An RN's thoughts on the health care law

Nurses Activism

Published

I've been following the debate about the health care law and it seems like most commenters are totally for it or adamantly against it. I've been watching my family, friends, and patients face bad choices and rationed health care because of our current health insurance system. What I really want to know is if this law will fix it.

First, let's look at some of the key parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), most of which are phased in by 2014:

- The best parts of the law are the provisions that people cannot be denied health coverage because of pre-existing conditions, that insurers can not drop you when you get sick, and that eliminate annual and lifetime caps on coverage. What worries me are the loopholes that insurance company lawyers will use to continue to cherry-pick who they cover. For example, the law doesn't say how much they can charge to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

- Almost everyone (even the insurance companies) agrees that it's good to let parents keep their children, up to the age of 26, on their health insurance (if they have it).

- Large companies that don't give their workers health insurance will have to pay $2,000.

- People who do not have health insurance where they work and choose not to buy it will have to pay a penalty. Is the individual mandate a fee, a tax, or a penalty? I don't really care what we call it. I understand why everyone should be part of the healthcare system. Medicare does this, covering everyone 65 and over. The individual mandate is a clumsier way of creating one risk pool, through private insurance companies. I've don't like it because it requires people to give money to profit-making insurance companies.

- If you are very low income, you may qualify for a government-funded subsidy to buy insurance through a health exchange, or, for the most low income, become eligible for Medicaid which is set to expand.

- It shrinks the Medicare donut hole in prescription drug coverage, where there's coverage to a certain point and then nothing until a higher spending cap is reached. Since 2010, 5.2 million seniors and people with disabilities have saved $3.7 billion on prescription drugs. I believe the donut hole should be entirely eliminated.

- All insurance plans will be required to include preventative care (i.e. mammograms, vaccinations, colonoscopies, physicals) with no co-pay, by 2018.

- Medicare coverage will now include an annual physical and no co-pays for preventative services.

- Before, small businesses paid as much as 18% more than larger businesses for premiums. Now, they will get tax credits (up to 50% of the cost of premiums) for offering health insurance to their workers. In 2011, this affected 2 million employees.

- Pharmaceutical, medical device manufacturers and health insurance companies will have their taxes increased. I agree with this. This law gives them millions of new customers. They can help pay.

- The law increases funding for community health centers, one of the best provisions of all.

- For the first time, the law taxes health benefits, and the main target is the comprehensive, best plans. In 2018, those plans (more than $10,200/single; $27,500/family) will be taxed. The insurance company has to pay, but they're going to pass the cost along to anyone lucky enough to have a good plan. I think this will push more people into plans that cover fewer health needs and have large out-of-pocket costs.

- In 2013, if you make more than $200,00 (individual) or $250,000 (family), you will pay a Medicare tax on investment income (before Medicare tax was only on wages).

- The Medicare tax rate goes up to 3.8%, from 2.9%.

Although the advocates for the law say that it will bring down health care costs. I believe that some of these benefits are over-stated and ignore some remaining very large problems.

What the law doesn't or maybe won't do:

- Despite the all the claims about cost controls for individuals and families, most of them are weak. Insurance companies, drug companies, and hospitals will still largely be able to charge what they want. Although there are limitations on rate increases, this is not enough protection, 9% increases for several years is just as untenable (although it is better than the current, unfettered, increases).

- I expect that people will continue going bankrupt because of high medical bills or choosing to skip or delay doctor visits or needed treatment.

- Insurance companies will still be able to deny care recommended by a doctor using the same excuses ("experimental," "not medically justified," etc) as now.

- I read that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said that up to 27 million people will still have no health coverage. Since the Supreme Court decision allows individual states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion for low income people without a federal penalty, that number will probably grow.

- Some people are worried that employers will drop existing coverage because the exchanges will now be a more affordable option. I'm not too worried since before this law, employers could drop or reduce coverage any day they wanted (and many did). There's nothing in ACA which makes it more attractive to drop coverage, in fact they might have to pay a penalty for dropping coverage.

- The law promotes IT systems in healthcare, many of which are wasteful and have been used by some employers to erode RN clinical judgment.

- There are similar misguided incentives for "wellness" programs that penalize people who have diabetes, high blood pressure, or other medical conditions often beyond their control.

- The windfall for insurance companies, big pharmaceutical firms (who were exempted from strong cost controls to win their support for the law), further strengthen a healthcare system already too focused on profits rather than patient need.

For me, the bottom line is the ACA law didn't go far enough. Insurance companies are going to be a little more restricted more than they were in the past. It will help some people but doesn't cover all Americans.

Polls show that a majority of Americans would rather that Medicare cover everyone. We would still have to work to improve it, but it would be easier and more cost-effective. It would eliminate the higher administrative costs (ACA limits insurance companies to 15%, even assuming they don't find ways around that, Medicare's is 3%) and the corporate profits - billions of dollars removed from the health care system and not spent on health care.

Hate to break it to you, but "free" clinics still get subsidized by the government, and that's how the staff in those clinics get paid. Very few clinicians can afford to work for free, even if they have altruistic intentions. You can be sure that those clinics won't absorb all of those extra patients either. The ERs will, making busy and crowded departments even worse.

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
Good points Mr. Detsch.:up:

There are many of these kinds of threads going on so I don't want to repeat myself by adding links I've already placed with ideas for market-driven solutions.

I will say THIS RN is firmly against Obamacare. And a recent poll showed that "67% of Americans disapproved of the indivual mandate when it was being labeled a penalty. Now that the Supreme Court has confirmed it as a tax, we can expect the law's popularity to fall even further." I sincerely hope so.

This is the biggest tax hike in history and will be paid for by middle-class taxpayers. When we are already so deeply in debt (China) . . . I don't think this is the way to solve what many folks on all sides of this issue agree are problems that need solutions.

I'm in favor of market-driven ideas. Not handing it all over to the government which will increase our tax burden (we are already struggling) and will entail losing many of our liberties.

I've refused to join the ANA due to it's pro-Obamacare stance. And the fact that they market it as if ALL NURSES are on the same page as the leadership of ANA.

All nurses are not in favor of more government involvement in healthcare decisions.

As an aside - the comparison between car insurance and Obamacare has been proven null and void for years and I've posted links before to that truth. I found a new one today from an actual insurance agent that spells it out more thoroughly though.

Obamacare vs. Car Insurance

[h=1]Obamacare vs. Car Insurance[/h]"I wrote this article because I got tired of people comparing the "Affordable Care Act" to car insurance. Being an independent agent and selling health insurance, I'm both the policyholder and knowledgeable about the products available. I can tell you, Obamacare has very little in common with car insurance.. . . . ."

Oops --- Limbaugh, GOP have it wrong: Health care law is not the largest tax increase ever -- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/28/rush-limbaugh/health-care-law-not-largest-tax-increase-us-histor/

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
i've been following the debate about the health care law and it seems like most commenters are totally for it or adamantly against it. i've been watching my family, friends, and patients face bad choices and rationed health care because of our current health insurance system. what i really want to know is if this law will fix it.

first, let's look at some of the key parts of the affordable care act (aca), most of which are phased in by 2014:

- the best parts of the law are the provisions that people cannot be denied health coverage because of pre-existing conditions, that insurers can not drop you when you get sick, and that eliminate annual and lifetime caps on coverage. what worries me are the loopholes that insurance company lawyers will use to continue to cherry-pick who they cover. for example, the law doesn't say how much they can charge to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

- almost everyone (even the insurance companies) agrees that it's good to let parents keep their children, up to the age of 26, on their health insurance (if they have it).

- large companies that don't give their workers health insurance will have to pay $2,000.

- people who do not have health insurance where they work and choose not to buy it will have to pay a penalty. is the individual mandate a fee, a tax, or a penalty? i don't really care what we call it. i understand why everyone should be part of the healthcare system. medicare does this, covering everyone 65 and over. the individual mandate is a clumsier way of creating one risk pool, through private insurance companies. i've don't like it because it requires people to give money to profit-making insurance companies.

- if you are very low income, you may qualify for a government-funded subsidy to buy insurance through a health exchange, or, for the most low income, become eligible for medicaid which is set to expand.

- it shrinks the medicare donut hole in prescription drug coverage, where there's coverage to a certain point and then nothing until a higher spending cap is reached. since 2010, 5.2 million seniors and people with disabilities have saved $3.7 billion on prescription drugs. i believe the donut hole should be entirely eliminated.

- all insurance plans will be required to include preventative care (i.e. mammograms, vaccinations, colonoscopies, physicals) with no co-pay, by 2018.

- medicare coverage will now include an annual physical and no co-pays for preventative services.

- before, small businesses paid as much as 18% more than larger businesses for premiums. now, they will get tax credits (up to 50% of the cost of premiums) for offering health insurance to their workers. in 2011, this affected 2 million employees.

- pharmaceutical, medical device manufacturers and health insurance companies will have their taxes increased. i agree with this. this law gives them millions of new customers. they can help pay.

- the law increases funding for community health centers, one of the best provisions of all.

- for the first time, the law taxes health benefits, and the main target is the comprehensive, best plans. in 2018, those plans (more than $10,200/single; $27,500/family) will be taxed. the insurance company has to pay, but they're going to pass the cost along to anyone lucky enough to have a good plan. i think this will push more people into plans that cover fewer health needs and have large out-of-pocket costs.

- in 2013, if you make more than $200,00 (individual) or $250,000 (family), you will pay a medicare tax on investment income (before medicare tax was only on wages).

- the medicare tax rate goes up to 3.8%, from 2.9%.

although the advocates for the law say that it will bring down health care costs. i believe that some of these benefits are over-stated and ignore some remaining very large problems.

what the law doesn't or maybe won't do:

- despite the all the claims about cost controls for individuals and families, most of them are weak. insurance companies, drug companies, and hospitals will still largely be able to charge what they want. although there are limitations on rate increases, this is not enough protection, 9% increases for several years is just as untenable (although it is better than the current, unfettered, increases).

- i expect that people will continue going bankrupt because of high medical bills or choosing to skip or delay doctor visits or needed treatment.

- insurance companies will still be able to deny care recommended by a doctor using the same excuses ("experimental," "not medically justified," etc) as now.

- i read that the non-partisan congressional budget office said that up to 27 million people will still have no health coverage. since the supreme court decision allows individual states to opt out of the medicaid expansion for low income people without a federal penalty, that number will probably grow.

- some people are worried that employers will drop existing coverage because the exchanges will now be a more affordable option. i'm not too worried since before this law, employers could drop or reduce coverage any day they wanted (and many did). there's nothing in aca which makes it more attractive to drop coverage, in fact they might have to pay a penalty for dropping coverage.

- the law promotes it systems in healthcare, many of which are wasteful and have been used by some employers to erode rn clinical judgment.

- there are similar misguided incentives for "wellness" programs that penalize people who have diabetes, high blood pressure, or other medical conditions often beyond their control.

- the windfall for insurance companies, big pharmaceutical firms (who were exempted from strong cost controls to win their support for the law), further strengthen a healthcare system already too focused on profits rather than patient need.

for me, the bottom line is the aca law didn't go far enough. insurance companies are going to be a little more restricted more than they were in the past. it will help some people but doesn't cover all americans.

polls show that a majority of americans would rather that medicare cover everyone. we would still have to work to improve it, but it would be easier and more cost-effective. it would eliminate the higher administrative costs (aca limits insurance companies to 15%, even assuming they don't find ways around that, medicare's is 3%) and the corporate profits - billions of dollars removed from the health care system and not spent on health care.

thank you for this analysis.

this is a good discussion.

what do you think of these assertions? -- four reasons why the court's decision to uphold obamacare is good news for the economy | thinkprogress

the congressional budget office estimated that obamacare will reduce the federal deficit over the next decade. repealing the law would increase the deficit by $230 billion over the next 10 years. $210 billion
many young americans have insurance thanks to obamacare. http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/19/pf/health-care-young-adults/index.htm
health reform will help create about 4 million jobs over the next decade, according to a 2010 center for american progress report, by reducing the cost of health care and making it cheaper for businesses to hire. the law will create between 250,000 and 400,000 jobs a year. according to the study, the law will help create more than 200,000 manufacturing and 900,000 in the service sector by 2016. -- read the full report here
it will be cheaper for employers to provide health care. these costs are often passed on to customers. one study estimates that each car sold by general motors contains $1,200.00 in health costs. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/03/29/how-the-affordable-care-act-helps-the-us-economy
small businesses already receive tax credits contained in the law to help insure their employees. -- http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=223666,00.html
article "[color=#333333]obamacare: it's cheaper!" -- http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/05/obamacare-it-s[color=#333333]-cheaper.html
Specializes in OB, HH, ADMIN, IC, ED, QI.

"That Guy" has the same reaction that many doctors have to coverage for everyone. It's commonly known as the "I've got mine" approach to the needs of others.

The way this remarkable act (remarkable for having passed both houses, despite strenuous opposition) works to lower medical costs, is that those who will be covered, will no longer use the ED as their neighborhood doctors' office, arriving in more advanced states of their illnesses. That costs us taxpayers more, and provides fewer other programs (like transportation) that could benefit us. Prevention programs also will keep almost everyone well enough to work, longer than the current programs.

Since doctors charge so much for their services, utilization of nurses for patient education and nurse practitioners for preliminary care will increase, and that means more time will be spent with patients by professionals who have expertise to educate them more thoroughly and effectively. Doctors traditionally speak to patients with terminology that is difficult for them to understand, and in a dispassionate manner that forbids emotional reactions (no time for that).

Consequently, remuneration for nurses will likely increase, as well as job opportunities.

Specializes in Emergency, Pre-Op, PACU, OR.
those who will be covered, will no longer use the ED as their neighborhood doctors' office, arriving in more advanced states of their illnesses.

Lamazeteacher, I am not sure that this will play out as everybody hopes. I come from one of those countries that has socialized healthcare, and one of the big problems is that 1)it is common to NOT be able to see your PCP the same day (or the next, for that matter) and that 2)further testing requiring specialists/special equipment will not be as readily/quickly available as it is in the ED (CT scans, MRIs, scopes, etc). With the immediate availability of care plus all these convenient tests in the ED and the American sense of customer entitlement (expectation to receive service immediately), I believe that many patients will continue to come to the ED rather than seek out their PCP, even for "non-emergent" complaints.

Specializes in med/surg.
Please don't generalize the "55%" that don't pay taxes. No one knows every story. I haven't worked in 2 years because I'm a single mother and I was in college through a program that assists us in getting our degree. (Family Scholar House, look it up). I am now a registerd nurse working at a large hospital in my community. Im pursuing a BSN (which the hospital is helping pay for) and I pay taxes AND have health insurance now. Bam! Out of the 55%! Of course there will be loopholes. Like any other system (welfare for example, which im saying goodbye to) there is the potential for abuse. I think there are other ways to fix some of these issues. I am choosing to keep an open mind and although I an a nurse, my second passion is the fight to end poverty. A fight that will aid in bringing our country back to where we want it. The more people we can get into the professional world, the lesser the strain on our money, yes? We're not all "dead-beats." Excuse me while I dive off my soapbox! =)

Yes, they take takes out of your paycheck. Then, in February, they give them back in the form of a tax return. Hence, no taxes paid. Income taxes at least.

Specializes in OB, HH, ADMIN, IC, ED, QI.

I'm reading a lot of unfounded, fear driven speculation here, which has no basis in fact! It is obvious that many posts are based on hearsay, rather than authoritative sources. The original poster (OP) went to a lot of effort to get facts here. Please be sure you do that, too

before getting off on unfounded rants about paying for others' healthcare and increased taxes, and specialists being paid the same rates as less advanced physicians. That's hype fostered by insurance

companies!They have a vested

interest in being the only healthcare

payers, and not only is that not

working, bigtime, it provides those

who are high up in management of

those insurance companies, with

outrageously high compensation

(think Wall Street).It is still going to

be the employers who provide

insurance for their employees who

work more than 20 hours/ week.

If you currently have insurance,

nothing will change now, or in 2014. However, many fewer

employees will find themselves

unemployed due to much higher

insurance premiums because of

their age or preexisting

conditions.

As an Employee Health Nurse 8

years ago, my job was clearly to

feret out those employees for whom

insurance costs would render them

too expensive to have benefits, and

report them to administration. Also if employees used injuries sustained at work, their performance and possible future overuse/abuse of workers' compensation was suspect, as was their work.

The locked files that I was supposed to reassure employees, were "private" were available to the VP of

the organization and in fact resided

right outside his office! According to ACA, now employees fired by companies that find insurance costs to keep a particular employee are

too high, that will violate the law. Also, terminated employees as well as everyone else can get healthcare

through affordable government

programs without taxes being levied others to pay for that!

Read the law (certainly not as difficult or illegible to non lawyers as some would have you believe, and Republicans' alternate proposal is) and you'll know that, don't just

adopt the opinion of someone else

who hasn't read it!

Free clinics will remain necessary

for those immigrants who are

undocumented, and those who

refuse to buy their own insurance.

A post here indicated that doctors who staff those clinics receive pay, yet the vital premise of such services is that professionals donate

their services. I've volunteered my nursing services to several Free clinics, and know doctors where I was, weren't paid.

Just after my graduation as a Public Health Nurse in Canada (where I spent my first 22 years), I worked where the doctors who initiated Ontario's healthcare program were. It wasn't opposed by the people (although other provinces had protests) and politicians had little to do with it being started. My family is still there, and they enjoy no financial worries due to ill health and are seen the same day they call for an appointment, if necessary. My 83 year old sister just had spinal fusion surgery with great results, there. She did have to wait 3 months to have the surgery, after making her decision to have it (following decades of addiction to prescribed narcotics - her choice). She is now narcotic

free! When visiting Canada, I ask friends and family if they resent "their" tax dollars going to healthcare for others. The response is always, "Why should I?" Doctors there are not compensated as lavishly as American physicians, and they live in large homes with domestic help, and drive reasonably luxurious cars. When attending medical conferences in the USA, they do salivate over conversations with our overpaid physicians. They appreciate that it is their passion for providing healthcare that is what drives them to provide excellence in services, not dreams of wealth.

Specializes in Wilderness Medicine, ICU, Adult Ed..

Thank you, lamazeteacher , for reminding us of the importance of knowing the facts before we opine. That is good advice, which is why I thought that you would like to know that most major insurance companies supported the Affordable Care Act because insuring more people will broaden their customer base.

I would be grateful to you if you could provide the facts on which you base your statement that, "Also, terminated employees as well as everyone else can get healthcare through affordable government programs without taxes being levied others to pay for that!" I am eager to know how the government can operate programs without levying taxes. My understanding has been that everything the government does is funded by taxation. Please let me know what the government's other source of money is.

Wishing you the best and looking forward to your reply,

David Deitsch, RN

Specializes in Critical Care.
Thank you for taking the time to publish this thoughtful summary and commentary. You raise many important points, but one that stands out in my mind is your apparent distaste for profit. Do you offer your talents and services at no charge, or do you require that those who benefit from them compensate you?

I work to make a profit (i.e., to make more money than I need to survive) so that I can also save, invest, buy luxury items, and enjoy other pleasures over and above what I need to survive. I do not apologize for this, nor do I ask thers to apologize, whether they are individual employees like myself, or a members of a groups of people joining together to form a corporation.

Best wishes,

David Detsch, RN

I think you're confusing salary with profit. You don't actually make a "profit" you make a salary which is what provides you with "more money than (you) need to survive". Employees at non-profit companies still earn a salary.

Profit motive can be a good thing, although it can also be destructive. The problem with the way the health insurance industry is set up is that the profit motive encourages worse, not better, service.

Insurance companies function essentially as a bookkeeper. Imagine you had an accountant who's job was to keep your books, deposit your paychecks, and pay your bills. Imagine if this accountant decided they could add to their profit by keeping the mortgage payment for themselves rather than paying the mortgage, not caring that you'll lose your house, that's your problem. I find it hard to believe that would be acceptable, but it happens all the time in the health care insurance industry.

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

nj woman with rapidly swelling 51-pound cancer tumor forced to delay treatment for insurance

surgeons have successfully removed a rapidly ballooning 51-pound cancerous tumor from a woman who was forced to delay treatment for more than a month until she become eligible for health insurance. ...

nj woman with rapidly swelling 51-pound cancer tumor forced to delay treatment for insurance - medical daily

Specializes in L & D; Postpartum.

If you currently have insurance,

nothing will change now, or in 2014.

That is simply not so. If you have health care now, you are at risk of your employer opting to not cover you any more. So you will have to find other insurance. Of course, the President promised us all that we could keep our doctor, keep our insurance, keep our coverage. What he failed to say is that his promise was only good if our doctor, if our employer, if our insurance chose to stay the same.....which they don't have to do, and many won't do.

Specializes in OB, HH, ADMIN, IC, ED, QI.

This illustrates how hopeless things appear to uninsured persons, and how that costs lives!If the current healthcare delivery "system" served everyone well, by 64 years of age we would have known that there are government programs that might have been used by the

patient described here.However the

path to be included in them, is

littered with pitfalls, the first of

which is that it is not possible now,

to get efficient action quickly.

Government workers are rewarded

for being thorough, not polite or

providing a respectful attitude.Lines

of applicants form outside the

"eligibility" office at least an hour before offices open, in communities with low cost housing, and after getting a number (no one is there

to direct them to do that, so there is a rush to the counter, which makes employees there quite anxious. So when they do point to signs that indicate where the numbers are, across the waiting area from the entrance, everyone is unhappy already.

The state funding for offices and

personnel, actually increases costs

because they are seedy looking and

the atmosphere is grim. That

doesn't bode well for bringing

people back to complete the

process. Screaming children run

around and there is palpable

despair among the applicants. Add

to that a uniformed, menacing yet

bored looking guard seated a few

feet from the front door, in the

middle of the chaos, whose

knowledge of his job is only to be

there and if a physical disruption

occurs, deal with it by calling the

police and threaten participants

until help arrives. No social worker

or crisis intervention worker is part

of the staffing, and the workers

there are ill equipped to deal with

people like this patient whose needs are immediate.There is no alternative if they don't go to an ER at a facility that has social workers (where are they, these days?).

It's much easier, without having a crystal ball that gives some idea of what will happen in situations such as the one reported to do nothing.

There was embarrassment and fear this lady must have experienced as her increased abdominal girth

became more and more apparent,

(implying irresponsible eating or

pregnancy...) It would take a very well informed, positively motivated person to pass through the

gauntlets this woman faced, for her

to get earlier healthcare. It's human

nature to choose the easiest path, which for her meant waiting until her birthday to get the needed

Medicare coverage, and denial

added to her tendency to put off

facing such a painful, unpleasant

condition.

As she found out, it takes time for

the promise to become reality. The

longer government agencies take to

process bewildering forms, more cases stack up for their agency to handle.

Once the Affordable Healthcare Act is up and running smoothly

(without the next administration

canceling it), there won't be the

timelines of coverage based on

employment, and gaps that we

now experience. Please give that a chance and sponsor an attitude that good coverage for healthcare is

about to happen! We have to

anticipate that there will be wrinkles to work out, attitudes to improve, and communication for consumers to know they can either continue to

have the healthcare they've had

before or get the temporary

government coverage until they

have employment.

No one wants to anticipate illness,

so often informative pamphlets get

the round file treatment before

they're read, or they stay where

they were placed.

The financial industry has more effective ways of getting their

message heard. They find the

consumer groups with common interests such as seniors and give them a free meal as they learn how their money can be invested to go further in retirement.

Healthcare has many groups that

can be tapped for common

denominators, such as young adults for whom pregnancy needs to be

planned; and those who are already expecting their babies and need

preparation for financial hurdles,

as well as labor and parenting classes.

People need to know what their

priorities for saving money are!

Their education for that, needs to

start in High School. Think of the

information families can get

(especially newly arrived ones

whose language is other than

English, who already learn about life

where they live, from their school

aged children) through having the

information their children will be

given. That also enhances learning

and interfamilial relationships, and

needs to be encouraged by

healthcare providers.Those who

project ill will can jeopardize the wellbeing of others, and continue hopelessness, or they can take the leap necessary to support the Affordable Healthcare through it's most fragile stage at the beginning, and smile when describing how patients will get the care they need.

Who knows, positive approaches and smiles will continue past that and signal the ability to have a good outcome. That will promote earlier care and diminish fear for the long haul!

+ Add a Comment