10 Excellent Reasons for National Health Care

MtGypsy, ADN · Jan 8, 2009

My number one reason would be to get insurance for those of us who can't get insurance or afford what we can get. Insurance for me and spouse would be $900.00 a month r/t "pre-existing conditions". When I had hospital based insurance (I'm a traveler now), the insurance company found a way to make mostly anything not covered. Did you realized hypertension is preexisting and precludes any cardiac workups. Try to get insurance with something like Multiple Sclerosis (they classed almost everything preexisting!)

Maybe we don't need socialized medicine, just major changes in insurance companies. I know it sounds selfish, but I don't care what they do. JUST GET ME HEALTH INSURANCE!! My neighbor has Medicaid, and whenever she's sick, or needed surgery, she went to doc, had surgery, had therapy, has meds. My husband and I self medicate, and hope we don't get sick. As a nurse it sucks; I would love to have yearly Mammograms, physicals and the care she recieves. (note: her surgeon was one of the best orthopods in the area!!).

RN4MERCY · Jan 8, 2009

Support for a Canadian style single payer plan is growing in our country. The good news is that they are using computer technology in a way that benefits the public, to manage and reduce waiting times for elective procedures.

What comes as no surprise is the opposition from the so-called "health" insurance industry. They know that their ability to control their profits rests on their ability to control the system in America. It works for them: Healthy Profits, Inc. should be the real name for America's health insurance plans, (AHIP). While they make a profit by taking premiums, we are dying from a lack of access to preventative and restorative medically necessary health care.

The United States could replace its current fragmented system of medical care with a government-paid plan and immediately save enough money to insure everyone in America, and produce better health outcomes according to an article in the New York Times. The article highlighted key points of a study by the General Accountability Office (GAO). The GAO report was commissioned by Rep. John Conyers, who is the author and principal co-sponsor of H.R. 676, The U.S. National Health Insurance Act, (or, "Medicare for All").

I think it's important to reiterate that taxpayers funded the study. Our politicians have a responsibility to acknowledge the results and implement the findings. Since we're in the throws of an unprecedented economic crisis, it's time to help job growth, and the entire economy by removing the burden of health costs from business. We can do that and save money.

"If the universal coverage and single-payer features of the Canadian system were applied in the United States, the savings in administrative costs alone would be more than enough to finance insurance coverage for the millions of Americans who are currently uninsured," the report written by the G.A.O. says.

This is not an opinion; it is a fact supported by peer-reviewed research studies.

The benefits of a National Health Program (NHP) are well articulated in an article From Physicians for a National Health Program, Cambridge, Mass (Drs Grumbach, Bodenheimer, Himmelstein, and Woolhandler); the Institute for Health Policy Studies (Dr Grumbach) and the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco (Drs Grumbach and Bodenheimer); the Department of Medicine, the Cambridge (Mass) Hospital and Harvard Medical School (Drs Himmelstein and Woolhandler); and the Public Citizen Health Research Group, Washington, DC (Dr Himmelstein) Dr Grumbach is a Pew Health Policy Fellow.

I've included a few excerpts and this hyper-link to the seven page article, "Liberal Benefits, Conservative Spending."

The NHP would benefit most Americans, though a few powerful interest groups would suffer. It would virtually eliminate financial barriers to care for those who are currently uninsured and underinsured, ensure patients a free choice of providers, ensure physicians a free choice of practice settings, diminish bureaucratic interference in clinical decision making, stabilize health spending, and reduce the growing burden of health care costs for many individuals and employers.
Although few dispute the ability of the NHP to provide universal coverage and control costs, critics have raised the specter of rationing, pointing to queues for some high technology services in Canada.42 We do not advocate cutting US health spending to Canadian levels. Even with a slower rate of growth under the NHP, US health expenditures will remain well above those of any other nation. Deploying our greater resources with Canadian efficiency would permit increases in utilization and improvements in technology without skyrocketing costs.
The objectives of the NHP are simple: (1) to minimize financial barriers to appropriate medical care, (2) to distribute costs fairly, and (3) to contain costs at a reasonable level. Once a structure is in place for meeting these basic concerns, the medical profession and society as a whole can move on to the more complicated questions: Which health services truly improve the quality of life? What share of our human and material re sources should we devote to health care? How shall we reduce the toll now extracted by poverty, ignorance, and addictions? By implementing a national health program, we can turn and face the challenges ahead.

So, what are we waiting for? I want to get in line for a longer, healthier life; how about you? As individuals we need to come together and make this land a better place for generations to come. We need a National Health Plan, based on the single-payer model. We can learn from other civilized countries and create a uniquely American program, like that embodied in H.R. 676, that we can be proud of. :)

BBFRN, BSN, PhD · Jan 8, 2009

A friendly reminder to please debate the topic, and not each other. If you see a post that you find disagreeable, please report it instead of responding in kind, so we can address it. Thanks.

patrick1rn, MSN, RN, NP · Jan 9, 2009

I want to understand something first..

If I insulted anyone, I am sorry, that was not my intention.

Here is my issue with so called UHC

It is going to have to be paid for with increased taxes right ? Is everyone equally going to pay the increase in taxes, since everyone will be getting the same service ?

I have good health insurance right now, so will I end up having worse health insurance ? If I chose not to participate in UHC and keep the health insurance that I have, will I have that right also ?

I hope this doesnt offend anyone that reads this, I just want to know

OC85 · Jan 9, 2009

I want to understand something first..
If I insulted anyone, I am sorry, that was not my intention.
Here is my issue with so called UHC
It is going to have to be paid for with increased taxes right ? Is everyone equally going to pay the increase in taxes, since everyone will be getting the same service ?
I have good health insurance right now, so will I end up having worse health insurance ? If I chose not to participate in UHC and keep the health insurance that I have, will I have that right also ?
I hope this doesnt offend anyone that reads this, I just want to know

The way I understand it, UHC represents a 3-4% increase in taxes for the average American. This may be offset, however, by proposed tax cuts for working and middle class Americans. Much of the proposed funding for UHC will likely come from repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and closing various tax loopholes for large corporations and people with the top 1% of annual earnings. As many people have noted, UHC is unlikely to cost people like you and me much money in the long run. Its also worth noting that the average country that has UHC typically spends less than half the amount per capita that Americans generally spend. The way I see it, I can either spend $6,000 per year on what would be considered very good health insurance, and have no gaurantee of actual coverage, or I can spend half that in increased taxes [and they may not even increase that much], and have guaranteed access to necessary medical treatment.

In response to preferring private health insurance, please see my earlier post on the nature of capitalism. If you can refute what I posted about the nature of the motivation of private insurance, please do so, as it will go a long way in persuading people toward your point of view.

patrick1rn, MSN, RN, NP · Jan 9, 2009

The way I understand it, UHC represents a 3-4% increase in taxes for the average American. This may be offset, however, by proposed tax cuts for working and middle class Americans. Much of the proposed funding for UHC will likely come from repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and closing various tax loopholes for large corporations and people with the top 1% of annual earnings. As many people have noted, UHC is unlikely to cost people like you and me much money in the long run. Its also worth noting that the average country that has UHC typically spends less than half the amount per capita that Americans generally spend. The way I see it, I can either spend $6,000 per year on what would be considered very good health insurance, and have no gaurantee of actual coverage, or I can spend half that in increased taxes [and they may not even increase that much], and have guaranteed access to necessary medical treatment.
In response to preferring private health insurance, please see my earlier post on the nature of capitalism. If you can refute what I posted about the nature of the motivation of private insurance, please do so, as it will go a long way in persuading people toward your point of view.

I dont know where you got 6k a yr for health insurance, is that what you pay right now ? If I had a choice, I would prefer to keep my own private insurance and not pay the extra taxes for UHC, since I dont need it.

Maybe that should be an option for those who dont want to be covered on this UHC. What do you think ?

BBFRN, BSN, PhD · Jan 9, 2009

My yearly deductible is 8k a year, so 6k is entirely believable- not counting added visit cost, medications, copays, etc.

Koyaanisqatsi-RN · Jan 9, 2009

I want to understand something first..
If I insulted anyone, I am sorry, that was not my intention.
Here is my issue with so called UHC
It is going to have to be paid for with increased taxes right ? Is everyone equally going to pay the increase in taxes, since everyone will be getting the same service ?
I have good health insurance right now, so will I end up having worse health insurance ? If I chose not to participate in UHC and keep the health insurance that I have, will I have that right also ?
I hope this doesnt offend anyone that reads this, I just want to know

Increased taxes, yes. This is the same as any tax increase, even though you may not 'need' the services provided as a result. Such as increased police and fire protection, or national defense.

Remember, you're already paying more than you would be under UHC as it is. Paying for people to go to the emergency room is not an efficient way to do healthcare. This would remedy that, by providing the (much cheaper) preventative care ahead of time. Surely, everyone can see the benefits of that.

OC85 · Jan 9, 2009

I dont know where you got 6k a yr for health insurance, is that what you pay right now ? If I had a choice, I would prefer to keep my own private insurance and not pay the extra taxes for UHC, since I dont need it.
Maybe that should be an option for those who dont want to be covered on this UHC. What do you think ?

For the average family, yes, it would be at least that. I'll admit, currently the plan I have for just myself, a 23 year old male with no history of health problems, will be about $330/month once I am no longer a full time student [my insurance company sent me a letter stating this the last time I left school]. In addition to the premium paid, I have a $1,000 deductable that I am responsible for before my insurance begins to pay for anything. And even then, medical coverage is not free. I am still responsible for paying a small percentage of treatment and prescription costs.

I think there is some merit to being able to "opt out" of UHC, however, you can't deny that this creates serious problems. Despite what some people may think, no one does "not need" medical coverage. Let's say someone decides they are young, healthy, and have no "need" for health insurance, or decide to purchase the most inexpensive private insurance they can find. What happens if they have a serious accident, or are diagnosed with cancer or some other disease requiring costly treatment [and their bargain basement insurance denies their claim, as many do]? Should they be turned away because they cannot afford treatment? You can bet they'd be crying out for the UHC system to take care of them.

Again, it should be noted that if you eliminate the unreasonable tax breaks that many corporations/ very wealthy individuals have been enjoying for the past decade, then financing UHC may not require a significant tax increase for people like you and me. Finding a way to pay for UHC doesn't necessarily mean raising taxes across the board. It may be possible to simply examine current tax law re-evaluate certain sections that unfairly give preferential treatment to the very wealthy. Some may be tempted to call this socialism, I prefer to think of it as re-balancing tax law so that everyone, including the the wealthy, pays their fair share.

loriangel14, RN · Jan 9, 2009

You would have more money in your pocket under UHC. My health care premiums that I pay through my taxes were less than $400 last year.

allnurses Guide · Jan 9, 2009

Here's how it works in Australia. Everyone pays a 1.5% Medicare levy in your taxes. You are encourage to also take out private coverage (mine was around $1500/yr). If you earn over $50K and you do NOT have private cover, you pay an extra surcharge of a further 1%. In total I still spent far less on my medicare levy and private cover than I do in the US for employer group insurance, by the time co-pays, deductible, contributions etc are added in.

You do also have the choice of when to use the private/public coverage.

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/healthsystem-overview-contents

patrick1rn, MSN, RN, NP · Jan 9, 2009

Here's how it works in Australia. Everyone pays a 1.5% Medicare levy in your taxes. You are encourage to also take out private coverage (mine was around $1500/yr). If you earn over $50K and you do NOT have private cover, you pay an extra surcharge of a further 1%. In total I still spent far less on my medicare levy and private cover than I do in the US for employer group insurance, by the time co-pays, deductible, contributions etc are added in.
You do also have the choice of when to use the private/public coverage.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/healthsystem-overview-contents

So everyone pays the same percent at 1.5 % and people can still keep their private insurance ? Maybe I misunderstood then.

Maybe I should look into this. I am into people having affordable health care. I get tired of the political jabs that some have taken at me. If we are still allowed to keep our private health insurance, then it is not trully socialized.

Although, on principal I am opposed to any government interference in the private lives of people. To me government should regulate, not dominate industry. I guess in this case though, they would not dominate the health care industry, but would be more like a buffer. Maybe I will go to the Catalina Wine Mixer this year after all.