To all "medical coverage is a privilege" folks: - page 9

You're presented with a five year-old who probably has appendicitis. The family is poor, does not have medical insurance, and they only have a small amount of money to cover diagnostics and treatment... Read More

  1. Visit  rnfostermom} profile page
    3
    BCGradNurse: Thank you for responding to Neatnurse30's comment in such a sensible and sensitive way. I agree with you completely and could not have said it better. In fact, my reply would have been really snarky! I truly hope we can achieve universal health care in our country one day. Now I have to stop typing, because everything else I can think of to say in response to that offensive comment is just too, well, not nice....
    Psychtrish39, Autymn, and sauconyrunner like this.
  2. Get the hottest topics every week!

    Subscribe to our free Nursing Insights newsletter.

  3. Visit  Autymn} profile page
    5
    Quote from nicurn001
    But there you are wrong because in order to recoup uncoverd costs of the uninsured who do not qualify for some form of assistance , then the cost is passed onto the customers , we then pay that through increased premiums .
    To borrow another posters phrase " it burns my soup " , the group that could afford to pay for insurance but choose to shift the risk and therefore cost to me .


    "...because in order to gain (extraordinarily MORE) than recoup uncovered costs of the uninsured..." --

    There, fixed that for ya (not really you, but that often used phrase or explanation). I have no doubt disguised in many of the healthcare rate hikes that are supposedly 'recouping' for those who are uninsured, is the hidden agenda of more profit, more of the time. No way for we 'payors' to see it or prove it eh?

    Board members do not face a puzzle of 'how do we maintain the profits we made last quarter', they in earnest seek to continuously, zealously RAISE their profits. There is no discussion pertinent to them like "the insured, loyal customers who have been with us for years should get a huss this quarter." Customer service is the surface-speak for attaining corporate goals.

    Meanwhile we continue the infighting over who should pay, who should suffer or die since they probably made unwise choices at some time in their life - versus those who are oh so much brighter and more moral, and perhaps more lucky. We continue to be distracted, and the owners of the healthcare conglomerates continue to increase their revenue.

    No one begrudges achievement or success - no, not even to 'corporations' who apparently are 'people' too now in America. The shame is that the definition of those goals is muddied with literally, unlimited greed in the midst of pain and suffering.
    herring_RN, Merced, Psychtrish39, and 2 others like this.
  4. Visit  tewdles} profile page
    2
    Well said Autymn...it is sad how greed has become so ingrained in the capitalist business model that we (the general public) now just accept that as the norm, when it HAS not been the norm in this country historically.
    herring_RN and Merced like this.
  5. Visit  OnceMorewithFeeling} profile page
    7
    All right, I'll bite.

    I've lurked on this site for a few years and this discussion was what finally prompted me to join.

    Here is my anecdotal story to illustrate why we need universal coverage:

    About 15 years ago, my mom sneezed, and afterward, her neck hurt. She spent a few months in pain, trying to correct whatever had happened with stretching before she finally went to her MD.

    Her MD told her she could try traction, or she could have back surgery. My mom, who was on a great health care plan, wanted nothing to do with surgery if there was another option available. Her MD prescribed a traction device which is basically a jaw strap which is attached to a bag. She fills the bag with water, slings it over a door, and sits in a chair with the jaw strap on. It worked perfectly. The traction relieved her pain and she was good to go.

    A few years later, my step-father died. My mom was insured through him, and stayed on his insurance through COBRA. A few months before her COBRA coverage ended, my mom started searching for personal insurance.

    She was denied by every insurance company which operates in her state because there is a note in her medical record which says she was offered an option of back surgery and she declined. No insurance company was willing to provide coverage for her on the off chance that she get a wild hair up her a** and decide to undergo the back surgery which she declined before.

    The upside of this story is that my mom is lucky enough to live in a state that has high-risk pool-coverage. She has health care insurance.

    She has health care insurance at $800 per month with a $7500 deductible.

    She pays $9600/year because her medical file mentions that 15 years ago back surgery was an option.

    So ends my anecdotal story on why we need universal coverage.
    myelin, herring_RN, Merced, and 4 others like this.
  6. Visit  Autymn} profile page
    5
    [QUOTE=wilsonbl5150;6471536]I'll jump in on this. Most hospitals will make arrangements with patients to pay off bills. $5000 to remove an appendix? Maybe in Mexico. I had shoulder surgery last year to repair a seperated shoulder and it cost 5 times that, just for the surgery. Labs, PT, pain meds,etc were all extra. Total cost was $48,000. Luckily the injury was a result of a car accident and the other drivers insurance paid (he was at fault).

    But what if it was a heart attack, stroke or other type of accident? I worked full time and had insurance (BS/BS). I Paid $300 a month for that privledge. How much would they have covered??
    Answer: about $20,000. They would NOT pay for: Ambulance ride or any procedures done in the ambulance, CT scans done in the ER, or Physical therapy. The would have paid a percentage for everything else. I know this because claims were filed with BC/BS before being turned over to the other guys
    insurance..."



    Wilson - it is rare that some people even inform themselves of exactly what is in their so-called 'full coverage' health insurance. Some of the very same people who actually argue against humane healthcare for others, regardless of the economic vehicle used, will damn straight find themselves or loved ones in the exact position you describe at some time in their lives.

    Wrong-minded reasoning often has little experiential basis.
    herring_RN, Merced, tewdles, and 2 others like this.
  7. Visit  debkimt} profile page
    0
    I had an ob patient on medicaid the other day ask me if it would be safe for her to go on the cruise with her husband next month. She said she needed a quick answer because her husband was about to purchase the tickets. I am a LVN and single parent that struggles to pays for my own insurance and healthcare and I cannot afford to go on a cruise. Or, how about these people that claim they cannot pay their healthcare costs, but smoke 1-2 packs of cigerettes a day? For alot of people, it is really just about what they choose to pay for.
  8. Visit  tewdles} profile page
    1
    debkimt...it is clear that you personalized this comment and you are angry.

    I went on a cruise when I was dead broke too...my parents paid. I still had to book the tickets though...
    everwonder_y likes this.
  9. Visit  Rob72} profile page
    0
    Anyone familiar with, "fee for service"? I already know the answer. "Universal" coverage is only needed when third-party payors have to pay staff & make profit, and physicians(and RNs) have to pay Gvt. loans.


    No historical model validates the concept that individual or long-term societal needs can be effectively be met by an administrative/legislative body. The only extant socialist system greater than 60 years old is China, hardly a prime example of care-delivery.
  10. Visit  nicurn001} profile page
    3
    Sigh ! we all get the concept of fee for service and personal responsibility . Surely you get the reality that there will always be those who cannot finance those services , what would you have done to them ? . If you give them care how is it to be financed , so that the providers do not go bankrupt , or do you advocate simply witholding care to all who do not have the finances or access to finances ( usually through insurance )to pay for their care?.
    tewdles, herring_RN, and Psychtrish39 like this.
  11. Visit  Rob72} profile page
    0
    Quote from nicurn001
    Sigh ! we all get the concept of fee for service and personal responsibility . Surely you get the reality that there will always be those who cannot finance those services , what would you have done to them ? . If you give them care how is it to be financed , so that the providers do not go bankrupt , or do you advocate simply witholding care to all who do not have the finances or access to finances ( usually through insurance )to pay for their care?.
    I've lived with that reality. One makes choices based on need, not, "desire".

    What we are currently financing is not healthcare, but continued self-destructive ideation. Slap a 150% "sin-tax" on televisions and high-calorie/sugar foods, and AV entertainment; we're doing pretty well with tobacco.

    I'll be very blunt- take away the data-packages, electronics, and eating out, most of us make a damn good living, and certainly a majority would be able to have savings in addition to the "olde-school", catastrophic event insurance.

    I'm sorry, the majority of people in the United States do not shop for the majority of their clothing at Goodwill, most of them cannot prepare a meal that is both nutritious, and capable of feeding them for the next meal as well, most of our children are far too electronically gratified.

    Yet again, I'm sorry, we can debate healthcare stats, based on who ran the study, bias, etc., etc.; consumer stats, however, are fairly cut-and-dried. Americans spend their money on physically harmful self-indulgence, and our socio-political model offers no incentive for betterment, nor penalty for abuse. Quite a few States have fought legal battles over the Constitutionality of requiring drug-testing and cessation therapy for public-assistance benefits; the crisis is not over "saving the lost and helpless", but wasting resources for those truly in need on the vulgarly abusive.

    One of many, its as bad, if not worse, with Trauma:
    http://allnurses.com/burn-nursing/sh...th-665589.html
    Last edit by Rob72 on May 17, '12
  12. Visit  heron} profile page
    3
    Quote from Rob72
    I've lived with that reality. One makes choices based on need, not, "desire".

    What we are currently financing is not healthcare, but continued self-destructive ideation. Slap a 150% "sin-tax" on televisions and high-calorie/sugar foods, and AV entertainment; we're doing pretty well with tobacco.

    I'll be very blunt- take away the data-packages, electronics, and eating out, most of us make a damn good living, and certainly a majority would be able to have savings in addition to the "olde-school", catastrophic event insurance.

    I'm sorry, the majority of people in the United States do not shop for the majority of their clothing at Goodwill, most of them cannot prepare a meal that is both nutritious, and capable of feeding them for the next meal as well, most of our children are far too electronically gratified.

    Yet again, I'm sorry, we can debate healthcare stats, based on who ran the study, bias, etc., etc.; consumer stats, however, are fairly cut-and-dried. Americans spend their money on physically harmful self-indulgence, and our socio-political model offers no incentive for betterment, nor penalty for abuse
    . Quite a few States have fought legal battles over the Constitutionality of requiring drug-testing and cessation therapy for public-assistance benefits; the crisis is not over "saving the lost and helpless", but wasting resources for those truly in need on the vulgarly abusive.
    Soo ... what penalties for abuse or incentives for betterment would you promulgate and how?

    If it's a "sin-tax" how is that different from government interference in personal choices? If it's some as-yet undiscovered incentive program, how is that not government attack on corporate profits? Or government deciding how people shall live their lives? If it's not the government doing these things, who would?

    Don't tiptoe around what you're really saying ... to be truly consistent with the current libertarian line of thought, the answer is, "if they can't afford it, let 'em die".

    "the crisis is not over "saving the lost and helpless", but wasting resources for those truly in need on the vulgarly abusive."
    This statement would have us discriminating between the truly "lost and helpless" and the "vulgarly abusive". How does one measure "vulgarity" - basically an esthetic judgement call - in order to determine who is "truly in need".
  13. Visit  bagladyrn} profile page
    4
    Heron - you have hit on the one point that has struck me throughout this thread. None of the posters who consider "healthcare a privilege" have laid out exactly what they think should be done, at the hospital door or the ER desk with those patients who do not have the means to pay for necessary services.
    Okay - how about it people - what would you advocate for the person who walks in with chest pain, the laboring woman, the unconcious trauma victim dropped on your doorstep by someone who then speeds off if these individuals don't have insurance, credit cards or ready amounts of cash? Are you going to treat them (and who pays for that?) or step over them on your way in?
    I'm not asking what these people woulda, shoulda, coulda done prior to the crisis. What are we going to do now?
  14. Visit  rnfostermom} profile page
    3
    Quote from bagladyrn
    Heron - you have hit on the one point that has struck me throughout this thread. None of the posters who consider "healthcare a privilege" have laid out exactly what they think should be done, at the hospital door or the ER desk with those patients who do not have the means to pay for necessary services.
    Okay - how about it people - what would you advocate for the person who walks in with chest pain, the laboring woman, the unconcious trauma victim dropped on your doorstep by someone who then speeds off if these individuals don't have insurance, credit cards or ready amounts of cash? Are you going to treat them (and who pays for that?) or step over them on your way in?
    I'm not asking what these people woulda, shoulda, coulda done prior to the crisis. What are we going to do now?
    I hear you, and my reply would be that we treat these people. I work in a 'safety net' hospital that cares for anyone who comes through the doors regardless of ability to pay. In 7 years of working there, I have never once heard that a patient cannot have a test, or a procedure, or a medication because of the cost or they don't have insurance, or anything along those lines. I like that. I think this is how it should be for everyone. I'm absolutely willing to pay higher taxes for this. Obviously, implementing some kind of universal health care would not be problem free. There is a lot of waste, huge numbers of really irresponsible people who wreck their health and, accordingly, difficult choices to be made about allocation of resources. Also, programs that have worked in smaller countries (as discussed in the movie Sicko) would be much harder to implement on a USA-sized scale. Still, it is what I believe in, and I continue to hope it can be possible one day.


Nursing Jobs in every specialty and state. Visit today and Create Job Alerts, Manage Your Resume, and Apply for Jobs.

Top