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?
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.
Because if those people who opt-out end up needing basic food and shelter down the road we don't have the resolve to just hold them to their choice and let them starve or freeze to death. Maybe that's something we need to work on.
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).
I don't understand what you feel is unconstitutional about Medicare. The constitution clearly allows for the federal government to collect revenue to fund various efforts to ensure the "general welfare" of it's citizens.
Do you also feel requiring that we contribute to the cost of the military to be unconstitutional?
-massive program implemented all at once = obamacare rollout fiasco.
-pre funding said massive program. Impossible with our debt load currently over 100% of gdp.
The infrastructure for a single payer is already in place vis a vie medicare as it is now.
I feel like this could work on a state lead (voluntary basis) per company basis. example: New Hampshire opts in to the test phase. medicare dollars are funneled to the state on a per capita basis. next, state health dept offers companies of 100 employees or more to opt in. all premiums now go to the state health department as medicare tax for all claims to be handled. medicare charge rates are implemented and providers have the right to turn down medicare as they do now. We could then have an annual review by the CBO to evaluate cost effectiveness. Meanwhile, the employees of the companies who opt in really don't experience any difference from before the opt in.
as long as the premium collection and medicare/medicaid dollars allows costs to the program to remain neutral, the opt in states could move to making a state level single payor program. Eventually, you could then see a map of states where single payor has been adopted and then you could evaluate the effectiveness of the program. I think it would take about 10 years to really see the result.
But what they are suggesting as a national single payor program implemented all at once is simply non sense. We've seen what happened to the rollout of obamacare and it was not good.
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.
Classic "whataboutism."
16 hours ago, KonichiwaRN said:
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.
You do understand that the predominant culture in America is European in origin don't you? Where do you think all those Italians, Irish, Poles, Scots etc. came from?
You talk of culture differences in US but do you not think there are cultural differences between Spain/Italy and Sweden/Denmark/Finland?
16 hours 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."
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."
21 pages of this and we are still getting "heathcare for free" sigh...!
HEALTHCARE IS NOT FREE!!! I already pointed out I have paid into it since I was 15. The same as EVERY other universal system. It just costs less when everyone pays. It also means that problems can be screened for and found earlier and something can be done before it becomes a major expensive problem. This is why nations with universal healthcare have better outcomes and higher life expectancy than the US. It also means that something like acne requiring medication is not classed as a "pre-existing condition" and screws you up for the rest of your life.
12 hours ago, KonichiwaRN said:
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.
Higher life expectancy, better outcomes, more people receiving healthcare and countries paying a lower percentage of GDP than US for that healthcare. What more evidence do you need?
So the discussion (Medicare for all) has been started.
Our side (the ones against Medicare for all plan) has given a proposal: do a research using our country--and see if it works or not. If IT works, trust me, I'll be one of the largest advocates of promoting universal health care for our nation. (the main criteria: do not increase taxes, do not increase health care costs, and have the availability of services)
Your side (the ones for Medicare for all plan) has the approach of: Look at Europe but you're not allowed to look at Asia. Just implement it and it will work. My way or the highway. Just do it.
Why even titrate? Just run Vancomycin for everything type of a mentality.
So the discussion (Medicare for all) has been started.
Our side (the ones against Medicare for all plan) has given a proposal: do a research using our country--and see if it works or not. If IT works, trust me, I'll be one of the largest advocates of promoting universal health care for our nation. (the main criteria: do not increase taxes, do not increase health care costs, and have the availability of services)
Your side (the ones for Medicare for all plan) has the approach of: Look at Europe but you're not allowed to look at Asia. Just implement it and it will work. My way or the highway. Just do it.
Why even titrate? Just run Vancomycin for everything type of a mentality.
Anyways, all this talk is just fantasy.
Let our votes speak. That is action.
No it is not funny, it is tragic.
Yes, you can do a small scale test. What will that prove? Will you allow people to stop paying the insurance they already pay? Will you say, "Yes your taxes are going to go up but, in it's place you do not have to pay large amounts of money to private insurance companies and you will receive treatment regardless of previous history? Will you be honest when the politicians and insurance companies want it to fail?
Asia??? Where do you think Australia and New Zealand are? You have heard of Australasia?
I am presuming you mean Japan? Well a quick Google search gives interesting results - looks awfully like The Affordable Care Act to me (admittedly I am in the UK so not too sure of the details of the ACA).
You said to compare with the same type of population and conditions as the US, so why bring Asia into the equation?
Titrate for Vancomycin????? Have you been taking drugs? Are you high?
Yes, let the votes speak. It will be interesting to see if voting is fair without outside help and also the Electoral College skewing the popular vote.
For evidence of outside help have a read of "Post-Truth: How *** Conquered the World" by James Ball.
But what they are suggesting as a national single payor program implemented all at once is simply non sense. We've seen what happened to the rollout of obamacare and it was not good.
The Obamacare roll-out was clumsy because it took a complicated mess and made it extremely more complicated. A single payer solution simplifies our system from the ground up. Some have suggested lowering the age for enrollment incrementally to phase in the transition over several years. Anyway it happens, there will be a lot of whining from those enriching themselves from the inequities in our current system.
Steven Brill, in "America's Bitter Pill," describes our system as a broken down old house with a crumpling foundation, rotting wood, leaking pipes and an archaic electrical system. Obamacare tried to patch it together without fixing the core problems. It's time to learn from the rest of the industrialized world and build on a new foundation. Change is already in motion. It will happen.
Nah. Nothing American to be hit with more taxes just because some person who never did anything in the real world, decided that I or others, are making "too much money."
As I've said before, I think the propaganda and skewed media campaigns (funded by the health insurance industry/AMA) have veiled the reality for many-that the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world has a broken and mostly ineffective system of health care. With just a little skepticism and research, it's pretty apparent that while not perfect, other developed countries have far superior systems that cover more, cost less, and deliver far better outcomes. As a nurse and a caring person, I'm not OK with a system that perpetuates leaving millions out in the cold without the most basic of medical care-as a nation, we can and should do better!
MunoRN, RN
8,058 Posts
Because if those people who opt-out end up needing basic food and shelter down the road we don't have the resolve to just hold them to their choice and let them starve or freeze to death. Maybe that's something we need to work on.