10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care

Nurses Activism

Published

You are reading page 15 of 10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care

Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
And that's only the tip of the proverbial iceberg...........I guarantee you, if TPTB would just grow a set of cojones and take the insurance business, with its overpaid CEOs and massive amounts of paperwork OUT of the health care equation, we'd be able to cover every American citizen with at least the basics.

You can't guarantee that. What you can't guarantee is that anyone can be motivated to run these companies successfully as you'd like to "guarantee" for whatever money you think is acceptable.

And making the gov't the big dog in this issue doesn't necessarily eliminate paperwork. Were you ever in the military? Have you seen the tax code? Just today Obama said that it was "monstrous."

Not to mention the idea that our lives would be considerably easier if we didn't have to spend valuable NURSING time poring over financial documents to find out what providers patients may or may not use because of their insurance, which meds are paid for and which aren't, whether they can get a particular procedure or piece of medical equipment, etc., etc. ad nauseam. (If you can't think of a single, better reason to dump our current system, that's it right there!)

The primary reason for changing our system can't be primarily about the provider....this is a good reason, but not necessarily a reasonable "single" better reason.

Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
These CEO's do make crazy salaries, but really can we trust the government to run the healthcare system? they can't run what they have now.

Plus, a government that is large enough to give you everything is also large enough to take everything away.

Like I said, there is no perfect solution, but a compromise will be the best solution.

Compromise seems to be off the table.

We already have a socialized system.

The problem with it is that this example of gov't run health care SUCKS...so much so that some physicians opt out, citing medicare regulations and poor reimbursements....which oddly enough is one of the often-repeated reasons why people criticize private insurance.

MN BigJ

119 Posts

Specializes in ER.

That is true, medicare reimbursments are not that great, especially when you consider the regulations they place on hospitals without placing regulations on the people it is paying for.

CharmedJ7

193 Posts

There is nothing in my statement that either directly or indirectly says that.

No it doesn't.

Sure it is, but that isn't what I did, and I'm offended that you would falsely imply that I said anything even resembling that.

It's not paranoid, it's realistic.

For example, when Hawaii tried to implement a socialized system just for children, it collapsed in eight months because people abandoned their own insurance in droves to get on board the 'universal' system. This example seems to indicate that there ARE significant portions of the population who will try to 'free-load' in spite of their proven capacity to do it for themselves.

I think you have to realize that when you type things they are open to be construed in several ways, so I do apologize if I misread your intention, but please be aware that saying what you said could easily be understood as implying what I read it as. Could you please clarify your point?

The Hawaii example I think provides good insight into the problem of a mixed system. It seems like there may have been some abuse of the system, but then, private health care is quite expensive, there's a distinction between being able to afford it and being able to easily afford it. These families obviously could pay for insurance, which implies they have jobs, yet clearly their jobs are not covering it. Why not? I think there needs to be more examination of the root of the problem as opposed to simply writing it off as free-loading.

My point though is more that I seem to be hearing a lot, here and elsewhere, the notion that there are hoards of lazy people who don't want to work and want to be provided with everything (welfare, UHC, etc). Yes, I think there are some people like that, but it's very rare. There's far more motivation to work than simply having access to health care, I do not believe that there are millions of people out there who would say "thank God" and quit their jobs and never work again simply because they no longer needed the health care cover. The only true free-loaders are the ones that would, but that would mean concurrently accepting a very impoverished lifestyle, no hope for advancement, and a loss of identity and self-value - there are very few people who would be ok with this. When people start living well enough on welfare to make this attractive I think that's another problem which needs to be looked at.

What troubles me is all the people who really do want to work but have been laid off in a tough market or are between jobs or just graduating or those who are working but their work does not pay health care coverage. It seems a bit illogical to require people to pay out of pocket for insurance who do not have a job, it means when you lose your job you are losing income AND incurring another expense. When you cannot find work, there are many sacrifices that are acceptable - cutting back on luxuries, changing your living circumstances, etc, but I do not think health falls in this category.

Mahage, LPN

376 Posts

Specializes in IMCU.
I'd rather not pay for either, but the non-profit organization through which I am insured INSURES me, and I don't have any evidence that they zip around in private jets munching on caviar.

I DO know that if I am swapped to a 'gov't payer' model, I can be sure that the CEOs (Obama, Pelosi, Sebelius, etc), will be zipping around on private jets munching caviar.

And I find it insulting that you attempt to characterize me with quoted words which serve only to label me in a negative manner. I never said anyone was undeserving.

Non profit, egaddddd, that means a tax break......you are getting awfully close to working for a socialized institution. Truely, no insults are intended, but I find that you have a tremendous number of double standards. Non profit, egaddddd, that means a tax break......you are getting awfully close to working for a socialized institution. But of course there are loads of subsidies for big business, long before the current administration. Needing evidence that the ceo's of fortune 500 companies are munching on caviar and flying around on private jets, yet certain that our nations leaders are. I think that financially it is expedient that they do fly on government jets which are allocated for their use. By the time you pay for security, commercial air would not be very cost effective, as for the caviar, well I think pizza is more the presidential style, lol!

mahage

Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
Non profit, egaddddd, that means a tax break......you are getting awfully close to working for a socialized institution.
I work for a non-profit hospital, but they don't insure me. My insurance company insures me, and they are non-profit as well. I don't know how non-profit equates to a 'socialized institution.'

But of course there are loads of subsidies for big business, long before the current administration. Needing evidence that the ceo's of fortune 500 companies are munching on caviar and flying around on private jets, yet certain that our nations leaders are.
A non-profit organization by definition can not be classified as a Fortune 500 company, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. And since my insurer is non-profit, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for some kind of evidence that they are zipping around on caviar-laden private jets as was implied.

I think that financially it is expedient that they do fly on government jets which are allocated for their use. By the time you pay for security, commercial air would not be very cost effective, as for the caviar, well I think pizza is more the presidential style, lol!
The gov't jets are not "allocated" for their use. They are military jets which are better used in the defense of this country. And what do you know about the use of security for our politicians? What do you know about the cost of a private jet? How about the cost of one of the smallest jets, a Lear. Almost $2300 per HOUR. A Gulfstream? Just under $6k per hour. Millions to purchase, millions per year to continye to operate. What I have to ask is this; why is it somehow financially expedient for politicians to fly around on private jets, but somehow a different standard applies to NGO's?

And maybe you think that the Obama's forego the caviar for pizza, but oddly Michelle is the first "First Lady" to bring a full-time hair and makeup along with her on the plane. I'm not criticizing this, but I hardly think this reflects people who have 'inexpensive' habits.

GCTMT

335 Posts

Specializes in LTC.

I agree that UHC is the way to go. That's why I support HR 676 and healthcare-now.org. If this legislation is passed, it will work wonders for equal treatment for all U.S. Citizens.

http://www.healthcare-now.org/index.php?s=HR+676

Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.

For this reason alone, this is a disaster, not to mention unethical; "Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program."

Singapore, for example, keeps costs down SPECIFICALLY by allowing private insurers to compete with the gov't, not to mention, UHC countries are turning to private insurers for solutions. Yet, for some reason we demonize non-gov't insurers and some propose running toward the precipice while everyone else is slowly backing off. :grn:

And this legislation proposes an additional 7.8% payroll tax to fund it. First, I'm not inclined to let my payroll tax JUST for Soc. Sec and healthcare to be over 20%, especially since the gov't is already announcing no guarantee of being able to collect more than 75% of my Soc. Sec. benefit. Second, this will be in addition to federal income and all the other taxes that disappear from our checks before they ever reach our bank accounts.

GCTMT

335 Posts

Specializes in LTC.
For this reason alone, this is a disaster, not to mention unethical; "Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the benefits of the USNHI program."

Singapore, for example, keeps costs down SPECIFICALLY by allowing private insurers to compete with the gov't, not to mention, UHC countries are turning to private insurers for solutions. Yet, for some reason we demonize non-gov't insurers and some propose running toward the precipice while everyone else is slowly backing off. :grn:

And this legislation proposes an additional 7.8% payroll tax to fund it. First, I'm not inclined to let my payroll tax JUST for Soc. Sec and healthcare to be over 20%, especially since the gov't is already announcing no guarantee of being able to collect more than 75% of my Soc. Sec. benefit. Second, this will be in addition to federal income and all the other taxes that disappear from our checks before they ever reach our bank accounts.

I would argue that it is unethical for private insurers to deny coverage to people who need it. So, it is my opinion that private insurers only muddy the waters and, if there is a will to cover everyone via legislation like HR 676, then it is possible.

I tend not to demonize non-govt insurers, but I do recognize that they are a business and their sole purpose it to make money. So, it makes sense (from a business stand-point) that if they can make more money by recission or underwriting, they will. The problem is an ethical and moral one to my mind.

In regards to your assertion that other developed countries are slowly backing off the the government run plans, I would be happy to see some evidence of this and respond to it when I have the time. Forgive me if you already posted it. I just don't have time to go through eighteen pages. :bugeyes:

I recently watched a Frontline special called Sick in America, one of the commentators remarked that 24% of health care costs are adminstrative, and further remarked that this is not the case in other developed nations, where administrative costs are much less. Once again, it comes down to the will to make it happen.

I agree with your statements about Social Security, it makes me angry as well that I am paying Social Security, yet there is a possibility that I will never reap its benefits. But social security is a good idea and worth saving, in my opinion.

allnurses Guide

herring_RN, ASN, BSN

3,651 Posts

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
I don't want "the government" to run healthcare.

In fact, want the feds involved only in the collection of taxes for UHC. After that, my ideal system would empanel a group of healthcare professionals, attorneys, financial analysts, and knowledgeable laypeople IN EACH STATE to distribute the funds and administer the system at the state level. Who better to know and understand the health needs of each individual state than the people who live there?

That's what NO ONE at the top has considered yet, and I wish they would. There is more than one way to de-fur a feline; the feds just aren't very creative and would undoubtedly mess up the job. But the current system is untenable, and will collapse under its own weight when we Baby Boomers starting getting sick in large numbers.

Something has to be done, even if it's not the perfect thing.. I am completely convinced of that. And as conservative as I am on most political issues, this is one on which I have to concede the moral high ground to the liberals; anything less than universal coverage is worthless. Like it or not, we are all human beings and we owe each other at least a minimum standard of decency.........we don't require people to hold fulltime jobs so they can access schools, police and fire protection, clean air and water etc. And the argument that UHC will mean we won't get paid is completely ridiculous---do you know any teachers, cops, firefighters etc. who work for free? Me neither.

I'm all about the hands-off approach when it comes to most government interventions in private life and private industry. But I can't square the, ahem, morality of leaving people without BASIC food, medical care, housing and so on with the values I hold dear as a Christian and as an American.........and as far as I'm concerned, anyone who won't lead or follow on UHC just needs to get the heck out of the way.

Good thinking.

You would be great on your states decision making board!

Or someone like you if you don't want to do it.

allnurses Guide

XB9S, BSN, MSN, EdD, RN, APN

1 Article; 3,017 Posts

Specializes in Advanced Practice, surgery.

i have removed posts that are off topic, please could I encourage the use of the report post icon rather than discussing perceived insults which detract from the topic being debated.

Thanks

Now, back to the discussion about UHC

Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
I would argue that it is unethical for private insurers to deny coverage to people who need it. So, it is my opinion that private insurers only muddy the waters and, if there is a will to cover everyone via legislation like HR 676, then it is possible.

It's tough to argue against that, but in order for this to have any relevance, it requires unsupportable assumptions about a gov't payer plan, so I repeat; there-is-no-guarantee-that-gov't-run-insurance-will-not-deny-coverage.

I tend not to demonize non-govt insurers, but I do recognize that they are a business and their sole purpose it to make money. So, it makes sense (from a business stand-point) that if they can make more money by recission or underwriting, they will. The problem is an ethical and moral one to my mind.

And the point that you boiled it down to, ethics and morals, is EXACTLY why I would never want to had the whole enchilada to the gov't.

In regards to your assertion that other developed countries are slowly backing off the the government run plans, I would be happy to see some evidence of this and respond to it when I have the time. Forgive me if you already posted it. I just don't have time to go through eighteen pages.

That's not exactly what I said, but I understand your interpretation. I was pointing out that socialized countries are not able to sustain their socialized systems in the socialized manner in which they are operating them, so to palliate the problems they are encountering, they are not introducing socialized solutions, they are incorporating private insurance. I hope that is clearer...sorry about that.

I recently watched a Frontline special called Sick in America, one of the commentators remarked that 24% of health care costs are adminstrative, and further remarked that this is not the case in other developed nations, where administrative costs are much less. Once again, it comes down to the will to make it happen.

A nice thought, I suppose, but our gov't is hardly efficient with it's use of our money. I'm just saying.

I agree with your statements about Social Security, it makes me angry as well that I am paying Social Security, yet there is a possibility that I will never reap its benefits. But social security is a good idea and worth saving, in my opinion.

I wouldn't say Soc. Sec. is a good idea, or a bad idea. I would say that saving for retirement is a good idea, and that I would just as soon do it for myself. But the real point is this; Soc. Sec. is a much easier social system to manage than healthcare, so seeing how the gov't is unable to sustain a much simpler social system, why would we believe they could operate healthcare?

+ Add a Comment