Do You Want Universal Healthcare?

allnurses Guide · Aug 9, 2008

...and while the oil companies do have record profits, they also pay (tax bennies or not) millions and billions in taxes themselves.
they get very little of what we pay at the pump in their own pockets, as most of that goes to taxes....

top oil executive was paid on average $144,573 per day

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/15/bug78i9f0v1.dtl

profit means after taxes and expenditures

Jolie, BSN · Aug 9, 2008

[quote=Stanley-RN2B;3028883.. The only way they could verify all of those claims is to physically go and check. That requires more investigators which requires more tax money...

How hard is it to determine whether or not a company actually physically exists? Not very. No effort was made.

tntrn, ASN, RN · Aug 9, 2008

How about posting a nice graph that shows how much in taxes the oil companies paid?

allnurses Guide · Aug 9, 2008

originally posted by jolie
please don't presume to know my opinions of unrelated topics. to set the record straight, i have problems with the government sinking even one dollar into
anything
that is not evidence-based.
as educated healthcare practitioners, we provide evidence-based care to our patients.
to do less equals negligence.
we are due the same respect from the politicians who spend our tax money. responsible taxpayers should demand it! no one, republican or democrat has produced a pilot study comparing and contrasting the costs and benefits of a number of different approaches to funding government healthcare. until someone does, and demonstrates the overall benefit of uhc, i will not support it.
ftr, i predicted the mess that medicare part d has become, and opposed it from the get-go.

(bolding my own)

what does "evidence based" mean?

i have seen no scientific studies that scripting, computerized charting, pyxis, omnicell, nursing care plan software, wireless tracking devices, vocera, clinical restructuring, management consultant firms such as "six sigma), e-icu, telemedicine, "labor-saving" artificial intelligence, protocol, diagnostic and prognostic expert systems and such save lives or provide comfort for our patients.

nursing practice encompasses and requires the registered nurse to evaluate and make decisions for the patient's health care based on numerous variables including direct requests of the patient or the patient's family, physical signs or symptoms, the individual patient's particular personal context and diagnostic information that is obtained through various methods including the nurse's five senses.

there is scientific evidence that richer staffing saves lives.

and evidence that in countries with universal healthcare most people are healthier and live longer.

Atheos · Aug 9, 2008

They are legitimately registered corporations with business licenses...

Verifying a corporation would entail a person (being paid) flying or driving (more money) going to investigate.

Even the FBI is having trouble tracking all this down but Medicare should be able to do it?

Under the current process, suppliers apply to the government to participate in the program, undergo an inspection and meet general standards for running a legitimate business -- proof of address, phone number and inventory, for example.

Provider Coverage

Medical providers desiring to participate in the Medicare health insurance program must submit a Medicare application. One example applicable to doctors, hospitals, and ambulance is Form CMS 10115, Section 1011 Provider Enrollment Application. This relatively short form requires basic contact information as well as the applicant's Medicare Identification Number, Federal Tax Identification Number, and, for hospitals only, lists of physicians with hospital privileges and their provider numbers.

MAybe the IRS should have to investigate before issuing Federal Tax Id Numbers or the cities should investigate before issuing the business license to the company (which is required for the Tax ID number).

But nope, Medicare should be responsible for it all...

Jolie, all of these different forms of government issue these items that require verification. Why is it so hard to believe that Medicare expected these to be legitimate based on all of the requirements put forth by these other parts of the gov't?

I thought you were all about smaller government...

Jolie, BSN · Aug 9, 2008

your missing the point. the private insurance companies are also paying for services not provided.
when you utilize healthcare, you know what was provided to you. your insurance company does not. it is your responsibility to check your charges for accuracy and report mistakes and/or fraud to the provider and your insurance. they only way to prevent them from paying for services you did not receive is to tell them.
my point is that fraud is a problem experianced by all who are providing insurance.
of course it is. but you serve as an important first line of defense in preventing fraud and/or honest mistakes related to your care and billing.
medicare and medicaid provide insurance to over 75 million americans and they do need to do a better job of weeding out the fraudulent charges but that is not in my opinion a good argument against universal health care.
whether or not we agree about uhc, i think we do agree about the lack of judicious verification of charges and oversight of providers by medicare. i have cared for elderly relatives and monitored their medicare expenses. i have reported billing errors/overcharges/and what i believe was outright fraud by one provider. i asked medicare not to pay the charges until they could be verified. they told me they were not interested in my inquiries. they paid something like 4 charges from the same physician on the same day, and didn't question it, even though i notified them of the irregularity. why would you entrust the government with a dime of your healthcare dollar when this is how they spend it?
the goverment also has a much lower cost associated with the administration and processing of claims. the private sector in some cases spends nearly 30% on the processing and denial of claims. we all pay for it no matter what.
given $97 million dollars in fraudulent charges were paid in one year in one small geographic area of the country, there is no reason to believe this statistic. i think its time to audit medicare, hold those responsible for billing accuracy accountable for their criminal negligence in failing to detect this fraud, and demonstrate to the taxpayers who fund medicare how this will be prevented in the future. until this mess is cleared up, they should not have access to a single additional dollar of tax money.
look at the medicare fraud commited by hca/columbia as an example of the high integrity of the private sector. if you believe you are not being screwed by your local hospital and your insurance company when they believe they can get away with it then you are again mistaken.

i am aware that there is fraud in both the public and private sector. i certainly don't defend it. but those responsible for private sector fraud end up in prison (where they belong.) i've yet to see a public official go to jail or suffer civil penalties for government fraud. time to make that happen.

tntrn, ASN, RN · Aug 9, 2008

Never mind: I'll post this one I found on Google:

Saturday, May 24, 2008

Oil Companies Paid More Taxes Than Bottom 75%

Investor's Business Daily -- In 2006 alone, according to the American Petroleum Institute, U.S. oil companies paid some $138 billion in taxes to the IRS-and that doesn't include special oil severance, sales and use taxes companies also had to pay.

Internal Revenue Service (Table 6, p. 41) -- In 2005 (the most recent year for which data are available), the bottom 75% of all individual taxpayers (about 100 million taxpayers out of 132 million total) paid about $130.9 billion in income taxes. Adjusting by the recent average of about $5 billion in annual increases in tax revenue from individuals, it is estimated that the bottom 75% of individual taxpayers (more than 100 million individuals) paid about $136 billion in 2006.

Bottom Line: In 2006, U.S. oil companies paid more in corporate income taxes to the IRS ($138 billion) than the individual taxes paid by the more than 100 million individual taxpayers in the bottom 75% of all individual taxpayers (estimated to be $136 billion, see chart above).

The graph didn't transfer over. But here's more food for thought.

Jolie, BSN · Aug 9, 2008

They are legitimately registered corporations with business licenses...
Verifying a corporation would entail a person (being paid) flying or driving (more money) going to investigate.
Even the FBI is having trouble tracking all this down but Medicare should be able to do it?
Under the current process, suppliers apply to the government to participate in the program, undergo an inspection and meet general standards for running a legitimate business -- proof of address, phone number and inventory, for example.
Provider Coverage
Medical providers desiring to participate in the Medicare health insurance program must submit a Medicare application. One example applicable to doctors, hospitals, and ambulance is Form CMS 10115, Section 1011 Provider Enrollment Application. This relatively short form requires basic contact information as well as the applicant's Medicare Identification Number, Federal Tax Identification Number, and, for hospitals only, lists of physicians with hospital privileges and their provider numbers.
MAybe the IRS should have to investigate before issuing Federal Tax Id Numbers or the cities should investigate before issuing the business license to the company (which is required for the Tax ID number).
But nope, Medicare should be responsible for it all...
Jolie, all of these different forms of government issue these items that require verification. Why is it so hard to believe that Medicare expected these to be legitimate based on all of the requirements put forth by these other parts of the gov't?
I thought you were all about smaller government...

A nurse checking out a suspicious business hardly sounds like Big Government!

coolpeach · Aug 9, 2008

Someone in a recent prior post brought up Obama, and his lack of experience. OH PLEASE.... Look where experience has gotten us the last 8 years!!!!! He's getting my vote.

I was actually discussing a similar issue with a friend recently. He asked me who in the world voted for Bush last time. If you look most of his voters would be those who had a vested interest in Big Business, or made well above a certain $ amount. These are the people who know they do/will not need for anything and so they are all ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE. Luckily there are several wise wealthy people in NY, and Hollywood that even though they are well off or secure enough, compassionate enough, and wise enough to thing of the country and not just themselves, and did not vote for Bush. If you look he got a lot of the elderly, confused vote. He also got the vote of those from poor southern states. These would be the folks who live in a dirt shack, go to bed hungry, but who else would they vote for because he talks to God, and is against womens rights.

So to sum it up...he voters fall into just a few catagories.

1. Elderly, old and confused

2. Vested interest in Big Business

3. Wealthy ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE

4. Uneducated, God fearing, Poor, and don't know better.

Since I am none of the above my vote will go to OBAMA.

allnurses Guide · Aug 9, 2008

Someone in a recent prior post brought up Obama, and his lack of experience. OH PLEASE.... Look where experience has gotten us the last 8 years!!!!! He's getting my vote.
I was actually discussing a similar issue with a friend recently. He asked me who in the world voted for Bush last time. If you look most of his voters would be those who had a vested interest in Big Business, or made well above a certain $ amount. These are the people who know they do/will not need for anything and so they are all ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE. Luckily there are several wise wealthy people in NY, and Hollywood that even though they are well off or secure enough, compassionate enough, and wise enough to thing of the country and not just themselves, and did not vote for Bush. If you look he got a lot of the elderly, confused vote. He also got the vote of those from poor southern states. These would be the folks who live in a dirt shack, go to bed hungry, but who else would they vote for because he talks to God, and is against womens rights.
So to sum it up...he voters fall into just a few catagories.
1. Elderly, old and confused
2. Vested interest in Big Business
3. Wealthy ME ME ME MINE MINE MINE
4. Uneducated, God fearing, Poor, and don't know better.
Since I am none of the above my vote will go to OBAMA.

Are you kidding me? Talk about ugly generalizations and stereotypes.

steph

Atheos · Aug 9, 2008

Are you kidding me? Talk about ugly generalizations and stereotypes.
steph

Are you seriously saying anyone voted for Bush because of his stellar reputation, experience or morale high ground?

allnurses Guide · Aug 9, 2008

Are you seriously saying anyone voted for Bush because of his stellar reputation, experience or morale high ground?

Regardless of the answer to your question . . .to characterize people who voted for Bush as coolpeach did was simply wrong.

Poor people are not to be condemned. Uneducated people are not to be condemned. People who "fear" God are not to be condemned. Elderly people are old and confused? People who are wealthy are selfish? That is so rude.

We have a local family whose Dad was famous in Hollywood - very wealthy - they give money to Hospice, to our Ambulance, to many other things in our community . . .in fact they made sure the boyfriend of my patient with laryngeal cancer (who died today) got free meals at a local restaurant.

Wealth does not automatically equal greed.

All those generalizations sound bigoted to me.

steph