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?

2 hours ago, GrumpyRN said:

Ah of course. Those well known diseases and illnesses that only other countries get and not the USA. Or is it the other way around?

Population of the US;- 329,093,110.

Population of Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada who all have some kind of universal healthcare;- 4,699,787,701.

( https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/ )

Is that big enough a control group for you?

I'm sorry, but what you want to do is set up a micro test which is designed to fail and then claim victory. While 450,000+ people die without health care over the 10 years you want this "study" to run.

( https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/ )

Also en passant, Life expectancy in USA is 79.772 while every area I mentioned with universal care is above that.

( http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/life-expectancy/ )

Each of the countries that make up your merry little group has its own Health care system and I doubt that any two systems are exactly alike. You also failed to mention that the most populous of these countries is, if I’m not mistaken, Germany with a population roughly 25% of the the United States and an area roughly equal to the single state of Montana. And there are 49 other states plus a few territories, each having diverse regulations, laws, and bureaucracies. There is a wide variety in the customs, politics, needs, attitudes, and ways of life between different areas of the country. For that matter lifestyles in Soutn Texas are pretty different from those in North Texas or West Texas. Point is, this country is big, spread out, and very diverse. The heartland has a different set of attitudes from the coastal areas. North and south have different ways of doing things. East and West are way different.

The constitution grants all authority not specifically granted to the federal government to the states. Even Obama Care is different from state to state and may not even exist much longer depending on the Supreme Court. Even if by some miracle some kind of single payer, universal care, Medicare for all system can get through Congress, can it survive the question of constitutionality? Oh and for those who keep referring to this country as a democracy, you’re wrong. This is a republic. If you don’t know the difference, go hit the books (or internet).

1 Votes

It's not the diagnosis that I am trying to link.

Three variables are of importance.

a) similar culture

b) similar income/taxpayer vs non contributor population ratio

c) similar population density

Now. You can only achieve a research sample using our geography for that. Not anywhere else.

So let me use your own rhetoric. Since Japan or China invests so little in their Education system..and scores so high in the subjects of Math and Science..

are you telling me that we should lower our funding for education and imitate what they are doing?

Just doesn't work that way.

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
47 minutes ago, Fiddleback said:

Each of the countries that make up your merry little group has its own Health care system and I doubt that any two systems are exactly alike. You also failed to mention that the most populous of these countries is, if I’m not mistaken, Germany with a population roughly 25% of the the United States and an area roughly equal to the single state of Montana. And there are 49 other states plus a few territories, each having diverse regulations, laws, and bureaucracies. There is a wide variety in the customs, politics, needs, attitudes, and ways of life between different areas of the country. For that matter lifestyles in Soutn Texas are pretty different from those in North Texas or West Texas. Point is, this country is big, spread out, and very diverse. The heartland has a different set of attitudes from the coastal areas. North and south have different ways of doing things. East and West are way different.

The constitution grants all authority not specifically granted to the federal government to the states. Even Obama Care is different from state to state and may not even exist much longer depending on the Supreme Court. Even if by some miracle some kind of single payer, universal care, Medicare for all system can get through Congress, can it survive the question of constitutionality? Oh and for those who keep referring to this country as a democracy, you’re wrong. This is a republic. If you don’t know the difference, go hit the books (or internet).

Do you think Social Security Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance we've had since 1935 and the Medicare for people over 65 that we've had since 1966 are unconstitutional?

2 Votes

I have given you guys the option.

A test sample using our geography, to test if your theory works.

It's "your side" that is for the "my way or no" type of a push.

Show our side (the ones against universal health care) that your theory works here, in our nation.

Until that happens, our side will state:

your plan will achieve only one thing.

It will raise our income taxes, completely destroying the middle class.

19 minutes ago, herring_RN said:

Do you think Social Security Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance we've had since 1935 and the Medicare for people over 65 that we've had since 1966 are unconstitutional?

What I think about these laws isn’t important. They survived the test of constitutionality at the time Roosevelt fist got them through. In reality, Medicare was simply an extension of Social Security. Also, in spite of what you may believe, no one can MAKE you sign up for any of these programs. I know several state retirees who never signed up for Medicare because their insurance that’s part of their state retirment beats the dog out of Medicare. And before you receive SS benefits you have to sign up for them A person whe is covered under a state retirement system may not even be able to collect social security even though they paid into it their entire working life.

1 Votes

So, why aren't those people allowed to "opt out" from Social Security? :(

This is why I always vote though. I didn't become an American to see Venezuela here.

4 minutes ago, KonichiwaRN said:

So, why aren't those people allowed to "opt out" from Social Security? :(

This is why I always vote though. I didn't become an American to see Venezuela here.

This is a question I ask every time I look at my paycheck stub. I have a deduction for FICA and for Medicare. Then there is a deduction for State Retirement that is higher than FICA and Medicare combined. School Teachers, at least in my state, are in the same boat.

Welcome to bureaucracy run amok.

1 Votes

Why not leave people with their own hard earned money?

This is why voting is so important, and I'm against plans such as "everyone gets free health care."

Nothing in this world is free, and what they're trying to do is to increase the income tax rates even more. Reminds you of a Ponzi scheme.

Contributors do not get anything back yet they're supporting the "earlier members."

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

FYI: Whoever thinks they paid in to Social Security and don't qualify for benefits should read this, go to the SS website, and find out the details for yourself. You may qualify.

Quote

Social Security Amendments of 1983-Signed on April 20, 1983 by President Reagan included the Windfall Elimination Provision

Current information from the Social Security Administration:

The Windfall Elimination Provision can affect how we calculate your retirement or disability benefit.

If you work for an employer who doesn’t withhold Social Security taxes from your salary, such as a government agency or an employer in another country, any retirement or disability pension you get from that work can reduce your Social Security benefits.

This provision can affect you when you earn a retirement or disability pension from an employer who didn’t withhold Social Security taxes and you qualify for Social Security retirement or disability benefits from work in other jobs for which you did pay taxes…

... Before 1983, people whose primary job wasn’t covered by Social Security had their Social Security benefits calculated as if they were long-term, low-wage workers. They had the advantage of receiving a Social Security benefit representing a higher percentage of their earnings, plus a pension from a job for which they didn’t pay Social Security taxes.

Congress passed the Windfall Elimination Provision to remove that advantage. Under the provision, we reduce the 90 percent factor in our formula and phase it in for workers who reached age 62 or became disabled between 1986 and 1989. For people who reach 62 or became disabled in 1990 or later, we reduce the 90 percent factor to as little as 40 percent. Some exceptions:

The Windfall Elimination Provision doesn’t apply if:

• You’re a federal worker first hired after December 31, 1983;

• You’re an employee of a non-profit organization who was first hired after December 31, 1983;

• Your only pension is for railroad employment;

• The only work you performed for which you didn’t pay Social Security taxes was before 1957; or

• You have 30 or more years of substantial earnings under Social Security

... A guarantee: The law protects you if you get a low pension. We won’t reduce your Social Security benefit by more than half of your pension for earnings after 1956 on which you didn’t pay Social Security taxes.

The most convenient way to contact us anytime, anywhere is to visit https://www.ssa.gov/

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10045.pdf

Specializes in ER.
1 hour ago, KonichiwaRN said:

Why not leave people with their own hard earned money?

This is why voting is so important, and I'm against plans such as "everyone gets free health care."

Healthcare is never free. No matter how the system is created, those who pay also pay for everyone who doesn't pay. The goal is to find the most efficient way to provide quality care for everyone. Other developed nations spend less because they see healthcare as a right, and they solve problems upfront. Only the US imagines that healthcare is a commodity for those who can afford it, like a new car or a pearl necklace. So we end up with an indigent in a wheelchair with both legs amputated and a lifetime of repeated hospitalizations for chronic wounds because we didn't want to treat him when it was cheap and easy. Unless you are voting to let the guy die on the street, the real answer is to develop a more efficient and equitable system.

6 Votes
1 hour ago, RobbiRN said:

to develop a more efficient and equitable system.

I completely agree.

That is why, I am for the "lets get a test-model, and test it using our population."

Until that happens and enough evidence supports that it "can" work,

I will not agree with the "let's just fund it, force it, and it will work" type of an approach.

Specializes in Critical Care.
10 hours ago, KonichiwaRN said:

Test it on a microscopic scale.

Instead of trying to roll it out in a national level.

Test your theory of "healthcare for all" using a city, a county, or even a state.

See if it can work without

a) state residents moving out

b) the state asking for more funds from the federal reserves

c) drug & service prices in that state (or place) not skyrocketing

d) state income taxes not rising (or gas taxes, real estate, whatever hidden taxes that they use..like a "sugar tax.")

Then, if that model works smoothly for let's say..a decade, then I'll support your measure. And I'm serious.

Medicare has been 'tested' for the last 50 years and with 50 million plus current enrollees I'm not sure what more you're looking for.

We know that compared to private insurers Medicare is more efficient and is better at controlling costs, which means it costs American less not more.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20110920.013390/full/

https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20190211/NEWS/190219996/medicare-medicaid-contain-costs-better-than-private-insurers-study-says

You seem stuck on the semantics, preferring to pay for the same thing so long as what you're paying more for isn't called a "tax". What if we called it a "prevention of avoidable suffering and death fee"?

Do you believe people who are able to contribute should be able to utilize a system they chose not to contribute to?

5 Votes
+ Add a Comment