Let's talk about the basic facts about the health care reform bill...

kcochrane · Mar 23, 2010

I can answer this one. This violates the 10th amendment or maybe it is the 9th that sates that the federal governments powers are limited to those listed in the constitution. However that was disregarded so long ago it isn't even funny so I doubt the court will apply it in this case. The constitution has unfortunately basically become irrelevant in the US.
And as to the military health system. I am a vet of 11 years. It sucks. I was given 800mg Ibuprofen to treat pericarditis. People don't complain because those in the military are generally not complainers and work tirelessly for little pay because we believe in something greater than ourselves.

To add on to your explanation: What states can do and what the federal gov't is allowed to do are two different things. Every state has thier own constitution.

linda2097 · Mar 23, 2010

You are certainly entitled to your opinion regarding the quality of the military healthcare system... my experience and that of some close friends and family members is quite different.

The number of troops and veterans is tiny compared to the entire population of the USA.

charlestonsailing · Mar 23, 2010

Are we talking about the military system or Tricare? I was fine with Tricare well. But that seemed more like private insurance to me as my wife went to private providers and such. It was paid for by the government but was a benefit to the job just like a civilian job has benefits. It was there to keep me in and compensate for the lower pay. I was talking about the treatment I got in the actual navy healthcare system which was substandard. Perhaps we are talking about different things or I just had a different experience.

peytonsmom · Mar 23, 2010

My issue is with how it's going to be paid for. How can they cut that much money from Medicare payments to healthcare without there being a negative effect on the services provided? They say that once they eliminate "misuse of Medicare funds" that you won't feel a difference. The problem is, to me at least, is what they're calling a misuse of funds. They're saying that if they stop "unwarranted" CT's, MRI', and other testing then it will save money. I'm not really sure I want someone in the gov't telling my dr what he should or shouldn't order. My dad's prostate cancer was found w/ a PSA that was "unwarranted" with his age and S/S.

I'm not saying that there isn't a need for change, or that this doesn't sound all very good in theory, I just don't think the cuts in medicare are they way to go.

I keep hearing that if you don't want the gov't to be involved in your healthcare then you can still buy private. But how are we expected to afford private when it's already expensive and now the companies are being hit w/ fees/fines and other regulations? I'm not saying that the insurance industry isn't riddled w/ problems, but I just don't think that giving you the option of gov't controlled healthcare and private insurance nobody can afford is the way to go.

I think as a nurse you're def going to feel some of the biggest impact. You now have all these people with "insurance" that doesn't pay much to the hospitals so you have more people coming in but less money coming in. What happens when a hospital isn't making money? There are going to be hiring freezes and overworked, underpaid nurses and other healthcare staff that gets to deal w/ all of the angry people sitting around waiting for care because staff is stretched too thin.

If they could do what they way they want to and find a way to not take money from Medicare or out of the hospital's pockets then I'd support it, but the only way I see doing that is to raise taxes and the public would throw a fit.

I think there is a need for change, but don't think that this bill is what is going to change it for the better.

belgarion · Mar 23, 2010

In my previous career health insurance was provided to employees free. The company offered a $1000 buyback option if the employee wanted to decline coverage. The intent of this was to allow people who were covered under a spouse's plan or were retired military to keep their current coverage if they were happy with it. What actually happened was the "young invulnerables" who thought that nothing could happen to them saw the opportunity to pick up a quick grand, opted out, and went without coverage. Of course if they had an accident or got really sick they were out of luck but the thousand bucks trumped common sense.

Now, on to these fines for not having insurance. Let's say the fine for not buying coverage will be $750 for the year. If insurance is going to cost say, $1500, how is that fine going to convince someone who doesn't want coverage or who is already barely scraping by to go out and buy insurance?

No matter what, there is going to be a number of people who refuse to get insurance and I'm willing to bet a paycheck that that number will be a lot higher than any of the framers of this bill imagined.

Music in My Heart · Mar 23, 2010

Starting today, government is running healthcare. They are now forcing insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, give free preventative care, and remove lifetime caps.

The government is adding some additional controls to the business practices of insurance companies, just as it already does in all sorts of arenas.

Very different than "running healthcare."

Chico David, BSN, RN · Mar 23, 2010

I'm not actaully a big fan of this bill, since I'm a single payer person myself. Only time will tell whether the good effects outweigh the bad. Overall, despite all the hyperbole by both sides - and the outright lies by some of those opposed - this is mostly tinkering around the edges of health care issues. The majority of people who are either covered by a government program now (Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare) or have good insurance on the job, will see little change from this.

For all those who think it will have terrible effects on hospitals, here's a reasonable objective take from an organization that is generally a pretty good source, with a moderate pro-industry bent:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/March/22/winners-losers-health-reform.aspx

A key quote:

Most health industry sectors are winners - some bigger than others -- under sweeping health care legislation that will expand coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans over the next decade, analysts say.

I see it as neither as good as its proponents claim, nor anything like as bad as the opposition claims, but overall a missed opportunity to have done better.

And a final thought for those who "don't like politics":

As a nurse, here as some of the aspects of your life that are controlled entirely through the political process: whether there is a place for you in a nursing school, how much you pay in tuition, what the curriculum requirements are, what the graduation requirements are, how many faculty are available and what their qualifications are, how much they get paid, what is on your licensing exam.

Then, once you are a nurse: What happens if you are accused of a violation of the law, whether you get a break at work, how many patients you have to care for, what is within your legal scope of practice, whether other workers can take over aspects of care formerly reserved for nurses, what happens to you and whether you are compensated if you are injured on the job, whether you have a right to join a union with other nurses, whether you can be forced to work mandatory overtime.

The list is much longer, but every item on that list above is or recently has been a current, active issue just in the legislature of my state. A nurse who chooses to ignore politics is giving control over all those aspects of his/her practice over to other people - many of whom are interested in corporate profit, not in the well being of nurses or patients. Food for thought.

linda2097 · Mar 23, 2010

No matter what, there is going to be a number of people who refuse to get insurance and I'm willing to bet a paycheck that that number will be a lot higher than any of the framers of this bill imagined.

Exactly. Paying the fine will be cheaper than paying for insurance. And since Obama will force insurance companies to cover preeexisting conditions, all you gotta do is get insurance AFTER you get sick. Obama is not very smart.

linda2097 · Mar 23, 2010

The government is adding some additional controls to the business practices of insurance companies, just as it already does in all sorts of arenas.
Very different than "running healthcare."

RUINing healthcare is more like it. How would you like it if you owned a convenience store, and Obama forced you to give free food to customers?

linda2097 · Mar 23, 2010

A key quote:
Most health industry sectors are winners - some bigger than others -- under sweeping health care legislation that will expand coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans over the next decade, analysts say.

Why did you omit the dozens of disadvantages listed in your article?

classicdame, MSN, EdD · Mar 23, 2010

my CNO told me yesterday she read that only 50 neurologists graduated last year - for all of US. I predict smart people will not go into the medical field.

Music in My Heart · Mar 23, 2010

my CNO told me yesterday she read that only 50 neurologists graduated last year - for all of US. I predict smart people will not go into the medical field.

I think your CNO is either biased or misinformed... in 1986 there were 127 neurology residency programs in the US (Link), presumably with a number of physicians in each step along the training process. I find it hard to believe that the number of programs has fallen dramatically over the last two decades and likewise that there aren't multiple graduates out of each program every year.

I predict that smart people will continue to enter the medical field, just as they do in every other country, even those with *gasp* socialized medicine.... I mean, they do have physicians and nurses in Canada and Britain, don't they?