Healthcare is NOT a basic human right. - page 45

by Asystole RN

If one were to read the Constitution one would realize that the Constitution does not grant anyone freedoms, liberties, or rights. The Constitution only protects freedoms, liberties, and rights from transgressions on part of the... Read More


  1. 0
    mc3
    Pt wasn't homebound and shouldn't be on service.
    Sounds like your hha wasn't legit.
  2. 4
    Quote from joanna73
    This debate is about universal health care. Not food stamps, welfare, race, status, etc. Some people equate universal health care with handouts, when the idea behind it benefits everyone. Sure, I pay more in taxes than someone who makes less. By doing so, this ensures that they have access to care, as do I.
    I agree.

    There is also a huge misconception that all people who don't have health insurance are lazy, poor and unemployed. And I guess the rest are minorities and illegal aliens. Completely false. I know many people who don't have health insurance, need it badly and work every day. This is one of the most important reasons for universal healthcare, so that everyone can be covered. My daughter works full time and is in college and the only reason she has medical coverage is because she is now allowed on my insurance thanks to the early reforms. Before that, she was not covered for a few years and could not afford the healthcare she needed out of pocket. Our current system must be reformed.
    Sisyphus, Susie2310, lindarn, and 1 other like this.
  3. 2
    Quote from mc3
    I don't want to buy my car insurance from the government, either.

    I have in the past. Much simpler and cheaper all around. Especially those hard hit new drivers. My son was quoted $6500 for six months for a six year old family sedan. His crime he's 21yo, never had an accident nor a ticket of any sort.

    One province over and he'd be under $2000 for the year.
    lindarn and joanna73 like this.
  4. 0
    But you are still required to have it, aren't you? And I wil be that you carry it.

    JMHO and my NY $0.02.
    Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN
    Somewhere in the PACNW
  5. 1
    Quote from DoGoodThenGo
    Well if one examines how other nations go about universal healthcare it is part and parcel of a scheme that works from the notion there is a basic social level that no person should fall below. This includes housing, food, education and yes access to quality healthcare services.

    Merely providing someone with health insurance is not going to keep them healthy if they cannot afford a proper diet for themselves and their families. Ditto if they are living in unsanitary and or unhealthy living conditions or no "home" at all (homeless).

    We know that stress takes a huge toll on the human body in both mental and physical health. Giving a homeless or very poor person health insurance whilst still allowing them to live under a bridge is hardly a good use of funds.

    When doing a discharge plan do you not inquire about the patient's home situation? Do they have insurance to pay for meds? Can they have the proper diet to not only aid recovery but promote proper health?
    Furthermore to that:

    Have been watching the BBC series "Call The Midwife" on local PBS which is based upon factual accounts of a *real* UK midwife in 1950's UK, and it becomes clear why just having universal insurance doesn't cure all health problems.

    Video: Call the Midwife - Episode 1 | Watch Call the Midwife Online | PBS Video

    The NHS was just a decade or so old in the 1950's UK, borne out of the dust and ruin of WWII, and while it made great strides in healthcare for many in Great Britain, especially the poor, children and infants, it soon became clear to the government that more was going to have to be done and a "expansion" of social welfare programs was required.

    PHysicans, midwives, district nurses and other healthcare workers under the NHS system did their best but when you have persons living in filthy, disease and vermin ridden conditions it really is like trying to stop a flood with a bucket.

    As with most things and as it had been for generations before it was mainly the women and children who suffered the most. The former were worn out physically and often mentally from having baby after baby. Coal fires meant many children had breathing problems, that along with mould and god only knows what else growing on walls and such.
    lindarn likes this.
  6. 3
    You really don't have much of an understanding of your British history do you?

    Post WWII, Britain was a mess. Rationing was still in effect until the mid-50's. The War had devasted people, their homes were often in ruins. Working women were displaced by returning troops. Add in a large population and a small land mass you are going to have problems. Factor in the programme is set in the east end of London and of course you are seeing the worst of the UK in this time period.

    I was born at the end of the decade in a maternity hospital. My parents didn't live in conditions detailed in this series.

    Untill 9-11's terrorist attacks, America had never experinced mass suffering and destruction on home soil.

    Don't base all your opinions on a PBS series.
    Sisyphus, lindarn, and joanna73 like this.
  7. 0
    Quote from Fiona59
    You really don't have much of an understanding of your British history do you?

    Post WWII, Britain was a mess. Rationing was still in effect until the mid-50's. The War had devasted people, their homes were often in ruins. Working women were displaced by returning troops. Add in a large population and a small land mass you are going to have problems. Factor in the programme is set in the east end of London and of course you are seeing the worst of the UK in this time period.

    I was born at the end of the decade in a maternity hospital. My parents didn't live in conditions detailed in this series.

    Untill 9-11's terrorist attacks, America had never experinced mass suffering and destruction on home soil.

    Don't base all your opinions on a PBS series.
    Fair enough "zing", and yes one should have made clear the series is set in the EastEnd and did not obviously represent a majority of the UK population. This probably explains much of the *shocked* attitude the new young midwife has towards the area, it's residents and the state of the place,as she obviously came from better and was totally unware "people lived like this", as she says.

    Being as all that may still stand by my statements that merely providing healthcare and or means to access is not going to bring about large changes in the health of a population if other needs are going wanting.
  8. 2
    There are many issues that need to be addressed. Allowing someone access to health care and social services is a start. Remember that many people have jobs, and they cannot afford to pay their insurance costs. No one should be forced to decide between buying food or going to the Doctor. That's just wrong.
    lindarn and JMBnurse like this.
  9. 0
    Quote from suanniam4
    mc3
    Pt wasn't homebound and shouldn't be on service.
    Sounds like your hha wasn't legit.
    I know! When I questioned it, that's when I was told "no, it's OK". That's about when I quit.
    mc3
  10. 6
    From http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/h...e?_s=PM:HEALTH

    "Unless you're a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, you're one illness away from financial ruin in this country," says lead author Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., of the Harvard Medical School, in Cambridge, Mass. "If an illness is long enough and expensive enough, private insurance offers very little protection against medical bankruptcy, and that's the major finding in our study."
    Woolhandler and her colleagues surveyed a random sample of 2,314 people who filed for bankruptcy in early 2007, looked at their court records, and then interviewed more than 1,000 of them. Health.com: Expert advice on getting health insurance and affordable care for chronic pain
    They concluded that 62.1 percent of the bankruptcies were medically related because the individuals either had more than $5,000 (or 10 percent of their pretax income) in medical bills, mortgaged their home to pay for medical bills, or lost significant income due to an illness. On average, medically bankrupt families had $17,943 in out-of-pocket expenses, including $26,971 for those who lacked insurance and $17,749 who had insurance at some point.
    Overall, three-quarters of the people with a medically-related bankruptcy had health insurance, they say.
    "That was actually the predominant problem in patients in our study -- 78 percent of them had health insurance, but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments and deductibles and uncovered services," says Woolhandler. "Other people had private insurance but got so sick that they lost their job and lost their insurance"

    How is this ok?
    RNfaster, Sisyphus, RNsRWe, and 3 others like this.


Top