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?

Specializes in Adult and pediatric emergency and critical care.
On 4/14/2019 at 6:21 AM, Emergent said:

How long does it take to see an oncologist in the US? I'm always hearing of big waits for appointments from my ER patients.

This will certainly vary in different systems but we either get patients in clinic or seen inpatient the same or next day. If they are seen and diagnosed in the ED and are appropriate for clinic we have an appointment set up before they are discharged.

1 Votes
Specializes in Adult and pediatric emergency and critical care.

I see healthcare being expensive in the US for three reasons.

One is that we have a system where private companies develop drugs and recoup costs through profit rather than government research grants, we also tend to prescribe new expensive medications though too.

Second is that American culture is so litigious that it drives up healthcare costs. Providers order more tests than are often necessary so that they can 'prepare their chart' in case of legal defense. This also drives up for medical staff and hospitals which results in high costs to cover the expense.

Third is that Americans expect to be treated like VIPs when they come to the ED or hospital. They want their earache to be sorted out in under an hour in the ED and they expect a cure, when really things of this nature should be seen by their PCP. Same for admissions, patients want an instantaneous response for their blankets and percocets, and the food better be gourmet. Americans want to go to big beautiful hospitals and a lot of money is spent renovating what is already functional patient care areas.

The assumption that healthcare costs are purely driven by corporate greed is a bit naive and lacks introspection. The university adult hospital and academic children's hospital charges more than the for profit system here, and has no better outcomes.

9 Votes
Specializes in Critical Care.
On 4/15/2019 at 6:06 PM, DARLA766 said:

All patients would be covered but by a government run plan. Many doctors already refuse to see Medicare patients because the reimbursement is low. Can you imagine when the government knows the doctor has no choice how much less the reimbursement will be? I imagine that FNPs will be doing alot more instead of a doctor, but without the increased pay.

Many doctors refuse medicaid patients because of it's low reimbursement rate. Medicare is different than medicaid. One advantage to Medicare for all is that it would replace medicaid.

8 Votes
Specializes in Critical Care.
2 hours ago, OUxPhys said:

Not true. Bernie is in record saying he wants to eliminate private insurance as did Booker and Harris (Harris later walked back her comments).

Private insurance and private healthcare are two different things.

Bernie has not proposed a government takeover healthcare delivery

6 Votes
Just now, MunoRN said:

Many doctors refuse medicaid patients because of it's low reimbursement rate. Medicare is different than medicaid. One advantage to Medicare for all is that it would replace medicaid.

Have you ever tried to find a PCP for a traditional Medicare patient? Both Medicare and Medicare have low reimbursement rates. As a case manager, in my state, I find Medicaid is better for the patient. More dme is covered, patient can get a home provider, transportation to appts provided, little or no copay for meds that even Medicare will not cover.

5 Votes
4 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

Private insurance and private healthcare are two different things.

Bernie has not proposed a government takeover healthcare delivery

You are incorrect. He just discussed it about 30 min ago at the PA townhall. He used the VA as an example of what his healthcare plan would look like...government run. You would not be able to have your own private insurance.

4 Votes
Specializes in Travel, Home Health, Med-Surg.

This article explains the differences in the plans and who is responsible for them:

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/13/18103087/medicare-for-all-explained-single-payer-health-care-sanders-jayapal

This article explains who/what is covered, good or bad depends on your viewpoint, but I dont see how the plan will save working/middle class people money:

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/04/10/sanders-medicare-for-all-1341799

1 Votes
Specializes in Cardiology.
12 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

Private insurance and private healthcare are two different things.

Bernie has not proposed a government takeover healthcare delivery

So you are saying they wouldn’t be government run hospitals, rather it would just be a federal funded plan, correct?

2 Votes
Specializes in Travel, Home Health, Med-Surg.
16 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

Many doctors refuse medicaid patients because of it's low reimbursement rate. Medicare is different than medicaid. One advantage to Medicare for all is that it would replace medicaid.

Many Doctors also do refuse Medicare along with Medicaid. If the only plan available was Medicare than it wouldnt matter, but if one of the other private plans are also available this would still be a problem.

2 Votes
Specializes in Travel, Home Health, Med-Surg.
11 hours ago, OUxPhys said:

I asked in the CA forum if the VA abides by the staffing ratio there and they said they did. As for getting rid of private care entirely yes, there are candidates who said they would eliminate private care entirely (Sanders, Booker, Harris) but Harris eventually walked back her comments.

I knew nurses who worked at the VA and told me their ratios did not change when the Calif ratios were first implemented, I guess they have since changed. I wonder if it was only in Calif or nationwide.

1 Votes
Specializes in Cardiology.
3 minutes ago, Daisy4RN said:

I knew nurses who worked at the VA and told me their ratios did not change when the Calif ratios were first implemented, I guess they have since changed. I wonder if it was only in Calif or nationwide.

Hmmmm.....If I had to guess I can see the VA just doing whatever they wanted haha.

2 Votes
Specializes in ER.
1 hour ago, PeakRN said:

One is that we have a system where private companies develop drugs and recoup costs through profit rather than government research grants, we also tend to prescribe new expensive medications though too.

Check the numbers here. Another myth supporting profiteering is that US drug companies need years of exclusivity to recover their large investment in developing new drugs. Most R&D is funded by taxpayers and the drug companies are allowed to profit anyway. According to this article: "A recent study found that all 210 drugs approved in the U.S. between 2010 and 2016 benefitted from publicly-funded research, either directly or indirectly."

https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/376574-pharmaceutical-corporations-need-to-stop-free-riding-on-publicly-funded

3 Votes
+ Add a Comment