A step towards "universal health care" run by the government?

Antikigirl, ASN, RN · Dec 9, 2006

Wow...do other businesses have to also provide minimal charity work also or get excise taxed? Does my grocery store HAVE to provide groceries for a year for a poor family? Does Walgreens HAVE to provide free medications to patients with low incomes? Does my gas station HAVE to provide free gas for charity? Does Petco HAVE to provide animal food to a poor dog or cat? I could go on...but I think you get the point!

I mean this sounds like a witch hunt because we chose professions to HELP others as is??? What says that because we took on in the healthcare profession that we HAVE to be charitable? I choose to be charitable, and so does my community hospital when we have the money (because most of our moneys go directly into people that can't pay as is!!!!!). I guess I don't see it as a universal healthcare system as much as targeting a profession...a profession that has taken ENOUGH hits as is...and that is going to shoot them in the foot!!! What signal is that sending to future healthcare professionals (or us in it now?)...that you HAVE to be charitable and loose your rights to be paid for what you do...you are a drone to the masses and you better pitch in or else...welcome to healthcare! Oh man!

Does the retired nurse providing care in her home for a couple elderly patients have to provide charity work when that is their only means of income? Does the private practice doc in a rural community have to fire their nurse because they have to take on a charity patient and can't afford the RN? Does the ambulance company have to provide taxi service to the poor free of charge, possibly missing a serious emergency? All because we HAVE to obey the rules of forced charity???

Bad idea...very bad idea! Charity is a choice..and looses all meaning when forced!

outcomesfirst, BSN, RN · Dec 9, 2006

Universal health care is a must; but I would need to read this bill first to see if it is a step toward it - It sounds exactly like Triage 34 points out - as an unfair tax. That said - one of the problems with our current system is the profit demands....Charity should not be an issue

blueyesue · Dec 9, 2006

Universal health care is a must;

You think that state or federal agencies should take the place of private insurers?

IMO, except for national defense, minting money, building highways and running police forces, there isn't anything the government can do better than the free market.

Asklepios · Dec 9, 2006

Why don't they just call it what it is? Universal is just a nice way to say "socialist" healthcare. I didn't realize we were now living in Russia. If you want to see what a bad idea socialist healthcare is, go look at Canada's system. People waiting months and months for urgent surgeries. Poor quality doctors, etc.

Tha bottom line is - why should people who earn a paycheck have to pay for healthcare for the people who don't?

Katnip, RN · Dec 9, 2006

This bill sounds like they're trying to mandate that healthcare providers must put in a certain number of hours a week/month/year or they will have to pay a penalty (tax in their lingo).

That's absolutely outrageous. When you mandate volunteers they aren't volunteers anymore.

sister--* · Dec 9, 2006

I know our facility asks us as individual nurses to write down and submit to them the things we do within our communities on our own time that pretain to community service. Things like working at a free public B.P. clinic, taking swabs for a national tissue registry, providing public health screenings, bringing mobile screening units to the area, assisting with a Red Cross Blood drive......

I'm certain that these hours are then counted toward the facility's "charitable" community giving.

Is this what we're talking about?

Works2xs · Dec 9, 2006

"H.R.6420

Title: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose an excise tax on certain medical care providers that fail to provide a minimum level of charity medical care, and for other purposes."

I think that without the full text of the proposal, it's really impossible to draw any real conclusion. For example...

.. What are "certain medical care providers" defined as? I know that as it stands now, certain not-for-profit organizations are required to provide charitable care for a defined percentage of cases in order to maintain their tax-exempt status. If you read the above statement, it would seem that the legislation is targeted at defining what amounts to a penalty to those providers that fail to meet the required number of charitable cases.

.. what is meant by "for other purposes"?

.. how is "charity medical care" defined in this case?

So, at first blush anyways, I'd say the proposed legislation is more of a "big stick" to wield at providers who claim tax exemption but fail to meet the defined parameters to gain that exemption. Which seems reasonable, to me at least. I also don't think that this has anything to do with the establishment of "socialized medicine". But, like I said, without the full text of the proposed bill, and an indepth knowledge of this particular portion of the tax code, I could be wrong.

S.T.A.C.E.Y, LPN · Dec 9, 2006

If you want to see what a bad idea socialist healthcare is, go look at Canada's system. People waiting months and months for urgent surgeries. Poor quality doctors, etc.

Ouch! I'm from Canada, and while I do admit our health care system needs much work, I would disagree that it is a "bad idea" to provide health care to all. Yes, it does take far too long to get urgent surgeries....I agree, and that is something that is being worked on right now, but people who need surgeries do get them whether they can afford them or not. I have never heard of someone refusing to seek needed care because of the cost to do so, or prolonging/self-treating b/c of the cost of a drs/er visit, or losing their house b/c of no insurance, etc.

Yes, Canada does not have a perfect system, but neither does the USA. One thing I remember hearing that I really liked was that Vermont had universal health care for children. At least, I think it was Vermont.... Now, wouldn't that be a good idea???

mced · Dec 9, 2006

Sounds like another excuse for the federal government to take MORE of my money. Really inspires me to work harder.

kenny b · Dec 10, 2006

Ouch! I'm from Canada, and while I do admit our health care system needs much work, I would disagree that it is a "bad idea" to provide health care to all.
I've always been facinated by the differences between socialized medicine and a system driven by captialism. Maybe you'll allow me to pick your brain for the purpose of greater mutual understanding.
Since the US system is regulated, it is hard to know what a truly capitalistic system would look like. I think the primary concern with socialized medicine is that people will over-use it. Do you see this much in Canada?
Other concerns include the idea that the govt. could never (by its very nature) be nearly as efficient as free-enterprise. This makes the whole thing cost more.
Finally, there is a major concern that when the taxpayers provide anything, the incentive for people to provide for themselves evaporates (in many, but not all cases).
I know that a Capitalistic system has concerns as well, (like the profit motive's tendency to negatively affect medical decisions). These are somewhat (but not completely) alleviated by the natural selection inherent in the competative environment.
I've always wanted to talk to a Canadian about these things and I'm presenting these ideas without the intent to give offense at all. Just curious what an "insider" thinks about these things.

jyoung1950 · Dec 10, 2006

My sister used to work for an organization called Intestinal Disease Foundation - offered information, etc. for, well, intestinal diseases. She used to get calls from people in Canada for information. She has been told by these Canadians that they can only see specialists, i.e., a gastroenterologist (sp?) once a year.