Are you willing to pay more taxes to ensure health coverage for all?

[HM2VikingRN]

cbs/new york times poll, february 2 007

if you had to choose, which do you think is more important for the

country to do right now, maintain the tax cuts enacted in recent

years or make sure all americans have access to health care?

cutting taxes 18%

access to health insurance 76%

would you be willing or not willing to pay higher taxes so that all

americans have health insurance they can't lose, no matter what?

willing 60%

not willing 34%

(if "willing") would you be willing or not willing to pay $500 a

year more in taxes so that all americans have health insurance

they can't lose, no matter what?

willing 82%

not willing 6%

http://home.ourfuture.org/assets/20070612_theprogressivemajority_report.pdf

interesting poll numbers...

[UKRNinUSA, RN]

a salary cut is not guaranteed. You are scaremongering; there is nothing to fear except fear itself.

[pickledpepperRN]

Senator Kuehl's Statement on SB 840, what it means for California, and how you can help

http://www.dist23.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={938B292B-81D2-4969-ACC2-7411C62226E8}

[tntrn, ASN, RN]

a salary cut is not guaranteed. You are scaremongering; there is nothing to fear except fear itself.

A salary cut may not happen, but your take home pay would be severely lowered. Same result: you have less discretionary spending ability; you have less control over your own money; more people who choose not to work or are here working illegally will be using your hard earned cash.

[DarrenWright]

a salary cut is not guaranteed. You are scaremongering; there is nothing to fear except fear itself.

I was just asking a comparative question.

The nurses in socialized countries that were specifically mentioned in this thread all make substantially less (even given exchange rates and inflation), than US nurses.

[Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN]

a salary cut is not guaranteed. You are scaremongering; there is nothing to fear except fear itself.

The salary cut idea was a different way to ask the question in a different way.

If our taxes went up, it would mean less money in my bank account. Same thing.

steph

[fergus51]

I pay about the same in taxes in either country (if you include my health premium in the US as a tax). I think we already pay enough taxes to pay for universal care, we just choose to spend that money elsewhere. At the very least I think every child under the age of 18 should receive free care. There is no reason we can provide free medical care to jail inmates and not to children.

[VivaLasViejas, ASN, RN]

I pay about the same in taxes in either country (if you include my health premium in the US as a tax). I think we already pay enough taxes to pay for universal care, we just choose to spend that money elsewhere. At the very least I think every child under the age of 18 should receive free care. There is no reason we can provide free medical care to jail inmates and not to children.

Agree with the above, with one exception: Granting access to health care to all children under 18 is a great idea in theory, but if PARENTS are chronically ill and can't afford adequate health care, how can they care for their children properly?

As for taxes: I would be willing to pay more in taxes ONLY if the insurance industry is taken out of the equation. Otherwise, way too much time, frustration, and money is spent on paperwork, not to mention CEO salaries and perks. I do not want to waste my hard-earned tax dollars on more of the same.

On the other hand, I don't trust the federal government to manage health care either. I think each state should set up its own basic health plan for all, and form an oversight committee made up of healthcare professionals, laypersons, and financial planners to administer it. And yes, I think rationing will be necessary, and I think the better-off should be able to pay for extra services if they want them.

The key to all of this, IMO, is separating the insurance industry from healthcare altogether; right away, getting the profiteers out and simplifying paperwork will save money AND time. Access will also no longer be a problem, as insurers won't be there to 'cherry-pick' healthy consumers and deny policies to the less-healthy.........or charge them whopping premiums while denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, plus demanding high deductibles and co-pays for doctor visits and prescriptions.:angryfire

[fergus51]

Agree with the above, with one exception: Granting access to health care to all children under 18 is a great idea in theory, but if PARENTS are chronically ill and can't afford adequate health care, how can they care for their children properly?

That's sort of the point. I think the government should pay for coverage for ALL children so that it doesn't matter if their parents are rich or poor.

[UKRNinUSA, RN]

show me the direct cause and effect between universal health coverage and lower salaries for RN's

[TweetiePieRN]

NO way. It's my money, I worked for it. I get taxed out the behind as it is. Absolutely no way!

[DarrenWright]

show me the direct cause and effect between universal health coverage and lower salaries for RN's

Sure.

RN's in the US, one of the rare countries with a mixed system, make more than RN's in any other country in the world that uses a universal system.

[UKRNinUSA, RN]

"RN's in the US, one of the rare countries with a mixed system, make more than RN's in any other country in the world that uses a universal system."

There is no evidence in your statement that there is a direct cause and effect. Your argument fails to follow the laws of logic. Consider the variables of supply and demand, labor representation, etc. Consider the effective decrease in earnings afforded by private health insurance premiums/copays -so far this year I have forked out about $8,000 which effectively decreases my income by over $1,000 a month.