How would Medicare for all affect nursing?

Nurses General Nursing

Updated:   Published

There's talk and hope in many quarters that the United States will end up with Medicare for all. How would this affect nursing?

I currently pay a lot for my portion of high deductible insurance through work. It's basically mainly useless to me since I'm healthy, don't take meds etc. Even going to the doctor would cost me.

Honestly, the middle class has become the new underserved in America. Frugal, responsible people think twice about going to the doctor because of huge copays that have made basic healthcare a budget buster.

How would Medicare for all affect the middle class, nursing in particular? Employers would no longer have to pay for insurance. Would they pass savings on to us in the form of higher wages? How would we fare economically with higher taxes? Would the poor government compensation to facilities drive down wages?

5 hours ago, osceteacher said:

passed a bill and then realised they couldn't figure out how to get it to work

I think it didn't work because you can't force people to buy something,

or to penalize them because they didn't buy that thing.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
1 hour ago, GrumpyRN said:

Except that it does in Europe and most other industrialised countries.

Name that place in Europe, that has the population, income, and tax payer vs non tax payer "diversity" as our nation (even a state).

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Practice educator.
36 minutes ago, KonichiwaRN said:

I think it didn't work because you can't force people to buy something,

or to penalize them because they didn't buy that thing.

Yeah, kinda like the police, the schools, the garbage collectors, the fireman, the emergency room staff, the military and all the other things you are already forced to pay for.

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Emergency Department.
2 hours ago, KonichiwaRN said:

Name that place in Europe, that has the population, income, and tax payer vs non tax payer "diversity" as our nation (even a state).

Beautiful deflection. ??

Now answer the point, you stated it does not work in real life and I pointed out that it does in Europe and other developed nations.

Are you saying that the richest country in the world (https://www.thewealthrecord.com/article/richest-countries-world-2019/ ) can't (or won't) look after its citizens.

"It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

"Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism."

Hubert H. Humphrey

5
Up Vote Up Vote ×
53 minutes ago, GrumpyRN said:

Beautiful deflection. ??

Now answer the point, you stated it does not work in real life and I pointed out that it does in Europe and other developed nations.

Are you saying that the richest country in the world (https://www.thewealthrecord.com/article/richest-countries-world-2019/ ) can't (or won't) look after its citizens.

"It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

"Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism."

Hubert H. Humphrey

Bravo^^^ Let's not delude ourselves by not identifying the real 'elephants' in the room. The health insurance industry and the AMA (two of the most powerful lobbyist groups in the US) stand to lose a significant amount of revenue if/when universal healthcare ever comes to fruition. As such, they spend millions to buy off and curry favor with our politicians and launch distorted media campaigns that influence public opinion. The net effects of their continuing efforts are fattened pockets for those at the top and at the other end of the spectrum, millions of less fortunate, doing without absolutely essential health care.

To those that think the US's lopsided scheme is the 'best of the best' or even works at a very basic level, compare our (United States') 'Amenable Mortality' or 'Disease Burden' to other developed countries. Here's a clue, we're failing as a society Bigtime!

6
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
4 hours ago, KonichiwaRN said:

I think it didn't work because you can't force people to buy something,

or to penalize them because they didn't buy that thing.

I'm not sure how you're figuring something can continue to exist without anyone paying for it, particularly something very expensive.

Maybe we should have two systems, one for those that want to be in a system that's just paid for by people who feel like paying for it, and then one for people who would like there to be an actual hospital to go to when they need one.

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
4 hours ago, KonichiwaRN said:

Name that place in Europe, that has the population, income, and tax payer vs non tax payer "diversity" as our nation (even a state).

I'm not sure where your getting that there aren't states with comparable populations to European countries, or why population makes us non-comparable, most European countries are comparable to the US in terms of tax contribution variations among the population. Healthcare coverage costs are scalable, and generally the larger the population the lower the overhead costs per person, so I'm not sure where you're getting that comparing our costs vs outcomes to Europe isn't a fair comparison, since your somewhat correct that it's not a fair comparison for European countries, yet they still beat us by far in terms of cost and outcomes.

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
1 hour ago, MunoRN said:

I'm not sure where your getting that there aren't states with comparable populations to European countries, or why population makes us non-comparable, most European countries are comparable to the US in terms of tax contribution variations among the population. Healthcare coverage costs are scalable, and generally the larger the population the lower the overhead costs per person, so I'm not sure where you're getting that comparing our costs vs outcomes to Europe isn't a fair comparison, since your somewhat correct that it's not a fair comparison for European countries, yet they still beat us by far in terms of cost and outcomes.

Note.

Our nation's (or a geographical area): income tax payers vs non payers ratio.

And relate that to your gleaming European nation's example.

There is a tad thing with revenue vs expenditure.

You work. You should understand how that works. Debt is never a good thing.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
3 hours ago, GrumpyRN said:

Beautiful deflection. ??

Now answer the point, you stated it does not work in real life and I pointed out that it does in Europe and other developed nations.

Are you saying that the richest country in the world (https://www.thewealthrecord.com/article/richest-countries-world-2019/ ) can't (or won't) look after its citizens.

"It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

"Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism."

Hubert H. Humphrey

Your logic exists in: the "richest" country in the world cannot take care of its citizens?

You see. There is the "taking care" that we (our side) have a tad problem with. It all comes to the connotative meaning.

On our side, we believe in establishing an environment that promotes growth where one could exercise their free will to achieve those results include lower income taxes.

On your side, you guys "seem(?)" to believe that it is the government's role to just hand out the rewards of achievement and are increasing taxes for that. If your theory works, then why do we see a negative influx of population growth in states like California, New York, or Massachusetts?

It's that "taking care of" that we have a disagreement with. ?

It's just that..

people from the entire world have moved into our nation (me included). Isn't that weird? I guess they (people trying to move here) agree too, that this nation is taking good care of its citizens.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

I worked in hospitals for 42 years. At first we had excellent healthcare totally paid by the employer. Then in the 80s they used PacificCare, which was a nightmare of denials, waiting in pain for authorization, and leading to needing to collect state disability for preventable disability treated too late.

I really like my doctor, but twice my employer changed to an insurance plan that he didn't belong to.

Finally I turned 65 and received Medicare. Perhaps because I live in a city I got to go back to my and husband's doctor, who knows us. I did purchase a supplement. (Won't be needed with the newest Medicare For All Bill: ( https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384/text )

I advise family and friends to keep traditional Medicare if they can afford a supplement to pay the 20% Medicare does not pay because then they can see any physician that takes Medicare and locally only a few cosmetic surgeons and such don't accept Medicare.

It is sad that a few government workers, whose healthcare is funded by taxpayers, and whose insurance corporation owes a fiduciary duty to shareholders, don't want all to share in reliable healthcare.

I think that when elected officials and rule makers have the same healthcare as we do they will truly pay attention to a quality healthcare system.

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Pediatrics.
5 minutes ago, KonichiwaRN said:

people from the entire world have moved into our nation (me included). Isn't that weird? I guess they (people trying to move here) agree too, that this nation is taking good care of its citizens.

The fact that we are a better option than (for example) Venezuela, whose economy has utterly collapsed and people are starving to death, is not a reason to say we care for our citizens well. And by the way, we de-stabilized Venezuela's regime in the interest of "fighting socialism" in South America.

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
23 minutes ago, KonichiwaRN said:

Your logic exists in: the "richest" country in the world cannot take care of its citizens?

You see. There is the "taking care" that we (our side) have a tad problem with. It all comes to the connotative meaning.

On our side, we believe in establishing an environment that promotes growth where one could exercise their free will to achieve those results include lower income taxes.

On your side, you guys "seem(?)" to believe that it is the government's role to just hand out the rewards of achievement and are increasing taxes for that. If your theory works, then why do we see a negative influx of population growth in states like California, New York, or Massachusetts?

It's that "taking care of" that we have a disagreement with. ?

It's just that..

people from the entire world have moved into our nation (me included). Isn't that weird? I guess they (people trying to move here) agree too, that this nation is taking good care of its citizens.

I have to say that your posts are beginning to make less and less sense and you're coming across as extremely uninformed. You may not be aware but the number of American expatriates is on the rise as never before-all the way back in November 2012, the US State Department revealed that there were 6.3 million American expats living and working overseas-the highest this figure has ever been and the numbers have only grown since. Not too difficult to figure out that runaway health care and housing costs might be fueling this exodus.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment