I want to know what nurses think about socialized medicine.

allnurses Guide · Jul 3, 2009

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/a_real_free_market_health_care_1.html
. . ."Well, there you have it. The savings for taxpayers over three years: Nearly $5 trillion. Not requiring bills hundreds of pages long: Priceless! A few short regulations and we have a viable health care system for the future covering over 99% of the population, devoid of the treachery of Medicare and without dependence on the federal government. It's very simple, very sensible, and so easy even a government official can understand it. It's even short enough for Congress members to read fully, though some may require several days. Oh, yes, Mr. Obama, I want our $600 billion back."

The link won't work.

Can you explain the few short regulations that will cover 99% of the population?

Maybe my links will work.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=245

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/insur200706.pdf

http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175

allnurses Guide · Jul 3, 2009

Maybe it is my computer.

I can't even open the links to sites I just looked at.

And this is what I got:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/the_ugly_face_of_liberalism.html

Not about healthcare at all.

Sorry.

Gonna reboot.

allnurses Guide · Jul 3, 2009

It worked for me.

President Obama made it clear this week that he

was not going to settle for any delay in reforming health care. There are several proposals on the table ranging from government controlled "private" health care plans such as the Wyden-Bennett Health Reform Plan to the plan Mr. Obama prefers, fully government funded health care. All of the proposals are designed so that private insurance will be squeezed out of the market. Mr. Wyden's plan may seem more palatable initially but we must remember that ideologically the plan is the same as Mr. Obama's plan. The end result will therefore be the same; single-payer government controlled health care.

Under the Wyden-Bennett plan, a new federal bureaucracy will be established and a new agency created in each state called the Health Help Agency (HHA) to manage the Healthy American Private Insurance, or HAPI plans. The name itself causes such a nice, warm feeling in my tummy that I can already see the health benefits! HAPI plans will be sold through the state HHA, which will determine the contributions of individuals and employers. Each state will have at least two HAPI plans available so that people can double their happiness.

Mr. Wyden considers them private plans because there will be private insurance companies and private health care providers. They would be in fact as "private" as Medicare. Eventually, private insurance will cease to exist and the government will take over, perpetuating the purposeful dependence that Medicare was designed to ensure.

There are several fundamental problems with all of the plans proposed by the Democrats.

1. The plans are cost centered as opposed to patient centered. In other words, the Democrats are not pro-choice. In every case we can see that the Democrats have come out on the side of the government's right to mandate rather than patient choice. This is true in health care and in the abortion issue where the government protects only select choices. The government makes choices and the people abide by those choices.
2. The government uses flawed statistics in order to push its health plan proposals. The myth of the 45 million uninsured and skewed life expectancy and infant mortality numbers are examples.
3. Democrat proposals are going to cost much more than they will admit. Haven't we seen this somewhere before? Medicare costs are much higher than published with a debt of $38 trillion and fiscal collapse looming by 2018. Now, President Obama wants to add another entitlement program.

Goals of a good health care system:

1. Simplicity. (Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi, this means lack of complexity)
2. Available to all members of society, including the poor.
3. Offers good, basic lower cost health care options.
4. Portable. Not tied to employer or the government.
5. Prevention of exclusions for those who have had "pre-existing" problems.
6. Expandable. Option to purchase more extensive plans according to personal choice and ability. There is no Shangri-La. Wealthier people in Britain buy private insurance and those in Canada come to the United States for care. The Wyden plan proposes options for more extensive plans as well.
7. Shared, sustainable cost and some personal financial responsibility for all.
8. Patient health centered care. Preventive care with financial penalties for continued poor choices and rewards available for good health practices.

Solution:

1. Don't pass any of the Democrat health care plans. Savings of at least $3 trillion over the next five years.
2. Immediately do away with Medicare, Medicaid, and The Center for Medicare and Medicaid services. No other major industrialized nation has a separate system for the elderly, disabled and the poor. Scrap the Joint Commission on Hospital Accreditation. Savings of nearly $1 trillion in federal tax dollars yearly, $1 trillion in savings for states and billions in savings by dissolving the tyrannical Joint Commission.
3. People should be responsible for purchasing their own health care, not the government or the employer, making health insurance completely portable. Scrap Hillary Clinton's HIPAA act at a savings of billions yearly. Let's make it HIPAA-posthumous.
4. A Health Insurance Company must offer a good basic low-cost health care plan with expanded health savings accounts. Taxpayer cost zero dollars.
5. No health exclusions for three years. Taxpayer cost zero dollars.
6. Health plans should promote healthy practices and preventive health. Taxpayer cost zero.
7. For the poor, government should subsidize the premiums, not be involved in paying providers. Taxpayer costs by my estimate around $600 billion per year.
8. Retired people of lower means should be helped as above but should not have a separate insurance plan run by the government. Sorry, Medicare is dead. Promises were broken, but we are mature people and we need to get over it. Let's not let it happen again! Taxpayer cost around $300 billion per year.
9. End tax penalties for individuals purchasing individual health insurance. Taxpayer cost zero dollars as these penalties are merely punitive, designed to make people dependent.
10. The health insurance companies in each state should have the option of creating a risk pool from some of their premium funds. Taxpayer cost zero dollars.
11. Laws should be changed to allow for private health co-ops to be formed as an option for those so inclined. Taxpayer cost zero dollars.
12. Patients should be free to change insurance plans at least twice yearly and since their insurance would not be controlled by their employer or the government no permission is needed from them. Taxpayer cost zero dollars.
13. There should be no legal right for insurance plans to dismiss competent and qualified contracted physicians for "no cause", when that no cause is really due to the physician acting as a patient advocate.
14. Tort reform with penalties for frivolous lawsuits and the loser paying some of the costs.

Well, there you have it. The savings for taxpayers over three years: Nearly $5 trillion. Not requiring bills hundreds of pages long: Priceless! A few short regulations and we have a viable health care system for the future covering over 99% of the population, devoid of the treachery of Medicare and without dependence on the federal government. It's very simple, very sensible, and so easy even a government official can understand it. It's even short enough for Congress members to read fully, though some may require several days. Oh, yes, Mr. Obama, I want our $600 billion back.

Frank S. Rosenbloom, M.D. President of Oregon Right to Life. He blogs at summacontraprobus.blogspot.com

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jul 3, 2009

46 million is not a myth Even conservative opponents to reform have claimed that 85% are covered by health insurance. Using 300 million as the population of America, 85% coverage yields 255 million. 300-255 leaves 45 million uninsured. Those who are uninsured and then insured do subtract off that number but with our dynamic economy they are replaced by others who become uninsured d/t unemployment.

In 2006, 43.6 million persons of all
ages (14.8%) were uninsured at the
time of the interview, 54.5 million (18.6%) had been uninsured for at least part of the year prior to the
interview, and 30.7 million (10.5%) had been uninsured for more than a
year at the time of the interview.
• The percentage of children under the age of 18 years who were
uninsured at the time of the interview
was 9.3% in 2006.
• In 2006, almost 58% of currently
unemployed adults and nearly 23%
of employed adults aged 18–64 years
had been uninsured for at least part of the past year, and more than 33%
of currently unemployed adults and nearly 14% of employed adults had
been uninsured for more than a year.
• In 2006, the percentage uninsured at the time of interview among the 20 largest states ranged from 7.7% in Massachusetts to 23.8% in Texas.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/insur200706.pdf

With a 15% unemployment rate I would venture to guess that we have closer to 75 miliion involuntarily uninsured at this point in time (factoring in uninsured family members). The Commonwealth Fund estimates that there are over 100 million Americans who are un/underinsured at this point in time.

We can't subtract the 12 million undocumented immigrants from those in need of health care. We have a moral obligation to assure access to health care. They still get sick and still need care.

The majority of states experienced significant declines in employer-sponsored coverage this decade. A new analysis of the under-65 population documents the variation in both the level and extent of coverage lost between 2000-01 and 2006-07. Forty-one states experienced significant losses in coverage across every region of the United States.

http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20081009/

Also: http://epi.3cdn.net/d1b4356d96c21c91d1_ilm6b5dua.pdf

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jul 3, 2009

Health Care for America:

Using that system, the Lewin analysis found that Health Care for America could greatly
expand coverage while lowering national health spending by about $100 million in its
first year of implementation. Those savings would grow over time.
The greatest gains would be realized by the self-insured and by employers who currently
provide insurance, particularly at small firms.
The federal government would spend an additional $49 billion on health care in the first
year, but that amount would diminish over time. Meanwhile, state and local governments
would save about $23 billion a year, largely through a reduction in emergency and safety
net services.

http://www.sharedprosperity.org/hcfa/lewin-summary.pdf

This is not a compete mirror of the current HELP act but it is definitely the seeds of the proposal. It isn't true single payer. It maintains the private insurance system but it imposes true competitive forces.

allnurses Guide · Jul 3, 2009

http://www.lp.org/blogs/donny-ferguson/obamacare-failed-in-europe

"Guillaume Vuillemey, a researcher at France's Institut Economique Molinari, and Philip Stevens, a researcher at Britain's International Policy Network write in today's Washington Examiner about how Obama's proposed government takeover of the health care system has worked in Europe.

Hint. Not so well."

allnurses Guide · Jul 3, 2009

46 million is not a myth Even conservative opponents to reform have claimed that 85% are covered by health insurance. Using 300 million as the population of America, 85% coverage yields 255 million. 300-255 leaves 45 million uninsured. Those who are uninsured and then insured do subtract off that number but with our dynamic economy they are replaced by others who become uninsured d/t unemployment.

No one is saying that 46 million ARE insured .. what we are saying is there are reasons that make it a questionable number - there are reason WHY they are uninsured and some of those reasons are . . .20-somethings opt NOT to get insurance, those making $50,000 opt NOT to get insurance even when they can afford it, 10 million are here illegally, and also included in that number are people who are between jobs who will get insurance shortly, etc.

steph

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jul 3, 2009

Health reform advocates do put people and real patient choice first:

This report focuses on those who would benefit from such health reforms, including the estimated 116 million working-age adults—two-thirds of all adults—who report that they are uninsured or underinsured, have medical bill or debt problems, or experience difficulties obtaining needed care.
A national health insurance exchange with competing private plans and a new public plan has the potential to provide greater choices, better benefits, and more affordable premiums. If coupled with broad system reforms, the average family could save $2,314 a year by 2020, as the annual increase in health costs slowed from 6.7 percent to 5.5 percent. Cumulative national savings over the period 2010 to 2020 would be $3 trillion, compared with projected trends.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2009/Jun/Front-and-Center.aspx

nicurn001 · Jul 3, 2009

No one is saying that 46 million ARE insured .. what we are saying is there are reasons that make it a questionable number - there are reason WHY they are uninsured and some of those reasons are . . .20-somethings opt NOT to get insurance, those making $50,000 opt NOT to get insurance even when they can afford it, 10 million are here illegally, and also included in that number are people who are between jobs who will get insurance shortly, etc.
steph

The bottom line is for whatever reason a patient presents themselves in an ER without insurance , we pay for it either through taxes for the uninsured or higher premiums if privately insured.

We can argue the number of uninsured , but ,you cannot simply remove uninsured people from the total because they are not legally here or chose not to insure themselves , unfortunately when they become patients , their care has to be paid for .

Multicollinearity, BSN, RN · Jul 3, 2009

I only know of one case, my brother's father-in-law. It didn't end well.

One of my Canadian relatives comes to the US every winter. She has health coverage in both countries. She nearly died of a heart condition while in the United States. She was admitted to hospitals in the US twice, and the cardiologists told her she was too old for surgery and to go home and rest.

She made it home to Canada, barely, and she was admitted to a hospital there. They performed surgery the next day and now she's doing well.

Anecdotal stories abound.

allnurses Guide · Jul 3, 2009

It WAS my computer. Not sure why. Working OK now.

First there is no deadline.

I think Congress MUST debate as long as it takes.

Our lack of any healthcare system for all Americans is horrible but I think an inferior and costly plan will be worse that the time it may take to truly discuss all options.

I'll let others discuss the "simplicity" of doing away with employers offering health insurance and eliminating Medicare. And who will pay for the "20 somethings" who choose not to buy health insurance when they are in an accident or become seriously ill?

I see no ban on denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions or cancellation of policies for "unreported" minor health problems. Where is the choice of doctor?

I agree with scrapping the Joint Commission. No more tax dollars for private companies. Let regulatory agencies survey hospitals and other healthcare agencies. In California the state will license a hospital and ensure Medicare reimbursement for free. But hospitals like to pay to be inspected.

As I said before I don't want our taxes to go to companies with the goal of making a profit rather than paying for healthcare.

7. For the poor, government should subsidize the premiums, not be involved in paying providers. Taxpayer costs by my estimate around $600 billion per year.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/a_real_free_market_health_care_1.html

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jul 4, 2009

http://www.time.com/time/2008/health_care/

and

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1908282,00.html

and

http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411915_public_plan_option.pdf