10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care

Nurses Activism

Published

You are reading page 16 of 10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care

GCTMT

335 Posts

Specializes in LTC.

Honn,

I agree there is no guarantee. That's life, nothing is guaranteed. However, with enough will and determination, I believe that the American people can ensure that we all receive the best care possible. The kind of care that will avoid personal bankruptcy.

I suppose we just have a fundamental disagreement concerning the ethics and morals of government compared to big insurance. It's a question of motivation, insurance companies (most of them) are concerned with making a profit, whereas, government should be concerned with the will of the people. Of course, we run into rough waters when it comes to the will of American citizens, as we are divided basically along partly lines concerning health care. However, as history has proven, all it takes for change is a lot of motivation and will, and a big crowd.

Again, I believe that the government (theoretically being "we the people") can manage healthcare if there is a will and determination to do it.

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

I agree there is no guarantee. That's life, nothing is guaranteed. However, with enough will and determination, I believe that the American people can ensure that we all receive the best care possible. The kind of care that will avoid personal bankruptcy.

Medical bankruptcy has not been eliminated in UHC countries.

I suppose we just have a fundamental disagreement concerning the ethics and morals of government compared to big insurance. It's a question of motivation, insurance companies (most of them) are concerned with making a profit, whereas, government should be concerned with the will of the people. Of course, we run into rough waters when it comes to the will of American citizens, as we are divided basically along partly lines concerning health care. However, as history has proven, all it takes for change is a lot of motivation and will, and a big crowd.

My insurer is not-for-profit. No shareholder to please.

The gov't, however, is not at all concerned with responsible financial behavior. Their solution to debt is to create more debt. They spend money we don't have, and that is not a solution to anything, including revising healthcare.

Again, I believe that the government (theoretically being "we the people") can manage healthcare if there is a will and determination to do it.

In a completely theoretical scenario, this might be true, but "the gov't" hasn't show the capacity to run the bit of healthcare that we've given them. So if it's a matter of theoretical beliefs, it is just as reasonable to say that we can operate a world-class health system (which we do) without giving the keys to the gov't.

GCTMT

335 Posts

Specializes in LTC.
medical bankruptcy has not been eliminated in uhc countries.

maybe. it would be news to me. i spent some time trying to find rates of medical bankruptcy by country, using different combinations of google searches. i was unable to fine anything, of course that does mean there is no evidence, just none that i am aware of. so, perhaps you'd be so kind to offer evidence (preferably academic, peer reviewed) that suggests medical bankruptcy is a problem in uhc countries.

my insurer is not-for-profit. no shareholder to please.

blue cross blue shield calls itself a not-for-profit agency. yet, they seem not to be concerned with pleasing their customers. they are concerned with keeping money in their pockets.

“attorney general gregg abbott also resolved an investigation into blue cross' handling of out-of-network referrals. according to state investigators, blue cross had threatened to terminate physicians solely on the basis of referring patients to qualified specialists that were outside the blue cross provider network.” http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/dn-bluecross_11bus.art.state.edition1.4a6f332.html

this appears to be evidence that they are restricting choice as opposed to fostering it. they are pleasing their bank accounts at the expense of their customers well-being.

so if it's a matter of theoretical beliefs, it is just as reasonable to say that we can operate a world class health system (which we do) without giving the keys to the government.

it's world class if you can pay for it. otherwise it's quick trip to losing everything you have worked for because of illness or injury.

Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
maybe. it would be news to me. i spent some time trying to find rates of medical bankruptcy by country, using different combinations of google searches. i was unable to fine anything, of course that does mean there is no evidence, just none that i am aware of. so, perhaps you'd be so kind to offer evidence (preferably academic, peer reviewed) that suggests medical bankruptcy is a problem in uhc countries.

i never made any claims about "rates of medical bankruptcy" relative to other countries. i never said it was a "problem." i said that a socialized system does not eliminate it, and the most dishonest presentation of the system occurs when people try to associate us bankruptcy rates to medical issues.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_is_the_percentage_of_total_personal.html

blue cross blue shield calls itself a not-for-profit agency. yet, they seem not to be concerned with pleasing their customers. they are concerned with keeping money in their pockets.

you asked, so now it's my turn. what evidence do you have that they are not concerned with "pleasing their customer" and concerned with keeping money in their pockets? i can't say that it makes sense to expect implied evidence from me and then to immediately speculate about the character of an insurance company. and i don't know if the link you provided is somehow supposed to support that, but i'm not sure why it's a bad thing for an insurance company to expect it's referral pattern to remain in-network.

do you think that a gov't-funded system is going to allow their recipient physicians to refer to specialists who are not accepting medicare or whatever gov't program they are offering?

and a gov't run system can't somehow claim that it has cornered the market on 'being concerned with pleasing their customers.' of course, i have to admit, they are really not that concerned with 'keeping our money in their pockets' because they can't spend it fast enough to get it laundered through the automotive and banking industries.

"attorney general gregg abbott also resolved an investigation into blue cross' handling of out-of-network referrals. according to state investigators, blue cross had threatened to terminate physicians solely on the basis of referring patients to qualified specialists that were outside the blue cross provider network." http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/dn-bluecross_11bus.art.state.edition1.4a6f332.html

this appears to be evidence that they are restricting choice as opposed to fostering it. they are pleasing their bank accounts at the expense of their customers well-being.

there is no evidence that a not-for-profit gov't payer system is going to offer more choices than a not-for-profit non-gov't system.

it's world class if you can pay for it. otherwise it's quick trip to losing everything you have worked for because of illness or injury.

conversely...a gov't system is mediocre at best. but then, someone else is paying for it, so beggars can't be choosers i suppose.

GCTMT

335 Posts

Specializes in LTC.
I said that a socialized system does not eliminate it, and the most dishonest presentation of the system occurs when people try to associate US bankruptcy rates to medical issues.
The source you provided doesn't indicate dishonesty. It simply relates the possibility that those who file bankruptcy for medical reasons might have other debts as well. Which really isn't surprising. I know three people who have had to file bankrupcty (one of them is actually in the process) because their medical bills spiraled out of control, leading them to apply for credit cards to try and pay the medical debt off. I understand that's subjective data, but to the best of my knowledge this does not happen in UHC countries.

"Heriot: Nobody likes to pay $1,000 in medical expenses even when they get two years to do it in, but for most Americans (particularly those with enough at stake to seek the protection of bankruptcy) it is not catastrophic."

That's a matter of opinion. $1,000 dollars in medical debt could in fact be castraphophic.

Furthermore, you wrote,

Medical bankruptcy has not been eliminated in UHC countries.
This might be true. But after spending about a half hour searching for evidence on the internet that bankruptcies are filed in UHC countries because of medical debt, I could not find any.

You asked, so now it's my turn. What evidence do you have that they are not concerned with "pleasing their customer" and concerned with keeping money in their pockets? I can't say that it makes sense to expect implied evidence from me and then to immediately speculate about the character of an insurance company. And I don't know if the link you provided is somehow supposed to support that, but I'm not sure why it's a bad thing for an insurance company to expect it's referral pattern to remain in-network.

I suppose the evidence I have that they are not concerned with pleasing their customers, covering their customers, and honoring the agreements they made are most subjective. However, the article that I presented previously suggest that BCBS is interested in making money, even if it puts the patient at risk. The doctor might decide that the patient would be best served to see a specialist, but if the specialist is out of the network, the insurance company is essentially making the choice for the doctor and patient. Insurance companies have networks, which restrict choice. I would argue that their is more choice in UHC countries.

Conversely...a gov't system is mediocre at best. But then, someone else is paying for it, so beggars can't be choosers I suppose.

At least not in the United States, because we have never done anything to that scale. However, if we pass HR 676 into law and demand that our government run it appropriately this is what we could expect:

Every resident of the US will be covered from birth to death.

No more pre-existing conditions to be excluded from coverage.

No more expensive deductibles or co-pays.

All prescription medications will be covered.

All dental and eye care will be included.

Mental health and substance abuse care will be fully covered.

Long term and nursing home services will be included.

You will always choose your own doctors and hospitals.

Costs of coverage will be assessed on a sliding scale basis.

Tremendously simplified system of medical administration.

Total portability – your coverage not tied to any job or location.

Existing Medicare benefits for those over 65 will be vastly improved.

No corporate bureaucrat will ever come between you and your Doctor to deny your care.

I'll be honest, I like the concept of a national healthcare plan, but what people are forgetting is the tax rate that these countries pay that have socialized medicine.

It's anywhere from over 30% to 60% per DOLLAR of earnings.

I come out cheaper with my HMO.....way cheaper.

That's pretty much mythical except at the low end - in the US the average overall tax rate - taxes as a percentage of GDP - is around 26%. In France, for one example, it runs around 32%. Not really all that big a difference when you consider that that covers a lot of things besides just health care - like quality university education for all who qualify, including medical school and other professional schools. Qualifying standards are high, but if you qualify you can get all the education you want at little cost. Doctors there don't come out of school with a quarter-million in student loans like a lot of ours do. And I've spent a lot of time cycling on the roads of rural France and they manage to keep their road system up far better than we do. That little 6% in extra taxes looks like a heck of a bargain to me.

"Medical bankruptcy has not been eliminated in UHC countries."

It's hard to prove a negative one way or another, but I've seen TV interviews, including on a recent Frontline documentary, wherein the officials in charge of healthcare in Germany, Switzerland, Taiwan and Japan all stated that medical bankruptcy did not exist in their contries. If you have actual evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it.

loriangel14, RN

6,931 Posts

Specializes in Acute Care, Rehab, Palliative.

Do you think that a gov't-funded system is going to allow their recipient physicians to refer to specialists who are not accepting medicare or whatever gov't program they are offering?

That is not how UHC works in Canada. There is no accepting or not accepting the government funded health care. All licenced practictioners and health care facilities are covered by the system.It doesn't matter who you go to.

Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
That is not how UHC works in Canada. There is no accepting or not accepting the government funded health care. All licenced practictioners and health care facilities are covered by the system.It doesn't matter who you go to.

Matters not.

We currently allow physicians to opt out of our gov't payer system, and the only way around it is to make a law that physicians HAVE to see every patient even if they don't want to, and they have to accept payment even if it is insufficient.

And even though all providers may be covered, your defense only works in one scenario; we go to a program that matches Canada. We don't want that. We don't want those wait time. Insufficient physicians. Forced to leave the country during some of the most vulnerable times of our lives to receive care.

And sometimes, contrary to the obviously often forgotten fact, sometimes the Canadian gov't DENIES REIMBURSEMENT.

"Forced to leave the country during some of the most vulnerable times of our lives to receive care."

The myth of Canadians traveling to the US for care is another of those zombie lies that just won't die. The journal Health Affairs published a pretty nice study on this one a few years back. You can read a report on it here: http://cthealth.server101.com/myth_canadians'_use_of_healthcare_in_the_u_s_.htm

In brief, even though the vast majority of Canada's population lives relatively close to the US border, the investigators were only able to find 20 Canadians out of 18,000 studied who had traveled to the US for the purpose of receiving medical care. To say it another way, thats about .1% or one in a thousand. About .5% of respondents had received care in the US at some time, but not traveled here for that purpose - presumably people who needed emergency care while traveling. Time to put that story to bed.

flightnurse2b, LPN

1 Article; 1,496 Posts

Specializes in EMS, ER, GI, PCU/Telemetry.
Matters not.

We currently allow physicians to opt out of our gov't payer system, and the only way around it is to make a law that physicians HAVE to see every patient even if they don't want to, and they have to accept payment even if it is insufficient.

And even though all providers may be covered, your defense only works in one scenario; we go to a program that matches Canada. We don't want that. We don't want those wait time. Insufficient physicians. Forced to leave the country during some of the most vulnerable times of our lives to receive care.

And sometimes, contrary to the obviously often forgotten fact, sometimes the Canadian gov't DENIES REIMBURSEMENT.

who says what sufficient and insufficient reimbursement for anything is? the doctors in this country are spoiled and many of them are greedy. my uncle is a surgeon and the stuff he whines about makes me mad, how he doesn't get a big enough cut for reading x-rays, or how he doesn't want to take cigna anymore because they don't reimburse enough for specialists. i thought people became doctors to help people, sure the money is good, but isn't the patient the MAIN priority??? so because someone can't afford to pay, they should be allowed to be sick, because the doctors feel like they aren't being compensated enough? do you think we, as nurses, are compensated fairly for the work we do? because i don't, but we don't get much of a say in it. we do our jobs because we must get some kind of satisfaction out of helping people.

do you honestly think it could be any worse than what it is now? although, most people in the united states struggling with health issues can't even afford to leave the country... because they're too busy trying to budget eating or taking their coumadin this week.

we doesn't apply to your statements. i know i certainly am not included in 'we'. give me the canadian system anyday. it has to be better than the crap we have now.

allnurses Guide

herring_RN, ASN, BSN

3,651 Posts

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

[color=#333333][color=#333333]blue cross denies back surgery for rn

[color=#333333]"it is disconcerting enough to prepare for this kind of surgery without being told a few days before that it is cancelled because blue cross deems it 'investigational'. i had already gone through pre-op testing, donated a unit of autologous blood, had appointments with four physicians, and arranged my schedule prior to the expected operation date....

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/120801.php

earlier this year kutchner and her doctors decided on surgery to relieve her pain. she could choose spinal fusion or disc-replacement. as a critical care nurse who wanted to stay mobile, and after doing her own research and talking with doctors, she decided that the disc-replacement -- approved by the fda in 2006 -- would make the need for further back surgeries less likely.

with the decision made she planned for the surgery but was denied coverage by her insurer, blue cross. she protested blue cross with the california nurses association on march 10, one day before she went in for disc-replacement surgery. the pain was too much. she opted to pay for the surgery herself. six months later we caught up with kutcher to see how she is faring and what life is like for her now....

q. blue cross denied coverage, how will you pay for it?

a. the initial bill was over $137,000 which was reduced by the hospital down to $63,000 and we have applied for financial aid, i've applied for workman's comp which is pending. i had a sore back from nursing for a few years at least. i never knew i was hurting my back. with a degenerative disc injury you can't always link it to one event....

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/in-the-news/2008/september/six-months-after-back-surgery-she-still-feels-the-insurance-pain.html?print=t

doctors say bluecross denies payment for crucial test - http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?a=top_lh&neid=200902051180.3.19_e854000001448750

a texas couple is suing blue cross blue shield and their claims adjuster for bad faith insurance practices. they claim the insurance company wrongfully denied coverage after the woman, gloria landry, was diagnosed with colon cancer. - http://www.google.com/search?q=+blue+cross+denies&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:ie-searchbox&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1i7ggll_en

a nurse was dropped from her blue cross and now has cancer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pegqrrjxek

+ Add a Comment