Mandatory Health insurance? Is it a solution to health care? - page 2

I am a pre-nursing student, and am looking at issues surrounding current healthcare. What has recently caught my eye is the controversy over mandatory health insurance, and I have recently read some... Read More

  1. by   MBANurse
    Assuring equality of health care access is hardly equality of results
    Its not? Then what is it,then?
    Its a process of redistributing wealth from those that have and make money to those that do not with the goal of creating the result that everyone recieves the same level of care/access.

    What and where is the incentive for individual achievement?

    I know... the slippery slope is a fallacy... BUT... whats next?
    You and the Pnhp state that the "profit" in health care is what corrupts the system...

    So the next thing is groceries... everyone needs those too; right? The profits that are involved in the delivery of groceries make them unaffordable...So why don't we nationalize those as well...

    You get the picture.
  2. by   Lizzy6
    Quote from catlynLPN
    NOT everyone who gets assistance has a cadillac, nor can everyone afford insurance.
    Not to mention people WITH health insurance who are barely scraping by..and these people do not have a cadillac, an escalade or a lexus either. Nor are they allowed TCA (temporary cash assistance), no WIC, they do have free and/or discounted prescription medications and have to pay a high deductible and a co-pay whenever they do see their physician(s).
    Last edit by Lizzy6 on Dec 28, '07
  3. by   Lizzy6
    Quote from MBANurse
    I really care less what anyone states or claims... The ability to improve one's station in life is there for everyone. The problem is that everyone wants the easy way... they don't want to go without the toys, or widgets or gadgets or the high end clothes...

    I have to agree with some of this. I work with the medicaid population and yes, there are some who have gotten their GED's, going to college and doing without. Then there is the majority of my clients who well, most do not work, ...they have gigantic large screen tv's plastered in their living room, they have more than basic cable, some have have designer clothing, rent high end cars, ipods, cell phones, get their nails done & their hair. Now mind you, I have nothing against those things, but if you are 2-3 months behind in paying your elec or gas bill, then you NEED get to your priorities straight.


    Should there be exceptions where the government steps in and helps out? Sure. But they should be exceptions.

    Agree.
    ---------
  4. by   pickledpepperRN
    ...There is no perfect way to provide health care for the entire population of the United States. Any structure that we create will by its nature be large and prone to bureaucratic snafus.

    There are always going to be limits on resources and hard decisions: Should an insurance pool cover liposuction for an actor who needs to lose 10 pounds for a starring role? (Probably not.)
    Should it pay for the same treatment for a morbidly obese person who is at risk of heart failure? (Probably so.)
    Should an 80-year-old person get a kidney transplant while a 23-year-old is left waiting? (I don't know; do you?)

    But I do know that if you leave those decisions in the hands of people who will make more money if they choose one path, then the path of one of the most important public policy issues in the nation will be selected on the basis of greed. That's the fundamental flaw in our health care system. ...

    http://www.sfbg.com/printable_entry.php?entry_id=5320#
  5. by   Katie82
    Having health insurance should be a responsibility, not a choice, so I am watching Mass. with great interest - they have a mandatory insurance law. I know people who have insurance available and do not purchase it because the bi-weekly premium can buy them a couple cartons of cigarettes. WHen these folks get sick, they go to the ER for care. They run up a bill that never gets paid (more cigarettes). If they are admitted, they really run up a bill, which also never gets paid. In an effort to help hospitals who have to treat these deadbeats, they receive government assistance, which ultimatly comes out of the pockets of guess who? You and me...... This arguement reminds me of the motorcycle enthusiasts who think no one should tell them they have to wear a helmet. If I had a dime for every paraplegic I have taken care of because they were not wearing a helmet, or a seatbelt, I wouldn't have to work. And once again, guess who picks up the bill??????
  6. by   Katie82
    Lizzy - I also work with the Medicaid population, but lets be fair here... Most of these goodies that you describe are not purchased by our patients, they are gifts (or aquisitions) from admirers.......
  7. by   Lizzy6
    Quote from ksilty
    Lizzy - I also work with the Medicaid population, but lets be fair here... Most of these goodies that you describe are not purchased by our patients, they are gifts (or aquisitions) from admirers.......
    Ahhhh, so we agree.
  8. by   MBANurse
    Quote from Lizzy6
    Ahhhh, so we agree.
    so they beg or steal mone, cigs or booze? I don't understand?
  9. by   Lizzy6
    Quote from MBANurse
    so they beg or steal mone, cigs or booze? I don't understand?
    I was referring to something else. Not sure what the above remark is about, that was mentioned by someone else.
  10. by   Katie82
    Quote from catlynLPN
    Mandatory healthcare for WHO? For the ones who can afford it? What about the ones who can't afford it? The ones who live from paycheck to paycheck just trying to buy milk and bread for their babies?
    How are these people going to afford it?
    This is just all hype. You can't get blood out of a turnip.
    Most of the people I have known who choose not to pay insurance premiums do so because they have other things to do with their money - like cigarettes, and Starbucks, and ceramic nails. Health insurance is on the bottom of the list of priorities for many, especially if their children are covered by CHIP.
  11. by   pickledpepperRN
    Under HR 676, a family of three making $40,000 per year would spend approximately $1600 per year for health care coverage.

    It would be a payroll deduction like medicare.
    Or payable similar to income tax for thosewhose income is from investments.
    All people with an income would pay in.
    Then when they or their children are sick or injured they will be cared for as needed.
  12. by   Katie82
    Quote from spacenurse
    Under HR 676, a family of three making $40,000 per year would spend approximately $1600 per year for health care coverage.

    It would be a payroll deduction like medicare.
    Or payable similar to income tax for thosewhose income is from investments.
    All people with an income would pay in.
    Then when they or their children are sick or injured they will be cared for as needed.
    I think making it a mandatory deduction is the only way to pay for healthcare. Part of our problem is that we as a society tend to view healthcare as an option. THis allows people to choose between insurance and cigarettes. Insurance should not be an option, but a responsibility the same as shelter and utilities and food. If we need to forgo cable and watch network TV (UGH), so be it. We need to re-prioritize healthcare. Several years ago, the Maryland Director of Health attempted to make families receiving CHIP more responsible by introducing a premium for families living above 200% of poverty level. The plan was to collect $38./month premium from the family and use that to subsidize insurance premiums that would have been paid to the head of household's employer for insurance coverage. What a public outcry that caused, both from the household that refused to pay $38. (would have covered the entire family), butalso employers who protested because of the additional expense of covering all of these folks who had declined coverage because their kids were covered by CHIP. Let the government pay. Years later, the legislature did institute a premium for that income group, but it backfired on the consumer. The $38. only covers the children, not the parents.
  13. by   pickledpepperRN
    Family Of Nataline Sarkisyan, To Join Other Patients, California Nurses, Working Families, And Healthcare Activists In Testifying Against ABX1 1, USA.

    …A broad coalition of leading California unions and Sen. Leland Yee yesterday announced their opposition to ABX1 1, the deeply flawed deal brokered by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. Strong critiques of the bill were presented today by leaders of the Teamsters, United Food and Commercial Workers, Communication Workers of America, California School Employees Association, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Office and Professional Employees, California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, League of Women Voters, and the Gray Panthers. Among others opposing the bill are the Machinists and Engineers and Scientists unions, and California Church IMPACT, legislative arm of the California Council of Churches.

    Sen. Yee, whose vote could be critical, cited the "struggle of the working poor" to meet their bills while "the state of California is saying you will have to pay for open-ended healthcare costs. There is no way I am going to support" a bill that could "literally put people out on the street" or force them to choose between paying for their healthcare or their housing costs…

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/94847.php

Must Read Topics


close