Don't profit off people's "not-wellbeing."

toomuchbaloney · Oct 9, 2015

I deeply appreciate the way that Saunders is pushing the dialog in the Democratic party toward the concept of government having responsibility to the people...the whole of the people, by the people, and FOR THE PEOPLE notion that gets lost in our love affair with war and tax breaks for the wealthiest while the infrastructure crumbles and the poor suffer from lack of access to needed things like clean water, nutritious food, and healthcare.

Emergent, RN · Oct 9, 2015

I'm in favor of single payer. I'm also in favor of better off people having the option to pay for more luxurious plans, but I'd like to see basic, no frills care available to all. I like the British system. It's not perfect, but it gets the job done. I believe they actually have less of an entitlement mentality there, and more accountability for frivolous lawsuits.

azhiker96, BSN, RN · Oct 10, 2015

Medical malpractice in the UK is certainly handled much differently than in the US. There would be considerable savings in that change but it would be a paradigm change from US malpractice laws.

Medical Malpractice Liability: United Kingdom (England and Wales) | Law Library of Congress

iluvivt, BSN, RN · Oct 15, 2015

tax breaks for the wealthiest ha ha:......The top 10 percent of taxpayers pay pay about 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes and 47% of all Americans pay very little if at all! Thank god for the wealthy or our government would be worse off

MunoRN, RN · Oct 15, 2015

tax breaks for the wealthiest ha ha:......The top 10 percent of taxpayers pay pay about 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes and 47% of all Americans pay very little if at all! Thank god for the wealthy or our government would be worse off

Was that meant to be posted in a different thread?

CryssyD · Oct 26, 2015

tax breaks for the wealthiest ha ha:......The top 10 percent of taxpayers pay pay about 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes and 47% of all Americans pay very little if at all! Thank god for the wealthy or our government would be worse off

The flip side of those numbers is, Why does such a small portion of the American population have so much more money than the rest (as they must, to provide the bulk of tax revenues)? What basic inequities are reflected in this income disparity? Is this by accident, luck, or design? It cannot be by hard work, as the hardest working people are usually the lowest-paid (think migrant agricultural workers, picking strawberries one-by-one, as no machine can do--if we nurses think our backs hurt at the end of a shift...). But that's a side issue. If well-off people want to pay more for posh, spa-like healthcare services, I say let them (and where do I apply for the private-duty nursing positions?).

But if obtaining life-sustaining or -giving medications is treated the same as collecting cars, or other non-essential luxury items, how can we consider ourselves a moral society? Is it right for people to hold others' lives in their hands, obtainable only at a (high) price? I would say no and bear the risk of being called a socialist because of it. Your right to make a profit ends where my right to life begins. This Wall Street whippersnapper needs a good spanking--and he can't come back to work until he has learned to play nice with others. The profit motive is fine for polo ponies and yachts--but cancer medications need to be accessible; no one should be considered too poor to live.

NOADLS · Oct 26, 2015

no one should be considered too poor to live.

MrNurse(x2), ADN · Oct 27, 2015

Another point of view. The free market has swooped in and quashed the price gouging. Sorry can't find the article as the internet here is super slow, but another company has come out stating they will produce an ancient drug from the 1920's that does the same thing and only charge $1. Capitalism at work. The single payer model relegates the US to other second class medical systems. The insurance industry is making out huge from mandated coverage (which is what ACA is). The government has further removed itself from the health care business by privatizing Medicare recipients into insurance company policies, awesome. The downside to single payer system is that the US, with its unprecedented wealth pays for pharmaceutical R&D through inflated prices so countries like Ethiopia and Rwanda can have affordable access to these drugs. Single payer takes away that benefit. Third party payment used to allow the poor to have their catastrophic healthcare expenses to be written off. That will no longer be the case with mandated coverage. The old system covered the poor by the wealthy paying for the poor. The new system allows poor reimbursement and doesn't cover the working poor who are too stretched to decide between health care and food. The international effects of our going single payer would be devastating to developing countries. This is counterintuitive to the Democratic party talking points, as was ACA, as it put billions into the pockets of insurance companies. ACA was a perfect example of government over reach. Was reform necessary, yes, but the over regulation and mandated insurance has caused a great strain on those trying to work their way out of poverty. But maybe that is the point, allow them to fail so they become dependant and the talking points of wage disparity and welfare can be louder. By the way, Mr. Sanders is millionaire, and his tax return does not support the words of his lips. He has given only 4% of his income to charity and he paid taxes due, not over. Believe government should fix everything? Pay more tax than you owe to fund it.

heron, ASN, RN · Oct 27, 2015

Mr.Nurse: I would actually make the opposite argument: that the "free market" (which I think is a misnomer) as expressed in the American economies, has incentivized profit-seeking to the point of completely excluding the interests of the public actually living with the consequences of such a policy.

In a nutshell:sarcastic:

From where I sit, that free market approach started roughly half a century ago with the push to allow for-profit health insurance providers. I remember the justification for for-profit hospitals, which hinged on the promise that this would lead to better cost controls. Apparently the noble profit motive would attract business people who were skilled at controlling costs. It was also claimed that this superior John Galt approach would inevitably lead to lower prices and better quality service.

I think it was worth a try, but I haven't noticed any of the predicted results. (Except, of course, for my rising salary.) For me, 50 years is long enough experience to consider Rand's theory is pretty much disproved.

MrNurse(x2), ADN · Oct 27, 2015

I don't have the for-profit perspective, as here on the East Coast, non-profit dominates. To clarify those terms, the only difference is where the profits go, for profit goes to dividends to the investors, non profit, back to the organization (and that can be capital improvements or bonuses to the top officers). Both are motivated by the desire to turn a profit to grow the business. To challenge the only benefit being your larger salary, I doubt your employer would mind if you would defer your pay raise for the common good.

heron, ASN, RN · Oct 27, 2015

Of course non-profits make profits. I'm saying that unopposed profit motivation is a major cause of high prices for low quality service. Applies to both sectors. And I'd happily take a cut in pay as long as it applies across the board: CEOs, corporate managers, advertising budgets, overpriced drug and biomedical/dme products and their sales executives, shareholders in healthcare corporations ... the list of leeches on the public teat is a long one. At least nurses put in a fair day's work for 8 or 12 hours' pay.

And the veiled threat to my livelihood does nothing to clinch your argument. Indeed, it proves my point about who's social good is served by for-profit healthcare providers in our current economy.

Nor does it change the dismal record of the private sector to keep its promises of improved service, efficiency and costs.

Nope, it's a failed experiment. I've accepted that and am moving on.