I have felt for a while that we should have universal health care here in the US, but I didn't know things were this bad. We really should be ashamed that GTMO Bay prisoners get free (and very good quality, from the looks of it) health care and 9/11 rescue workers are suffering from 9/11 related health conditions and have no coverage.
And hospitals removing their names from the pt bracelets of ill, unisured pts, and having cabs drop them on Skid Row?
And insurance company physicians admitting that they know they caused the death of pts by denying claims in order to save the ins company money?
What is the matter with us that our health care system is ranked #37 among industrialized nations?
To me, this is not about politics, not about personal responsibility, it's not about cost- it's just about what is right and what is wrong.
I know the Canadian and other universal health care systems have their problems, but they are not run on a foundation of greed and denial of care as ours is.
I am very fortunate that I have good health insurance, but this could change at any time. I am willing to pay more taxes so that all US citizens can get free or low-cost health care that is not connected with a job, and can move with the citizen and cover them wherever they are and whatever their circumstances are.
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
I guess you're right, when I looked at it, it is a form of rationing. The wait lists are intolerable to me and part of a large problem
I can't help but add that the US must ration resources as well (since they re not infinite), it just seems that it is done with dollar amounts where you either have it or you don't, and so easily avoids wait lists.
Comes in a full circle for the arguement of whether health care is a right or a privilege.
I'm not really sure.
I would say that it's reasonable to note that there is health-care rationing in the US. I would think, however, that it wouldn't make sense to trade one rationing system for another.
And I would encourage you to not be troubled about the "right vs. privilege" argument.
Just because someone has a "right" to something, it doesn't mean that the gov't has to pay for it. In the US we have a "right" to own firearms, exercise free speech, and pursue happiness. We don't, however, have ANY expectation that the gov't will buy us all our firearms, pay for whatever medium we would like to use to exercise free speech, or fund whatever it is that makes us happy (I would be happy if they paid for a vacation to Costa Rica). These things as rights for Americans means that the gov't gets out of the way so you can obtain these things yourself.
As it stands, if the gov't wants to recognize healthcare as a right, then they need to do what they can to reduce cost...which is the primary obstacle for most, and the first step would be tort reform. Elimination of ridiculous rewards and the reduction of the costly and redundant practice of defensive medicine.
At that point in time, we would find that the problem of providing healthcare for more AMERICANS would not be so difficult so as to suggest completely upending the system that we have.
I would say that it's reasonable to note that there is health-care rationing in the US. I would think, however, that it wouldn't make sense to trade one rationing system for another.
And I would encourage you to not be troubled about the "right vs. privilege" argument.
Just because someone has a "right" to something, it doesn't mean that the gov't has to pay for it. In the US we have a "right" to own firearms, exercise free speech, and pursue happiness. We don't, however, have ANY expectation that the gov't will buy us all our firearms, pay for whatever medium we would like to use to exercise free speech, or fund whatever it is that makes us happy (I would be happy if they paid for a vacation to Costa Rica). These things as rights for Americans means that the gov't gets out of the way so you can obtain these things yourself.
As it stands, if the gov't wants to recognize healthcare as a right, then they need to do what they can to reduce cost...which is the primary obstacle for most, and the first step would be tort reform. Elimination of ridiculous rewards and the reduction of the costly and redundant practice of defensive medicine.
At that point in time, we would find that the problem of providing healthcare for more AMERICANS would not be so difficult so as to suggest completely upending the system that we have.
Eliminating "for profit" insurance companies, and all insurance companies down the road, will go along way to reducing costs. The 30% that these vultures steal from our health care dollars will pay for alot of health care that is now delayed, declined, etc. JMHO and my NY $0.02.
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
Eliminating "for profit" insurance companies, and all insurance companies down the road, will go along way to reducing costs. The 30% that these vultures steal from our health care dollars will pay for alot of health care that is now delayed, declined, etc. JMHO and my NY $0.02.
There are, however, UHC systems that heavily integrate private insurance...systems that are often held up as superior to ours.
What IS missing from these systems is the lawyer-gone-wild element.
SO...it would seem that instead of blanket-labeling and elimination of something that other UHC systems USE (private insurance), we should see what is prevalent in OUR system, and lacking in theirs...and that would be lawyers.
I think you need to research your first assertion. Medicare is one of the most sucessful single payor govt provided healthcare systems in the world. It is the essence of what a UHC system would be in the US.
You are right Medicare is nothing more than UHC for old people. I have some serious problems with the Medicare system as well but I do have a soft spot for old people and children. You see, the government tells the health systems, "Do things the way we tell you or you will not get paid." Then they say, "Take what we give you and be happy with it." which is about $0.60/$1 and that's being generous. Now if the whole system was run that way and all the profit is taken out as some suggest then you will have a system that is hurting for people to work for less money. Essentially it will turn the whole health care structure into little more than a slightly fancier McDonalds.
I never said that we should ban smoking. I just made a suggestion about rules to set for people to be covered under the government. A way to help reduce chronic illness where the treatments are picked up by the government. As I said, people can choose to smoke and not get immunizations and not follow up and take medications as prescribed, but that is also a choice not to be covered. Like I said, I see it as a middle ground between those of us that are against UHC and those that are for. If you have a better compromise then lay it out there. It is easy to rip apart someone elses compromise ideas but harder to come up with your own. I have ideas about helping out SS and welfare systems as well. Compromises between those that say no to the whole thing and those that support being completely supported by the government. The problem with those in our government and also many in society is that nobody wants to compromise.
There are, however, UHC systems that heavily integrate private insurance...systems that are often held up as superior to ours.
What IS missing from these systems is the lawyer-gone-wild element.
SO...it would seem that instead of blanket-labeling and elimination of something that other UHC systems USE (private insurance), we should see what is prevalent in OUR system, and lacking in theirs...and that would be lawyers.
Exactly, another thing that drives up costs is law suits. And not just the law suits themselves but the threat of a law suit. Insurance costs a small fortune and settling suits for crazy amounts is even worse. Excellent point and this is also something I would address in my compromise. Limit the size of these suits and throw out some of the more ridiculous ones.
Exactly, another thing that drives up costs is law suits. And not just the law suits themselves but the threat of a law suit. Insurance costs a small fortune and settling suits for crazy amounts is even worse. Excellent point and this is also something I would address in my compromise. Limit the size of these suits and throw out some of the more ridiculous ones.
But what's a proper size for suits?
Just how much is your leg worth when they amputate the wrong one? Me personally? It's worth MILLIONS.
I don't think limiting suits is the answer. I DO think stopping frivolous suits would work though.
Just how much is your leg worth when they amputate the wrong one? Me personally? It's worth MILLIONS.
I don't think limiting suits is the answer. I DO think stopping frivolous suits would work though.
You are right, there are times when millions is a proper settlement, however there are times when it is not. Atleast we all agree that frivolous law suits should be stopped.
I do Legal Nurse Consulting on the side. You would freak out at some of the cases that I have worked on. I will never support limiting what a patient can receive after being the victim of malpractice.
Hospitals are balancing their budgets on the backs of insuspecting patients. Deliberate short staffing, unlicensed assistive personnel taking over professional practices of RNs (medication aides), coverering up for negligent physicians, the list goes on. Is it no wonder that they are pushing for malpractice limits? They can staff as negligently as they want, and have no accountability for it.
Even before I became a Legal Nurse Consultant, I could not believe what hospitals got away with. And just like what was just mentioned- how much is enough if you have been the victim of malpractice. The states that have limits on what a patient can recover discriminate against individuals who have no perceived monetary worth- the elderly, and the very young. Parents have very little to recover when an infant dies. Adult children also have problems recovering for an elderly parent. That is why the nursing homes make people sign mandatory arbitration agreements when they move into nursing homes. Arbitration will always give you less than if you went to court. And we all know what staffing is like in nursing homes.
One only has to peruse the archives of all nurses, to read what nurses are having to deal with to be able to provide even the most basic of nursing care in nursing homes, and some hospitals are just as bad.
It would be alot worse if there were even more stringent restrictions on what one can obtain from a law suit. Yes, I know there are frivoulous law suits. There needs to be a better way to weed these out before they get to court. But just imagine what life would be like if it were impossible to hold hospitals and doctors accountable for their mistakes. I have met some doctors that would curl your hair, they are so bad. This also includes accidents. California has a cap of $250,000. Sounds like alot?
My best friend in California, her husband was T- boned by a car while riding his motorcycle to work. He was critically injured, and almost died. He did nothing wrong, as was a very safe, responsible driver. His life has been permantly changed, through no fault of his own. They had to get a lawyer, and their insurance company wanted to be paid back for all of his medical bills. He was in the hospital for weeks. By the time everyone else had taken their share, Janet and David had only $40,000 left. Not very much if you consider what they lost and what happened to them.
They had alot of savings. Yes, he did get disability and unemployment. But they had to use up all of their savings to pay bills, etc. They have identical twin daughters (who are 17), a house, living expenses, (and they do NOT live lavishly). And they have almost no money left. Through no fault of their own.
You can say, "get rid of all the lawyers, and the lawsuits", until it happens to you. Be careful what you wish for, because you might really get it. And then it is too late. JMHO and my NY $0.02.
Sorry guys, but Michael Moore's movie is such a propaganda, I'm surprised professionals like you guys would even be watching it. Sicko....that's him all right.
I still think the movie Sicko is very sad, a shock - one sided - yes, but still very real. I would like to see Michael Moore make 2 more movies about the healthcare industry - 1-That is about healthcare administrators. 2-A movie made from the point of view of nurses and the ones who are on the front line providing the care to patients.
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
I never argued the 'ethics' or morals of malpractice.
What you can't deny, however, is that the massive awards and the subsequent practice of defensive medicine results in more expensive healthcare.
So, you have to decide. Do you want a UHC system? Then you have to acknowledge that those system which are celebrated as 'successful' systems are not party to our brand of tort.
What you can't do is try to force the implementation of a specific kind of healthcare system while failing to control the very issues which make it unaffordable...or even more disingenuous...ignoring the issue, or blaming it on someone else.
My best friend in California, her husband was T- boned by a car while riding his motorcycle to work. He was critically injured, and almost died. He did nothing wrong, as was a very safe, responsible driver. His life has been permantly changed, through no fault of his own. They had to get a lawyer, and their insurance company wanted to be paid back for all of his medical bills. He was in the hospital for weeks. By the time everyone else had taken their share, Janet and David had only $40,000 left. Not very much if you consider what they lost and what happened to them.
They had alot of savings. Yes, he did get disability and unemployment. But they had to use up all of their savings to pay bills, etc. They have identical twin daughters (who are 17), a house, living expenses, (and they do NOT live lavishly). And they have almost no money left. Through no fault of their own.
Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN
Spokane, Washington
I'm just curious what this has to do with UHC and how exactly it was the hospital's fault?? Crappy situation, yes. Sounds more like an insurance issue with auto and medical insurances. This isn't exactly an example of why UHC should be instated or against lawyers and laws suits. There would be no reason in this case to go after the people who provided the medical services. Suing insurance companies to pay for what they supposedly insuring against isn't an issue anyone has. I say sue the insurance company to pay for what they are supposed to pay. No reason the hospital, docotors, nurses or insurance company should have to pay him millions in damages or pain and suffering when the whole incident was an auto accident.
Honnête et Sérieux
283 Posts
I would say that it's reasonable to note that there is health-care rationing in the US. I would think, however, that it wouldn't make sense to trade one rationing system for another.
And I would encourage you to not be troubled about the "right vs. privilege" argument.
Just because someone has a "right" to something, it doesn't mean that the gov't has to pay for it. In the US we have a "right" to own firearms, exercise free speech, and pursue happiness. We don't, however, have ANY expectation that the gov't will buy us all our firearms, pay for whatever medium we would like to use to exercise free speech, or fund whatever it is that makes us happy (I would be happy if they paid for a vacation to Costa Rica). These things as rights for Americans means that the gov't gets out of the way so you can obtain these things yourself.
As it stands, if the gov't wants to recognize healthcare as a right, then they need to do what they can to reduce cost...which is the primary obstacle for most, and the first step would be tort reform. Elimination of ridiculous rewards and the reduction of the costly and redundant practice of defensive medicine.
At that point in time, we would find that the problem of providing healthcare for more AMERICANS would not be so difficult so as to suggest completely upending the system that we have.