10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care

BroadwayRN, ASN, RN · Dec 19, 2008

Those 10 Excellent reasons are:
1. It's good for our health.
2. It costs less and saves money.
3. It will assure high quality health care for all Americans, rich or poor.
4. It's the best choice - morally and economically.
5. It may be a matter of life or death.
6. It will let will let doctors and nurses focus on patients, not paperwork.
7. It will reduce health care disparities.
8. It will eliminate medical debet.
9. It will be good for labor and business.
10. It's what most Americans want - and we can make it happen.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/18/18314/045/529/674753

1. It's not good for our health, there isn't a single government agency that runs efficiently, do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?

2. It does not cost less and it does not save money, we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.

Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.

3. It will not assue high quality health care for all Americans, rich or poor. Government-mandated procedures will reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.

If government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. i.e., would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.

4. It's not the best choice morally and ethically. There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait.

National health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?

5. It may be a matter of life or death. We have that now and it's likely going to get worse with national health care. ER's will be so jam packed with patients who don't even need to be seen and will clog up the system for those who truly need care.

6. It will not let will let doctors and nurses focus on patients instead of paperwork. Paperwork that I do taking care of patients is absolutely essential and it's not going away.

Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency.

7. It will not reduce health care disparities. If you think it's bad now, just wait until you need to see a doctor and you're enrolled in a national health care system.

8. It will not eliminate medical debit. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more?

9. It will not be good for labor and business. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.

10. It's not what most Americans want. It's what Americans who don't understand the entire picture who want National Health Care. Do not speak for all Americans. This American Does NOT want National Health Care. I think it would be a huge mistake.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Dec 19, 2008

my rebuttal to your rebuttal is this:

revamp our health care system along the lines of the va.

see also:

at http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=482678

http://www.cbpp.org/pubs/health.htm

every bit of evidence indicates that we will get better and cheaper care with a well designed uhc system.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Dec 19, 2008

Patients in UHC countries have better access to health care when sick than in the US.

OC85 · Dec 19, 2008

indeed, the vha's lead in care quality isn't disputed. a new england journal of medicine study from 2003 compared the vha with fee-for-service medicare on 11 measures of quality. the vha came out "significantly better" on every single one. the annals of internal medicine pitted the vha against an array of managed-care systems to see which offered the best treatment for diabetics. the vha triumphed in all seven of the tested metrics. the national committee for quality assurance, meanwhile, ranks health plans on 17 different care metrics, from hypertension treatment to adherence to evidence-based treatments. as phillip longman, the author of best care anywhere, a book chronicling the vha's remarkable transformation, explains: "winning ncqa's seal of approval is the gold standard in the health-care industry. and who do you suppose is the highest ranking health care system? johns hopkins? mayo clinic? massachusetts general? nope. in every single category, the veterans health care system outperforms the highest-rated non-vha hospitals."
what makes this such an explosive story is that the vha is a truly socialized medical system. the unquestioned leader in american health care is a government agency that employs 198,000 federal workers from five different unions, and nonetheless maintains short wait times and high consumer satisfaction. eighty-three percent of vha hospital patients say they are satisfied with their care, 69 percent report being seen within 20 minutes of scheduled appointments, and 93 percent see a specialist within 30 days.
critics will say that the vha is not significantly cheaper than other american health care, but that's misleading. in fact, the vha is also proving far better than the private sector at controlling costs. as longman explains, "veterans enrolled in [the vha] are, as a group, older, sicker, poorer, and more prone to mental illness, homelessness, and substance abuse than the population as a whole. half of all vha enrollees are over age 65. more than a third smoke. one in five veterans has diabetes, compared with one in 14 u.s. residents in general." yet the vha's spending per patient in 2004 was $540 less than the national average, and the average american is healthier and younger (the nation includes children; the vha doesn't).

broadwayrn: why don't you put that in your pipe and smoke it!

seriously, how can you say that its only the american's that "don't understand the big picture" that are supporting the idea of uhc? it seems the other way around to me. 95% of your arguments seem to stem from 'the government is really bad at running things, they'll only screw it up' and 'why should i have to pay for other people's health insurance [higher taxes]'-type arguments. honestly, how can you, or anyone else for that matter, be so callous as to let something like people's access to medical treatment come down to a matter of dollars and cents. its absolutely disgusting, in my opinion, to put a dollar value on someone's life and health. yes, we may have to raise taxes, but i'd gladly pay a little more to know i'm taken care of [not to mention my fellow us citizens]. people like mccain like to say that private health care is the answer, but its not. i happen to have excellent health insurance [it would cost me nearly $400/month if i wasn't a full time student] through my fathers company , and even then, i wouldn't have been able to afford my last 3 necessary medical treatments without my parents financial help [i have to meet a deductible before they really start paying, and even then, it still costs me money]. how the hell do you expect the average american family to afford this? some may call uhc stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, but if i were bringing home a large annual salary, i'd be happy to contribute a little extra to ensure that my fellow americans have access to the medical treatments they need. anyone who says otherwise should be ashamed of themselves.

also, its not even a certainty that taxes would have to raised very much at all. you mentioned taking money from other programs....why not take from the defense department? i honestly think we're throwing far too much money to the war machine, as it is. do you remember that on september 10, 2001, then secretary of defense donald rumsfeld announced that the department of defense could not account for 25% of its budget. thats right, the pentagon essentially "lost" 2.3 trillion dollars. yes, trillion. with a 't'. [interestingly, the terrorists attacks the next day hit the very spot of the pentagon where the investigation into such matters was centered, but thats another topic for another thread]. are you still going to tell me that we can't afford health care for all americans?

CseMgr1, ASN, RN · Dec 19, 2008

Those 10 Excellent reasons are:
1. It's good for our health.
2. It costs less and saves money.
3. It will assure high quality health care for all Americans, rich or poor.
4. It's the best choice - morally and economically.
5. It may be a matter of life or death.
6. It will let will let doctors and nurses focus on patients, not paperwork.
7. It will reduce health care disparities.
8. It will eliminate medical debet.
9. It will be good for labor and business.
10. It's what most Americans want - and we can make it happen.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/18/18314/045/529/674753

It will also save marriages.

My sister and BIL are getting a divorce in January, so she can qualify for Medicaid.

BroadwayRN, ASN, RN · Dec 19, 2008

Every bit of evidence indicates that we will get better and cheaper care with a well designed UHC system.

Every bit of evidence from who's perspective? Not mine. Well designed? That remains to be seen. I have taken care of vets and they are not singing the same tune. The bar graphs, etc...are created by the government not by the vets being treated there.

Talk to the people who have UHC, they don't share your opinons either.

BroadwayRN, ASN, RN · Dec 19, 2008

BroadwayRN: Why don't you put that in your pipe and smoke it!

I don't smoke thank you, nor do I believe everything I read. I believe the reality that I have seen.

UHC, patients over 70 do not get treated for an MI because they are not tax paying productive citizens. Do you have parents? Grandparents? That's where were headed. Maybe not in the early years but by the time you're over 70 that's where we'll be.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Dec 19, 2008

I work for the VA. The metrics are the metrics as to overall quality of patient care. That isn't to say that there aren't problems in the VA system. Every single conversation that we have as a team on our unit is to how we can improve patient care. The emphasis is on providing evidence based care for our patients. My argument centered on using a system that treats older/sicker patients and using the lessons learned to improve care of other patients.

The links posted are to nonpartisan groups (not the government) who have studied the issues. The simple reality (IMO) is that we are paying 300 BN (more or less) per year in taxes for administration and profit of private health care plans. This yields zero patient services and leaves 47 million of our fellow citizens uninsured. Replacing our premium dollars with a well designed mix of income/consumption taxes will yield a sustainable system of health care finance that meets the needs of patients for care.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Dec 19, 2008

Every bit of evidence from who's perspective? Not mine. Well designed? That remains to be seen. I have taken care of vets and they are not singing the same tune. The bar graphs, etc...are created by the government not by the vets being treated there.
Talk to the people who have UHC, they don't share your opinons either.

Sources?

HM2VikingRN, RN · Dec 19, 2008

In August 2003, Drs. Woolhandler, Campbell and Himmelstein published a study of health-care administrative costs in the U.S. and Canada. They stated that administrative expenditures in the U.S. stood at 31 percent of overall health-care costs. A year later they wrote “only single-payer national health insurance could… allow universal coverage without any increase in total health spending.”
Montanans spent $4.9 billion on health care in 2003. If these authors are right, then Montanans paid over $1,600 in administrative costs for every man, woman and child in the state, including the uninsured. That means that only 69 cents of every dollar spent went to health care needs. Remember, administrative costs are passed on to patients, bill by bill, paycheck deduction by paycheck deduction, and even at the pharmacy!

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/december/singlepayer_insuran.php

BroadwayRN, ASN, RN · Dec 19, 2008

Sources?

Only since you're so fond of the printed word.

http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#britain

I am British. My grandfather died after an MI, needing a CABG, he didn't qualify because he was retired and no longer paid taxes. 72 years old.

My aunt had ovarian cancer at age 68 and was only treated pallitively because there were younger woman who were in line ahead of her. She died.

My cousin had a toothache, needed a root canal, had to wait 6 weeks for her root canal, ended up with infection in the bone, even though she was on antibiotics. She died at age 38.

An uncle had afib. They refused to do an ablation on him because he was a smoker. He was in his 50's when he died.

These are a few examples from real life. I'll keep my private insurance Thank You.

In theory UHC sounds great, I don't mind helping pay for it, in reality it sucks.