Cheney would "probably be dead by now" if not for his federally funded health care

[pickledpepperRN]

December 7, 2007, 2:58 pm

Nurses' Health-Care Ad Takes Aim at Cheney

Susan Davis reports on health care.

Vice President Dick Cheney would "probably be dead by now" if not for his federally funded health care, according to an eye-catching ad calling for universal health care that will run Monday in ten Iowa newspapers. The ad is union-funded by the California Nurses Association and its national arm, the National Nurses Organizing Committee, which represents 75,000 nurses.

"The patient's history and prognosis were grim: four heart attacks, quadruple bypass surgery, angioplasty, an implanted defibrillator and now an emergency procedure to treat an irregular heartbeat," the ad states, referencing Cheney's lengthy medical chart. "For millions of Americans, this might be a death sentence. For the vice president, it was just another medical treatment. And it cost him very little."

The group is calling on the presidential candidates to support a single-payer government-run health-care bill introduced in Congress by Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) that has 88 co-sponsors, including long-shot Democratic candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

The three Democratic front-runners have all proposed sweeping plans to cover all or nearly all uninsured. Republicans have offered more modest plans and none advocate a single-payer system. The nurses group opposes the plans of Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards because they argue that each plan will "continue to rely upon the wasteful inclusion of private insurance companies." The single-payer plan would take insurance companies out of the equation altogether. ...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/12/07/nurses-health-care-ad-takes-aim-at-cheney/

[pickledpepperRN]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

A man came to the ER after cleaning a garage with rat droppings. The next day he was diaphoretic and SOB. He wanted to be tested for the Hanta Virus.

He tried to refuse and EKG.

Loudly he said, "I did not come here for expensive tests. I am the customer. I will not pay for the EKG!"

He was in CHF with ST elevation.

He never believed the ER doc until his physician came and explained to him that he was having a heart attack.

Should patients just be customers? Should they choose what care they want?

As a patient advocate I am concerned about this

Are you saying that under the system you advocate that patients would no longer have any choice in medical care. At the moment patients have the right to refuse any med or treatment. Would this be gone?:trout:

Of course not.

I think what the ER nurse did was correct. She persuaded the patient to allow her to attach a cardiac monitor. She persuaded the patients own doctor to come in to the ER. She spent the time to explain to the man that his symptoms seemed like they could be a cardiac problem.

She advocated for the life of that man by allowing him to make an INFORMED decision about his healthcare.

She didn't just say, "The customer is always right." and get the AMA paperwork.

That nurse probably saved his life.

[ukstudent]

Of course not.

I think what the ER nurse did was correct. She persuaded the patient to allow her to attach a cardiac monitor. She persuaded the patients own doctor to come in to the ER. She spent the time to explain to the man that his symptoms seemed like they could be a cardiac problem.

She advocated for the life of that man by allowing him to make an INFORMED decision about his healthcare.

She didn't just say, "The customer is always right." and get the AMA paperwork.

That nurse probably saved his life.

Yes she advocated for the patient under the CURRENT system. Nurses are still nurses under the CURRENT system. Unless you think this would somehow change under your system I do not understand the point of your story. If Timothy's idea of health care started tomorrow would YOU stop being a patient advocate. Because I don't think you would any more than any other nurse here at allnurses.

If hospitals could actually bill for the cost of the treatment then I think they would try and push more tests, not less in order to make more money. However, if they can only receive what some government committee has decided to pay, possibly a lot less than actual cost, then they are more likely to not push those tests but to hide them.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

I think that you are missing the point. Patients with comprehensive health insurance receive better care overall than those with high deductible/consumer directed health plans. PNHP specifically debunks the government bureaucrat argument that you are advancing:

Who will run the health care system?

There is a myth that, with national health insurance, the government will be making the medical decisions. But in a publicly-financed, universal health care system medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the UK and Spain that have socialized medicine.

In a public system the public has a say in how it's run. Cost containment measures are publicly managed at the state level by an elected and appointed body that represents the people of that state. This body decides on the benefit package, negotiates doctor fees and hospital budgets. It also is responsible for health planning and the distribution of expensive technology.

The benefit package people will receive will not be decided upon by the legislature, but by the appointed body that represents all state residents in consultation with medical experts in all fields of medicine.

Source: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#run_healthcare_system

In other words the health care system will move towards an evidence based model. The funny thing is that more tests do not always equal better medicine or better outcomes. Using an evidence based model will hopefully teach providers to use "what works" for patient care.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

This graph shows why comprehensive health insurance tends to lead to better outcomes. It is good public policy to reduce access inequities for health care especially for patients with chronic illnesses.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

Skipping medications for cost reasons yields false economy. Patients wait to seek care until they are sicker and end up being hospitalized.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

Capping drug benefits yields poorer control of chronic illnesses.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

Paying for health care earlier during chronic illness reduces longer term costs d/t hospitalization.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

Countries with UHC plans have better outcome measures and spend less.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

The desire for "choice" is overstated...

[pickledpepperRN]

Like many critical care nurses I've cared for many people who had symptoms but for financial reasons did not seek help.

Undiagnosed HTN, DM, and cancer symptoms.

60 year olds with GIB in the ER with no preventative care at all.

Too many die. It could have been prevented with a mammogram, colonosctomy, or someone taking vital signs.

One 50 something man said, "I didn't do the free blood pressure test at the farmers market because I didn't want to know." He claimed his kids came first and he didn't think he could afford going to the doctor and filling prescriptions. He is now a dialysis patient.

I am concerned that IF we somehow magically eliminated health insurance and made any government interference or assistance illegal ( eliminated Medicare too) that more people would choose not to avail themselved of health care.

Or like the man in the ER would refuse a test such as an EKG for financial reasons not religious or philosophical reasons.

Denial is more common than not in many illnesses.