Universal healthcare grassroots movement - page 5
IT'S TIME TO ESTABLISH A POPULAR GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE As the economy slows down, and more Americans are facing the potential financial burdens of inadequate health... Read More
Aug 8, '01Hi. One thing I think we should acknowledge with physicians is that they became part of the problem instead of the solution when it came to skyrocketing medical costs. They made the decision to get in bed with insurance companies and the government with the various indemnity plans. Most physicians, especially specialists, that have been in practice for over five to ten years can attribute their wealth to insurance and Medicare. They made the decision to sleep with pharmaceuticals and other biotechnology entities. In fact, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology entities increasingly invade the territory of nurses and allied health professionals regularly in person and print and you see their advertisements on TV. With the increased health and medical needs and demands by an aging and more sophisticated population, something had to be done to control what was turning into abuse of the health care system. Unfortunately, managed care has in many cases done more damage than good.
What will be interesting about universal health care is to see how it is executed. It seems to me the physicians want to regain what power they had prior to managed care through universal health care and they feel they have justifiable reasons. Hospital and health care executives want to attach themselves to physicians so that they can have a commanding voice at the table. However, this go round, nurses and other groups typically left out of the fray must force their voices to be heard as loudly as physicians and administrators so that we don't get bogged down with one group's model of patient care and health care delivery. We nurses want control of our destiny just as the physicians do.
Aug 9, '01Mijourney makes a good point related to the physcians being in bed with the money managers. I think most physicans support universal heatlh care becasue they desire this hugh funding source for care "they" deem necessary.
The most crucial decision is who is the "gatekeeper". We have tried the insurance companys, HMO's, etc and with little, if any success in reducing costs.
A unviersal heatlh care system is prime for increased acceleration of healthcare expenses without stringent controls and gatekeepers on services.
Just because they are doctors or legislatures does not mean they define what is or is not "ethical". Everyones' values are different and ethical issues are wide open for interpetation. The controversy surrounding healthcare's ethical positon is as varied as there are people. Example:
Do we pay for abortions, circumcisions, birthcontol?
Do we pay for 89 y.o. bypass surgeries?
Do we pay for the eighth pregnancy of a non-working single mom?
How many drug rehab stays do our addicts get?
Who determines if this MI shall be treated medically or surgically?
The best research is being done at the Mayo clinic, I wish to go to the Mayo clinic for my therapy?
We must answer these questions before we decide how much funding is required. We can not afford a system without limitations of services and we can not afford a system where those who decide are also those who reap?
We need to define what we are going to provide for services and what we are "not" going to provide for services, then we need to determine cost, affordablity and value.
Society is not going to accept, "Universal Healthcare" until these type of decisions, controls and issues are answered.
Aug 11, '01I completely agree with you mijourney!!
In regards to the American public wanting a health care system that has double-digit inflation. Some say that people are just expecting the world. But I think that the American people have been programmed to "expect the world" by some interest groups that will profit from the expectation.
How about the Sunday magazine ads for the toenail fungus medication that only costs $800 for a course of therapy (the ads don't mention the price)? And the $5000 a dose drugs to keep your cardiac stent open -- should we use anything but the best? We glamorize (and the media and corporations glamorize for us) the ultra-expensive off-the-wall technologies while who cares about promoting life-style changes? How much space in the media did the new mechanical heart get, compared with the news that exercise and minimal weight loss could prevent diabetes?
The neonatologist earns $750M a year compared to the family practice doc who earns $120M. The AMA protects the interests of the highly paid specialists by bashing the Canadian system. And despite all their (really) good new drugs, the pharmaceutical industry has probably created the largest image of "the hell with costs" with its promotion of such items as "the toenail fungus pill" (above), the purple pill for heartburn that costs $100 a month, items like Claritin , which cost 50 times as much as an OTC drug which is just as effective, etc.
How about the waterfalls in the hospital lobbies? Our system seems to embrace the ideals of "personal responsibility" for the poor but "personal opportunity" for the rich. Community benefit? That would be socialism. So "personal opportunity," with its double-digit inflation result, has set the tone for American health care. We can see that with the direction our system is taking, the poor and near-poor will be increasingly left out, priced out of the market, by the "opportunists" who will then continue to lecture the less well-off about "personal responsibility."
Yes, we have created a monster, but some folks are more to blame than others.
"I think most physicans support universal health care because they desire this high funding source for care "they" deem necessary."
I THINK THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE!! I think physicians are hanging on to the present system because they think universal health care will hold them more accountable!
_______________________________________________Last edit by fiestynurse on Aug 11, '01