Uninsured=financial ruin - page 6

admittedly this is anecdotal but the story still speaks to a larger issue. having affordable access to health care is an essential part of the social contract. being uninsured and lacking access to... Read More

  1. by   UKRNinUSA
    passgasser
    as an ex UK nurse I would say that the poor RN wages have more to do with the unions that represent them, than universal health care. They refuse to strike and seem to have a distinct lack of "huevos" when it comes to improving their work environment.
  2. by   passgasser
    Quote from UKRNinUSA
    passgasser
    as an ex UK nurse I would say that the poor RN wages have more to do with the unions that represent them, than universal health care. They refuse to strike and seem to have a distinct lack of "huevos" when it comes to improving their work environment.
    More later on other points, but did want to address this. I'd be more inclined to accept this argument if there was a strong nurses' union in the US. In many parts of the country, there are no nursing unions whatsoever, and the national organization that purports to represent us all, the ANA, has absolutely no "huevos" either. Yet US nurses clearly outearn their British counterparts.
  3. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from ChayaN
    You're missing the point. The point is that in this country you are penalized for working and rewarded for not working. As long as the system is in place that you lose benefits by getting a job and earning wages, people with low income have less incentive to work hard and get better jobs because that means they'll lose the government cushion and will have to work harder for less. It has nothing to do with "pitting one group against another." The member of one group could easily fall into the next group tomorrow.
    Insurance companies exist to make profits. They not longer contribute any useful work.
    Nice smart people figure out ways to deny "out of network", "Experimental", and other care. "Pre-authorization" and other hoops the person must jump through delay care and har the very people whose money provides the profits.

    No insurance company employee provides any healthcare!
    They need to be helped to do useful work.

    Currently, Medicare incurs only 2% for administrative costs and does not need to advertise or pay commissions. According to Bernstein, private insurance spends considerably more on advertising and management. Administrative costs run as high as 30% because providers and insurers have to employ large staffs to cope with thousands of different plans for billions of billings a year.
    http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/4981.html

    ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS
    http://www.ahipresearch.org/pdfs/Adm...sts_030705.pdf
  4. by   passgasser
    OK, first of all, liability issues. Someone here claimed that liability insurance for healthcare providers would actually fall under a universal healthcare system, since people would be reluctant to sue the federal government. You might be correct, except that your fundamental premise is incorrect. Look at it this way: If you suffer damages from medical malpractice, do you sue your health care insurance provider? Of course not, you sue the health care provider that caused you harm. Without significant changes in liability laws, that would remain unchanged under any universal healthcare plan. So, my original argument stands. While reimbursement, and therefore salary for healthcare providers would fall, liability insurance would not. There are places, for example some counties in the South, where malpractice insurance has climbed so high for OB doctors, none practice there because they cannot hope to earn enough money just to cover their malpractice premiums. Since income for us will fall under a universal healthcare plan, there will be even more areas where it makes no financial sense for specialty practitioners to go. So, in the name of provision of health care for all, you just reduced the availability of health care to portions of our population.

    Next, I challenged anyone to name a federal bureaucracy that is efficiently managed. HM2Viking first listed the Social Security Administration. To begin with, the web site to which we were sent was a transcript of testimony before the Senate by a gentleman who was against the privatization of Social Security, so one cannot really consider the source to be at all unbiased. But, even if we take this testimony at face value, consider this. I am in my late 40's, and have been paying in to social security since I was 14. I hope to retire in about 20 years. Every report I have seen suggests that in my retirement planning, I would be foolish to consider any income from social security, since it will likely be bankrupt by then. Just how efficient can the administration of social security be when it is in such dire financial condition?

    As to Tricare or the VA, having had experience with both, I'd like to see some reference to indicate that either is well administered. Tricare was born out of a promise made then broken to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. The promise was that in return for service to the country, service members would have free medical and dental care for both themselves and their families during their service. When the military medical services became overburdened, first CHAMPUS, then Tricare were born. Both were based on the model of the insurance industry, and both required co-payments. Hardly the free health care we were promised. As to the VA, it is notorious among veterans for inefficiency, rudeness, excessively long waits, and antiquated facilities and equipment. (Yes, there are facilities that are exceptions, but they are the exception, not the rule.) I've never yet been to a VA Regional Center that didn't have twice the number of administrative personnel over the number of health care providers.

    I also want to quickly address the constitutional provision about providing for the "general welfare." This term does not mean welfare as that word is commonly used today. In fact, welfare as it is defined today did not even exist at the time the document was written. What we now call "welfare" was then called "charity." In using the term "general welfare," constitutional authors had in mind the creation of a society with opportunities, unfettered by silly governmental interference, where one could make a living and prosper in accordance with just how hard one was willing to work. They most certainly did not mean that government had a responsibility to act as a safety net for those who did not wish to work as hard. And without a doubt, they did not intend to confer rights on one group of people at the expense of another group. Such a thought was anathema to those who sought to escape a government that would enrich itself on the backs of others.
  5. by   Fuzzy
    Oh but people are very well rewarded for not working in this country---they get healthcare that my working earned tax dollars pay for. In order to get healthcare, I would have to stop working, become a criminal, and/or get pregnant.

    Fuzzy
  6. by   hope3456
    Quote from Fuzzy
    Oh but people are very well rewarded for not working in this country---they get healthcare that my working earned tax dollars pay for. In order to get healthcare, I would have to stop working, become a criminal, and/or get pregnant.

    Fuzzy


    About the part on getting pregnant, I recently found stats on how many childbirths are paid for by medicaid....in my state of CO over 28,000 in 2002 - close to 40%. In CA, 66%!!! It really pizzes me off. I had a baby last year, working in a job I hated b/c I (thought) I needed the health insurance which cost me $220 a month, and I paid about $1600 in copays, deductibles, ect. Medicaid recipients pay nothing. I am not rich. My DH was laid off during the time I was pg, we don't own many assets. I probably would have been smarter to try to qualify for medicaid or CHP+ prenatal, and quit my job, sorry to say.

    It just seems to me that this is a population that could be working, should be getting their own health insurance, it just calls the whole system into question as to why such a large percentage of pg women qualify for medicaid. I don't know what the answer is - but something needs to be done.

    www.statehealthfacts.org

    p.s. I had trouble posting the exact link but do a search for 'childbirth medicaid'
  7. by   passgasser
    Quote from Fuzzy
    Oh but people are very well rewarded for not working in this country---they get healthcare that my working earned tax dollars pay for. In order to get healthcare, I would have to stop working, become a criminal, and/or get pregnant.

    Fuzzy
    But, as someone else pointed out in another thread, a national healthcare system would serve only to expand that which admittedly frustrates you.
  8. by   pickledpepperRN
    I think we can eliminate the insurance companies with their denial of care schemes. Improve Medicare and cover everyone.

    http://www.calnurses.org/healthcare/facts/
  9. by   UKRNinUSA
    Why do the criminals get the best deal? An ex-prison nurse tells me that inmates get priority organ transplants, brand-name drugs, complete physicals, dental and vision care. Even death row inmates! Transexual inmates get their feminizing hormones! For free! And we're paying for it!
    So the bad guys get adequate health care and the good guys, who follow the rules, get the rest of the healthcare system, which is expensive and inefficient, at the risk of financial ruin. What a great system! Justice for all! Not. The American Dream? I don't think so.
    Last edit by UKRNinUSA on Feb 3, '07
  10. by   Fuzzy
    Quote from spacenurse
    I think we can eliminate the insurance companies with their denial of care schemes. Improve Medicare and cover everyone.

    http://www.calnurses.org/healthcare/facts/
    If we could get the insurance companies to insure people for a reasonable rate irregardless of pre-existing conditions then I would be AGAINST universal healthcare. Heck I would be happiest if there were no government, no lawyers, no insurance companies, and no big business (drug companies) involved in my healthcare. I would rather have total control of my healthcare. But than I just looked in my checkbook and realized that I haven't won the lottery.

    Fuzzy, who realy doesn't buy LOOTO tickets as they are just a fancy name for tax.
  11. by   UKRNinUSA
    a family member has just been diagnosed with a brain tumor. He has no insurance. This scares me more than the cancer.
  12. by   pickledpepperRN
    …A new study published in the February 2007 issue of the American Journal of Medical Genetics reveals that individuals with genetic conditions are twice as likely to report having been denied health insurance than individuals with other chronic illnesses.

    In the study, more than a quarter (27 percent) of individuals with genetic conditions and serious medical conditions reported having been denied health insurance or offered it at a prohibitive rate.

    Almost all of the individuals in the study (89.7 percent) said they obtained their health insurance through either their employer (59.4
    percent) or their spouse’s employer (30.8 percent). Nearly half of employed individuals (48.9 percent) said they felt they could not leave their jobs because they would lose their health insurance….

    http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/bioet...ws/kassgenetic
  13. by   pickledpepperRN
    Genetic anti-bias bill is back

    The seventh time may be the charm for backers of a bill to ban genetic discrimination in health insurance plans and the workplace.

    The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (HR 493) would make it illegal for insurers to deny coverage to a healthy individual based solely on a genetic predisposition to a specific disease and for employers to use individuals' genetic information in personnel decisions.

    President Bush also supports the measure.

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been a key opponent of the bill …

    http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/200...9/gvsa0219.htm

Must Read Topics


close