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

[morningland]

I do not like politics. I am neither a liberal nor a conservative so I don't like arguing about political sides.

I do want to know about this health care bill. So far, I know that it is saying that health insurance companies will be more regulated and people will be forced to purchase health insurance but....

- How are people going to purchase health insurance if they can't afford it now?

- How is this going to affect patient care?

- How will nurses be affected by this?

I want to know any basic information about this bill but I am a nursing student so... as is most likely shocking to all of you... I don't have much time to research it, lol.

Thanks and lets try and keep it friendly folks!

-Joseph

[linda2097]

I think the much more interesting question is why you're such a huge fan and defender of the insurance companies. Do you actually work in healthcare? I don't think I've ever met anyone with any significant experience in healthcare who likes insurance companies.

I am defending liberty. Government control of corporations is the opposite of liberty.

[linda2097]

Contrary to what some might say, rights are not "natural" or "inherent" but are what any society believes is a right at a given period of time. For most of human history, and even in a great many places today, neither freedom of speech nor freedom of religion have been considered "rights". In most of the developed world, health care is considered a right. In the US, we haven't gotten there yet, at least in the minds of many. I hope I live to see the day when we do.

Is free food a right?

[Chico David, BSN, RN]

Okay... great discussion so far everyone... Thanks for all your comments

I was wondering if we could touch a little bit more on patient care and how it will be effected by this health care reform. Will it get better or worse and please be specific. Thanks!

There are a number of provisions in the bill to create pilot projects to study ways to improve care. Contrary to scare tactics from the right, they won't be implemented system wide unless they prove themselves to work. As others have mentioned, improved access to care may improve care for a modest but significant segment of the population. Otherwise, as I said earlier, most of us won't actually notice all that much change. There will not be government micromanagement of care, to cite just one example. A few people will notice big changes in their ability to access care, but for most patients and most caregivers, things will pretty much go on as before.

For an interesting perspective: the magnitude of this sounds big - we talk about something like $940 billion over 10 years. But when the bill is fully in force, by about 2016, the spending that is accounted for by the new law will amount to about.... 4% of US health care spending. Once again, it is neither as bad as it's oponents claim, nor as good as the supporters claim. It's tinkering at the edges.

So back to your question: Some individuals - millions perhaps - will have their lives improved, even saved, by greater access. It's possible that one of those pilot projects will result in a much better way to do things, but I would not count on it. For most of us, small if any change in our work or the care we give.

For perspective, not directly related to this, but very interesting for anyone who cares about health care or patient care, read last year's New Yorker article by Atul Gawande:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

It asks more questions than it draws conclusions, but it looks at some of the reasons that more money spent does not always equal better care. Some of the ideas for pilot projects in the new law are heavily influenced by this article.

[elkpark]

I am defending liberty. Government control of corporations is the opposite of liberty.

And what do you call corporate control of government??

[Chico David, BSN, RN]

Is free food a right?

I'll repeat what I said before - Nothing is inherently a right. A right is whatever a society decides it is. If a society, through it's political mechanisms decides that it would rather tax itself to feed people than let them starve, then food is a right in that society. Other societies can decide differently and let people starve, and I gather you'd be happier in one of those, but I would not.

[Chico David, BSN, RN]

And what do you call corporate control of government??

America

[charlestonsailing]

I'll repeat what I said before - Nothing is inherently a right. A right is whatever a society decides it is. If a society, through it's political mechanisms decides that it would rather tax itself to feed people than let them starve, then food is a right in that society. Other societies can decide differently and let people starve, and I gather you'd be happier in one of those, but I would not.

Disagree with you as do the founders of our nation. Something about "all men created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable right" comes to mind.

Now nations can decide what other rights they want to afford to people but I don't believe health care can be one. My simple belief there is that for me to have a right to health care means I have a claim to another persons time, skill or money. I believe what we really should call it is a service provided by a government for citizens. Not a right.

[Chico David, BSN, RN]

Disagree with you as do the founders of our nation. Something about "all men created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable right" comes to mind.

Now nations can decide what other rights they want to afford to people but I don't believe health care can be one. My simple belief there is that for me to have a right to health care means I have a claim to another persons time, skill or money. I believe what we really should call it is a service provided by a government for citizens. Not a right.

The rights they enumerated were a radical idea for their time. In most of the world at that time, most of the population had no rights and that was generally felt to be proper. Even in the US, that "all men" only meant "white male property owners" at that time. My point is simply that rights evolve and vary from time to time and place to place and are not immutable. Something becomes a "right" when there is a social consensus that it should be a right. As a non-theist, I don't recognize any "God-given" rights. so that concept is meaningless to me.

Theory of rights versus obligations in an organized society is a very slippery subject. For example, we have a strong social consensus that murder is evil when one person does it, or when two or three people conspire to do it, but perfectly acceptable, even noble and patriotic, when a whole country does it. This leads to the question: how many people have to conspire to do murder before it becomes morally acceptable?

So to your example: none of us as an individual has a claim on another's labor or resources, but we as a society assert that claim for all sorts of reasons: to build roads, to wage war, etc. So as a society, we claim the ability to do things that we don't allow people to claim as individuals. The argument is over which things.

[morningland]

I am defending liberty. Government control of corporations is the opposite of liberty.

Just so you know Linda, this comment is not directed towards you in any way... because I do agree

I will say, I have heard many "right-wingers" say this but I find it funny because they never mentioned this when Bush was completely stripping our rights with the patriot act and admittedly lied about getting us into a war that is still costing billions or year and, more importantly... human lives (Iraq and american). Why can't Obama get us out of Iraq and funnel that money into the health care system? Why can't we use that money to build new hospitals and hire more doctors for the 30+ million people we are adding to the system?

Me personally, I don't like Obama and I don't like his health care bill. I agree with the people who say he is just trying to make a name for himself. He came into office like he was the freakin' messiah and then quickly realized that there was little he could do so he put this bill out to at least show that he did something with his time in office.

To me, it seems like all they are doing is forcing people to purchase health insurance and that is leading down a very dangerous road. The more and more control we give the government, the less and less freedoms we have. This is why I am neither liberal nor conservative because I both seem them as snakes in the grass.

It's very great to hear everyones opinion on this issue.

[linda2097]

Otherwise, as I said earlier, most of us won't actually notice all that much change.

Except for higher premiums, longer waits, and rationing.

For an interesting perspective: the magnitude of this sounds big - we talk about something like $940 billion over 10 years.

Plus another $300 billion for the doctor fix.

But when the bill is fully in force, by about 2016, the spending that is accounted for by the new law will amount to about.... 4% of US health care spending.

You are living in a dream world, David. The CBO estimate is nothing more than a rough guess that does not include the doctor fix. If government is so efficient, explain to me why Medicare and Social Security are bankrupt.

[linda2097]

And what do you call corporate control of government??

Be more specific please.

[linda2097]

I'll repeat what I said before - Nothing is inherently a right. A right is whatever a society decides it is. If a society, through it's political mechanisms decides that it would rather tax itself to feed people than let them starve, then food is a right in that society. Other societies can decide differently and let people starve, and I gather you'd be happier in one of those, but I would not.

Everyone already has the right to buy healthcare.