10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care

HM2VikingRN, RN · Dec 19, 2008

Won't this result in rationing like in Canada?

The U.S. already rations care. Rationing in U.S. health care is based on income: if you can afford care, you get it; if you can't, you don't. A recent study by the prestigious Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 Americans die every year because they don't have health insurance. Many more skip treatments that their insurance company refuses to cover. That's rationing. Other countries do not ration in this way.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#rationing

Its unfortunate that you have lost family members covered by the NHS but there are no guarantees that they would have survived in a private insurance environment.

When I asked you for sources I meant sourced academic level work not anecdotal stories. Anecdotes are useful but they do not always shed light on how to look for answers to solve problems.

If you factor in our 34-38% adminstrative costs for our system we are spending marginally more than the NHS and receiving comparatively worse quality of care. Do we really want a system where we have more billing clerks than nurses? Because that is what we currently have in the US.

hypocaffeinemia, BSN, RN · Dec 19, 2008

I will repeat this in every thread on this issue:

Before deciding what type of system you support, you have to answer the question of whether or not appropriate healthcare is a right or a privilege.

You must do this because a free market system is mutually exclusive with healthcare as a right.

BroadwayRN, ASN, RN · Dec 19, 2008

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#rationing
Its unfortunate that you have lost family members covered by the NHS but there are no guarantees that they would have survived in a private insurance environment.
When I asked you for sources I meant sourced academic level work not anecdotal stories. Anecdotes are useful but they do not always shed light on how to look for answers to solve problems.
If you factor in our 34-38% adminstrative costs for our system we are spending marginally more than the NHS and receiving comparatively worse quality of care. Do we really want a system where we have more billing clerks than nurses? Because that is what we currently have in the US.

No, it's not unfortunately, it's tragic. I'm sorry you like facts and figures so much. Did you even read the link I provided. I'm outta here. When you get your UHC and you're in your 70's and can't get any medical care we'll talk again.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Dec 19, 2008

I am deeply sorry for your losses.

I did take the time to read your links but they were mostly anecdotal without a real way forward for improving the system.

lpnflorida · Dec 19, 2008

I have nothing to add or detract. I only wanted to be updated on the discussion.

The outcome of our healthcare should be of interest to us all.

Chico David, BSN, RN · Dec 20, 2008

"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.

Please tell us your source for that last bit of information. It's one of those myths that rightwing opponents of healthcare reform love to promote. I had a nurse write me claiming that no one over 68 could get dialysis in Canada. It took me five minutes on Google to find a renal journal article documenting that patients over 70 were the fastest growing segment of the dialysis population in Canada. Check the facts. Find me documentation from one reputable source of even one UHC country that denies treatment for heart attack just based on age. I know for certain that's not the case in Canada or France or Germany or England. Where exactly is it true?

The facts are that every other industrialized country in the world has some form of universal healthcare, every one of them gets results about as good as the US or better on every conceivable measure of performance and all of them do it for a lot less money than we spend. I don't think the US is so uniquely incapable that we can't duplicate what others have done.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Dec 22, 2008

No, it's not unfortunately, it's tragic. I'm sorry you like facts and figures so much. Did you even read the link I provided. I'm outta here. When you get your UHC and you're in your 70's and can't get any medical care we'll talk again.

To restate the central point of my response:

there are no guarantees that they would have survived in a private insurance environment.

IOW bad outcomes happen in any health care system.

I provided links to support my thoughts not just libertarian talking points where the expected results don't match reality. (See Alan Greenspans comments about the success of the invisible hand and bank regulation.)

loriangel14, RN · Dec 28, 2008

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.

These things would not happen under UHC. I live in Canada and no procedures are withheld because of age. I don't know why this myth persists.

allnurses Guide · Dec 28, 2008

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.

Of course people over 70 get treated in the UK, I am really sorry that you have expereinced the personal loss of family members and I can understand why you want to blame the healthcare system they were treated in, but within the NHS that I work in each patient is treated on an individual basis, so if your 70 with an MI and minimal co-morbidities then you are treated appropriately and in a timely fashion. If your 70 and have a catastrophic MI with multiple co-morbidities with a poor prognosis then you will be treated appropriately.

My grandmother had ovarian cancer at 75 years of age, she was treated surgically and then with radiotherapy. She had another good 5 years with us before the cancer won but at all times she was given every option for active and aggressive treatment.

This myth that if your old you wont get treated is just that a myth

HM2VikingRN, RN · Dec 28, 2008

Sharrie,

Thanks for stating so eloquently what I stated so clumsily.

HM2

HM2VikingRN, RN · Dec 28, 2008

No, it's not unfortunately, it's tragic. I'm sorry you like facts and figures so much. Did you even read the link I provided. I'm outta here. When you get your UHC and you're in your 70's and can't get any medical care we'll talk again.

Lets just fix the problems with reality based solutions.

RedCell · Dec 29, 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

Listen dude, I went to school, took out loans, worked hard for what I wanted. Actually ate a peanut butter sandwich almost everyday I was in anesthesia school because it helped to save money. Now I will be doing a job that that will pay a decent amount of money.

Take my brother. Dropped out of college. Used his school loans to pay for "rims" for his car, cable tv with all the movie channels, cell phone, lots of other worthless crap. Now he works as a waiter living paycheck to paycheck while still trying to pay for all this worthless crap. He doesnt have health insurance because he can't afford it after paying his cable and cell phone bill.

Now, it is not my place to tell him how to live his life. It is not the government's place to tell me how to live mine. Why should I work hard only to have the government take a portion of my money to give it to my dumbass brother?

People need to be responsible for themselves. This is the greatest nation to ever exist. If you cannot make it in the United States of America it is your own fault barring you have some kind of devastating mental or physical handicap. Why do you think so many people try to get in to this country? Some people chronically make bad decisions, others expect things to be handed to them; these are the ones that fail in life and in the end the blame for this lies entirely on them.

Besides, I have lived and worked in other countries that have universal health coverage. Believe me...it SUCKS. And while I do realize that the current system has problems, they are nothing compared to those created by socialist universal coverage systems.