I want to know what nurses think about socialized medicine.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Jul 29, 2009

We will end up with a smaller bureaucracy after health care reform.

at http://www.health-insurance-2008.org/united-states-vs-canada.php

Crash_Cart · Jul 29, 2009

We will end up with a smaller bureaucracy after health care reform.
at http://www.health-insurance-2008.org/united-states-vs-canada.php

....Exactly.

Some people say they don't want "more government bureaucracy" involved in healthcare.

Well there's what the picture already looks like by comparsion.

Well said.. Thank you.

Rebel Yell · Jul 29, 2009

http://blunt.house.gov/Media/PDFS/DemocratsHealthPlanChart.pdf

cwazycwissyRN, RN · Jul 29, 2009

There are other solutions out there...presented and voted down. We can cover the uninsured, in other ways.

cwazycwissyRN, RN · Jul 29, 2009

In the trenches ...nurse..OK here is my take

I have never been a fan of the insurance companies. I have cursed them under my breath on many occasions. But, when we do surgery on a person with insurance..we sigh a breath of relief, because the reimbursements may actually cover the expenses of the surgery.

I am a fan of the constitution. It state something in there about private property if I am not mistaken.

I am a fan of the wonderful health care that America provides. We have quality health care. WE are number one in cancer treatments and out comes.

I am not a fan of the big fat drug companies. I am a fan of the wonderful research they have provided in order for us to treat the many diseases that Americans have.

I am a fan of the many professional people I have the privilege to work with. I see few "greedy" doctors that place money in front of the interest of their patients. I personally think doctors should be paid more. I would give them a big fat raise! If we pay athletes and movie stars mega money why would we not pay our healing hands?

I am a fan of America and the privilege that provides of being able to start my own business, run my own business and not have the fruits of my business taken away, unless I have made mistakes in the running of that business. Success is not promised to anyone. The freedom to try is.

I have a huge fear that in order to reduce the amount of spending in America on health care ...run by government will boil down to one formula.

reduce amount of treatment provided

+

reduce the amount of reimbursements for care provided

=

reduction in health care spending in America.....

that is just not a price I am willing to pay...for my mom..my kids or my grand kids. Nor is it a price I want to pay for the facility I work in...how many will crumble and fall?

We need work and change in the health care industry...government take over of the 6th largest industry in America is NOT the answer. I do not see their tract record in the form of medicare, medicaid, VA and the Tribal portion of it to that productive when it comes to reimbursements...let alone what will come when they cut those reimbursements as they are suggesting.

The cost is great monetarily...the cost can be great to Americans

CRNA2007 · Jul 29, 2009

What did the hospital pay the drug company for the $10 aspirin? What is the pure profit and greed that hospitals put into medications and then charge the patient 500% of what they paid for it? Why no condemnation of hospitals that do not charge the patient the actual cost of the medicine instead of marking it up?

Can you tell me what costs now are placed under a public taxpayer microscope????

What happens when a congressman puts an amendment into a bill that all CT scanners in hospitals will be ones provided by a business in his congressional district even though it is more expensive or not as high a quality as one made by another competitior? What about a Senator that says the only heart medication that should be used for treating xyz condition is one that it is manufactured in his state even though it is the most expensive and there are generic alternatives? Please show me the cost savings that are going to come from this bill other than killing off the elderly earlier by denying them proper care?

Doing nothing is going to be much better than stiffing the American people with this health care scheme.

The high costs have been perpetuated in an upward spiral over the years by the big drug pushers and the private health insurance industry. That's why a $10 Aspirin on the hospital bill doesn't cost $10 over the border in other countries which already have an established Universal Health care system in place. Keep in mind the "current" high costs for health care in the U.S are created by "for profit" entities and naturally they want everything to be as expensive as possible.
However, in a public funded taxpayer system, the costs are placed under the microscope of the public taxpayer. Let's call it "public accountability" for public tax dollars spent if you will. You can't have public accountability with a private health insurance or for profit drug companies. That is the problem.
In fact, if you use Google, you can quickly find out that a Universal Health Care system will serve to actually "lower" the costs associated with providing health care services to the public.
For example:
http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/cbo_admits_very_quietly_that_hr_3200_will_reduce_costs
I don't think many people really understand that.
But I would rather fork my private health insurance dollars over to a public system instead because they won't deny coverage, it will not be tied to an employer and the system will guarantee heath care to every American and they will do so with public accountability involved.
No inflated costs, no pre existing condition or out of pocket and co pay nonsense. Just straight care for straight tax dollars. Makes sense to me.
My Best.

CRNA2007 · Jul 29, 2009

And who runs Massachusetts? why liberals of course.

We will end up with a smaller bureaucracy after health care reform.
at http://www.health-insurance-2008.org/united-states-vs-canada.php

Rebel Yell · Jul 29, 2009

Oh my gosh, you said it very well! Maybe we should just let the States handle this.

"The proper role of government is to provide equal rights, not provide equal things."

misswoosie · Jul 29, 2009

The high costs have been perpetuated in an upward spiral over the years by the big drug pushers and the private health insurance industry. That's why a $10 Aspirin on the hospital bill doesn't cost $10 over the border in other countries which already have an established Universal Health care system in place. Keep in mind the "current" high costs for health care in the U.S are created by "for profit" entities and naturally they want everything to be as expensive as possible.
However, in a public funded taxpayer system, the costs are placed under the microscope of the public taxpayer. Let's call it "public accountability" for public tax dollars spent if you will. You can't have public accountability with a private health insurance or for profit drug companies. That is the problem.
In fact, if you use Google, you can quickly find out that a Universal Health Care system will serve to actually "lower" the costs associated with providing health care services to the public.
For example:
http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/cbo_admits_very_quietly_that_hr_3200_will_reduce_costs
I don't think many people really understand that.
But I would rather fork my private health insurance dollars over to a public system instead because they won't deny coverage, it will not be tied to an employer and the system will guarantee heath care to every American and they will do so with public accountability involved.
No inflated costs, no pre existing condition or out of pocket and co pay nonsense. Just straight care for straight tax dollars. Makes sense to me.
My Best.

Do you know for a fact that there will be no co-pays?

Costs may be lowered, but I would be preapred to lower your expectations too if you have been used to private healthcare.

It is a huge task to provide "good quality" healthcare to everyone in the US through a public system and I would question how much the "public accountability" would influence decision making and quality.

I also think that many Americans might have a squewed perspective about what constitutes "good quality" in healthcare.

wowza · Jul 29, 2009

We will end up with a smaller bureaucracy after health care reform.
at http://www.health-insurance-2008.org/united-states-vs-canada.php

I seem to remember that Massachusetts was the state that has a similar health care plan to the president's. And it's bankrupting the state. And it has ridiculous bureaucracy (as seen by your little chart). I can't seem to tell if your post was to support Gov't run health care in the US or point out the obvious short falls...

AnnieOK · Jul 30, 2009

wowza,

Thank you for adding the information about the Heritage Foundation. I intended to say that, I had in a post on another site, but forgot to. Heritage Foundation has been around since 1973, and its mission is to "promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."

I did not mean to imply that it was an unbiased source, and I apologize for leaving that info out. You're right, it's very hard, if not impossible, to find unbiased information. Investor's Business Daily, a business/finance/investment newspaper is not political, but is based on capitalism, and each person's opportunity in this country to create wealth. So, for that reason, it could also be taken as a source that is not supportive of policies that erode the free market system.

I included those because they each ran a series of articles about the healthcare bill, discussing pros and cons. Mostly, interpreting the language the bill is written in. But I'm sorry if I represented them as unbiased sources, didn't mean to.

And cwazycwissyRN, you said that beautifully! Couldn't agree more.

AnnieOK · Jul 30, 2009

OK. Here is some "unbiased" info. This is a link to the House Bill 3200, and it is online, not a pdf you have to download. You can read and browse, and can skip around using the clickable table of contents. All the other links I have seen have been downloads, and I know that's not possible for some people.

It is interesting to read, hard to decipher sometimes. I'm going to call my senators and representatives and see if they will introduce a bill that states that "all bills must be no longer than 10 pages."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200: