10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care

Posted
by herring_RN herring_RN, ASN, BSN (Guide) Guide Expert Nurse Retired

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical. Has 50 years experience.

You are reading page 17 of 10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

flightnurse2b, LPN

Specializes in EMS, ER, GI, PCU/Telemetry. 2 Articles; 1,496 Posts

JB has two ruptured discs in his back from occupational wear and tear. he has required multiple steroid injections and we are also facing the possibility of back surgery.

however, he was going to physical therapy--until his travel company switched insurance companies.... they said that because his back injury is a pre-exisiting condition, they will not pay for ANY of his physical therapy unless his previous insurance company and physician send in an appeal with proof of prior coverage.

ha. a nurse gets injured taking care of patients, but can't get insurance to help him pay for physical therapy.

i'd still take canada anyday.

Honnête et Sérieux

Honnête et Sérieux

Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU. 283 Posts

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.

This altruism will not support changes in a health-care system.

The result? Insufficient providers to support a system like Canada...and here is where the altruism takes Canada; their physicians come to the US. And when the only incentive to become a physician or an RN becomes "the patient," the shortage will get worse.

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.

Interesting. And I was accused of using an emotional point in another thread...:icon_roll

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.

It's not.

BTW, as a former flight nurse for eight years, I thought I'd point out that socialized systems like Canada do not have strong systems of critical care transport. If you are going to work in the US as a flight nurse, with very few exceptions, you will have to work for a FOR-profit company that positions itself to maximize profit and reward the shareholder, not 'serve the patient.'

Just saying...

Kashia

Kashia, ASN, LVN

Specializes in Med-Surg, Home Health, LTC. Has 13 years experience. 284 Posts

I have been in support of Natl Health Care

until

it occurred to me

why do I believe the gov that has created the worlds second largest humanitarian crisis ( Iraq )

drops bombs on innocent people and children and tortures others...

why do I believe these same people are going to provide a compassionate and efficient healthcare system for

a population they care little about?

To believe they would is madness

Honnête et Sérieux

Honnête et Sérieux

Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU. 283 Posts

I have been in support of Natl Health Care

until

it occurred to me

why do I believe the gov that has created the worlds second largest humanitarian crisis ( Iraq )

drops bombs on innocent people and children and tortures others...

why do I believe these same people are going to provide a compassionate and efficient healthcare system for

a population they care little about?

To believe they would is madness

Just to clarify, Iraq was in a 12-year humanitarian crisis before the liberation of the Iraqi people, caused by the UN, not the US. Iraqi children were dying in six-figure numbers at the time. Today...not happening.

The sanctions ended the day we intervened.

RN4MERCY

RN4MERCY

Specializes in ICU/CCU/TRAUMA/ECMO/BURN/PACU/. 328 Posts

I have been in support of Natl Health Care

until

it occurred to me

why do I believe the gov that has created the worlds second largest humanitarian crisis ( Iraq )

drops bombs on innocent people and children and tortures others...

why do I believe these same people are going to provide a compassionate and efficient healthcare system for

a population they care little about?

To believe they would is madness

I don't understand your point, I guess. We voted for change in this country and that doesn't mean we can rest. There are those with money, power, and privilege who craft laws for their own selfish interests and ignore the will of the people. Sure, there's injustice in the world, but it's our democracy, our government, and we pay the salaries and provide benefits for our elected leaders. And, we must hold them accountable. Why wouldn't you still be in support of a single payer national health plan? We know that improving and expanding Medicare to cover everyone is the most efficient and affordable way to provide health care to all.

Do you believe in a participatory democracy? It takes courage to change the things you can, and as nurses, we have a duty to change circumstances that are against the interests of patients. The for-profit health industry in this country is definitely harmful and against the interests of patients who need care. We will never have enough money to provide everyone with decent care until we eliminate private insurance with its enormous waste and inadequate coverage.

It will take more direct action - meet with legislators and urge them to sign on to HR 676 (The Medicare for All Act) or S 703, collect petition signatures and present those to your legislators with the request that they co-sponsor the legislation. If that doesn't work, then have direct actions in front of their offices, get letters in the local paper, hold health care town halls (May 30th is a National Day of Action for Single Payer - http://www.healthcare-now.org), knock on doors in your community and get people to sign petitions. It will take direct pressure to have an effect.:typing

Honnête et Sérieux

Honnête et Sérieux

Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU. 283 Posts

We know that improving and expanding Medicare to cover everyone is the most efficient and affordable way to provide health care to all.

No you don't.

Do you believe in a participatory democracy? It takes courage to change the things you can, and as nurses, we have a duty to change circumstances that are against the interests of patients. The for-profit health industry in this country is definitely harmful and against the interests of patients who need care. We will never have enough money to provide everyone with decent care until we eliminate private insurance with its enormous waste and inadequate coverage.

Some of the most financially efficient health systems in the world are NOT single-payer, but are systems that incorporate private insurance into the mix. Kind of doesn't support the claim that for-profit health operators are "definitely harmful."

Agrippa

Agrippa

490 Posts

Some of the most financially efficient health systems in the world are NOT single-payer, but are systems that incorporate private insurance into the mix. "definitely harmful."

No they're not.

"A single-payer reform would make care affordable through vast savings on bureaucracy and profits," Himmelstein said in his statement. "As my colleagues and I have shown in research published in the New England Journal of Medicine, administration consumes 31 percent of health spending in the U.S., nearly double what Canada spends. In other words, if we cut our bureaucratic costs to Canadian levels, we'd save nearly $400 billion annually - more than enough to cover the uninsured and to eliminate co-payments and deductibles for all Americans."

A national health insurance program would slash the enormous paperwork burden on hospitals, doctors and patients, Himmelstein said, resulting in hundreds of billions in savings that could be redirected to patient care.

Half-measures like those proposed by the Obama administration and key lawmakers like Senators Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), many of which mirror aspects of the Massachusetts reform of 2006, can't match the savings of a streamlined, publicly financed system, he said.

Even if a "public plan option" emerges as part of the House and Senate reform bills, Himmelstein said, it won't be sufficient to challenge the inefficiencies and wastefulness of a multi-payer system: "A health reform plan that includes a public plan option might realize some savings on insurance overhead. However, as long as multiple private plans coexist with the public plan, hospitals and doctors would have to maintain their costly billing and internal cost tracking apparatus. Indeed, my colleagues and I estimate that even if half of all privately insured Americans switched to a public plan with overhead at Medicare's level, the administrative savings would amount to only 9 percent of the savings under single payer."

Citing his direct experience with the Massachusetts plan, which is facing critical financial problems, Himmelstein commented: "Prevention, disease management, computers and a health insurance exchange were supposed to make reform affordable. Instead, costs have skyrocketed, rising 23 percent between 2005 and 2007, and the insurance exchange adds 4 percent for its own administrative costs on top of the already high overhead charged by private insurers. As a result, 1 in 5 Massachusetts residents went without care last year because they couldn't afford it. Hundreds of thousands remain uninsured, and the state has drained money from safety-net hospitals and clinics to keep the reform afloat."

While the conventional wisdom in Washington is that single-payer national health insurance is "not feasible" and therefore "off the table," public opinion polls have shown solid majorities continue to support such an approach. In a survey published by the Annals of Internal Medicine a year ago, 59 percent of U.S. physicians said they favored government action to establish a national health insurance program, a 10-percentage-point leap from only five years prior.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/april/testimony_of_david_u.php

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.