Can someone "dumb down" what Obamacare really means? - page 7
I don't have time to watch the news or read articles so I don't understand much of what is being talked about. Can someone explain to me how it changes for citizens and what it will do to the future... Read More
9Aug 16, '12 by FuzzyBeing uninsured certainly rations healthcare. My family went bankrupt after my mother died of cancer. She was not insured. Not only did she die, my dad almost died from the bankruptcy process. I saw a proud man almost commit suicide from the bills that he could never pay in his lifetime of working and the bill collectors yelling at him on the phone. A couple of times, I was almost certain that he was going to take a gun to the hospital and the collection agencies and have a shoot out. I know of a few people who have really wanted to do this.
Our healthcare system is broken. It is not very compassionate to those who cannot pay.
3Aug 16, '12 by DoGoodThenGoQuote from FuzzyThere are actually two main problems with USA's healthcare system.Being uninsured certainly rations healthcare. My family went bankrupt after my mother died of cancer. She was not insured. Not only did she die, my dad almost died from the bankruptcy process. I saw a proud man almost commit suicide from the bills that he could never pay in his lifetime of working and the bill collectors yelling at him on the phone. A couple of times, I was almost certain that he was going to take a gun to the hospital and the collection agencies and have a shoot out. I know of a few people who have really wanted to do this.
Our healthcare system is broken. It is not very compassionate to those who cannot pay.
The first is the vast amount of uninsured and the second is the cost of care even for those with excellent insurance.
Again using France's healthcare system as an example, persons are reimbursed at up to 70% for most care. IIRC, certain costs are fully covered and those suffering from certified disabilities and or mortal illness have a different level of coverage but but and large there you have it.
Unlike much of Europe hospitals and physicans have no cap on fees they can charge, rather it works other way round, insurance companies and or government programs limit or negotiate what they are willing to pay which often can and does vary widely by geographic location.
In 2011 the average total hospital and physician costs for coronary artery bypass in the USA averaged $67,583. Applying the French system of coverage (70% covered) that leaves a bill of about $20,000. This does not include meds, follow-up physican visits and other post hospital care. If the patient is readmitted the whole thing starts again.
Obamacare does have some methods for bringing hospital costs down and proposes various schemes to do more, but so far nothing is really set to tackle the ever rising costs of healthcare in this country.
Even those with insurance are feeling the pinch as more and more companies are moving employees into high deductible schemes or persons are choosing those options themselves as the only thing they can afford. Problem is many of these plans leave families or persons on the hook for huge bills even though in theory they do have coverage.
Finally there is the very basic and fundamental social differences between the United States and most other countries that have some sort of socialised healthcare system.
The French government like others in the EU/world took their cues from the population in their wishes that *all* persons in a country's borders should not fall below a certain economic floor, and this applies to healthcare. This goes along way to explaining why so many Americans having grown used to being literally shaken down by ER's/hospitals in the USA are gobsmacked when they receive emergency or other healthcare abroad and either aren't billed or pay a small amount. The idea that a hospital or some such should exsist to provide healthcare and not act as a profit center is just alien to many of us.
6Aug 16, '12 by Susie2310Quote from Jeweles26LMBO!!! Right wing plants? I could say the same about you, you sound like you could definitely be some illogical left-winger so far! You speak about the right-wing spreading lies? What about the current lies coming out of the mouths of the Obama administration, including the president himself? All the things they are saying to demonize the right are about as funny as they are insulting! I am no 'plant'. I am in fact a Canadian RN who LEFT the country because I was SICK AND TIRED of paying more than half of my very hard earned salary for people who dont want to work and use the ER as a primary care physician. And they have to, that is the sad part. Why you ask? Because of socialized medicine. Less money going into healthcare means lower salaries, which means less people wanting to stay in this work force. Sure, I love my job. I love taking care of people, making them better, helping them lead healthier lives. But I have a family to support, on top of supporting millions of others with my tax dollars.
If you really dont think the ACA (There, you happy?) will change things in regards to your taxes (and yes, it WILL be the middle class who will feel the hardest sting to their pocket books, not the rich, like Obama would like you to think. Again, I speak from experience), then you are sadly mistaken. Salaries will decrease. Might not be overnight, but it WILL happen. When the hospital has less money to spend, who do you think will suffer from it? They will hire less staff. They will spend less on equipment. They will stop giving pay raises. Just wait and see.
And by the way, having a penis or a vagina has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING, other than the fact that the president is trying to make the mindless masses believe that republicans hate women. Once again, I LMBO.
I am in fact an English RN who firmly believes that paying taxes to fund a health service is a good thing to do. It's called sharing. It's called making sure medical care is available for everyone when they need it. Yes, people who are working contribute and their contribution helps people who are unable to contribute financially to their care. If those people who are working become unable to contribute financially to the health service, then the health service is there for them to use too. This situation makes the former workers parasites in your view. Not everyone who needs help is a worthless layabout. Do you know the actual percentage of people who are "undeserving" of care? You can't penalize deserving people simply because you have decided that everyone who isn't working is a bum. What is wrong with helping people who are weaker? Not everyone grows up with family support or a strong body or mind, or abilities that allow them to be self sufficient. Should people who are weaker have no health care; should we as a society just let weaker people suffer and die from lack of preventive care, and lack of care when they are sick? The doctors in the UK are paid well, with good government pensions. Put yourself in the place of people who are weak and vulnerable, without a support system, in need of medical care. I'm sure you wouldn't like to be told that since you can't pay you are a deadbeat.
5Aug 16, '12 by uRNmywayYes, I agree that not everyone who gets government healthcare is a layabout or deadbeat. However, there ARE a lot of them. Or maybe its just where I am located. Maybe its also where I grew up. Dont get me wrong, I am far from having grown up to a wealthy family. We were lower middle class at best. But my mother taught me to work hard and make something of myself. Yes, she taught me to share. And I do, for those who help themselves. How many people sell their foodstamps to buy things they shouldnt? How many people on welfare have under the table jobs and net more money than I do? How many people who are completely ABLE to work just stay home having more babies to get a bigger check in the mail? How many people who are CURRENTLY receiving medicare benefits completely abuse it? This is all stuff I saw growing up, and I am seeing a lot of it here. And judging from posts Ive seen on here, Im not the only one who has noticed it.
If all people were deserving of welfare and social aid, why would there be such a fuss made about mandatory drug testing and all?
Its just so funny you know. I used to be pretty liberal. Then I opened my eyes and saw it just doesnt work. Now I see how so many liberals treat those who are more conservative. They insult, make assumptions. Mind you, not all of them. Maybe just those Ive been exposed to...
1Aug 16, '12 by DoGoodThenGoMore fuel for the fire: http://www.oecd.org/health/healthpol...a/49084355.pdf
In the Untied States you cannot solve the debate on healthcare until the larger issue of what if any "rights" are owed to those living on it's shores. We see this playing out in the two other large debates currently splitting this country apart; immigration and gay rights.
Would like to consider myself conservative, but not totally blind nor without compassion. Living in Manhattan, NYC as one does (and a pretty upscale area at that might one add), see the inquality first hand daily.
One knows fully well who is preparing,cooking, serving and delivering food in restaurants. Who is cleaning other person's homes, preparing and serving that food, minding children, caring for the elderly and so forth. Need I remind anyone that it was a member of the immigrant serving class, Miss. Marry Mallon (aka Typhoid Mary), that was responsible for one of the worst outbreaks of disease in NYC if not US history?
Am not thrilled with the current state of immigration laws (or lack of of enforcement thereof) in this country, nor does one feel persons should be able to "abuse" the system. However as a society we can and must come together and decide that for the good of all something must be done to provide some sort of basic floor for everyone in the United States.
Time and time again we've seen how those in this country with untreated or poorly treated mental illness have killed, maimed and or otherwise caused harm to innocents. Anyone who has taken bact, or micro knows pathogens respect neither class, race, creed, or gender.
Bringing this back home to nursing/medicine we know both in the United States and much of Europe what happened when around the 1900's governments decided to do something about the appalling health of the poorest amoung the population. Armies of nurses, doctors, social workers were dispatched everywhere from tenements to schools to even taverns in order to get the word out about proper healthcare. Governments, persons of means and or religous insitutions built hospitals/healthcare systems in order that those wanting should be provided with some sort of healthcare. And what happened? Life expectancy began to rise across the board. Major outbreaks of disease were curtailed. Child and infant and even young adult (especially for women) mortality increased.
1Aug 17, '12 by Sensibility, BSN, RN ProMy dad sent this to me today. I thought it said it so well that I would pass it on to my nursing friends.
I have a job.
I work, they pay me.
I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fitIn order to get that paycheck, in my case,
I am required to pass a random urine test
(with which I have no problem).
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes
To people who don't have to pass a urine test.
So, here is my question:
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check
Because I have to pass one to earn it for them?
Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.
I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their BUTT----doing drugs while I work..
Can you imagine how much money each state would save
If people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
I guess we could call the program "URINE OR YOU'RE OUT"!
1Aug 17, '12 by Sensibility, BSN, RN ProQuote from Susie2310It is all the ridiculous statistics that go along with this and the glowing testimonials that we all know are lies. If any people group on the planet has been taught to think critically, it is nurses. We really are nurses and we know what it costs to have good medical care and we know how people abuse the system already and we know how regulating health care will be horrible for everyone. The ONLY reason we have decent health care right now is because of the ones insured whose bills are hiked to the moon to pay for the ones who are using government controlled medicine. The Medicare/Medicaid patients barely pay anything and expect all the same care, which they are given. Because we know what would happen if we didn't. So yes, I wonder if some of these people who think we are dumb enough to believe these lies aren't plants. I am amazed at how people believe this stuff like the mortality rate of babies is high in America. How ridiculous. The only reason for that is probably abortion. When the government becomes socialist/communists it creates slavery. You can't prosper. Already so many of our freedoms have been abolished because of government control. You can't do anything anymore without jumping through a million hoops to get there per government regulations and if you forget to check the box, oopsy, you have to come back and start again. When the wheel rolls off and there is no money left, you can say you heard it here first.I am in fact an English RN who firmly believes that paying taxes to fund a health service is a good thing to do.
9Aug 17, '12 by woohI'm totally a plant. Barack Obama came to me back in 2004 and personally asked me to spread "lies" about the healthcare program 8 years later on allnurses, but to start then. I'm actually a manicurist from Poughkeepsie, I just pose as a nurse. My advocacy for single payer healthcare was merely a ruse to get people to think I actually have critically thought out opinions on healthcare when really I'm just a puppet for Barack Obama. He calls me during the night to tell me what lies to spread on allnurses.
Quote from SensibilityIt makes an entertaining email, and if you enjoy humiliating poor people it might be worth it, but in Florida when this was done, 96% of people passed the test. The state spent more money on drug testing than they would have paid in benefits to the very few people who failed the test.
Can you imagine how much money each state would save
If people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
Posting this immediately before a post where you claim nurses should be better critical thinkers, I'd think you might want to critically think before passing on spam that stereotypes people that are down on their luck as drug abusers.
Being fiscally conservative, I'd rather the money wasted on drug tests go to something useful. Like healthcare.Last edit by wooh on Aug 17, '12
4Aug 17, '12 by Susie2310Quote from SensibilityYou really have no clue.It is all the ridiculous statistics that go along with this and the glowing testimonials that we all know are lies. If any people group on the planet has been taught to think critically, it is nurses. We really are nurses and we know what it costs to have good medical care and we know how people abuse the system already and we know how regulating health care will be horrible for everyone. The ONLY reason we have decent health care right now is because of the ones insured whose bills are hiked to the moon to pay for the ones who are using government controlled medicine. The Medicare/Medicaid patients barely pay anything and expect all the same care, which they are given. Because we know what would happen if we didn't. So yes, I wonder if some of these people who think we are dumb enough to believe these lies aren't plants. I am amazed at how people believe this stuff like the mortality rate of babies is high in America. How ridiculous. The only reason for that is probably abortion. When the government becomes socialist/communists it creates slavery. You can't prosper. Already so many of our freedoms have been abolished because of government control. You can't do anything anymore without jumping through a million hoops to get there per government regulations and if you forget to check the box, oopsy, you have to come back and start again. When the wheel rolls off and there is no money left, you can say you heard it here first.
1Aug 17, '12 by ProgressiveActivistThe original poster was asking for factual information.
As a nursing professional, I am just dismayed by all of the mean spirited rhetoric.
All of us in the healthcare business, whatever your political ideology, need to be informed about medicare changes and insurance reform.
2Aug 17, '12 by SisyphusSensibility:
You are one very scary, misinformed person. You refuse to recognize the years of evidence regarding the high infant mortality rate in the U.S. and decide on your own that it must be attributed to abortions?
1Aug 18, '12 by MunoRNQuote from SC_RNDudeMy example is only black and white because we have sufficient knowledge to say that a head MRI will not aid in the treatment of a stubbed toe, with enough evidence every other decision can be just as black and white; obvious is determined by amount of knowledge.You example is obvious. I would agree that would not be rationing and that the gov't should not pay for it. However, most situations are not so black and white.
Quote from SC_RNDudeYes, that would be rationing. Cutting reimbursements for knee replacements in general based on a finding that we are over-paying would not be rationing, that would be just trying not to get ripped off.How about going back to my hypothetical example: You said earlier that it is ok for a gov't board deciding that no one over the age of 80 will get a knee replacement if EBP says it is wasteful? That is taking decisions out of the hands of patients and doctors.
Would cutting reimbursements for knee replacements for people over 80 be considered rationing?
I disagree that EBP takes decisions out of the hands of patients and doctors, rather it gives them evidence to make an informed decision and helps protect the patient from inept practitioners who essentially have no idea what they are doing.
Quote from SC_RNDudeEBP does not create cookie-cutter medicine, in fact it does quite the opposite. It's evidence that reveals how differences in patients require different approaches.You believe in cookie-cutter medicine...one size fits all. In which case, the ACA will work better for you then for most people.
2Aug 18, '12 by MunoRNQuote from RN-CardiacHow we come up standards, and more importantly how we measure their reliability is a good question. What's been suggested so far for coming up with these standards has been sources such as Cochrane Collaboration, AHRQ, IHI, and well established highly regarded practice organizations such as AHA/ACC. These groups make recommendations based on overwhelming and time-tested evidence. There's always a chance some of what we thought we know may not be true, but it's still far better than the current system in which, for instance, 15 year after we knew that beta blockers cut the risk of death following an MI there were still only half of patients for whom this mortality reduction measure was even considered.Muno,...I'm going to sort of play devils advocate for a second. I am not affiliated with any particular political party, and to be honest I'm very ill informed about political issues in general,...however I am a nurse and for the last 6 years of my career I've been in a level I Trauma ED. One of my biggest frustrations at work is waste of resources! I understand that your example is an extreme exaggeration,..but what about the not so extreme cases? Who decides what is ignorant waste and what is necessary? How will that decision be made and made in a timely manner? For instance I frequently see people in the ED who have abdominal pain. They have seen their PCP and are scheduled for a CT/HIDA scan/US (whatever) next week,..."but I just can't wait that long!" They have been seen by a doctor who thought they could wait that long. These tests through the ED are very expensive, and take time/resources from true emergencies. How do we decide what gets paid for? What if the ED doc disagrees with the PCP? Better yet,...what happens when we miss a hot appy, AAA etc? I personally think we need fewer lawyers, and and a greater sense of personal responsibility, but as I don't see that happening anytime soon,...how will we make this cost cutting plan work?
For those who don't trust the evidence and the diagnostic tools that these produce (which help us rule out a AAA or hot appy and therefore make a CT elective rather than emergent) there will always be those willing to perform tests or procedures in a very short period of time providing they are willing to pay the cost of that option.Last edit by MunoRN on Aug 18, '12