National system would fix health care crisis

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/april/national_system_woul.php

In Massachusetts, the pioneer of the state-mandated plans, a 56-year-old making $30,000 annually will have to spend $7,164 in premium and deductible payments before insurance kicks in and still pony up 20 percent of hospital costs after that, according to Physicians for A National Health Program, or PNHP.

Such coverage is health insurance in name only. It leaves patients unable to access care and subject to financial ruin. PNHP studies show that more than a quarter of insured Americans go without needed care because of cost, and 75 percent of those bankrupted by medical bills had coverage when they got sick.

Forcing or enticing Americans to buy stripped-down health insurance may decrease the number labeled "uninsured," but it won't protect the physical or financial health of beleaguered families. And as costs continue to rise, employers will push more middle-class families from comprehensive plans into ones with scaled-down benefits and higher deductibles.

24% of income to get coverage. That does not leave a whole lot of room for a family to save for a home, education for their children or retirement.

[hushpupgrl]

i would suggest studying economics....you will understand why universal healthcare does not work....

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

i would suggest studying economics....you will understand why universal healthcare does not work....

All you ever say in your posts is it will not work YET the OECD data and health outcomes data clearly suppport Universal care. I have consistently posted the data to support my position and have yet to see any refutation of the numbers.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

i would suggest studying economics....you will understand why universal healthcare does not work....

Business disagrees with you...

And to seal the deal for skeptical capitalists, conservative economists declare that this brand of tax hike should have no impact on growth. "In one scenario we call health expenditures government, and in another we don't. What does it matter?" says Kevin Hassett, head of economics at the American Enterprise Institute and an advisor to John McCain. "It's hard to imagine that would have the negative growth effects" normally ascribed to tax increases in the economics literature.

If conservative economists do have objections to this health shift, Hassett explains, they will be based on ideological notions of what government should be doing, not on whether swapping a giant current business expense for a tax devoted to the same purpose has any economic consequence. When the dust cleared, though, taxes and spending as a share of GDP would officially rise in the U.S. by four or five percentage points.

I know that seems like a lot, and that whenever the government-spending-to-GDP ratio goes up, it is typically seen as a sign of dreaded "bigger government." But remember, we're not talking about building some massive new welfare state here. We've had one of those for decades - it's just been hidden on corporate payrolls.

[lamazeteacher]

I investigated health insurance offered me by a national home health agency, where I worked 32 hours/week, as a "per diem" supervisor. Healthcare insurance, or any other benefits were not provided, but for $325./month (in 2005) I could have "health insurance". After weeks of inquiries regarding the coverage for the premium, I was told there was a cap of $1350. / year for total services. Hmmmmm, $325. X 12 months = $3900. Profit from anyone who did that, $2500. (if no costs were assigned - and I'll bet they were first turned down.....)

There had never been an inquiry about that coverage, and many Nurses took it! Surely the laws on full disclosure should have prevented that.....

[pickledpepperRN]

I investigated health insurance offered me by a national home health agency, where I worked 32 hours/week, as a "per diem" supervisor. Healthcare insurance, or any other benefits were not provided, but for $325./month (in 2005) I could have "health insurance". After weeks of inquiries regarding the coverage for the premium, I was told there was a cap of $1350. / year for total services. Hmmmmm, $325. X 12 months = $3900. Profit from anyone who did that, $2500. (if no costs were assigned - and I'll bet they were first turned down.....)

There had never been an inquiry about that coverage, and many Nurses took it! Surely the laws on full disclosure should have prevented that.....

Do you remember the name of that insurance company?

With full disclosure I think employees would just put the $325.00 in the band. But HOW can they call it insurance when any serious illness will cost way more than the cap?

[pickledpepperRN]

Letter by an East Coast nurse:

I am an RN who graduated in 1973. I have worked in the best hospitals in Boston and New York and have seen several evolutions within healthcare.

The saddest change is the one where pharmaceutical companies gain more power and profit while healthcare workers struggle to advocate for patients because of experienced staff shortages in most departments.

It begins by submitting the bill in the manner the insurance company demands, ususally electronic with acceptable accounting codes describing your service and diagnosis. Your birth day must be written in their format and if not the entire payment is rejected. If the accounting codes are missing a 5th digit they simply reject it.

It is a system the self corrects so their profit is protected and healthcare is questioned.

How about the POB for their mailing addresses changing every so often causing profitable delays in communicating.

If actual medical care were delivered in this manner caring for patients would be impossible.

We have a double standard with profit first. Pharma and Ins. CEO salaries are obscene and far above anything an Emergency room Physician or cardio thoracic surgeon takes home.

http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/your_story/dale-staub-rn-ba

[lamazeteacher]

No, I threw the material about it out, in frustration that such a scam would be offered. When I went to the office administrator protesting it, she suddenly found that their patient census was down, and assigned my cases to the Clinical Director. I wasn't fired, but somehow there were not any cases for me. Of course, I was "per diem".