I'm for Socialized Medicine and elimination of private insurance and HMOs.

Published

I've come to realize that the newer buzzword seems to be "Universal Coverage" instead of "Socialized Medicine". The plans that I read about seem to want to construct a government mandated system that incorporates all the HMOs and insurance companies.

I think this is wrong. One of the problems with our system is that it's got too many fingers in the pie. I'm in favor of a single payer, British style system or else keeping the present free for all we have now. I think the Democrats, who are the most likely to be in favor of a big government program like this, are too afraid to take on the powerful lobbies of HMOs and Insurance companies.

If we come up with a hybrid system like is being proposed, we are in for even more regulatory confusion and mess than we are even seeing now.

I think a single payer, government run socialized system is the best option. I also think that there must be strict tort reform that goes along with it to protect healthcare providers from frivilous lawsuits.

Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.
I trust them a he!! of a lot more than I trust insurance company execs and flunkies ...

OK, that's fine,

Spacenurse had indicated that she didn't believe that our elected officials were competent or honest, which made me wonder why she would trust them with her healthcare.

Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.
Aren't "WE the people" the government ? If we the people, voted those who we do not trust into the seat of power, should we not blame ourselves?

Following that line of thought, do you "blame" yourself for the Bush presidency? Will I be to "blame" if/when Clinton or Obama is elected in November?

Following that line of thought, do you "blame" yourself for the Bush presidency? Will I be to "blame" if/when Clinton or Obama is elected in November?
NO, I would NEVER have voted for Bush, there for I hold no blame.If Obama or Clinton mess up as royally as Bush has then yes, I will be to blame, as I will be voting for either one of them.
OK, that's fine,

Spacenurse had indicated that she didn't believe that our elected officials were competent or honest, which made me wonder why she would trust them with her healthcare.

I was specifically responding to a post regarding the VA.

The lack of planning or ability to change the plans in responce to the actual need caused by the increased traumatic head injury survival and mental health problems from the long was with miltiple deployments.

Originally Posted by spacenurse

Please tell me how we can be confident that if we end up taken by ambulance to the nearest hospital we will get safe care.

I'm not sure what you are asking.

Do you believe that only socialized medicine can provide safe care?

No that is not at all what I am asking.

Read post #14 where I responded

I am for regulations regarding the physical facility, required equipment and staff, sanitary requirements, isolation, pharmacy regulations, and such.

I can't believe anyone is against this. So what am I missing?

Infection control laws, hospital dietary regulations, the safe staffing by acuity law with the ratio as the maximum number of patients, limitations on unlicensed assistive personnel, a requirment that a competent person observe each cardiac rhythm at all times, fire safety, and all the other regulations.

These are federal, state, and local regulations passed by a legislature, signed by an executive )Predsident or Gocernor) and enforced by a Department of health, public health, or other governmental entity.

I am for the government regulating hospitals.

I really like our regulation that each ER must have a dedicated competent triage RN on duty at all times in every ER.

This RN may NOT have a patient assignment.

Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.
I fail to understand how an individual who is taken by ambulance to the nearest hospital can make that facility accountable to them.

I am for regulations regarding the physical facility, required equipment and staff, sanitary requirements, isolation, pharmacy regulations, and such.

I can't believe anyong is against this. So what am I missing?

I don't believe anyone indicated that they were against basic safety regulation of healthcare.

The point I was trying to make is that it is preferable to have healthcare institutions be accountable to a number of entities, including the patient him/herself, rather than solely to the government from which 100% of the institutions' funding would come. That appears to create a conflict of interest. For example, would you want to complain about unsafe staffing, unsafe working conditions, unsanitary conditions, etc. (either as a nurse or patient) if you knew there was no where else you could go for employment or healthcare?

I don't believe anyone indicated that they were against basic safety regulation of healthcare.

The point I was trying to make is that it is preferable to have healthcare institutions be accountable to a number of entities, including the patient him/herself, rather than solely to the government from which 100% of the institutions' funding would come. That appears to create a conflict of interest. For example, would you want to complain about unsafe staffing, unsafe working conditions, unsanitary conditions, etc. (either as a nurse or patient) if you knew there was no where else you could go for employment or healthcare?

If UHC is run in the fashion of Medicare, the care is portable, one can go to whatever doctor they choose or work at whatever hospital they choose, the government does not own the hospitals or pay the nurses and doctors directly. They would still be employees of a private entity.

How can we achieve a system that puts individuals in charge of their own healthcare by enabling them to purchase services for themselves and by making providers acountable to them, not the government or insurance company?

What kind of payment system does the US have now?

Multiple Providers

-Private and public, profit and non-profit hospitals

-Clinics

-nursing homes

-rehab facilities

-doctors

-pharmacies

-laboratories etc.

Multiple Payers

-Individuals (co-pays, premiums and out of pocket)

-Many insurance companies

-Many HMOs

-Medicare

-Medicaid

-SCHIP

-VA

-Military

-Local government (county)

What kind of a system would single-payer be?

Multiple Providers

-Private and public, profit and non-profit hospitals

-nursing homes

-rehab facilities

-clinics

-doctors

-pharmacies

-laboratories etc.

Single-Payer

-Government (National Fund)

Two reasons to consider a single payer system:

*Common sense budgeting. The public system sets fair reimbursements applied equally

to all providers while assuring all comprehensive and appropriate health care is delivered,

and uses its clout to negotiate volume discounts for prescription drugs and medical equipment.

*Public oversight. The public sets the policies and administers the system, not high priced

CEOs meeting in secret and making decisions based on what inflates their compensation

packages or stock wealth or company profits.

http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/files/facts_singlepayer_top10.pdf

Maybe it comes down to locus of control.

"Yes we can together" or "I can all by myself"

I don't believe anyone indicated that they were against basic safety regulation of healthcare.

The point I was trying to make is that it is preferable to have healthcare institutions be accountable to a number of entities, including the patient him/herself, rather than solely to the government from which 100% of the institutions' funding would come. That appears to create a conflict of interest. For example, would you want to complain about unsafe staffing, unsafe working conditions, unsanitary conditions, etc. (either as a nurse or patient) if you knew there was no where else you could go for employment or healthcare?

Along with tens of thousands of others I worked for our comprehensive whistle blower law. The law applies to patients, families, and staff. There is a big fine for both the individual and the facility when retaliation occurs. And the presumption is that any discipline is retaliation. It is not up to the nurse to prove retaliation. They must prove otherwise.

As a patient advocate I must not just leave an unsafe situation without attempting to change conditions which are not in the best interest of patients.

WE can accomplish so much more when we work together than one person alone can hope to do.

WE need to work for a system in which ALL are provided high quality care when needed. At ALL facilities.

That is why I asked about being taken to the nearest facility.

Don't Medicare patients have the same right to choose their provider as you?

To report unsafe conditions?

The Federal government is the payor. The state or county may be the enforcer.

BUT when NURSES have the RIGHT as well as the responsibility to advocate solely in the best interest of the patient I do not believe even the President will get away with claiming so crazy reason the nurse should allow harm to a patient.

I know where I work WE THE NURSES will NOT allow it!

Remember when we followed Arnold until he was sneaking in the alley past the garbage cans?

Because thousands of nurses, teachers, and firefighters were carrying signs on the sidewalk?

nlrb_action_group1.jpg

Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.

Spacenurse,

I am glad that you are optimistic about the future of healthcare in our country.

I don't share your trust of the government to "get it right".

+ Join the Discussion