Capitalism vs. Greed: What Has Been the Nursing Impact

  1. Capitalism seemingly started off as a good ideal but has gone awry in the U.S. according to my readings. Capitalism has impacted healthcare for a long time. Now greed, or extreme capitalism, seems to be the prevailing force. Health and medical care is now an industry and not a ministry.

    Should we nurses accept the direction of the industry which is in crisis mode and may crash our economy or should we become proactive workers toward seeing healthcare turn back into a ministry of sorts. What is nursing's responsibility in truly improving access and the provision of healthcare and preventing healthcare from completely crashing from the weight of greed? How has nursing been part of the problem? What are steps that we can take to turn the ship around and be the solution?

    Keep in mind that research indicates the U.S. forks out the most amount of money for health and medical care but yet our country's health status does not reflect this.
    •  
  2. 23 Comments

  3. by   Mijourney
    Oh and if anyone responds to my topic, please consider the ACHA that was announced today, which is supposed to be the answer to the ACA. The media accounts I reviewed, did not indicate where nurses and APRNs stood on the subject. We need to make our voices heard.
  4. by   ChryssyD
    My job is to advocate for patients, not insurance companies or medical device manufacturers. I'm interested in protecting patients, not a corporation's profit margin. Single-payer is the only option that makes any sense to me.
  5. by   HouTx
    You want to know "our" position.... HERE it is. I agree - activism is the way to go. ANA is our political action arm & have a strong lobby in DC. I have been a member (national, state & local) for a looooong time & encourage others to do so as well.

    I'm not a qualified healthcare economist, but it seems obvious to me... eliminating the individual mandate will only shift the burden to those who can least afford it. And it doesn't make sense to tell people that eliminating the mandate is going to save them money - while at the same time allowing (encouraging) insurance companies to sock them with a 30% penalty in premium costs when they finally decide to buy insurance coverage. This only enriches insurance companies. I think they are rich enough.
  6. by   Guy in Babyland
    Here is Rand Paul's plan.


    • Ensures that Americans can purchase the health insurance coverage that best fits their needs.
    • Eliminates Obamacare’s essential health benefits requirement, along with other restrictive coverage and plan requirements, to once again make low-cost insurance options available to American consumers.
    • Provides a two-year open-enrollment period under which individuals with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage.
    • Restores HIPAA pre-existing conditions protections. Prior to Obamacare, HIPAA guaranteed that those in the group market could obtain continuous health coverage regardless of preexisting conditions.
    • Incentivizes savings by authorizing a tax credit (up to $5,000 per taxpayer) for individuals and families that contribute to HSAs.
    • Removes the annual cap on HSAs so individuals can make unlimited contributions.
    • Allows HSA funds to be used to purchase insurance, cover premiums, and more easily afford a broader range of health-related expenses, including prescription and OTC drugs, dietary supplements, nutrition and physical exercise expenses, and direct primary care, among others
    • Equalizes the tax treatment of the purchase of health insurance for individuals and employers by allowing individuals to deduct the cost of their health insurance from their income and payroll taxes.
    • Frees more Americans to purchase and maintain insurance apart from their work status.
    • Does not interfere with employer-provided coverage for Americans who prefer those plans.
    • Expands Association Health Plans (AHPs) to allow small business owners and individuals to band together across state lines through their membership in a trade or professional association to purchase health coverage for their families and employees at a lower cost.
    • Also allows individuals to pool together through any organization to purchase insurance.
    • Widens access to the group market and spreads out the risk, enhancing the ability of individuals and small businesses to decrease costs, increase administrative efficiencies, and further protect those with pre-existing conditions.
    • Creates an interstate market that allows insurers who are licensed to sell policies in one state to offer them to residents of any other state.
    • Enables states to fully exercise current flexibilities afforded to them through Medicaid waivers for creating innovative state plan designs.
    • Allows non-economically aligned physicians to negotiate for higher quality health care for their patients.
    • Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a physician a tax deduction equal to the amount such physician would otherwise charge for charity medical care or uncompensated care due to bad debt, limited to 10% of a physician’s gross income for the taxable year.
  7. by   TriciaJ
    It's really not a question of capitalism vs any other system. The fact is that health care is very expensive. There are many, many factors that contribute to that expense. Single payer healthcare had its benefits, as well as numerous drawbacks. Most people arguing the merits of one way vs another tend to oversimplify things. It's easy to be passionate about anything if you're not weighed down by pesky facts.

    I really hope the current administration can work out a plan that addresses some of the biggest problems to paying for healthcare. Fingers crossed.
  8. by   Avid reader
    Here's an alternative viewpoint, loathe to use the word alternative now, has such a negative connotation. Why does every industrialized country but ours have a healthcare system? Are they less intelligent? Could it be that inherently people succeed as a group, sharing not only successes but setbacks?

    By keeping people healthy, you enable them to work and pay taxes and contribute not just fiscally but emotionally, morally and intellectually. Genius and innovation originates from all segments of society regardless of social or financial status but it is almost a certainty that if your health is compromised, you will be inordinately preoccupied, precluding the freedom of contribution in many ways.

    You cannot place a monetary value on healthcare because you become morally bankrupt. It's not healthcare that costs the money but specific elements of the healthcare industry. Exorbitant wages of Drs whose counterparts internationally make a fraction but produce the same results. The ethically challenged adminstrators who are in it for the money. The corrupt politicians who throw their constituents to the wolves for lobbyists money, the insurance companies dictating the myriad of tests so unscrupulous lawyers won't sue them etc. Healthcare probably is about 50% of the costs and the ancillary services the other 50%.


    Don't point at healthcare, focus on the backbenchers who are the cause of the high costs. People should know by now about distractions, after all, we are in the middle of the best example right now!
  9. by   hppygr8ful
    Quote from Mijourney
    Keep in mind that research indicates the U.S. forks out the most amount of money for health and medical care but yet our country's health status does not reflect this.
    Could you please cite your research? Peer reviewed evidence based studies would be appreciated.

    Hppy
  10. by   TriciaJ
    Quote from Avid reader
    Here's an alternative viewpoint, loathe to use the word alternative now, has such a negative connotation. Why does every industrialized country but ours have a healthcare system? Are they less intelligent? Could it be that inherently people succeed as a group, sharing not only successes but setbacks?

    By keeping people healthy, you enable them to work and pay taxes and contribute not just fiscally but emotionally, morally and intellectually. Genius and innovation originates from all segments of society regardless of social or financial status but it is almost a certainty that if your health is compromised, you will be inordinately preoccupied, precluding the freedom of contribution in many ways.

    You cannot place a monetary value on healthcare because you become morally bankrupt. It's not healthcare that costs the money but specific elements of the healthcare industry. Exorbitant wages of Drs whose counterparts internationally make a fraction but produce the same results. The ethically challenged adminstrators who are in it for the money. The corrupt politicians who throw their constituents to the wolves for lobbyists money, the insurance companies dictating the myriad of tests so unscrupulous lawyers won't sue them etc. Healthcare probably is about 50% of the costs and the ancillary services the other 50%.


    Don't point at healthcare, focus on the backbenchers who are the cause of the high costs. People should know by now about distractions, after all, we are in the middle of the best example right now!
    And the one thing I'm still not hearing about this go-round is tort reform. My understanding is that liability premiums contribute a huge amount to the cost of healthcare. Or am I mistaken about this?
    Last edit by TriciaJ on Mar 16 : Reason: misspelling
  11. by   cocoa_puff
    I like Rand Paul's plan. In my opinion, the less the government is involved in healthcare, the better.
  12. by   Avid reader
    Tricia, that is difficult to guage because there is so much misinformation out there. On one hand lawyers are badly needed re medical malfeasance and unscrupulous lawyers are plying their trade, however tort reform only benefits the Drs and insurers. Most cases are simply settled, reducing costs and these are generally determined by the insurance company, not by guilt, cost analysis. Drs and insurance companies have huge lobbying agents in DC and they are pursuing arcane legalese language via small print and caps, also arbitration which they stack in their favor.Frivolous litigation laws are what's needed, like in the UK but Americanisms have gradually been creeping into their system as well with both pros and cons.
  13. by   Avid reader
    Cocoa Puff, unfortunately you do need the govt to provide the regulations or you would have many more occurrences/exclusions like pre-existing conditions etc. Insurers are grossly unscrupulous and are there to make money, pure and simple! Unfortunately some Govt is innept and corrupted and compromised by lobbyists. What's needed are judges that aren't corrupt and possess integrity and moral quality required for the job but with the elective process involved, that's not very likely. It's a very broken compromised system fueled by greed and moral turpitude.

    Until the profit motive is removed from the equation by having universal healthcare it will be unrestrained unregulated capitalism at its best.
  14. by   Mijourney
    There are reportedly reputable sources that offer some information on health spending and health status. The World Health Organization (WHO) is one entity. Below is a link to another entity.

    U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective - The Commonwealth Fund

    Spending on US Health Care, 1996-213 | Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment | JAMA | The JAMA Network
    Last edit by Mijourney on Mar 18 : Reason: Added links

close