National Health Care, Your Thoughts

Published

As the 2008 presidential race draws nearer, health care is fast becoming a hot topic for debate. What are your thoughts on a national health care plan proposed by Hilary Clinton and other democrats? If this becomes law, how do you think it will effect you as a nurse?

I am personally against a national health care plan. I feel like it is putting too much power in the hands of government. It will lead the way to America becoming a socialist country.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Hospice, Med/Surg, ICU, ER.

A British or Canadian style "National Health Care System" would be a fiasco. That system does not function effectively, and I would be unwilling to tolerate the delays and bureaucracy inherent in such a system. Additionally, I am unwilling to become a government employee, for a list of reasons too long to enumerate here.

However, our current system has some monumental flaws of it's own. Far too many people are without health insurance at all, and many that do have insurance find it over-priced and with minimal benefits that actually apply to themselves or their families. The current insurance schema has very high costs of compliance - many providers will no longer take some insurance plans; especially Medicare and Medicaid. Throw in ridiculous jury awards for no-harm-done mistakes (with most of the money going to the lawyers) and the resultant outrageous costs for , anyone can easily see that what we're currently doing isn't working.

SOMETHING needs to be done, but I remain convinced that government (at all levels) does very little WELL.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care,Recovery, ED.

Socialized medicine as done in Great Britain would not be my cup of tea. However, free market in health care also has inherent flaws and most if the industrialized world has come to this conclusion also. So somewhere in between our system and purely socialized system seems best. How to acheive that I have no idea. A first step though would be to take the profit out of financing the reimbursement system we now have.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Just to be clear, in many countries with single-payer systems the health care providers are not government employees. Instead they are reimbursed for services as they are with other health insurance plans. One of the pros is that offices don't have to work with a bunch of different plans, trying to figure out how to bill them to get reimbursed. The reality today is that we are dependent upon our insurance company's bureaucracy to determine if we get treated for something (or at least if they will pay for it). It took six months and several exchanges of letters for a routine lab test of mine to be approved by my insurance. Because my insurance is tied to my employment, I can't just change it. And purchasing my own very limited insurance would cost at least $500/mon with high deductibles and many out of pocket expenses (I'm single without dependents). Many live in fear of never being able to get insurance again if laid off or the like because of pre-existing conditions.

I don't necessarily think a national plan is the way to go. But I do think some major regulation is in order to ensure that affordable health care in available to all.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in burn, geriatric, rehab, wound care, ER.

"I am personally against a national health care plan. I feel like it is putting too much power in the hands of government. It will lead the way to America becoming a socialist country."

The threat of socialism is just another example of the propaganda distributed by health insurance and pharmaceutical companies who are making obscene profits at our expense. Its time to cut out the middleman and make health care affordable, cost-effective and ethical for "we the people".

"Reasons to Support Universal Health Care in the United States of America

The United States is the only developed nation without universal health care coverage, and the current state of affairs is bankrupting millions.

In 2001, half of all bankruptcy filings were related to medical issues. From 1981 to 2001, the number of medically-related bankruptcy filings increased 2300 percent. With numbers like that, there is little doubt that the current situation of health care in America is killing Americans.

In fact, while the United States spends more on health care per an individual than any other nation, the World Health Organization reports that the United States only ranks 28th for life expectancy and 37th for mortality of children under the age of 5. For immunizations, the United States ranks 67th - Botswana is 66th.

More than 46 million Americans go uninsured each day, 9 million of whom are children. Millions more go under-insured - more than 76 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy in 2001 due to medical issues had insurance at the beginning of their treatments.

Some believe that universal health care would bankrupt America, but the Congressional Budget Office found that it would actually save $100 to $200 billion dollars per a year, according to the Connecticut Coalition for Universal Health Care.

The cost of health care in the United States is also costing American jobs. To avoid hefty insurance premiums, American businesses have moved offices out of the States.

An ABCNews/Washington Post poll found that Americans support universal health care 2-to-1, so long as it doesn't mean limited doctors or waiting list for non-emergency issues. The poll also found that more than half of all Americans are unsatisfied with the current states of health care in the country."

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/54246/reasons_to_support_universal_health.html

Up Vote Up Vote ×

No scheme like that will ever work in America. It doesn't matter if it would be better, cheaper, more efficient, whatever. It will not happen here.

Like jjoy, I feel that some sort of regulation to ensure affordable insurance coverage is available to all would be the best way to go (whether that insurance is provided by private companies or a government system like medicare matters little to me). People could choose to purchase it or choose not to purchase it.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ER, ICU, L&D, OR.

National health care is the only way to go. I agree with Teddy Kennedy on this.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I read the BBC website's health section regularly. There is no paradise. Nurses are having a difficult time over there. Many nurses opt out of the National Health and go work for agencies. Doctors do too.

Americans have a different culture than the Europeans, and I do not think most people would tolerate rationed medical care.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
I read the BBC website's health section regularly. There is no paradise. Nurses are having a difficult time over there. Many nurses opt out of the National Health and go work for agencies. Doctors do too.

Americans have a different culture than the Europeans, and I do not think most people would tolerate rationed medical care.

I agree that there's no perfect solution. Just to keep an even perspective though, keep in mind how many nurses here prefer agency work because they don't want to deal with the day-to-day politics of private (and public) hospitals. Also notice how many nurses choose to leave the bedside completely due to poor working conditions (eg. understaffing). How many nurses stay in their jobs even if unsatisfied because they fear losing their health insurance?

Also, we do have a form of rationed medical care. All of our insurance companies and HMOs ration the care we receive - rejecting payment of tests, treatment and office visits if they determine it's unnecessary. There are ways to structure a national plan that also allows for the option for free-choice, pay out-of-pocket care if one doesn't want to go with what the national plan offers. I believe in Australia there are insurance plans you can purchase above and beyond what the national plan offers. I could be getting mixed up, so please correct me if I'm wrong there.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
A British or Canadian style "National Health Care System" would be a fiasco. That system does not function effectively, and I would be unwilling to tolerate the delays and bureaucracy inherent in such a system. Additionally, I am unwilling to become a government employee, for a list of reasons too long to enumerate here.

However, our current system has some monumental flaws of it's own. Far too many people are without health insurance at all, and many that do have insurance find it over-priced and with minimal benefits that actually apply to themselves or their families. The current insurance schema has very high costs of compliance - many providers will no longer take some insurance plans; especially Medicare and Medicaid. Throw in ridiculous jury awards for no-harm-done mistakes (with most of the money going to the lawyers) and the resultant outrageous costs for malpractice insurance, anyone can easily see that what we're currently doing isn't working.

SOMETHING needs to be done, but I remain convinced that government (at all levels) does very little WELL.

hightower_cartoon.gif

Single payer is not socialized medicine. The bureaucracy you despise is far more inefficient than you realize in the private sector.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Hospice, Med/Surg, ICU, ER.

Single payer is not socialized medicine. The bureaucracy you despise is far more inefficient than you realize in the private sector.

Tell me about it...... :uhoh3:

Private-sector bureaucracy is worse than the governmental variety in many ways; (Oh Lord, how much sheer idiocy I have seen from people with no other skill than moving paper from one pile to another, or having endless, pointless meetings). In the private sector, at least, they tend to be self-limiting. After all, the profit motive of private enterprise limits the amount of unproductive employees the business might have. With the government, no such self-limiting exists. Any governmental bureaucracy will continue to grow in size year-by-year, and productivity will be significantly lower than that found in the private sector.

Having said all that, I am not a fan of the Medicaid/Medicare/ManagedCare/GroupInsurance scheme currently in existence, either. The premiums are too high for many working people to afford, and the benefits paid out (when you can finally pry it out of them) are insufficient, leaving a - sometimes huge - balance for the patient and the family to pay. Also, I have dealt with the type of treatment illustrated by the comic in your post far too often. The current system will deny a benefit on the slightest pretext, leaving a patient unable to afford the medication/test/procedure the practitioner prescribes! We have allowed lawyers and accountants take medical decisions out of the hands of patients and healthcare professionals.

Again, I don't pretend to have a solution to the problem. I DO know, however, that the current system isn't working - and I suspect that a total-government-control cure would be worse than the disease.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion