allnurses: A Nursing Community for Nurses - Social & Health Care Coverage Activism

Who are they representing again?

SilentMind — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:05:01 GMT

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...th_care_reform

"Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That�s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June...21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed. "

Discharged from the hospital without answers; the death of Jane Q. Patient

NRSKarenRN — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:57:15 GMT

Found @ KevinMD.com:

Discharged from the hospital without answers; the death of Jane Q. Patient

...The 48 year old native New Yorker lived with her cat in a room off Worcester Common. She had been suffering terrible back pains over the summer and had been taken by ambulance to the University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center Emergency Room on four occasions.

Each time she was discharged with some pain killers, but no answers.

The last time she went there she refused to be discharged and the hospital called the police to eject her from the ER on the grounds that she was exhibiting drug seeking behavior. She was put in a cab and sent home. She called one of the few people she knew in the neighborhood. She said that she was in terrible pain and that she was scared and she didn�t know what to do.

Her neighbor called six primary care physicians before finding one who would accept Medicare and could see her without waiting a year. This doctor found that Cindy Chapman had end stage cancer of the lungs, liver and spine. Two weeks later she was dead...

Health-care historian: GOP opposing ideas it long espoused

NRSKarenRN — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:53:34 GMT

November 20th, 2009:

Health-care historian: GOP opposing ideas it long espoused
By Stacey Burling
Inquirer Staff Writer

Quote:

...There was a time when many of the changes included in the House and Senate health bills would have been considered Republican or at least bipartisan ideas, Starr said. In the days of Harry S. Truman, he said, Democrats favored a single-payer system. The current approach is closer to what President Nixon proposed before Watergate sidelined his plans. He called for universal coverage through a combination of government and employer-based insurance...

Playing the odds to save money.

MedSurg32RN — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:03:11 GMT

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/he..._r=1&th&emc=th

I believe in evidence based medicine, but I also believe Medicine and Nursing is an art and science.

According to the above article :
"People are being asked to think differently about risk,� said Sheila M. Rothman, a professor of public health at Columbia University. �The public state of mind right now is that they�re frightened that evidence-based medicine is going to be equated with rationing. They don�t see it in a scientific perspective.�

For decades, the medical establishment, the government and the news media have preached the mantra of early detection, spending untold millions of dollars to spread the word. Now, the hypothesis that screening is vital to health and longevity is being turned on its head, with researchers asserting that mammograms and Pap smears can cause more harm than good for women of certain ages'

I was diagnosed at age 40 with a very aggressive breast cancer, I had zero risk factors and had a huge tumor ( over 3 cm) that no one could feel. How would this evidence based practice save my life ? What was the risk of having a mammogram?
Has a women died because of mammogram or pap smear? I would rather have a week of anxiety than die.

What's next scale down colonscopy screenings ? Cholesterol testing ?

Health and safety snoops to enter family homes

SilentMind — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:22:56 GMT

A page in the chapter of our "model" systems brings up an interesting debate.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6917328.ece

"Health and safety inspectors are to be given unprecedented access to family homes to ensure that parents are protecting their children from household accidents."

"Until now, councils have made only a limited number of home inspections to check on building work and in extreme cases where the state of a house is thought to pose a serious risk to public health."

"About 100,000 children are admitted to hospital each year for home injuries at a cost of �146m."

I was actually thinking about this earlier today, before I came across this article. There's no doubt in my mind that if and when health care becomes a government responsibility, that much like social security, it will ultimately run into a huge budget crisis. Not all at once, mind you...but progressively over the years. Anyone who disagrees need only take a look at the current debt levels across the board, the projected debt levels, and the projected spending on SS entitlements.

In order to reduce costs when they're budgets fails, common sense dictates they do what they can to lower costs. So what can the government do to reduce their overhead? They certainly can't reduce coverage in any way shape or form. There's no option to suspend COLA's. They have to pay the full price for each and every patient requiring treatment. So naturally, the only way they can cut costs is by putting an emphasis on preventative care. There's already another thread on that topic, and how it's limited at best. But the scary thing is, there are many other options the government has at it's disposal.

This is one example from across the pond, which I'd like to believe is too extreme to take place here. But sadly, It wouldn't surprise me. But it doesn't need to go that far at all. When it comes down to it, there are a lot of things the government simply wont be able to afford once it's financially responsible for our care.

Look at the legal stigma surrounding smoking as it is. We all know its bad for you, it kills...a lot. Imagine just for a moment, how much the smoking industry would cost a single payer system. Alchohol being another obvious one. Now...there are plenty that consider these as vices that shouldn't be permitted anyways. Fair enough. But it doesn't even have to be that extreme. How much would fast food cost the government in health care? What about sodas and sugary candy? Okay...again, I'm sure there are people that believe these things are evil and we shouldn't have the choice of whether or not we'd like to indulge in them. Fair enough.

With things like consumables, it's highly unlikely that you'll ever see another ban on alchohol, or outlawing cigarettes. However, it's entirely feasible that these items will be taxed on an escalating rate, much like gasoline taxes go to support the roads, this will be sold as individuals paying taxes that will go towards healthcare in return for the additional liability they're putting on the system. And these taxes -will- rise continuously, until the majority of people cut down considerably. Thus serving the intended purpose, and removing freedom of choice.

But far beyond consumables, the government is suddenly -financially- motivated to oversee safety in all areas. What about vehicles? Motorcycles? Very, very high risk injury wise. You'll start to see fees levied on an annual basis, to hold motorcycle class licenses. Again, with the intent of discouraging expensive behavior.

And what about illegal drugs? Personally, and i'm hesitant to post this because It'll draw fire, I have nothing against personal, even non medical, marijuana use. But illegal drug use as a whole, and they would all be clumped together as one, would again be very costly to the public option. Too costly to allow. So anyone who goes in for blood work and has THC show up, do we impose court mandated rehab for them?

What about sports? Hazardous occupations? Where do you draw the line? A public option opens to the door to government intervention in virtually all aspects of our lives.

I'm writing this, and I swear to god, it feels like I'm jumping on the conspiracists bandwagon even to me. It seems so far fetched to make these conclusions. But it's honestly very within the realm of possibility. Dangerously slow.

What's wrong with this picture?

GCTMT — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:09:04 GMT

Link embedded.
In House, Many Spoke With One Voice: Lobbyists�

Quote:

WASHINGTON � In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world�s largest biotechnology companies.

E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

Health Care reform and Abortion.

GCTMT — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:53:40 GMT

Lately, there has been a lot of discussion regarding abortion in the health care debate. Groups for women are opposed to the Stupak Ammendment and Catholics are flexing their political muscle against any funding going to abortions.
Regardless of your opinions on abortion, what do you think of this? Is this just another stalling technique? Is it really that important given the Hyde Amendment of 1976?

"We need to spend more on prevention" debated

adlockwood — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:20:07 GMT

I keep hearing all this talk about how the emphasis in medicine needs to be on prevention of disease, and not disease management or cures. As a nurse with over 20 years experience in a variety of clinical and business settings, most recently in mental health, I would like to suggest the new paradigm of prevention first is a bit mis-guided and unrealistic.

First, what is prevention? How do you realistically "prevent" obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease? There are only 2 ways to affect these chronic diseases: education or dictate. The health community has focused on education for 40 years. Constant repetition on message has slowly changed the numbers of unintended pregnancy, smoking, STDs, and AIDS related illness. There are other examples too, but changing behavior is a slow process. Education alone does not prevent chronic medical problems, at least not quickly.

So the new health reform thinks they can prevent first, limit the expensive care to a few choices at the end of life, and suddenly every one in this country will have excellent universal care that is cost effective, paid for, and even reduce the deficit. Only one problem: you can't dictate behavior.

This is the only way large scale changes could lead to the kind of Utopia one side of the spectrum is envisioning for this county. If you punish behavior that causes chronic disease, it is the only way to effect change rapidly. So, your freedom to choose is taken away, "for your own good" because people left to their own devices will not make smart choices. Outlaw transfats, outlaw tobacco (so why is it still legal if you really want people to quit smoking?) Outlaw sugar, outlaw meat (global warming), remove all snacks except fruit and vegetables from the school vending machines, tax complex carbs to reduce useage, mandate 1 hour of exercise daily for all citizens, fines for BMI over 30, fine smokers. I know - maybe you could just remove food and use compressed supplements with all the recommended nutrition. And those weak humans to do develop diabetes, or high blood pressure, or have too much fat? What do we do with them, after all our "help" controlling their weakness?

Maybe it is time to re-read Brave New World, Farenheit 451, Animal Farm, and Soylent Green. As for me, I prefer the education route, and continue to fund research in to cures. This may be a bit tongue-in-cheek, but this pie in the sky talk about prevention, not cure or treatment of disease seems to ignore the human factor and the gift of free will. I don't want government to take that away from me. Positive reinforcement has always worked better to change behavior than punishment, and yet in this new world of reform, the only way to prevent disease is to punish the behavior that causes it.

Anyone fighting for healthcare in Miami?

phosphorus — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:41:09 GMT

I'm an RN in Miami, and I'm curious if there are others who are working on the fight for better healthcare and coverage here. I've heard about protests at insurance companies in Palm Beach county, but nothing about healthcare workers organizing here.

Given that we have some of the highest rates of people who have no coverage (Hialeah), low unionization rates and weak unions, horrendous working conditions, and high cost of living, there's a lot of potential we have to help build a movement for change.

cheers!
-t

Where do most of the uninsured live?

HM2VikingRN — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:09:38 GMT

So, here's the big takeaway: The overwhelming majority of uninsured U.S. residents are adult American citizens without children living in the south with moderately good health status. Oh, and one more thing: They're predominantly white. I didn't make a slide for that, but just trust me. The reason behind that is simple: There are many more white people in the U.S. than there are other persons of any other single race. So, the po' white south makes up most of the uninsured. Chew on that for a while. Then ask yourself where the strongest opposition to health reform comes from (hint: it's red states) and contemplate how much sense that makes.

Link embedded.

House passes landmark health care bill

NRSKarenRN — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:01:44 GMT

Philadelphia Inquirer
Posted on Sat, Nov. 7, 2009

House narrowly passes landmark health care bill -

DAVID ESPO
The Associated Press

Quote:

WASHINGTON - In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed landmark health care legislation Saturday night to expand coverage to tens of millions who lack it and place tough new restrictions on the insurance industry. Republican opposition was nearly unanimous.
The 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.

A triumphant Speaker Nancy Pelosi likened the legislation to the passage of Social Security in 1935 and Medicare 30 years later.

"It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it," said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.

In the run-up to a final vote, conservatives from the two political parties joined forces to impose tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies to be sold to many individuals and small groups. They prevailed on a roll call of 240-194.
Ironically, that only solidified support for the legislation, clearing the way for conservative Democrats to vote for it.

The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government's mandates.
Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation....

Key details of Democrats' health overhaul bill

Quote:

The House health care bill passed Saturday would:

Require most Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a fine.
Expand health care coverage to 36 million more people over the next decade.
Require employers with payrolls above $500,000 to provide insurance to their employees or pay a fine.
Prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions.
End premium disparities between men and women.
Impose a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on income above $500,000 annually for individuals and above $1 million annually for households.
Establish a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers beginning in 2013.
Cost $1.2 trillion over 10 years.
Cut Medicare spending by more than $400 billion over 10 years.

HR3962 bill link:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/page...LS-111hr3962IH

Go to Formats Text (2713 KB) | PDF (3438 KB) | XML (3499 KB)

Health Care Reform

Stickyrunner325 — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:06:06 GMT

Hi All-
I just thought it would be interesting to see everyone's thoughts on the health care reform since it was passed by the House today (220-215). Good idea :up:, bad idea :down:, or undecided :confused:, and why you feel this way?
I am interested in everyone's thoughts regarding this, if you care to share.
Thanks!
~JJ

Ryan White HIV/AIDS Act Extended... eliminates travelers HIV entry ban

NRSKarenRN — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:29:28 GMT

From the White House:

Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009

Honoring the Legacy of Ryan White

Posted by Jeffrey Crowley on October 30, 2009 at 05:39 PM EST

Quote:

Today, President Obama signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009. It represents our ongoing commitment to ensuring access to needed HIV/AIDS care and treatment. The White House and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) worked very closely with Congress on this bipartisan legislation, and the consensus document developed by the HIV/AIDS advocacy community was an important part of the process. We were so pleased that Jeanne White-Ginder, Ryan White�s mother, was here at the bill signing.

The Ryan White Program is the largest federal program specifically dedicated to providing HIV care and treatment. It funds heavily impacted metropolitan areas, states, and local community-based organizations to provide life-saving medical care, medications, and support services to more than half a million people each year: the uninsured and underinsured, racial and ethnic minorities, people of all ages.

The President also announced today the elimination of the HIV entry ban. Since 1987, HIV-positive travelers and immigrants have been banned from entering or traveling through the United States without a special waiver. In July 2008, Congress removed all legislative barriers to repealing the ban and paved the way for HHS to repeal the ban. A final rule will be published in the Federal Register on Monday, November 2nd and will take effect in early January 2010. That means that people who have HIV and are not U.S. citizens will be able to enter the U.S. starting in January next year. This is a major step in ending the stigma associated with HIV....

Jeffrey Crowley is the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy and Senior Advisor on Disability Policy at the White House

If you can't stand the heat on health care, then get out of the kitchen.

HM2VikingRN — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:39:24 GMT

ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed. View this video at YouTube

ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed. View this video at YouTube

ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed. View this video at YouTube

District by district the number of people who have died d/t inadequate health care coverage.

Big Pharma's Newest Fake Disease

HM2VikingRN — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:37:20 GMT

Quote:

t�s not your fault, ladies (and certainly not your partner�s), that you don�t orgasm every time you have intercourse, or that you lack the libido of a 17-year-old boy. You have a disease: female sexual dysfunction (FSD), and the pharmaceutical industry wants to help.

You are among the "43 percent of American women [who] experience some degree of impaired sexual function," according to a Journal of the American Medical Association article. The FDA�s evolving definition of FSD includes decreased desire or arousal, sexual pain and orgasm difficulties -- but only if the woman feels "personal distress" about it.

So, convincing women to feel distress is a key component of the drug company strategy to market a multi-billion-dollar pill that will cure billions of women of what may not ail them.

By promoting the belief that "normal" women have explosive sex all the time, BigPharma helped launch the disease

Creating a market for their drugs for a phony disease......:<<. Make people feel distress about their sexual responsiveness and then take a pill......Another example of phrma marketing research.