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. ...
At the point of a gun??I will continue to see a future for our government, anarchy is not a acceptable substitute. We still have the vote, we CAN and should use it to change what we dont like in our OWN government.
He was using hyperbole to make a point. He didn't mean a real gun. Just that why do we have to be forced into this universal health care plan?
Some of us believe there are certain obligations that the gov is responsible for and others, not so much. And taking over health care is not one, imo.
It is part of our current problem with private insurers. But at least with the current system, you have a choice, and can find other alternatives for healthcare coverage. That won't be the case with national healthcare.
Specializes in Trauma,ER,CCU/OHU/Nsg Ed/Nsg Research.
It is part of our current problem with private insurers. But at least with the current system, you have a choice, and can find other alternatives for healthcare coverage. That won't be the case with national healthcare.
Yes we can find other alternatives for health care coverage, but our choices are forced to be made by which one is the most affordable- and all are too expensive. Then you add in the fact that the ones that are cheaper cost less because they cover less. This is one way that access has been decreased. This is also why market competition doesn't work very well when it comes to insurance companies as far as increasing the quality of what they deliver.
What choice would a person have if they didn't like their current insurance plan?
I mean a person who has suffered four myocardial infarctions, the first in his thirties, episodes of a potentially lethal arrythmia requiring an implanted defibrillator, a pacemaker, and still needs cardioversion.
For the record, I suspect my daughter's current bill will end up being somewhere north of half a million dollars. My out of pocket maximum cost will be 3 grand. For me, THAT is what health insurance does. But see, THAT kind of expense is what insurance is SUPPOSED to cover: a protection against a catastrophic loss. Health Insurance today, in the main, can't really be called insurance: it is pre-paid healthcare. ...
~faith,
Timothy.
I am sure Timothy has contingency plans in place for his daughter's coverage, so please don't think I am attacking him, but if this pre-term birth were visited on a "regular" person who is depending on employer-based insurance, their options are then limited, especially if the baby develops chronic complications. There may be a lifetime cap, no? What about if the company folds? Can the employee even contemplate switching to another employer? As far as I can see, that person is now obligated to continue with that original insurance policy, at whatever price, as long as there may be any lingering need for coverage, unless they have the means to pay cash for all care. What if the employee is hurt/dies/goes to prison?? The possibilities are too many to plan for, as a "regular" person!!
I am sure Timothy has contingency plans in place for his daughter's coverage, so please don't think I am attacking him, but if this pre-term birth were visited on a "regular" person who is depending on employer-based insurance, their options are then limited, especially if the baby develops chronic complications. There may be a lifetime cap, no? What about if the company folds? Can the employee even contemplate switching to another employer? As far as I can see, that person is now obligated to continue with that original insurance policy, at whatever price, as long as there may be any lingering need for coverage, unless they have the means to pay cash for all care. What if the employee is hurt/dies/goes to prison?? The possibilities are too many to plan for, as a "regular" person!!
Didnt someone post a story about a family who's child's medical bill was up to a million , the cap amount for their insurance and they found themselves needing SChip? Maybe someone remembers it and can repost it. You make a good point.
Yes it is - gov't interference in our insurance IS the current problem with managed care. So, why on earth would you turn over MORE of your care to gov't?
What choice would a person have if they didn't like their current insurance plan?
I mean a person who has suffered four myocardial infarctions, the first in his thirties, episodes of a potentially lethal arrythmia requiring an implanted defibrillator, a pacemaker, and still needs cardioversion.
What are this persons choices?
Kill employer sponsored insurance, allow for TRUE insurance for catastrophic care, disallow denial for pre-existing conditions and let THAT be 'community rating', only, no gov't pricing controls or long definitions of coverage.
THAT would get rid of this concern.
HSA to pay for other care. Get the lobbyists of gov't out of your care and let the market rule and the cost for all other aspects of care would fall to a more affordable range than the current out of pocket care for those chronically ill.
Those chronically ill get the biggest shaft from a gov't that enables lobbyists to use gov't rules to loot and overprice a non-competitive healthcare system. Get that gov't out of your way, and the biggest beneficiary WOULD BE those that need to use the system the most.
Give the gov't complete control of the system and the actuarial tables will prove that the best way to contain costs is to freeze the chronic users out - and policy will match exactly what the wonks would advise. Gov't restricted healthcare would scare the heck out of me if I actually needed to use the system MORE. Perish the thought.
Kill employer sponsored insurance, allow for TRUE insurance for catastrophic care, disallow denial for pre-existing conditions and let THAT be 'community rating', only, no gov't pricing controls or long definitions of coverage.
~faith,
Timothy.
Ah, if only we could really do that. . . And while you are at it Tim, do the same thing to our cumbersome tax code. :w00t:
And while you are at it Tim, do the same thing to our cumbersome tax code. :w00t:
Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN
11,305 Posts
He was using hyperbole to make a point. He didn't mean a real gun. Just that why do we have to be forced into this universal health care plan?
Some of us believe there are certain obligations that the gov is responsible for and others, not so much. And taking over health care is not one, imo.
steph