Socialist healthcare "horror story"

patrick1rn, MSN, RN, NP · Dec 31, 2008

I think eventually when all have the same excellent standard of guaranteed healthcare the current government hospitals and clinics will compete for people to choose them as their provider. Private practice providers would as well.
There would no longer be a need for the many entities mentioned because ther would be a SINGLE payer.
Several decades of planning have preceded the current bill HR 676 The national Health Insurance Bill:
http://www.pnhp.org/docs/nhi_bill_final.pdf
HR 676 establishes an American-styled national health insurance program.
The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care program that uses the already existing Medicare program by expanding and improving it to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S. territories.
The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all Americans, guaranteed by law, will have access to the highest quality and cost effective health care services regardless of ones employment, income, or health care status.
With over 45-75 million uninsured Americans, and another 50 million who are under insured, it is time to change our inefficient and costly fragmented health care system.
Physicians For A National Health Program reports that under a Medicare For All plan, we could save over $286 billion dollars a year in total health care costs. http://www.pnhp.org/publications/the_national_health_insurance_bill_hr_676.php
We would move away from our present system where annual family premiums have increased upwards to $9,068 this year.
Under HR 676, a family of three making $40,000 per year would spend approximately $1600 per year for health care coverage.
Medicare for All would allow the United States to reduce its almost $2 trillion health care expenditure per year while covering all of the uninsured and everybody else for more than they are getting under their current health care plans.
In 2005, without reform, the average employer who offered coverage contributed $2,600 to health care per employee (for much skimpier benefits).
Under HR 676, the average costs to employers for an employee making $30,000 per year would be reduced to $1,155 per year; less than $100 per month.
Who is Eligible?
Every person living in the United States and the U.S. Territories would receive a United States National Health Insurance Card and identification number once they enroll at the appropriate location. No co-pays or deductibles are permissible under this act.
Health Care Services Covered!
This program will cover all medically-necessary services, including primary care, inpatient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment. Patients have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics, and practices. Medicare will be improved and everybody will get it.
Conversion to A Non-Profit Health Care System!
Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the
benefits of the Medicare for All program.
Cost Containment Provisions/Reimbursement
The Medicare for All program will annually set reimbursement rates for physicians, health care providers; and negotiate prescription drug prices. The national office will provide an annual lump sum allotment to each existing Medicare region, which will then administer the program. Payment to health care providers include fee for service, and global budgets. Doctors will be paid based on their current reimbursement rates. The conversion to a not-for- profit health care system will take place over a 15 year period, through the sale of U.S. treasury bonds;
Administration
The United States Congress will establish annual funding outlays for the Medicare for All program through an annual entitlement, to be administered by the Medicare program. A U. S. National Health Insurance Advisory Board will be established, comprised primarily of health care professionals and representatives of citizen health advocacy groups.
Proposed Funding
Maintaining current federal and state funding of existing health care programs! A modest payroll tax on all employers and employees of 3.3% each. A 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners. A small tax on stock and bond transfers. Closing corporate tax loop-holes, and repealing the Bush tax cut for the highest 1% of income earners.
Of course there will be ammendments, hopefully improvements.

Several keywords that make this reek of post modern liberal ideal or do you want to be called progressive today

1. American styled ? If something is publicly financed, then that means it is run by the government,

2. This is socialism...

Conversion to A Non-Profit Health Care System!

Private health insurers shall be prohibited under this act from selling coverage that duplicates the

benefits of the Medicare for All program.

This is so stupid, because the purpose of private health insurance is to provide benefits for its customers, so in essesne your saying it would be illegal for private health companies to exist ? Of course their is going to duplication of benefits with more than one insurance company, that is called competition

What if chose to have my private insurance because it is better than medicaid, will that be my choice too ?

No wait I guess it wouldnt be...

allnurses Guide · Dec 31, 2008

Private insurance has all too often refused to authorize the benefits their customers already paid for.

Except for Kaiser I don't know of an insurance company that provides any health care at all. NONE!

What do they do?

lamazeteacher · Dec 31, 2008

"1. American styled ? If something is publicly financed, then that means it is run by the government,

2. This is socialism...

"This is so stupid, because the purpose of private health insurance is to provide benefits for its customers, so in essesne your saying it would be illegal for private health companies to exist ? Of course their is going to duplication of benefits with more than one insurance company, that is called competition

What if chose to have my private insurance because it is better than medicaid, will that be my choice too ?

No wait I guess it wouldnt be... " quoted portions of Patrick1RN's post

_____________________________________________________________

Anyone who has the above viewpoints, seems socialism-phobic, must think any government subsidized program - housing, food stamps,WIC, smacks of it...... yet everyone doesn't get those, which happens or is designed to, by socialists.

I can assure you as a Canadian who is also American (I was born in Canada to an American mother), I visit family in Canada frequently and live (for the past 45 years) in the USA, that the health care system subsidized by the Canadian government is not socialist inspired. Most hospitals and clinics there look fairly bleek, none have ceiling to floor waterfalls, as many do in the USA; and botanical garden style landscaping, 4-5 star hotel style chandeliers or frequently refurbished designer furniture, artwork, etc. In the USA the business practises for medical care copy those of commerce, enticing the public to "come on in", with attractive surroundings.

Each hospital in which I worked in the USA had the latest medical equipment despite lack of demonstrated need, given the number of people served, to be competitive. CEOs of many hospitals and clinics say they're non profit, yet those facilities divide profits among top executives.

The government funding in Canada places priority on the newest medical and surgical equipment, but doesn't distribute the same type to every hospital in the same neighborhood; and has adequate linens; and staffing which is not compromised by longer than usual working hours (overtime).

Instead of funding post operative rehab equipment for every discharged surgical patient, Canadian patients use the same equipment in one locality, which is more economical; and socialization with others having simiular procedures has a positive effect on recovery. As a Home Health Nurse going to see post op patients at home in the USA, I've noticed that they haven't used the equipment in their homes as they should, or as often as prescribed, even though PT visits often. They also become depressed in their isolation.

Banks here have government oversite now, does that mean they're socialized? They have illegally gouged their customers, as have health insurance companies. Should that be allowed to continue in the name of democracy?

patrick1rn, MSN, RN, NP · Dec 31, 2008

Lamazeteacher,

"Anyone who has the above viewpoints, seems socialism-phobic, must thinlk any government subsidized program - housing, food stamps,WIC, smacks of it......"

Please , I can speak for myself, and dont assume something about me given that you dont have any information about me, but go ahead, insult me, makes me feel good. Oversite does not mean government run, it is the job of govt to for oversight, to protect the citizens, i have no issue with that.

and Yes.. I am opposed to outright socialism. I feel that it goes against human nature to be controlling. Oversight yes, providing welfare for those who really need it, yes, but not socialism.

lamazeteacher · Dec 31, 2008

Private insurance has all too often refused to authorize the benefits their customers already paid for.
Except for Kaiser I don't know of an insurance company that provides any health care at all. NONE!
What do they do?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

As I wrote in previous posts, Blue Cross gives care in the form of preventive telephonic education; and to discover high risk situations (to save money for themselves).

Cigna had its own hospital in Los Angeles, CA and many clinics.

The very first American HMO was started in the '50s, in San Francisco for the French community there. If proof of French heritage was provided, people paid a nominal monthly premium for care at a facility now owned by Kaiser Permanente. Salaried Primary Healthcare providers at their private offices and paid nothing extra

when admitted to French Hospital, or for medications and other auxilliary services.

Those senior members who felt so inclined, gave all their money to the system and were housed, fed and given appropriate medical and nursing care for the rest of their lives. In 1968 their relatively posh living quarters were placed on the top floor of the newly constructed hospital on 6th at Geary Blvd. I was the Inservice Coordinator there, and was expected to visit the seniors as a representative of administration. I played the piano and sang "Frere Jacque" with them. They were extended family of the hospital. :nurse:

allnurses Guide · Dec 31, 2008

Socialized medicine is government run healthcare. Health facilities, including hospitals are run by the government.

Caregivers, including nurses and physicians, would be government employees.

Single payer would be government insurance like expanded and improved Medicare.

People will have more choices of provider and hospital.

I would choose a well equipped hospital with safe staffing.

Not the one with a lobby that resembles a museum or casino.

lamazeteacher · Jan 1, 2009

quote from "herring"'s post:

"Socialized medicine is government run healthcare. Health facilities, including hospitals are run by the government.

Caregivers, including nurses and physicians, would be government employees.

Single payer would be government insurance like expanded and improved Medicare.

_________________________________________________________

My understanding of "socialized medicine" is that countries such as Russia and China, those with governments which have been determined not to be democratic, and politicians would determine the policies and protocols for care with heavy handed equality issues.

Single payer differs from the above, by having government involvement restricted to the collection of funds for the "universal" health care of those residing in the country, and paying costs, salaries, etc. All policies, protocols, legal advice, medical dicisions, ethics determinations, etc. and management, oversite is accomplished by non government employees in departments and committees. So it really isn't government run. (Canada does it that way.)

HAPPY 2009, Y'ALL

azhiker96, BSN, RN · Feb 21, 2009

Private insurance has all too often refused to authorize the benefits their customers already paid for.
Except for Kaiser I don't know of an insurance company that provides any health care at all. NONE!
What do they do?

My wife was hospitalized for 10 days under my employer (Banner) provided insurance plan. We were out of pocket one $30 copay.

I had annual exams, an ultrasound and nuclear med study paid by Cigna when I was covered by them.

My second wife had a lap chole paid by BCBS although I did have to spend some time and a couple of letters to get them to pay since we didn't call days before to get pre-approval for her acute cholecystitis/ lap chole. I'm just not very good at predicting acute health problems.

Anyway, I know these are just three anecdotes and as such of little value but my gut feel is these insurance plans may pay for someone elses healthcare too.

Everytime I've had a health insurance company, there has been literature that spells out what they do and don't cover. I haven't had a problem getting them to pay what their contract says they should cover.

allnurses Guide · Feb 21, 2009

I'm glad that many, perhaps most people, get adequate care with health insurance.

I think nurses and other edicated people may have an easier time dealing with such events as denials due to not getting prior approval for sudden emergency needs.

Some people have had experience no one should have to deal with.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5257491&page=1

My quoted post stated that the employees of corporations such as Cigna do not provide any care. The CEO and shareholders do not care for patients. Doctors, nurses, and other caregivers do that. Their profit comes for premiums paid for healthcare.

The chief executive of health insurer Cigna Corp. received a compensation package worth $22.7 million in 2007, boosted by a big bonus awarded during a year of lackluster stock performance, according to a regulatory filing made late Friday...
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2007/10/29/daily34.html?ana=from_rss

The American Medical Assn. and several state medical associations and individual physicians have sued Aetna Health Inc. and CIGNA Corp. in New Jersey federal court alleging the health insurers underpaid physicians for out-of-network medical services.
http://www.businessinsurance.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=15357

azhiker96, BSN, RN · Feb 21, 2009

I agree that corporate compensation has gone beyond ridiculous. It's now in ludicrous range, sorta like California home prices. Fortunately, I don't have to try to buy a home for California prices but our healthcare system does lose a lot of buying power because it pays such ridiculous salaries.

I'm not sure of your point about insurance companies not providing healthcare because they are not the doctors, nurses, and aids doing the actual work. By that reasoning there are quite a few hospital employees who are not providing healthcare; billing, President, CEO, managers, facilites, marketing, etc. What insurance companies do is spread the risk. Healthy people paying for the healthcare of those who are ill.

allnurses Guide · Jun 5, 2009

I agree that corporate compensation has gone beyond ridiculous. It's now in ludicrous range, sorta like California home prices. Fortunately, I don't have to try to buy a home for California prices but our healthcare system does lose a lot of buying power because it pays such ridiculous salaries.
I'm not sure of your point about insurance companies not providing healthcare because they are not the doctors, nurses, and aids doing the actual work. By that reasoning there are quite a few hospital employees who are not providing healthcare; billing, President, CEO, managers, facilites, marketing, etc. What insurance companies do is spread the risk. Healthy people paying for the healthcare of those who are ill.

Except the insurance corporations deny care to those who pay them

And deny coverage to those who are not healthy

Single payer will truly spread the risk.

We all pay when we are healthy and received the care we need when injured or sick.