at their list of projects, it seems that there is quite a bit of "research" going on that could very definitely cause some strange deformities in animals (and, for that matter, humans).

Now, back to the nation's financial situation...
The federal government, now that they have had a taste of ownership in the private sector, is considering an expansion of power. Yes, it's true. They now want to work out restrictions on executive pay in banks that received TARP money AND in banks that DID NOT receive TARP funds. The road to socialism continues. Surprising? Unfortunately, "I told you so" is probably going to become an old phrase.


To the topic that has been discussed, surprisingly a lot, on mainstream media outlets, Miss California, Carrie Prejean is allowed to keep her crown. Why does this subject surprise me? Well, for one, there is someone out there with beauty that also has brains and some sense of standards. Another thing...even with the backlash of her stating her opinion and being punished for it, Donald Trump is allowing her to keep her crown. I guess I didn't think that much of Donald Trump for one. So, his view of allowing her the honest opinion and still keeping her crown surprises me a lot! It doesn't surprise me that there are a bunch of photographer leaches that are using her previous photo sessions, even photoshopping them, against Carrie Prejean. She is handling it all like a seasoned pro, realizing that this is what happens when you stand by your faith and your moral standards in the year 2009. Listening to her is like a breath of fresh air. Finally! Someone is actually willing to risk their career for their integrity! Sorry Perez Hilton. You only gave yourself bad media coverage, making yourself into quite a joke and Carrie Prejean into the queen.

You know, sitting here at my computer with my broken nose, I can't stop thinking about how excited I am for Universal Healthcare. I think I'll daydream about that the rest of the day as I make plans to horde soft drinks before July hits. I wonder what Pepsi thinks of Obama's plans to tax the soda industry products. Weren't they a huge contributor/sponsor for his election?

Vanishing Doctors

Vanishing Doctors
April 13th, 2009 1:16 pm | by Mike Miller | Published in Big Government, Health Care, Market Regulation, Politics, congress, law

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

Quote of the Day: “Government cripples you, then hands you a crutch and says, ‘See, if it wasn’t for us, you couldn’t walk.” — Harry Browne (1933-2006), co-founder of Downsize DC

Subject: The not so mysterious case of the vanishing doctors

In case you missed it . . .

A survey by The Physician’s Foundation finds that nearly HALF of primary care doctors plan to reduce or eliminate their practices in the next three years!

The survey also gives the reasons . . .

* Too much non-clinical paperwork
* Difficulty getting reimbursed
* Too much government regulation
* Lack of time (caused by the above problems) to form patient relationships

These problems exist because the government has corrupted the nature of health insurance.

* Insurance is supposed to cover rare but expensive procedures
* But various government policies have made health insurance cover the medical equivalents of oil changes and tire rotations
* This means that most medical care is paid for by the government, or by insurance companies, and not by the people actually seeking the care
* This causes people to over-use medical services, and doctors to order questionable procedures
* That causes both insurance companies and the government to limit their costs by second-guessing every decision your doctor makes
* This burden of regulation leads to piles of non-clinical paperwork and difficulty getting reimbursed

But it gets worse. Health care prices are actually set by the government . . .

* The government funds HALF of all medical care
* This gives the government huge clout as the largest purchaser of health care
* The government uses this clout to limit what it’s willing to pay for every medical procedure
* The insurance companies use these government prices to set their own prices
* If these fixed prices are too low, shortages result, AND DOCTORS VANISH!

But that’s only the beginning . . .

If your health insurance is tied to your employer — if you risk catastrophe because losing your job means losing your health insurance — you can thank the government for that. Federal tax policies created the incentives that caused your health insurance to be tied to your job.

But if you don’t have employer-provided health insurance, and find coverage too expensive to buy on your own, you can thank the government for that too. State and federal laws mandate that insurance policies cover everything under the sun, making it hard to buy affordable major medical coverage.

The politicians could easily fix these problems by . . .

* Providing tax refunds for all health care expenses, including insurance premiums
* Allowing insurance companies to compete with different policies at different prices by ending mandates on what all health insurance must cover
* Funding Health Savings Accounts for Medicare recipients so they’ll have more incentives to be frugal

The solution to our health care problems is less meddling by the politicians, not more. The case of the vanishing doctors isn’t mysterious. The politicians did it, and they want to do more of what caused it!

Send your Congressional employees instructions asking them reduce their meddling in health care. Use your personal comments to mention the arguments in this Dispatch (you could just cut and paste if you want). If you’ve used our Educate the Powerful System before, do the following . . .

SEE MORE AT Liberty Maven

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

Health care for all? Higher taxes for all (for those who actually pay taxes)!

The debate has re-emerged across the country regarding universal health care, dividing those who have immersed themselves in history education and current events from those who continue about their lives relying on mainstream media and their government for vital information.

Warning! If you don't want more information that may sway your opinion from that of the mainstream media and your government, don't read further.

First, what is the cost of universal health care? In the '90s, the cost was estimated to start at about $30-60 billion. "The fiscal 2010 budget sets aside a "reserve fund" of $634 billion as a "down payment" on the costs of universal health care coverage over 10 years." ( Fox)

Where does this money come from? Undoubtedly, the source of the funds will be the taxpayer...you and I. To understand this, you need to know the definition of universal health care.

"Universal health care is health care coverage that is extended to all eligible residents of a governmental region and often covers medical, dental, and mental health care.

Typically, most costs are met via single-payer health care system or national health insurance.

The common denominator for all such programs is some form of government action aimed at extending access to health care as widely as possible.

Most countries implement universal health care through legislation, regulation and taxation.

Legislation and regulation direct what care must be provided, to whom, and on what basis.

Usually some costs are borne by the patient at the time of consumption but the bulk of costs come from a combination of compulsory insurance and tax revenues.

Some programs are paid for entirely out of tax revenues.

In some cases, government involvement also includes directly managing the health care system." -- Wikipedia

We all heard the promises in Obama's campaign. Here is exactly what is on his website -- Barack Obama Campaign Site

1. Barack Obama will make health insurance affordable and accessible to all:
The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors and plans to implement the plan.

2. Obama will lower health care costs:
The Obama plan will lower health care costs by $2,500 for a typical family by investing in health information technology, prevention and care coordination.

3. Promote public health:
Obama and Biden will require coverage of preventive services, including cancer screenings, and will increase state and local preparedness for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

In an article published in 2007 on a website called Renew America, I found some interesting information regarding the cost of Universal Healthcare.

"While a recent New York Times/CBS News Poll finds a majority of Americans now say the federal government should provide health insurance to every American, there are strong indications that many who declare their support for government-funded universal heath care fail to understand what it would entail. The poll found "[s]ixty percent, including 62 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans, said they would be willing to pay more in taxes .... Half said they would be willing to pay as much as $500 a year more." But even if every person currently paying taxes were willing to pay an extra $500 a year, that wouldn't begin to cover the great costs involved in such a program.

Sven Larson, a policy analyst for the John William Pope Civitas Institute, notes all the ways these negatives would play out in a government-funded universal health care system, which is simply a form of socialized medicine.

It would outlaw private health insurance and give government bureaucrats the exclusive right to set reimbursement rates for physicians, clinics and hospitals. This would not only create supply shortages, but would also likely produce a black market health-care system.

It would transform the state into the sole purchaser of medical drugs and equipment, hampering cost containment and inviting corruption.

It would destroy professional freedom for medical professionals. The government would be the sole determiner of the number of medical professionals that could work.

It would of necessity cap health spending. According to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, American health providers increase medical technology by 7 percent per year. Such increases are necessary if new technology is to make its way into hospitals and clinics. If the cap for a government-funded universal health-care system like the one proposed in California had been enacted nationwide in 1960, the cumulative effect would have been to lower current technological standards in hospitals to 1982 levels."

Another component to the equation is worded really well by the L.A. Times in 2007.

"Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that "access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare."

Essentially, universal health care is socialized medicine, or an outreaching program of socialism. While I could probably summarize the definition of socialism Wikipedia does it best.

"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late 19th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, and would represent a transitional stage between capitalism and communism."

That definition spells out what Obama is doing with our money. He is redistributing the wealth, turning our country into a welfare state.

Do you wonder what the Socialist Party officially states regarding universal health care? I was very curious, so I looked into it and found a page on the Socialist Party USA website.

"In order to promote a vision of, and program for, free and comprehensive health care for all, the National Committee of the Socialist Party USA has initiated a national campaign for socialized health care.

The Socialist Party stands for a socialized health care system based on universal coverage, salaried doctors and health care workers, and revenue derived from a steeply graduated income tax.

A national health care program with:

Comprehensive standard and alternative medical, dental, vision, and mental health coverage for all.
Publicly funded through progressive taxation
Controlled by democratically elected assemblies of health care workers and patients.
We call for a health care system that:

Emphasizes preventive care.

Respects patients’ privacy and gives special attention to the needs of people with physical or mental disabilities.

Conducts treatment and research unimpaired by sexism, racism, or homophobia.
We call for:

Full funding for AIDS research, prevention, and treatment.

Public ownership and worker and community control of the pharmaceutical industry.

Educational programs to help prevent drug addiction and for voluntary treatment programs for addicts and alcoholics and for the availability of free, sterile needles for those still using IV drugs.

Reinstatement of funding to community mental health services so that low-cost and no-cost treatment is available on a voluntary basis, with clients’ rights respected. (We oppose involuntary incarceration for treatment without due process)."

If you are still unconvinced that socialized medicine or universal health care is unacceptable, you need to take a look at the two sides (pros and cons) on Balanced Policics.Org. If that is no persuasive, you need to talk to someone in a country who has been living with universal health care, such as Canada. Find out how long they have to wait to get something done, how much it costs, how high their taxes are.

Say NO to universal health care!