Friday, March 12, 2010

Sexual Services, Unions and Health Care - Where Do You Draw the Line?

Leave it to the Dutch to mix sexual services and national health care. Apparently one of the most liberal nations in the world when it comes to sex, dope and politics, has pulled back. It seems that the nurses union is not willing to provide a helping hand under some circumstances. Read about it HERE.

For a fleeting moment I was grateful for the prudishness of the Obama administration.

As the health care debate heads into the home stretch, it seems a little surreal to think that unions might one day have to draw the line, allowing nurses to refuse to provide sexual gratification along with tetanus shots.

In any case, here we are at the crossroads of socialized medicine. I suppose we'll get a vote here in the next week or two. Personally I am disappointed in the entire process. Here's why:

Coverage - We have 30 million Americans that have no health care. Why can't we just give them basic care? The US could offer yearly check ups and catastrophic care. The rest, could come at a time when we can afford it. The cost? $3,000,000,000 It's a start, and a lot less than $3Trillion. This way no one dies for lack of health care. In some cases these folks may still not be covered under the current bills!

Malpractice Caps - Why is it that the lawyers get to make all the money? With caps they could concentrate on other types of needed litigation and save the health care providers and insurance companies bajillions. Right, John Edwards? For new doctors, 1/3 of their income goes to malpractice insurance. It's absurd! Let's get some caps! The Republicans could pass this one on their own!

No Drop/No Coverage - It seems reasonable that insurance companies should not be able to drop patients or refuse paying customers with preexisting conditions. If companies insured on a per person basis, it would help even pricing out for young and single parent families. With 30 million new folks in the system, prices should drop according to the Democrats. It could be passed as a separate piece of legislation. Are you listening Scott Brown?

Drug Manufacturing - US drug sales subsidize foreign socialized prescription medication programs. Canada, Australia and a number of nations in Europe receive "bulk" rate discounts. That is why prices are cheaper in places like Canada. In order for drug companies to do the same here in the US, they would have to raise prices in those countries. Australia saw the handwriting on the wall and has started their own program.

Availability - Adding 30 million folks to the roles overnight will cause some real pain in the system. However; it needs to be done. WWJD? Unless we continue to make being a doctor a vocation that pays well enough to support the years of education, we are in big trouble.

Quality - The US health care system is the highest quality care in the world overall. We need to keep it that way. Just spending money is not the answer. We need to have plan to grow a system that can handle the increased demand.

In the final analysis, the current health care bill is about padding the pockets of Democratic supporters, their unions, and their drug companies. It DOES NOT cover everyone. Conversely, doing nothing increases the profits of insurance companies and health care providers. Pure regulation creates private "Cadillac" plans and clinics such as those in Canada making the best health care unaffordable - but aren't we already there?
What do you think?


Ed said...


seriously, you raise several issues that are just common sense and cost a WHOLE lot less that the dog and pony show than what is currently being discussed. there is no bill to debate. pelosi says that when they vote on "it" -- whatever "it" might be -- that's when we get to find out what's in the "bill." that's criminal!

one problem - lawyers run the show. but, lawyers that i know are just as poor as most of us, so those guys in DC have really learned (nay -mastered!) how to scam the system and make lotsabucks.

photogr said...

Nurses providing sexual services to patients. Now I have heard it all.

Health care coverage in the USA. What we need is some sensibility in a real health care plan. Not insane dribble thought up by a bunch of socialist idiots under Comrade Obama that will only benefit the elite few in power.

The 30 million uninsureds are probably filled with 20 million illegal immigrants.I read somewhere actually there were only about 10 million uninsured US citizens.

The suggestions you made are really what the US citizens actually proposed but the Obamacrats ain't listening.

I sent an e-mail to our representative in Washington ( Steve Driehaus) and he actually replied and I quote, " You really don't know what is best for you. We are in a better position to determine what is best for the nation."

I replied " Thanks for your reply but I will be voting to kick your "Jackass" back end out of office in 2010." Never heard back from him.

~ Jan ~ said...

Hmmm, I've already said you would be a great asset as as church leader in our little community here in Ohio. Now I'm asking that you move to Ohio and run for a seat in the House or the Senate.

Shoot, any state you would run for would be fortunate. We need more common sense men/women to replace those currently elected, who give the impression that they care, when in fact their choices, in spite of the protests of the American citizens, proves that they are in "La La Land". Why would they care what we think...after all, they will not have to live under the same laws they would be imposing upon us.

Just a suggestion.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Health Care is complicated. Even experts have trouble explaining it. But just because something is complex doesn't mean it's wrong. And the fix is not so simple, either.

I've had some trouble with long comments, so I'm going to post in bits here.

- COMMENT ONE, a gnawn o'moose

Anonymous said...

Interestly enough, what you are proposing is essentially what is in the President's Health Care reform package (HCR). You can see that plan here:

The big problem which the current HCR is attempting to solve is to provide fair access to affordable health insurance for all Americans. Modern health care is a quantum more effective than in our parents day, but in some cases, the treatments can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Health Insurance business pools together millions of people, which spreads the risk and costs across all. Although Heallth Insurance companies have a bad rap, they do provide a service in keeping costs under control through this pooling, and studies of the efficacy of various treatments.

The key points of the plan is to mandate that all Americans be included in a Health Insurance pool (illegal aliens are not included in this pool, so those of you in the southern border states will continue to see them in the ER).

Those who are happy with their employer backed Health Insurance can keep that. Those who don't have Health Insurance will be able to buy same. If you cannot afford insurance, there will be subsidies to provide that insurance.

I don't know what sort of coverage will be provided for that subsidized insurance, but I suspect it's going to be what you describe as "basic care ... yearly check ups and catastrophic care".

- COMMENT TWO, a gnawn o'moose

Anonymous said...

I checked out your link to everyone's favorite Democratic adulterer, Senator John Edwards. "Griffin v. Teague - Application of abdominal pressure and delay in performing c-section CAUSED brain damage to infant and resulted in child having cerebral palsy and spastic quadraplegia - $23.5M verdict". That goes a long way to covering the lifelong care that child will need. Or, perhaps, the parents will just blow it on big screen TVs?

The President's plan includes reforms in malpractice - see

Right now, Health Insurance companies are able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions, and arbitrarily drop patients. Part of this is to prevent under (or non) insured people from buying insurance AFTER they get a bad diagnosis. If all Americans have health insurance, they'll all be in an insurance pool, and insurance companies can then be mandated to stop the DROP and pre-existing condition riders.

Foreign drug companies like Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis or Bayer? Here, I think we agree that the current HCR doesn't allow national negotiation with drug companies for volume discount prices. This was also true with President Bush's Medicare expansion to cover prescription drugs, as well. The American pharma industry is very powerful, even stronger than "The Decider" and "The One".

- COMMENT THREE, a gnawn o'moose

GCT said...

"Leave it to the Dutch to mix sexual services and national health care. Apparently one of the most liberal nations in the world when it comes to sex, dope and politics, has pulled back. It seems that the nurses union is not willing to provide a helping hand under some circumstances."

In the article you link, it's not at all clear that the services asked for by the patient are actually part of the Dutch medical plan. Simply because he claimed they are part and some nurses allegedly complied doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with Dutch health care.

As for the general article, I'd suggest that you save some of your vitriol towards Democrats and aim it instead at the Republicans blocking measure after measure (there is enough, after all, to go around and no party has a monopoly on morality or common sense), but the main point is well taken. We need to have health coverage for all in this country, and it's a travesty that we don't, and that others fight against it.

David said...

@GCT - I didn’t say that sex was part of the plan - but anyone can see where this is going. First that others did perform these acts, and that the one that refused to had to go to the police.

I could care less about the Republicans or the Democrats. I am un-enrolled and independent. And I pay a ton of taxes already. I wish we could afford the time to start a viable 3rd party.

The bill going to Congress is just another Union, drug company payoff for votes in the election. At the expense of insurance companies - the big bad guys that, for decades, have been excellent investments on Wall ST. Sure, let's have a few more AIG bail outs! Is anyone thinking about how that will impact the economy?

The real issues is that the bill isn't even close to what we need for health care and IT DOES NOT guarantee coverage for everyone. Isn't that the point? Not to mention that the cost savings is a joke. We tried that here in MA and I went from a PPO to an HMO for the same price.

My suggestions were fair minded and sensible - non-partisan - a good starting point without upsetting the health care system or the economy.

My vitriol is aimed at sheer stupidity and arrogance in Washington, based on the simple fact that a MAJORITY of Americans do NOT want THIS bill regardless of their party. We want health care that makes sense and covers everyone that wants to be covered.

My suggestions could have the uninsured insured far more quickly than the proposed Senate bill.

GCT said...

"I didn’t say that sex was part of the plan - but anyone can see where this is going. First that others did perform these acts, and that the one that refused to had to go to the police."

I know you didn't say it, but it seemed to me like it was implied - as if you were taking a dig at a liberal country where the standard of living and happiness are both higher than the US.

Either way, I'm not going to argue with you on health care because I'm tickled pink to have a conservative arguing for universal health care, and I agree that we should have universal health care. We may disagree on some of the policies or how we got to where we are, but at least we can agree on one thing.

BTW, I too live in Mass, and I think that Mass Health is a good program that has been rather helpful for some people that I know and am acquainted with.

Anonymous said...

" My suggestions were fair minded and sensible - non-partisan - a good starting point without upsetting the health care system or the economy. "

And they are very similar to the proposed bill, as I've noted.

True, it doesn't offer universal coverage (even leaving the radioactive illegal aliens aside). But it does offer universal ability for American citizens to purchase affordable health care insurance, which is not the case today.

- A gnawn on moose

David said...

@A gnawn on moose - I did not say there was nothing good in the bill. My point is that it is not what the majority wants and it seems expensive. Unfortunately that means starting over - but that is the price of partisan answers to American solutions.

I do think the Dems got a little hasty with their new found majority. But the Reps would have done the same.

I am always looking for things that can be considered progress for the people. I could care less about the Congress - they should have to have whatever they offer us.

We are way past term limits too.

Anonymous said...

Then we're in agreement!
Another victory for your blog!!

- a gnawn on moose

Anonymous said...

The Lord told a parable about a gent who was injured and lay alongside a trail. A Samaraten citizen passed, and saw the injured fellow.

The Samaratan said, "I don't have the full medical training to take care of your injuries. So, it's best that we start from scratch and wait for a fully developed solution to come down that trail."

Is this health care plan perfect? No. Will it improve the situation? Or make it worse?

- A gnawn on moose

Related Posts with Thumbnails