How soon we forget.

NocturneNrse · Feb 1, 2011

While I agree with your being upset at the truly "in pain" patient having to suffer d/t time being taken by the drug seekers.. I have to say, I feel this new healthcare bill will diminish the quality of care we provide... to both patients. My problem with this healthcare reform.. is that the area of reform NEEDED is not being addressed... ie too few nurses,pcts, etc to the multitude of patients we see daily.

I just cannot understand the resistance to hiring more healthcare staff to the increase in patients.. it's ridiculous.!

LongislandRN23 · Feb 1, 2011

I do also believe that this new health care bill will change the way the health care system operates. To what degree? We will have to wait and see. Since there would be a massive influx of patients there may be lower standards of care. 1 family doctor may go from seeing 25 pts a day to 50 patients a day, shortening time with each patient and thus making it harder to supply each person with the undivided attnention and customization they require. Also nurses will probably be getting paid less amount because insurance companies will be making more payments and reimbursements will be negotiated less and less. We will see what the case may be. I do agree with the recent federal court ruling stating that the bill is unconstitutional. Based on the facts that the healthcare requires all to purchase a plan and if not be fined. Car insurance is made mandatory in many states, but you choose to buy a car you dont choose your health, way of life, or how you to chose to live. For instance the Amish dont believe in modern medicine because of their religion/culture so they have to suffer and be fined for the own beliefs? We have the right of freedom of religion and in this case it is prejudice/unconstitutional. Wearing your seat-belt is a law in almost every state, but MA. Those is MA wanted to keep their freedoms and make the choice if they wanted to wear it or not. It was not an issue of saftey is was the issue of choice/rights.

imintrouble, BSN, RN · Feb 1, 2011

I'm not sure about the whole health care debate, but I think stopping the forced purchase of insurance brings the whole bill down. It's like removing a support wall in a building. It may not immediately bring down the house, but it will weaken it and eventually make the house unusable.

Also, if I don't want to pay for car insurance, I just don't buy a car. I do have a choice. So technically car insurance and health insurance are not similar.

We could stop the abuse of ERs and drug seeking behaviors. Just stop dispensing the meds. Just that simple. We don't need an overhaul for that.

APRN., DNP, RN, APRN, NP · Feb 1, 2011

I cannot imagine getting fined by the government for not purchasing car insurance - when I don't even own a car.

steelydanfan · Feb 1, 2011

I see it this way. Many people take the position that they don't want to FORCED to pay for health care. Usually, they are young, healthy specimens who never believe anything will happen to them.

Fine, opt out, but don't come to my ER after a snowmobile accident, soccer fracture, miscalc during a hike that neccessitates air and search rescue and rehydration; and tell me "I don't have insurance, sorry"

You don't put in, you don't get.

If the Republicans want to play hardball, well here is the reality.

carolmaccas66, BSN, RN · Feb 1, 2011

I suppose in Aust we are in a similar position. Here we can go to any public hospital at anytime for free care with a medicare or health care card (from SS). But we are bombarded with ads to purchase health insurance, especially hospital insurance (most people like me only have extras cover, like dental, physio, etc). There are long waiting lists at public hospitals. Some EDs/ERs the doctors will refuse to see you in Western Australia if there is a 24 hour - or even a doctor's surgery - open; you must attend them first. The doctors or NP can make the decision to refuse care initially, which I personally think is a dangerous policy in some instances.

We get taxed a LOT in Aust to provide good health care for those who CHOOSE to lie around on SS, make up fake illnesses (bad backs are the most common), who get public housing, who refuse any jobs (they don't seem to be made to take any job that comes along), and who rort the system for years.

Our wonderful gov't has just told all the to-be Mums, and teenagers who want a stable income and who don't want to work or go to university (too hard doing that!) - that women can get pregnant, whenever, wherever and they get 18 weeks paid maternity leave. As far as I'm aware, there are no restrictions. This makes my blood boil, and I certainly do not think it is a good message for young women, or for people who want to get off SS - they get money for being pg and having a baby WAAY to young. Why should I pay for some 15 year old to get pg, sit around on her backside whining for 9 months, then have to pay again for her to - supposedly - look after the baby. I did not choose to get pg, and having anbd paying for a baby, is the mother's/parent's of the baby's responsbility, not mine or the govt's.

So I do agree that I as a taxpayer, is taxed too much for all this BS. And that these SS bludgers should be made to take more responsibility for their life, health and the way they abuse the system.

More strict rules need to be enforced to help those who just use and abuse the system. Many doctors I've worked with agree with refusing treatment, under certain conditions, for non-urgent, non-compliant, frequent flyers presenting to the ED/ER.

nursejoed · Feb 1, 2011

I live in Massachusetts where the model for the law started. Many people do not make enough to buy their own insurance without great hardship paying the premiums, yet they make enough to NOT qualify for subsidies.

To add insult to injury, they also see continue to see their taxes pay for other people's FREE medicaid. The 'single parent with 5 kids they can't pay for but are pregnant with yet another one' scenario is particularly frosting. And it's not a myth, it really happens all the time. These people don't worry about their insurance at all.

Yeah, we're mandated to carry auto insurance- if you don't like it don't drive. With forced purchase of health insurance is it "if you don't like it, don't exist?"

steelydanfan · Feb 1, 2011

I do also believe that this new health care bill will change the way the health care system operates. To what degree? We will have to wait and see. Since there would be a massive influx of patients there may be lower standards of care. 1 family doctor may go from seeing 25 pts a day to 50 patients a day, shortening time with each patient and thus making it harder to supply each person with the undivided attnention and customization they require. Also nurses will probably be getting paid less amount because insurance companies will be making more payments and reimbursements will be negotiated less and less. We will see what the case may be. I do agree with the recent federal court ruling stating that the bill is unconstitutional. Based on the facts that the healthcare requires all to purchase a plan and if not be fined. Car insurance is made mandatory in many states, but you choose to buy a car you dont choose your health, way of life, or how you to chose to live. For instance the Amish dont believe in modern medicine because of their religion/culture so they have to suffer and be fined for the own beliefs? We have the right of freedom of religion and in this case it is prejudice/unconstitutional. Wearing your seat-belt is a law in almost every state, but MA. Those is MA wanted to keep their freedoms and make the choice if they wanted to wear it or not. It was not an issue of saftey is was the issue of choice/rights.

Massive influx of patients? Undivided attention and customized care?

What planet do you live on?

The people of MA. might have wanted to keep thier freedom of choice, but I would bet that every one of them CHOSE to go to a hospital to be treated after thier MVA, and walked away from the subsequent bill if they had no insurance to cover it.

Leaving the people who WERE responsible to pay it out of HIGHER premiums.

And quite frankly. I don't want to do this anymore.

steelydanfan · Feb 1, 2011

I suppose in Aust we are in a similar position. Here we can go to any public hospital at anytime for free care with a medicare or health care card (from SS). But we are bombarded with ads to purchase health insurance, especially hospital insurance (most people like me only have extras cover, like dental, physio, etc). There are long waiting lists at public hospitals. Some EDs/ERs the doctors will refuse to see you in Western Australia if there is a 24 hour - or even a doctor's surgery - open; you must attend them first. The doctors or NP can make the decision to refuse care initially, which I personally think is a dangerous policy in some instances.
We get taxed a LOT in Aust to provide good health care for those who CHOOSE to lie around on SS, make up fake illnesses (bad backs are the most common), who get public housing, who refuse any jobs (they don't seem to be made to take any job that comes along), and who rort the system for years.
Our wonderful gov't has just told all the to-be Mums, and teenagers who want a stable income and who don't want to work or go to university (too hard doing that!) - that women can get pregnant, whenever, wherever and they get 18 weeks paid maternity leave. As far as I'm aware, there are no restrictions. This makes my blood boil, and I certainly do not think it is a good message for young women, or for people who want to get off SS - they get money for being pg and having a baby WAAY to young. Why should I pay for some 15 year old to get pg, sit around on her backside whining for 9 months, then have to pay again for her to - supposedly - look after the baby. I did not choose to get pg, and having anbd paying for a baby, is the mother's/parent's of the baby's responsbility, not mine or the govt's.
So I do agree that I as a taxpayer, is taxed too much for all this BS. And that these SS bludgers should be made to take more responsibility for their life, health and the way they abuse the system.
More strict rules need to be enforced to help those who just use and abuse the system. Many doctors I've worked with agree with refusing treatment, under certain conditions, for non-urgent, non-compliant, frequent flyers presenting to the ED/ER.

To the US posters who see this as a reason to deny NHC, this ALREADY goes on in this country, it is called welfare and Aid to Dependant Children.

The answer is to deny ANY single parent aid for other than her fiirst kid.Fool me once....as the saying goes.

Our disability laws need to be tightened up as well. I treated a pt. the other day on permanent disability who has acreage and 2 horses! It is incredibly labor intensive to feed, water, exercise and muck out a horses stalls. When I asked what caused his disability, he told me that he " really could'nt do physical labor anymore".

I so wanted to make a call to the state!

LongislandRN23 · Feb 1, 2011

Massive influx of patients? Undivided attention and customized care?
What planet do you live on?

Most certainly NOT your planet, thankfully. When I go to my doctor I make sure that everything is taken car of and addressed. I make sure that he does not run out of the room after 30 sec of examining me! I make sure that I get the care I deserve and if its a big procedure/acute I always make sure to get a second opinion. I was raised to make sure that I get the highest quality and I make that a reality for my patients on a daily basis. What do you think will happen when the new bill takes effect and MANY more people suddenly have health insurance? Duh there gonna be MUCH more patients and the patient to doctor ratio and nursing to patient ratio will be crazy.

CaregiverGrace · Feb 1, 2011

Although there are parts pf the bill that are good, I believe that as a whole it is unconstitutional and was rushed into existence. It should absolutely be repealed and certain measures should be put forth into a new h/c bill. I do believe this current bill, if allowed to stand, will seriously hurt the quality of U.S. healthcare in the longterm. There are better ways to fix the system than Obamacare has offered.