Do You Want Universal Healthcare?

Published

I know this topic has been discussed before on this site..but, I was curious for an updated response. How many of you would be willing to pay more taxes for universal healthcare? I find it egregious that the US has put a cost on maintaining/saving ones life! I traveled to Europe and the thought of them having to bring their checkbook to the hospital aroused literal laughs. It's the same notion that we'd have to whip out our debit card to firefighters before they turned the hoses on our burning homes. It's sad. I think the overall costs of UH would be beneficial...in fact, the raised taxes would still probably be lower than our rising premiums every 2 weeks! Thoughts?

Specializes in Mursing.

I am seriously offended.

they had a package deal where if you paid $10,500 at least one month prior to delivery, it would cover all normal c-section fees with a 72 hour hospital stay.

How can ANYONE put a price tag on someone's life??? We are human beings, not a freaking super value meal. How can anyone not find that offensive?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ER/ICU/Flight.

I've been thinking about a lot of the posts on this thread. My question to the ones who are against it (and I understand your arguments-whether I agree with them or not) is: What is a reasonable proposal to stop the staggering cost of healthcare and improve our international standing in healthcare delivery?

this isn't a rhetorical question...I really want to know. I am for UHC with an option of staying with "insurance" companies if someone so chooses--why anyone would do this is beyond me because it is a legal form of highway robbery in my opinion. Isn't there some famous quote about a society being judged by how it treats the sick and the poor?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
This country does not take family and parenthood seriously.

The value to family and parenthood is cheapened when this country says a woman can mutilate her baby before it's even born.

I'm very offended that women in europe get a year off from work, paid, but here, we have to go back to work in like what, 8 weeks or use vacation time. God forbid we bond with the baby.

But if a woman decides not to chop up the little critter before it's born, then someone should pay her while she bonds with it? If so, who should that someone be?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ICU/Critical Care.

Why is it so implausible for a woman to take a few months off after birth, Turd? If someone is going to have the 6-8 weeks that FMLA provides, why can they not use their vacation time to extend that to have more time with the baby? I don't think its unreasonable. They pay us when we go on vacation, why not when we have babies?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Homecare Peds, ICU, Trauma, CVICU.
Why is it so implausible for a woman to take a few months off after birth, Turd? If someone is going to have the 6-8 weeks that FMLA provides, why can they not use their vacation time to extend that to have more time with the baby? I don't think its unreasonable. They pay us when we go on vacation, why not when we have babies?

I think that taking a few months off is a little different than a whole year. I see what you're saying and it is a nice benefit for those women who live in countries where this is the norm, but I wouldn't think it would be fair for an employer to have to try to find a "temporary" replacement, or work short staffed for an entire year to hold a job position open. And believe me, I am all for employee rights.

As to the vacation time, they pay it because it is time earned and owed to the employee thru years of service. I don't think I've ever met anybody who has used, much less accrued an entire years worth of vacation time. I'd also be worried about discrimination against women during the hiring process if employers were forced to pay them to take a year off. Not really fair to them, I think. Heck, if that were the case, I'd stay knocked up forever! I'd be paid to never work again :yeah:.

But on the other hand, if a woman has vacation time accrued, I don't see any reason she shouldn't be able to use that to extend her time off after FMLA runs out.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Advanced Practice, surgery.
Why is it so implausible for a woman to take a few months off after birth, Turd? If someone is going to have the 6-8 weeks that FMLA provides, why can they not use their vacation time to extend that to have more time with the baby? I don't think its unreasonable. They pay us when we go on vacation, why not when we have babies?

There would have been no way I could have gone back to work after just 6 weeks with my baby and I can't imagine how this could be considered as a acceptable situation, but then it has never been an expectation with me so not something I have ever had to think about.

Now in the NHS you get 8 weeks full pay, 18 weeks at half pay (made up by SSP I ended up with about 90% pay) and then the rest of the year is unpaid leave, I think you still get statuory maternity pay which is about £110 a week during that period.

As far as finding replacements, when our staffing levels as done we always add additional staff to cope with sickness and maternity leave I think it is about 4% although I may be out on this figure.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ICU, ER.

I have to agree with some of the other posters here about maternity leave. I'm all for mothers having time off for the baby. However, to give them a year off paid or something like that I think could be trouble. The taxpayers would not take it kindly to having to pay the way for a woman everytime she goes preggers. Women would have a baby just for the year off! Also, it would hurt them in the hiring process definitely. If an employer has a choice between a woman who may get pregnant and want tons of paid time off, or a man who will never have a baby...you can guess which one they will pick...guaranteed.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Advanced Practice, surgery.
I have to agree with some of the other posters here about maternity leave. I'm all for mothers having time off for the baby. However, to give them a year off paid or something like that I think could be trouble. The taxpayers would not take it kindly to having to pay the way for a woman everytime she goes preggers. Women would have a baby just for the year off! Also, it would hurt them in the hiring process definitely. If an employer has a choice between a woman who may get pregnant and want tons of paid time off, or a man who will never have a baby...you can guess which one they will pick...guaranteed.

You have to have worked for the employer for a certain amount of time before you are entitled to full mat benefits you need to have worked for that employer for at least 6 months. I have never got the impression that any of the nurses were getting pregnant just to take a year off either. I have more problems with staff abusing the sickness benefits than I do maternity benefits

I don't find the maternity issue too much of a problem and that's as an employer, I have never got more than 3 nurses off at a time and that is over the whole surgical unit not just one ward. You are allowed to backfill into the jobs.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

must...resist...debating....birth...costs...

but seriously, the way our health system regarding birth costs is, in the US, it is not in the best interest of those who get paid (i.e. doctors and hospitals) to find the lowest intervention/lowest cost route for birth. Cesareans pay VERY well compared to natural midwife run childbirth. Add in the amount of time not "wasted" waiting for labor to progress (doctors get paid the same amt for a cesarean by the insurance company whether its done an hour after admitting the patient or three days after), plus the ability to schedule cesareans around weekdays and not working weekends, and you start to see why we have such a messed up L&D situation in the United States.

I pre-paid for birth for my daughter and then chose to have her at home with a midwife (out of pocket because they are not covered by insurance here unless they work in a hospital and under a doctor). Nobody saw fit to give me a single penny back, claiming that because I went to prenatal appointments, it didn't matter that they "fired me", and took the money anyways.

Birth is BIG BUSINESS in the United States. Huge. There are hospitals that are staying afloat mainly because of their maternity wards. Every cesarean, every intervention, is charged to the patient. I know that not every obstetrician is "after the money" nor every hospital, but you have to wonder if the way our healthcare system is set up, and the financial factor, is in some way atleast partially responsible for the enormous amount of unnecessary interventions that are thrust on women and infants during the labor and delivery process, compared to that of women giving birth in other countries where there is socialized medicine.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.
Why is it so implausible for a woman to take a few months off after birth, Turd? If someone is going to have the 6-8 weeks that FMLA provides, why can they not use their vacation time to extend that to have more time with the baby? I don't think its unreasonable. They pay us when we go on vacation, why not when we have babies?

For the record, FMLA provides at least 12 weeks of unpaid leave time for eligible employees. Some employers, mine included, allow more. I had 6 months that I was able to take off because I planned and saved to do so.

Why should the taxpayers pay someone's salary (or a significant portion of it) for a full year for maternity leave? Having a baby is a personal decision that a couple should plan and prepare for without expecting financial support from their neighbors.

I find it ironic that many people who decry America's lack of lengthy paid maternity leave also balk at welfare mothers being supported by taxpayers. What's the difference?

Vacation time is an earned benefit that virtually all full-time employees receive. Paid maternity leave benefits only a small, select group of employees, yet would cost a fortune. Why should a small segment of the working population be guaranteed a costly benefit (for an elective condition) that the others don't receive?

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I would pay more taxes to see fewer uninsured, but I want to see serious efforts to regulate the private insurance industry and contain costs. i would not want to pay more taxes AND have my private premiums continue to rise.

if we went with total universal health care, i would have that coverage. but it looks like we are more likely to see a mix of public and private payor insurance.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
NO.

I was a military wife and the medical care we got in the military was so far from exceptional. In fact, it was downright dangerous at times. I am absolutely opposed to socialized medicine. There has to be some middle ground between that option and what we have now, which is also obviously broken. I have no idea what that middle ground is, but until its found I far and away favor medicine as a private industry.

I totally agree!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion