Health Care: The Ticking Time Bomb

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jul 24, 2009

L isn't opposed.....She is pointing out that we need to make sure that we all have access to affordable care.....

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jul 24, 2009

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/rumors-of-demise-of-obamacare-have-been.html

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jul 24, 2009

don't think the media has a liberal bias or a conservative bias so much as it has a bias toward overreacting to short-term trends and a tendency toward groupthink. The fact is that there have been some pretty decent signals on health care. Yes, it has stalled in some committees, but it has advanced in others; yes, the Mayo Clinic expressed their skepticism but also the AMA -- surprisingly -- endorsed it; yes, the CBO's Doug Elmendorf got walked into a somewhat deceptive and undoubtedly damaging line of questioning about the measure's capacities on cost control, but also, the CBO's actual cost estimates have generally been lower than expected and also favorable to particular Democratic priorities like the public option. This all seems pretty par for the course, even if you wouldn't know it from reading Politico or Jake Tapper, who giddily report on each new poll telling us the exact same thing as though there's some sort of actual news value there.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/healthcare-timeout-is-fine.html

The economy is on the upswing....

All of which will tend to keep pushing reform through congress...

tewdles, RN · Jul 24, 2009

once again, health care is not a right.

welfare–noun - the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization; well-being

i would respectfully submit that our constitution does address this "right"

ssing45 · Jul 25, 2009

Health an inherent human dignity? Why? Because it is a part of life? In that case, death is also an inherent human dignity as is illness. They are both part of life. Why am I keeping these people alive when, as a human being, I should be letting them die with dignity.

jgcadet · Jul 25, 2009

Depends how it is structured, I don't want it to lower my salary....

misswoosie · Jul 25, 2009

i did seek care at a local community health clinic because they would take a cash only patient, however, they were so over burdoned with clients that it was very difficult to get appts in any semblance of a reasonable time period.

what would you class as "a reasonable time period"?

sayitgirl · Jul 25, 2009

I don't think anyone has "excellent" insurance any more. Employers providing primary insurance for their employees was initially meant as a means to spread risk across larger groups. It has evolved into something else entirely. From an economic standpoint, I don't see how employers bearing the burden for healthcare is sustainable. The government, as a primary insurer, can spread risk across the entire citizenry. In addition, the government can initiate a large scale wellness program either as a requirement for obtaining coverage or provide discounts on premiums to those who participate in wellness programs. There isn't any reason that under a single payer, citizens can not choose their physician or provider. Medicare is an extremely successful program providing coverage for all seniors, ensuring access to care and it allows those insured to choose any provider. The amount of money saved in eliminating the paperwork required for each separate insurance administrator alone should cut costs by at least 25%.
Why do people equate government sponsored insurance with limited access and choice? There isn't any evidence for this at all - it is a fear tactic being perpetuated by those who do not have all the facts. The government has shown that it can administrate a successful insurance program which provides for the needs of all. An expansion of the Medicare program is the logical means for extension of insurance to everyone. The structure is already there. Every other country in the civilized world provides health care for its citizens.

The President and Judicial system have excellant healthcare. I can remember when insurance was free for employees and a small fee for families. That has changed for most of us, now it is based on salary. I do not want to have my rates doubled again. If nothing is done that will happen, it is slowly happening now. Our country is the only one without national health insurance.

lamazeteacher · Jul 25, 2009

Depends how it is structured, I don't want it to lower my salary....

Health care reform won't reduce your salary. It may, in fact, increase it to the "going rate" of pay. Look at the increases recently in : "minimum rate of pay".

Cost of health care, without all the billions of dollars of administrative costs that exist now, will be lower with "public" health care. There will be money after the dust clears, for additional nursing roles/programs teaching prevention of disease and prudent treatment of symptoms.......

There have been credible physicians working for years to structure care in such a way that everyone will get seen and treated appropriately. I know that trusting government is difficult here, as there have been many abuses of "the system". However, this system will have better safeguards against that, as it hasn't before - given the history of abuse by physicians, DME companies, labs, pharmaceutical industry greed, etc. Centralizing billing will allow "red flags" greater visibility. If specific outlines, which take thousands of pages are distributed, there will be general picking apart of small points. Then further delays will happen.

The politicians beholden to grantors of large amounts of money donated to their campaigns, tend to keep in mind the needs of the wealthy, rather than those of middle class and poor prople. Many of them come from wealthy

families and have no idea how people with less money live, what their concerns are, etc. We need to get word to these leaders, to let them know about us, what we need and what we want from them. It's very important that the remedies to the health care system be viewed as a "work in progress". :coollook:

nurs101 · Jul 26, 2009

There was a time in my life when I didn't have medical insurance and needed medical attention. I didn't qualify for medicaid and my employer didn't offer insurance. I was able to go to a clinic ran by the state which was not a bad thing at all. My out of pocket expense was a $5 co-pay for every visit. I needed surgery and the state payed for it. My overall experience was great. I believe I had great doctors and the best care. So yes I do support the idea of having public health care if its anything similar.

tewdles, RN · Jul 26, 2009

miss woosie

i respond to you question with caution...as the intent of your question is unclear. reasonable, of course, it what seems sensible, rational, or judicious to a particular person in a particular circumstance. given that i am not interested in a debate on what you consider reasonable vs. what [color=#8b0000]i may consider reasonable [color=#8b0000]in my life i will leave it at that.

and, ssing, death with dignity is extremely important and should not be left out of discussion on health. the ability of people and families to exit the "traditional medical model" and enter a palliative or hospice model is too often poorly addressed and neglected in our current health system. another discussion for another day.

belgarion · Jul 26, 2009

I need to see the final version before I decide. I have a real problem with the way the whole issue is being handled at this moment. We are getting a whole lot of opinions from three or four different sources but very little in the way of hard facts. Why is the president trying to rush this thing through so fast? Is there something that he doesn't want us looking at too closely?

Some of the other things he bull rushed through the system aren't working out too well. For example, GM and Chrysler still had to declare Chapter 11. Many of the banks are still struggling but their exectutives still got their bonuses. Unemplyment is still rising even in the health care sector (ask any new nursing graduate).

I kow we need reform but lets make sure we get it right. The entire nation of France very nearly went bankrupt just a couple of years ago, due in large part to the massive public health care system there. Even the most liberal French politicians had to acknowledge that.

The problem with rushing a bill like this through is that you wind up having to go back later and do a whole lot of patchwork fixing for a lot of problems that might have been caught with just a little more scrutiny. Some loopholes will need to be closed while some restrictions will need to be eased. All will require congressional action. This will lead to more bureaucracy and isn't that one of the biggest problems we have now?

We need to do something but for once, let's try to get it right the first time.

Health Care: The Ticking Time Bomb

Would you support a public health care option?