If Congress were to take a vote on a health reform bill today, Democrats and Republicans would find a surprising level of agreement-so much so that the broad outlines of a consensus plan already are taking shape.
Sick or healthy, rich or poor, all Americans would be guaranteed access to health insurance.
In fact, they'd probably be required to purchase it-perhaps through mandates in the law that would include stiff tax penalties for anyone who tried to opt out.
Newly created insurance marketplaces would make finding a plan as easy as shopping for cheap airfare. People could keep their coverage, even if they switched jobs. And they might be able to choose between private insurers and a government-backed plan.
But here's the catch-none of this would come free, with the wealthiest Americans likely to face higher taxes to help pay for coverage for all.
It's hard to believe that only three months ago, health care advocates worried that President Barack Obama would drop the health reform issue from his first-year agenda. Now, with an August deadline to pass a bill, a compromise that once seemed unimaginable is considered quite possible, both sides say.
With proper lobbying form nursing organizations, instead of worrying about getting 30-40 bucks per hour they could be championing for 60-70, why? If there is to be an overall cost reduction, wellness has to be a component of this plan. When most medical students are opting to specialize, the shortage in GP's will have to be filled by someone. Nurses could write the ending of this story if they so choose!
Huh?? And where would that money come from? If payment for service will decrease, everyone will get hit.
If you are saying that RNs would deliver primary care, how would you get around that pesky gap in knowledge needed to practice medicine or the certification by the state board of medicine? Lobby all you want but i doubt the legislature is going to be too wacky about allowing normal nurses (ie no advanced degrees) to deliver primary care.
Please call your Rep & Senators to let them know they need to SLOW DOWN and get it right. What is at jeopardy is one of the best health care systems in the world. Chicago-style politics are being used to strong-arm this through before the public realizes the shortfalls. What are the issues? I]t does not reduce health care costs, it does not address current Medicare/-aid waste & fraud, it disallows future enrollment in a private plan, it mandates insurance, it does not address the excess cost due to illegals, it allows taxpayer funding for abortion, it does not address misuse or overuse of the health care system, and it includes excess UNION control. Check out Subtitle D of the House bill. It creates a 'Pipeline to nursing' which alters the career ladder to nursing, and includes training programs that would be jointly administered by the Health Care provider AND LABOR ORGANIZATIONS. It establishes a Health Advisory Board, of which 1 of 5 representatives must be a labor UNION representative. (Payback for the SEIU, maybe??).
]WAKE UP, NURSES -- AND CALL YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES TODAY!! The ANA sold us out!
And it lets you know that despite all the rhetoric, it was never about improving health care or reducing waste. It was about pushing through a national health care system.
Huh?? And where would that money come from? If payment for service will decrease, everyone will get hit.
If you are saying that RNs would deliver primary care, how would you get around that pesky gap in knowledge needed to practice medicine or the certification by the state board of medicine? Lobby all you want but i doubt the legislature is going to be too wacky about allowing normal nurses (ie no advanced degrees) to deliver primary care.
Nowhere did I suggest that further education would not be appropriate, however, I would say that a seasoned practicing RN's assessment skills are as proficient (many times better than) newly practicing GP's. One other small detail you have ignored is that of wellness. Why couldn't nurses with those assessment skills be competent enough to conduct wellness care? Proper dietary counseling, smoking cessation, and other realms of wellness could more properly be handled by nurses whom might I add take an interest and develop a more intimate relationship with their patients. The legislature is not the problem, the AMA is!
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
Nowhere did I suggest that further education would not be appropriate, however, I would say that a seasoned practicing RN's assessment skills are as proficient (many times better than) newly practicing GP's. One other small detail you have ignored is that of wellness. Why couldn't nurses with those assessment skills be competent enough to conduct wellness care? Proper dietary counseling, smoking cessation, and other realms of wellness could more properly be handled by nurses whom might I add take an interest and develop a more intimate relationship with their patients. The legislature is not the problem, the AMA is!
In late 2004 it was an NP who frightened and then took the time to educate and motivate my daughter to improve her health. She could have just ordered antihypertensive medication.
Now DD has lost >80 pounds, eats healthy, exercises regularly, and need no medication.
In late 2004 it was an NP who frightened and then took the time to educate and motivate my daughter to improve her health. She could have just ordered antihypertensive medication.
Now DD has lost >80 pounds, eats healthy, exercises regularly, and need no medication.
Great point, and I think this is the case. We can have all the access to care we want, however, in the absence of individuals taking responsibility for their health matters and being educated and worked with in a series of consultations and progress reports, I am afraid, cost reduction will not be a reality.
committee approval sends the bill to the full house for a vote as early as september.
washington - in a triumph for president obama, democrats narrowly pushed sweeping health-care legislation through a key congressional committee last night and cleared the way for a september showdown in the house.
the 31-28 vote in the house energy and commerce committee, along party lines, was weeks later than either the white house or democratic leaders had hoped.
as part of a last-minute series of changes, the committee agreed to cap increases in the cost of insurance sold under the bill, and also to give the federal government authority to negotiate directly with drug companies for lower prices under medicare.
landmark legislation approved by a house committee shows the beginnings of a political consensus to cover more americans and give them new rights with insurers
....lawmakers of both parties agree on the need to rein in private insurance companies by banning underwriting practices that have prevented millions of americans from obtaining affordable insurance. insurers would, for example, have to accept all applicants and could not charge higher premiums because of a person’s medical history or current illness. all insurers would have to offer a minimum package of benefits, to be defined by the federal government, and nearly all americans would be required to have insurance....
...lawmakers also agree on the need to provide federal subsidies to help make insurance affordable for people with modest incomes. for poor people, [color=#004276]medicaid eligibility would be expanded. ...
...details of the major house and senate bills differ, but most employers would have to provide insurance or contribute to the cost of coverage for employees, with exceptions for some small businesses.
...in the run-up to final approval, the panel handed the drug industry a victory, voting 47-11 to grant 12 years of market protection to high-tech drugs used to combat cancer, parkinson's, and other serious conditions. the decision was a setback for the white house, which had hoped to give patients faster access to generic versions of costly biotech medicines such as the blockbuster cancer drug avastin...
...members of both parties in both chambers want to create health insurance exchanges, where people could shop for insurance and compare policies.
lawmakers also agree on proposals to squeeze hundreds of billions of dollars out of [color=#004276]medicare by reducing the growth of payments to [color=#004276]hospitals and many other health care providers. they are committed to rewarding high-quality care, by paying for the value, rather than the volume, of services.
the major bills offer the promise of more affordable insurance for people who are uninsured, including those with chronic illnesses. under the legislation, it might be easier for people to switch jobs because they would not have to stay in less desirable jobs just to retain health insurance. the bills promise relief to people with huge out-of-pocket health costs and would eliminate co-payments for many preventive services...
Specializes in He who hesitates is probably right....
Word from our rep. is that ObamaCare has run aground. She feels that the end result will be some sort of insurance reform, but no national health insurance. Polling numbers are against it, and no matter how much smoke and how many mirrors supporters use, they can't find a way to pay for it.
. kudos to hoyer for stating the obvious.
wowza
283 Posts
Huh?? And where would that money come from? If payment for service will decrease, everyone will get hit.
If you are saying that RNs would deliver primary care, how would you get around that pesky gap in knowledge needed to practice medicine or the certification by the state board of medicine? Lobby all you want but i doubt the legislature is going to be too wacky about allowing normal nurses (ie no advanced degrees) to deliver primary care.