10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care

flightnurse2b, LPN · Dec 30, 2008

Sorry if you found my "scare stories" offensive dude, though I think you were probably referring to the "scare stories" of those that have actually experienced socialized medicine in their native countries. However, there will always be people who make poor financial decisions habitually and there will always be people who are outright lazy and expect something for nothing. I see these people everyday in the OR. If people want to believe in something they should believe in themselves and make something of their lives. Punishing those that are successful in life by redistributing wealth to those with "bad luck" will only hurt America. Goverment does not solve problems by getting involved in the personal lives of Americans, it only creates more problems. Besides, take a look at how long universal health care lasted in the Messiah's homestate. It went bankrupt and failed in less than eight months. Look at other countries such as Russia, Canada, and Japan and see what that boneheaded idea did to their medical systems.

you're totally missing the point. no one is punishing you. and it sickens me that a nurse makes such blanket statements.

your attitude stinks, dude.

patrick1rn, MSN, RN, NP · Dec 30, 2008

you're totally missing the point. no one is punishing you. and it sickens me that a nurse makes such blanket statements.
your attitude stinks, dude.

actually, yours stinks as well, but none the less something has to be done for those who can not afford insurance in the USA.

1. if we are going to make insurance affordable for those who can not afford it and if that means healthy Americans who contribute to society then I am for it

2. Nothing is free in this world, everyone has to be paid for something, people who use UHC should be responsible for some of the cost like affordable insurance.

3. Preventative care should be covered ie cholesterol screens, BP screens, Flu shots , etc

I love how liberals find a way to bash conservatives in these postings, no actually I dont I am a conservative

allnurses Guide · Dec 30, 2008

actually, yours stinks as well, but none the less something has to be done for those who can not afford insurance in the USA.
1. if we are going to make insurance affordable for those who can not afford it and if that means healthy Americans who contribute to society then I am for it
2. Nothing is free in this world, everyone has to be paid for something, people who use UHC should be responsible for some of the cost like affordable insurance.
3. Preventative care should be covered ie cholesterol screens, BP screens, Flu shots , etc
I love how liberals find a way to bash conservatives in these postings, no actually I dont I am a conservative

I agree with you that something has to be done for those who can not afford insurance. Absolutely preventative care must be included. And all those able to pay must do so.

In addition I think people who pay for health insurance have all too often been denied the health care they paid for.

We need healthcare for all, not insurance for all because insurance is no guarantee that you will get the care you need when you need it.

We already pay for those of us who are >65, disabled, and on dialysis. We taxpayers also pay for our military and their dependents. We pay for district and county hospitals and clinics. Of course our veterans deserve the finest care and I pray it will improve soon.

All too many young healthy working people don't choose to pay for insurance so we pay for those who are injured or become ill.

When we all pay a slightly higher tax and all are covered under a single payer publicly administered system all the good smart people who do the red tape for billing different insurance companies, who work as "deniers", and the top management who get millions we pay for healthcare will do useful work.

http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/facts

RN_Canada · Jan 6, 2009

Why should I work hard only to have the government take a portion of my money to give it to my dumbass brother?

Because it is the right thing to do!

RN4MERCY · Jan 7, 2009

For any nurse who takes the attitude that "people who want health coverage should go to school and get a good job, like I did", let me just offer a few thoughts:
1. There are and always will be a lot of jobs needed in the world that are relatively low paying jobs, require relatively little schooling to do and give the workers who do them relatively little bargaining leverage. The people who cook your restaurant meals, pick up your garbage, clean your hotel room, perhaps care for your child while you are at work. Most of those jobs today do not offer health insurance. Are you, as a nurse, content that those people should die when they get sick? Are you, as a nurse content that a cancer diagnosis should be an automatic death sentence for them? Are you content that they should have no access to things like treatment for high blood pressure or diabetes? Do you believe that people who do those jobs, who work long hours for low pay, are less a human being than you? Less deserving of life than you?
Or if that just went right by you, try it this way:
2. As more and more Americans are added to the 45 million who have no health coverage and the 15 million more whose coverage is so bad they can't afford to use it, do you think that somebody will start to say something like this: "The reason we can't afford care is that all those nurses are making such high salaries and such good benefits. We need to cut those nurse wages so the rest of us can afford to get care." Have you not noticed the way that government workers are blamed for high taxes? The constant pressure to cut their wages and benefits? How lone will it take, how many people without care, before they come after us?
Or, if that doesn't do it for you, try this:
3. Of the 29 richest countrie in the world, the US spends about twice as much on healthcare as the others, on average and gets no better results on any scale one can measure. And the US is the only one in which private insurance plays a central role. You can have your scare stories, I'll take actual data.
So whichever works for you: simple humanity, self interest, or logic and reason, the answer is the same.

Spot on, David!

No human being can thrive when isolated from others. Everyone's life has value and meaning.

As I was reading your response to our fellow blogger, I hope your compassion doesn't fall on blind eyes and deaf ears. Millions are without access, and over a hundred thousand die each year of preventable illness in this country. No decent and compassionate society should fail to provide health care to it's members. Universal access to health care or lack thereof, says something about our society's moral character.

John Donne's oft quoted verse comes to mind in the context of this discussion about universal health care. (Although personally I would prefer the more inclusive term "human", as opposed to man, or mankind, I believe the meaning is clear.)

"As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

I especially appreciated one of your other posts on this subject where you stated, in effect, that the best way to insure that the benefits of health care would be there for you, would be to work to make sure that everyone had access to health care when they needed it. :up:

patrick1rn, MSN, RN, NP · Jan 7, 2009

Spot on, David!
No human being can thrive when isolated from others. Everyone's life has value and meaning.
As I was reading your response to our fellow blogger, I hope your compassion doesn't fall on blind eyes and deaf ears. Millions are without access, and over a hundred thousand die each year of preventable illness in this country. No decent and compassionate society should fail to provide health care to it's members. Universal access to health care or lack thereof, says something about our society's moral character.
John Donne's oft quoted verse comes to mind in the context of this discussion about universal health care. (Although personally I would prefer the more inclusive term "human", as opposed to man, or mankind, I believe the meaning is clear.)
"As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
I especially appreciated one of your other posts on this subject where you stated, in effect, that the best way to insure that the benefits of health care would be there for you, would be to work to make sure that everyone had access to health care when they needed it.

I guess the question really is: To be or not to be. I agree to an extent that every life has value and meaning, as each person individually percieves it. You speak of universal health care being as a means to judge the morality of a society. I guess I see universal health care in a different light. IF a person has great health insurance already, then this government mandated to those who already have good health care correct ? Why should I have to sacrifice the health care insurance to go to some universal health care system. Why should the majority be penalized for the minority.

Some bloggers advocate the federal govt establishing a federal health insurance , the govt and red tape. No Way.

alot of people in government are too lazy already in the US. We already have health insurance companies in the USA, why should the government take over an industry. I believe in capitalism, not socialism.

you quote about a congregation and the preacher. This is something interesting to look at. The symbolism is pretty funny. One could say that the preacher is the same as the government. The preacher lives off the donations by the congregation. The congregation could be considered the citizens of a country. Everyone who goes to the sermon gets the same message.. The message could be considered the services that the government provides to the people. THe peoples donations are considered to be taxes, everyone has to pay them. Well almost everyone, some people get away with out paying taxes. Let is take this a step further. Lets say a member of the congregation decides to see a private preacher or counselor. That member has to pay to see that private preacher. That could be considered to be premiums for private health insurance.

Bottom line is I am opposed to univeral health care, I am in favor of affordable health insurance. I believe in personal responsibilty. In a perfect world this would be great. The world is not perfect. I guess I am torn, I dont see the role of government as to provide health care for everyone. I do believe that health care insurance should be affordable though and that should rest on the private health insurance companies to provide that.

RN_Canada · Jan 8, 2009

I believe in capitalism, not socialism.

And how is that working for ya?!

I believe the current economic crisis in the US has been shown to be a direct result of a lack of regulation.

Chico David, BSN, RN · Jan 8, 2009

And how is that working for ya?!
I believe the current economic crisis in the US has been shown to be a direct result of a lack of regulation.

And not only that, but shows the fragility of having your health insurance tied firmly to your job.

OC85 · Jan 8, 2009

Capitalism is all well and good in many areas, however, there is no denying that the spirit of capitalism is to maximize profits while minimizing expenses. This is exactly what we're seeing right now with private insurance. Their main goal is not to provide patient care, but to minimize expenses [by denying as many claims as they can], thus increasing profits. This mentality will not change by making health care "affordable" for all. If anything, this will only encourage insurance companies to cut coverage even more [as a way to maximize profits], because they are collecting less in premiums. Is this really the kind of motivation we want in the people providing our health care? So many people just slap the label of "socialism" [as if its a 4 letter word] on universal health care and actually think it's a good argument for their position. It is not. Look where capitalism has gotten us in regards to health care. There are certain issues in society that should not be about money, because they are more important than dollars and cents could ever be.

allnurses Guide · Jan 8, 2009

I really don't understand BroadwayRN's logic here. First you say:

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?

Which would lead me to think that you believe healthcare should be restricted to those who have led "model" lives, or at least that YOU shouldn't have to pay for those that haven't. Yet then, you criticize the fact that:

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.

So which is it? You either want UHC or not. You can't expect it, and then say you don't want to pay for it.

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

Actually, having lived in Australia almost all my life, as well as the UK and the US for periods, I vehemently support UHC. I have never seen such abuse of healthcare costs as happens in the US under the private enterprise system. The argument that the government will stuff it up further is just not supported by the facts that countries with UHC spend far less per capita than the US, for similar quality outcomes.

I've never heard, in a country with UHC, of people splitting up, or losing their homes, or various other scenarios, because they cannot afford their healthcare. Or of people just avoiding preventative screenings etc because they simply cannot afford insurance.

Of course there is no panacea, and UHC has the potential for inefficiencies and drawbacks. But overall, improving access to healthcare, as well as reducing costs, *has* to be better than the current situation.

PS: I actually believe Australia's model is pretty sensible - universal coverage (although not "free") via the public health system, as well as private health cover for elective issues so you can bypass the waiting periods.

Koyaanisqatsi-RN · Jan 8, 2009

Capitalism is all well and good in many areas, however, there is no denying that the spirit of capitalism is to maximize profits while minimizing expenses. This is exactly what we're seeing right now with private insurance. Their main goal is not to provide patient care, but to minimize expenses [by denying as many claims as they can], thus increasing profits. This mentality will not change by making health care "affordable" for all. If anything, this will only encourage insurance companies to cut coverage even more [as a way to maximize profits], because they are collecting less in premiums. Is this really the kind of motivation we want in the people providing our health care? So many people just slap the label of "socialism" [as if its a 4 letter word] on universal health care and actually think it's a good argument for their position. It is not. Look where capitalism has gotten us in regards to health care. There are certain issues in society that should not be about money, because they are more important than dollars and cents could ever be.

You're 100% right, of course. But unfortunately most people will not think of it as critically as you have. They just watch Fox News and listen to conservative talk radio tell them what they want to hear, and will not even do a basic google search to find out that their entire worldview regarding 'socialism and capitalism' is almost entirely backwards.

To all the 'healthcare is best solved by capitalism' people...I'm guessing you must think that you're smarter than Alan Greenspan, our former Federal Reserve Chairman

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27335454/

People are not rational. Despite the fact that ensuring care for all, and preventative care would be in the best interest of even the insurance companies, they will never provide it. Their interests lie in short-term gain over long term gain, and also over your health.

You want your care in THEIR hands? Man...the joke is on YOU.

RN_Canada · Jan 8, 2009

Look where capitalism has gotten us in regards to health care. There are certain issues in society that should not be about money, because they are more important than dollars and cents could ever be.

It all boils down to values.

If the ability to make money has a higher value in a society than the ability to provide equity in services for all citizens then UHC might not be something that the society would support.

Every single piece of data we have on the social determinants of health shows that people with education are healthier and spend less on health care, so my suggestion would be for the government to spend more on educating its citizens so it doesn't need UHC!

But I suspect that there are some that would argue "Why should I contribute may tax dollars to educate other people. Let them get a job and pay for their own education."

Again it boils down to what the society values as a whole, not individually.

Those who live in a social democracy get this idea. In a society that emphasizes the supremacy of individual rights and freedoms this concept is not as readily accepted and indeed not well understood. There is usually the fear that your individual rights and freedoms are somehow compromised in order to provide equitable service to all people in the society.

When citizens support governments with a mandate to provide the services that benefit the entire society, then everyone benefits.

All arguments against universal health are usually based on how it will affect the individual not the society as a whole.

This is the "Why should I ...?" Argument and again I stand by my original post that entered me into this thread......

Because it is the right thing to do!