How Will Universal Health Care Change Nursing?

rnnowalways · Jun 25, 2009

This is going to sound horrible but if it comes to capping pay for nurses, reducing benefits etc I will leave nursing, as much as I like my job. Bad enough that insurance companies run healthcare, now you want to hand the reins over to government? Um, don't think so. What makes you think they will be any better at running things?
More government involvement is not a good thing. I have members of my family that are uninsured. They could be insured, but don't think they should have to pay the premiums..howver, they have no problem paying for cartons of cigarettes, the latest sneakers and cell phones. I'm not saying everyone is like this. But, healthcare providers deserve to be compensated fairly for the services they provide, especially with elective things. We already have doctors that are leaving medicine because they are fed up with malpractice suits run rampant,(OT but I also support caps on how much people can sue for) and horrible compensation for services rendered. It can only get worse when you have government dimwits making medical decisions..Our system may not be perfect but no system will ever be..that's just the way life is.
I think it's one thing if everyone has access to primary care but I don't agree with the rationing and waiting lists that happen in some countries. Everyone is not the same. In every society, there will always be those who are rich, those who are well enough off, and those that are poor. I don't buy the whole "redistribution of wealth" idea..some people work harder than others, manage their money better, or are just plain fortunate.. it gets dicey when government thinks everyone should live the same. People make choices and these choices have consequences. Yes, I feel bad somewhat for the unemployed mother of 6, but why on earth would you keep having kids if you can't support them? Why should everyone else have to feel the effects? I had no insurance for a good 3 years..it motivated me to better myself to find a job where i get good benefits.
I know I'll get kind of flamed for this but IMO, universal health care(in the manner it's been presented thus far anyway) is really close to socialism. Also a big thumbs down to taxing our health benefits..
I voted for Obama but I think he's on the wrong track here.

Flamed? Are you kidding? Couldn't be said better! I read so many intelligent ideas in this forum. So, I wonder, is anybody who is writing this new bill is actually in touch with us, soldiers in the trenches of healthcare? Somehow, I doubt it... Maybe we have to somehow get involved. I think we need to be heard. Otherwise, something will be just shoved down our throat and we will pay the price.

I think it seems that having a basic coverage for everyone and "catastrophic" coverage provided by employers seems like a good idea. It seems to work in Switzerland.

And socialism doesn't work. Been there, done that in USSR (former). It no longer exists as such there. It didn't provide needed care. Anybody who lives in that area now and needs health care beyond basics has to pay for it.

MamaKitty13214 · Jun 25, 2009

recently, last week, when president obama addressed the ama he made a statement that there are a number of countries who have universal health care aka socialized medicine, where the system worked very well,but he never went on to name any. i wrote to my congressman (ron klein, d-fl) and asked him to name some. he hasn't responded. there won't be any named, because there aren't any.
i agree there is a problem with our current practices and programs but socialized medicine is not the answer. don't fool yourselves and think obama's plan is not socialized medicine. the more you look at the government's in volvement in our public, let alone private lives the more the book 1984 comes true. first the banks, the bailout is a joke, then the auto industry, the government has a contolling interest in gm. thank god for ford. now the fda is going after cheerio's . what next??????????? the number of children we're allowed to have. why are there so many canadian nurses working in the us???
sure someone can quote me chapter and verse how great the proposed health plan is but the bottom line is "who is going to pay for it?????"

universal health care is not "socialized medicine", whatever "socialized medicine" means.

universal health care means everyone has access to care without financial barriers.

early access to primary care prevents medical conditions from worsening and becoming the catastrophic trainwrecks that end up clogging ers & icus and burdening existing public programs which have been crippled by insurance industry influence. the term "socialized medicine" is a bugaboo term thrown out there by the insurance lobby & big pharma to imply that big brother will tell you what to do. big insurance doesn't want to give up their grip on you. they are determined to continue this country's profitized medicine. their propaganda plays on the notions of "freedom" and "choice" as though such a thing actually exists in the titanic of "health care" in this country as it is now. the term "socialized medicine" is a red herring and a nonsense term meant to scare people away from a single payer system. single payer = privately delivered health care, publicly financed -- medicare for all.

obama does not have a plan at present and he is on the fence with what he supports. he doesn't make the laws anyway. congress does. before he was elected, he supported single payer. right now he is waffling because of the influence of big insurance and big pharma.

ask the citizens of canada, the uk, france, germany, most of europe if they would give up their universal health care for a profit-based employer-provided health insurance system such as we have in this country. why is the u.s.a. #37 in quality of health care according to the world health organization? yes, there will be snotty replies about how bad the canadian system is -- that's more propaganda about the evils of "socialized medicine" thrown out there by the swift boat people. don't buy it.

as for who pays for it? we all do via a percentage of income (oh, horrors!!! a tax to pay for something that would actually benefit everyone and society as a whole) instead of insurance premiums that only cover a percentage of what we might need when we actually have to use it.

what we have now is a for profit health care industry. what we need is a health care system not based on corporate greed. we are paying way more now because corporations all demand their cut and do it by denying authorization for service. the irony of the argument of "long lines and wait times" under single payer is acute when you consider that insurance companies either deny or delay authorizations for services. 60 people a day die because of lack of insurance coverage or under-insurance. under a single payer system, everyone has access to medically necessary care. "long lines and wait times" are another red herring, like "socialized medicine".

rather than cynically dismissing any change that would actually result in universal health care, tell your congressman to support hr676 -- http://conyers.house.gov/_files/hr676111th.pdf .

and, by the way, the ama only represents 15% of practicing physicians in the country. they have a huge lobby in washington and are heavily involved in the insurance industry ( http://www.chiroweb.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=44189 ). they are vested in maintaining a for profit health insurance industry in this country. they are a big part of the problem.

you should instead be listening to pnhp -- physicians for a national health program -- http://www.pnhp.org/

Saúde · Jun 25, 2009

It's so popular these days to analogously paint profitable entities as Satan. :smackingf

The logic behind non-for-profit hospitals is to provide charity. In studies, for-profit hospitals provide just as much charity work as non-for-profit hospitals. When you factor in the tax revenue generated/not generated, for-profit hospitals do much more for communities than non-for-profit hospitals. Many restaurants, grocery stores, etc... intentionally locate near hospitals. Are they evil also? NO.

In a Zogby poll for the Council for Affordable Health Insurance it found an overwhelming majority of Americans support the Health Care Choice Act, which would allow interstate commerce of health insurance policies. 72% support, 15% oppose, 13% were not sure. Even larger majorities of Latinos (86%) and African-Americans (85%) support the bill.

IMO - Americans don't necessarily want socialized health care. They just want affordable health care. If the entire country had access to interstate shopping for health insurance policies, in which they could customize to fit the particular needs of their own family without government regulations, costs would come down, and more people would be able to afford health insurance. And all without enormous tax increases and a big government takeover of our health care system. The increase of insured individuals would have a direct impact on the amount of charity work hospitals could provide.

From a recent article I read concerning Obama's health care plan, "Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the administration are expressing frank worries about stronger-than-expected opposition from moderate Democrats and worse-than-expected estimates for how much the plan would cost." It's apparent that moderate Democrats are starting to get a little worried about the upcoming elections. Could it be that they are starting to listen to their constituents and deciding it's not profitable for their long term viability to push government funded health care? Apparently these so-called majorities, that many on this website speak of, who want a government funded health care system do not vote. Otherwise I can guarantee you that these moderate Democrats would not be running from Obama and his proposed reforms. Take care.

shah · Jun 25, 2009

Privately funded healthcare is all right, as long as you are healthy and have a job. The moment you fall ill, your insurance maxes out. Next thing you know you can't work, you loose your job, you loose your insurance. Now you are on publicly funded health care any way.

It is a scam.

Saúde · Jun 25, 2009

For those people on this website who are saying HR676 IS NOT a socialized or a federally government funded health care system, you are either overtly or inadvertently LYING LYING LYING!!! HR676 is an EXPANSION of our current Medicare program to everyone.

Saúde · Jun 25, 2009

From a recent article I read concerning Obama's health care plan, "Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the administration are expressing frank worries about stronger-than-expected opposition from moderate Democrats and worse-than-expected estimates for how much the plan would cost." It's apparent that moderate Democrats are starting to get a little worried about the upcoming elections. Could it be that they are starting to listen to their constituents and deciding it's not profitable for their long term viability to push government funded health care? Apparently these so-called majorities, that many on this website speak of, who want a government funded health care system do not vote. Otherwise I can guarantee you that these moderate Democrats would not be running from Obama and his proposed reforms. Take care.

MamaKitty13214 · Jun 25, 2009

For those people on this website who are saying HR676 IS NOT a socialized or a federally government funded health care system, you are either overtly or inadvertently LYING LYING LYING!!! HR676 is an EXPANSION of our current Medicare program to everyone.

No one said HR676 is not federally funded. It is. Our taxes are federal funds and are supposed to be used in ways that benefit all of us, not just corporate entities. And yes, it is an expansion of Medicare to cover everyone. Many things would change. The plan is socialized in the sense that no one would be left out, unlike the mess we have now, not in the sense that "the government" would dictate what doctors you could see the way that private FOR PROFIT health insurance does now. Medicare works and costs a fraction of what FOR PROFIT health insurance does. Many services in this country are "socialized" & work well for the most part: fire departments, police, highway depts, etc -- would you change all of these "socialized" entities over to for-profit corporations? I guess you must be involved with the insurance industry to be so vehemently anti Single Payer and anti HR676.

There's nothing wrong with making profit from services, but when profit becomes more important than human beings, there is something very wrong.

MaritesaRN · Jun 25, 2009

I absolutely agree. Whoever proposes that universal government -run healthcare is the way - are you willing to give a most personal choice about your health, most critical decisions, ones that make a difference between a life and death for you or your loved ones to a big goverment? And pay for it with constantly increasing taxes? Medicare is the closest example of it in US, and as per our lawmakers it is about to run out of money. Governments can not be and never were good at running anything without bankrupting us and future generations.
I want to make my own choices. Choices I will not have with a single - payer system. It scares me to death to think that we will be treated like sheep. It is utterly unamerican. We are the only country which up to now advocated a freedom of choice. Are we betraying ourselves? Whatever the right solution is, IT IS DEFINITELY NOT THE GOV't RUN system which already proved to be inadequate in othe rcountries which have it. Isn't it ironic that as other countries are turning away from it, we are moving full - speed ahead towards the cliff?

The government run health system will serve as a competition to the private insurers. Without competetion they can dictate and hike their prices up and the people will be at their mercy. You are given an option ----that is what it is. If you like your private insurance , then go for it, others will prefer the government subsidized health insurance -----the point is you do have a choice now and not just stuck w/ private insurers. True ..... the government in the past can not be trusted....but this new administration showed us that change can be done.

and there will be changes in the government branches as well. the Medicare program is workable, but is also the center for fraudulent activities. ( here is greed again....)

Anyhow I like the idea that private insurers have a competetion--------if they are good , then they should not worry . I like the idea that I have OPTIONS !!!

Don't you?

Saúde · Jun 25, 2009

For those who think government intervention of any sorts is going to help control health care costs please do some historical research about how we got into this mess in the first place. There is an obvious historical correlation between government involvement in trying to socialize and control the health care market and the increases we see in health care costs today. The high costs of health care we see today is not a result of a free market, but a result of a free market morphing into a controlled market. Take care.

MaritesaRN · Jun 25, 2009

For those who think government intervention of any sorts is going to help control health care costs please do some historical research about how we got into this mess in the first place. There is an obvious historical correlation between government involvement in trying to socialize and control the health care market and the increases we see in health care costs today. The high costs of health care we see today is not a result of a free market, but a result of a free market morphing into a controlled market. Take care.

:coollook:So , if what you say is true, then how come UK, France , Holland is doing good w/ their system? they must be doing good. Why are we so afraid of the change? The change is better than what we have now. Like I said , I like to be given the options. And the private health insurance market is the controlled market with monopoly ---- they had no one to compete with except among themselves, but they get together to fix the prices, whatever they want. :rolleyes:

nursecassia · Jun 25, 2009

First off, I work in a level one trauma center. Trust me, we have plenty of people coming in off the street bleeding out and we save them, simple as that. No one looks at their insurance status. Much of the time, they have no ID on them, they literally come up the trauma elevator and into an OR suite.
Really, who are you to decide what is moral and what is not? You have zero idea of what you are talking about. Here, if you receive government funds, you can not turn anyone away. Period. My hospital will treat you if you are poor. If you are bleeding out, you get treated. If you are drunk, and abusive and get brought into the ER, you get treated. Now, if you are dying, and seriously hurt, I believe you should be treated, no questions asked. If you are coming into the ER because you know we have to treat you and you have the sniffles, then you are a bum. If you are coming into the ER for a free pregnancy test then you are a leech, especially when you are wearing plenty of "bling" but are crying poverty.
I am not rich. But, I fail to see why I should pay even more taxes than I already do to support people who have no desire to do it for themselves. If this makes me "morally repugnant" then yup, proud to be so.
Oh, and remind me never to move to Canada!:uhoh21:

who am I to decide what is moral?? the point is I dont decide what is moral, none of us do....I personally disagree with the fact that those with money can get health care, and I disagree with the thought of having to pay out of pocket for medical expenses that we are all going to have in our lifetime regardless of social status....nobody should ever have to mortgage their house for a life saving procedure. those people here that walk into emerg for a pregnancy test as you so put it, are also those people that cant afford to purchase one, or those that dont have a GP because they all get pulled away to the "private" places that can pay them more...This private system does no good for anyone...Having to ask an insurance company for permission before getting life saving treatment is INSANE, I cant imagine how many people feel that gut wrenching feeling when their fate is sealed all for the dollar... It is very selfish to say that your health care is more important to that of others, we dont know how people get in the positions they are in...who are we to judge them?? I would much rather pay a little more in tax

(which we dont notice anyways) and have great health care coverage. I realize change is difficult to accept, but if you were in my position growing up in a Country with Universal health care where there was never a thought in your mind of having to mortgage your home to pay for surgery, would you really choose to privatize it all and have some insurance company essentially decide if you live or die or not?? Would you honestly choose that one??

I really truly believe if you sat back and looked at the whole picture you would realize how horrible your current situation is...Nurses in Canada do get paid well, we (at least in BC) are union, we have great benefits and we provide excellent care...Regardless if your health care system changes or not, I dont believe it will change things for nurses that much you will all still care the same and take care of the same patients...it is just the way things are paid for that will change...

MaritesaRN · Jun 25, 2009

who am I to decide what is moral?? the point is I dont decide what is moral, none of us do....I personally disagree with the fact that those with money can get health care, and I disagree with the thought of having to pay out of pocket for medical expenses that we are all going to have in our lifetime regardless of social status....nobody should ever have to mortgage their house for a life saving procedure. those people here that walk into emerg for a pregnancy test as you so put it, are also those people that cant afford to purchase one, or those that dont have a GP because they all get pulled away to the "private" places that can pay them more...This private system does no good for anyone...Having to ask an insurance company for permission before getting life saving treatment is INSANE, I cant imagine how many people feel that gut wrenching feeling when their fate is sealed all for the dollar... It is very selfish to say that your health care is more important to that of others, we dont know how people get in the positions they are in...who are we to judge them?? I would much rather pay a little more in tax
(which we dont notice anyways) and have great health care coverage. I realize change is difficult to accept, but if you were in my position growing up in a Country with Universal health care where there was never a thought in your mind of having to mortgage your home to pay for surgery, would you really choose to privatize it all and have some insurance company essentially decide if you live or die or not?? Would you honestly choose that one??
I really truly believe if you sat back and looked at the whole picture you would realize how horrible your current situation is...Nurses in Canada do get paid well, we (at least in BC) are union, we have great benefits and we provide excellent care...Regardless if your health care system changes or not, I dont believe it will change things for nurses that much you will all still care the same and take care of the same patients...it is just the way things are paid for that will change...

:nono: Well , maybe Canada will not let you in? No need to bring the claws out. There are pros and cons no matter what, but there are some things we need to learn from other countries w/ their health system. Obviously ours in the USA is definitely expensive, and is getting to a point where very, very few people can afford it. Otherwise our health system will be another AIG---- arrogant but broke !