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

Nurses Activism

Published

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/

HSA's and HDHP lead to worse results when compared to comprehensive insurance. The Commonwealth fund has numerous slides and articles discussing this very issue.

Baptized by Fire's point is dead on accurate when discussing how private insurance reduces access. They make money through denial of care. Cathy Crimmins in her book "Where is the Mango Princess" has a memorable phrase when referring to insurance companies. BENEFIT DENIAL SPECIALISTS.

We need a consistent coverage plan for all people.

Part A:

First Dollar coverage for an annual physical exam, annual eye exam, immunizations, annual dental exam with cleanings. Switching our system to a prevention oriented model is possible with these as ground rules.

Part B:

Medical care for chronic conditions are covered at first dollar.

Medication reimbursements for chronic conditions are based on an evidence based practice model.

The french use a model along these lines and it appears to be quite effective in holding down medical costs related to exacerbations of chronic conditions.

People are dying NOW!

We have to act!

We cannot wait for a "pie in the sky" unregulated pure "free market" system to fix everything.

The problem for the Wilkes family has never been that they do not have insurance; it's that theirs doesn't do them any good. For the most part, the family enjoyed more affordable large-group coverage--that is, until little Thomas was born with severe hemophilia.

People are dying NOW!

We have to act!

We cannot wait for a "pie in the sky" unregulated pure "free market" system to fix everything.

Here it is, the million dollar "cap". That poor father could barely keep from crying, incredibly sad, but REALITY. Who could watch this and continue to say our current system of private health insurance should be allowed to continue to exist?
Specializes in Trauma,ER,CCU/OHU/Nsg Ed/Nsg Research.
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?

~faith,

Timothy.

It seems to be working very well for Cheney.

https://allnurses.com/forums/f195/medicare-cutbacks-lined-falling-wages-pittsburgh-266591.html

The article oramar posted in another thread shows us what happens to hospital employees' and physicians' wages when a government insurance program cuts reimbursement rates. It is naive to think that the same (or worse) won't happen if all healthcare is sponsored by the government.

I read the article. This is my response:

This actually reflects that because wages in the community as a whole are declining that reimbursements are following the wages. In other words falling reimbursements are not causing falling wages it is the other way around. To be more specific: Falling community wage levels are causing falling MEdicare reimbursements. The article actually reflects the failure of conservative economic policy as a whole.

Specializes in Critical Care.
People are dying NOW!

We have to act!

We cannot wait for a "pie in the sky" unregulated pure "free market" system to fix everything.

Except, that the free market is the only 'fix' that will provide better care at affordable rates.

If we have to act, much better to go in the right direction rather than entrench gov't even more, requiring a bigger fix later.

The free market is proven to work.

Expecting gov't to provide quality on budget? No. THAT is pie-in-the-sky. THAT is what we cannot afford to waste our time upon. That panacea doesn't exist. It's not just a myth; it's an outright deception.

~faith,

Timothy.

Sorry, I am not smart enough to know where the free market is proven to work.

Where in the universe is the free market ensuring a high standard of needed healthcare for those who need it for life and health?

I think all nurses and humans deserve the same standard of needed healthcare as the Vice president.

The evidence says that we can use government to efficiently deliver services.

SS admin fees run well under 1% (somewheres around 0.3%) vs. Admin fees for private mutual funds average 1.5-2.5%

Medicare admin fees are between 3-5%. vs. 10% for private insurance....

Wow SS admins fees are only 1%. Just below the rate of return of 1.6%. OF all the examples of government managed whatever, Social Insecurity would be the worst to bring up. On the other hand when you look at what you pay into social insecurity for what you would have gotten back in the private sector it just furthers the argument against government run health care.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/CDA98-01.cfm

The evidence says that we can use government to efficiently deliver services.

SS admin fees run under 1%. vs. Admin fees for private mutual funds average 1.5-2.5%

Medicare admin fees are between 3-5%. vs. 10% for private insurance....

The other side of this is that fees on private accounts reduce expected rate of return and future benefits by 30%. (Based on the evidence from Chile, the UK and 401 K's in the US.)

What is interesting is how that 30% nick off the top is consistent for private accounts and private health insurance. I think that that in and of itself calls into question the wisdom of using the "efficient" private sector to deliver what are in effect broad public services.

Specializes in Critical Care.
Sorry, I am not smart enough to know where the free market is proven to work.

Where in the universe is the free market ensuring a high standard of needed healthcare for those who need it for life and health?

I think all nurses and humans deserve the same standard of needed healthcare as the Vice president.

Of course you are smart enough, and if not, we've discussed it before.

The free market works and works well providing you: food, entertainment, transportation, telephones, clothing, appliances to make your life easier, hundreds of ways in hundreds of items, daily.

It works and works well. You get to CHOOSE the best combination of price and quality for your lifestyle. The gov't doesn't provide you with one size fits all of any of this stuff. Who would want it? Everytime that's been tried, it's been an utter failure

You want to pretend that healthcare is different. It is not. The best combination of quality and price, for the most people possible, is the free market. A true free market doesn't like to leave anybody behind. EVERYBODY is a potential customer. THAT is why census data has shown that even the poorest Americans routinely have access to some surprisingly sophisticated technology, such as cell phones and cars.

We have discussed how the free market is superior, even in healthcare: orthodontics and laser eye surgery are examples. But, if you want a good COMPARISON, I pointed out to you in the past the difference between the prices and availability of the heavily regulated prescription drug market and the OTC market. With the OTC market, you have astounding choice at competitive prices. With the prescription market, you have limited choice (the gov't uses your doc as a gatekeeper) at astounding prices. They are both regulated. The difference - being less regulated, the OTC market gives more freedom to choose. Even with a less-than-optimal free market menaced by the gov't, the OTC market nevertheless thrives. When was the last time you paid a hundred bucks a month for an OTC drug? I thought so. The same companies make all those drugs. Why do they treat both markets so differently? The answer is simple: they actually have to compete more in the OTC market. And. It shows.

~faith,

Timothy.

Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.
The other side of this is that fees on private accounts reduce expected rate of return and future benefits by 30%. (Based on the evidence from Chile, the UK and 401 K's in the US.)

What is interesting is how that 30% nick off the top is consistent for private accounts and private health insurance. I think that that in and of itself calls into question the wisdom of using the "efficient" private sector to deliver what are in effect broad public services.

Those who purchase investments that charge fees are doing so out of choice. There is no shortage of investment opportunities and products for individuals who wish to manage their own money, without paying up-front or management fees. That's one factor that separates our curent financial system from our current insurance system, and from any government sponsored system. Individuals can and do successfully manage their own money, with far better results that what the government provides.

+ Add a Comment