UCSD nurse to testify for single-payer system

blue note · Jun 10, 2009

Here's an article she wrote, posted today.

The numbers game: the ranks of the invisible grow

CRNA2007 · Jun 11, 2009

mindless dribble from a left wing union hack. The real story of the uninsured

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx

Here's an article she wrote, posted today.
The numbers game: the ranks of the invisible grow

allnurses Guide · Jun 11, 2009

mindless dribble from a left wing union hack. The real story of the uninsured
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx

I have no idea where they got their information.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/insur200706.pdf

http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/

lindarn · Jun 11, 2009

mindless dribble from a left wing union hack. The real story of the uninsured
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx

Tell me, what difference does is make? If only ONE person is unable to obtain insurance, goes uninsured, and is unable to access care when they need it, does it really make a difference if it is one or 40 million? You focus on the unimportant, rather than the problem, and that is, insurance is unaffordable to buy on your own. Even if someone makes a good living, there may be other issues, that make it too expensive to obtain insurance. Pre existing conditions is one of them.

My daughter's gymnastics coach, is uninisured. They have seven children. Her husband is a contractor, and gets no insurance with his job, and she runs a gymnastics club, and is self employed. Are they unworthy of insurance?

Should a person have to choose between a job they love, and/or working like a slave for someone else, just to be able to obtain insurance for themselves and their family? That is like holding someone hostage. I think that employers would like to keep the status quo. If individuals can opt out of having to work for someone else, only to obtain insurance for themselves, and family, or be an entreupeneur, and self employed, be their own boss, and make far more money, why should they not have that choice? Employers would rather have the slaves held hostage to their job.

It should not be. We are a wealthy nation, and can more than afford to provide a single payer insurance for EVERYONE, and leave no one out. Read my post about insurance companies. I worked for an insurance company, and I had to jump through hoops for certain things. I probably paid more for my insurance, that they paid for claims for me and my children.

I do draw the line at allowing illegal aliens to access our health care, now, and if we go to a single payer system. We can afford to do this. Insurance steals over 30% of our health care dollars. JMHO and my NY $0.02.

Lindarn, Rn, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

GCTMT · Jun 11, 2009

You can watch the entire hearing here. Just click on the link and in the search window, type in 'single payer'.

RN Power Ohio · Jun 11, 2009

there are so many other types of disparities and unsafe practices that arise out of our system of paying for health care besides access to care.

think- how is it that the fda cannot ensure safety of drugs and devices that have been flagged by our european neighbors as unsafe years before the fda gets involved?

why is it that founding research that benefits infants, minorities and pregnant women arise primarily from countries with single payer systems?

answer because research about safety and outcomes is industry driven and therefore focuses on those who are more likely to be insured -the way we choose to pay for our healthcare drives every decision about treatments, research, safety and evidence based practice.

only when we eliminate financial disparities will we be able to overcome healthcare disparities. these disparities affect all of us -especially women, children and minorities.

it is unfortunate that so many focus on the way that healthcare reform affects individuals as opposed to societies. these individuals must be educated to appreciate that the health of a society affects the well being of the individual.

faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. ~john kenneth galbraith

CRNA2007 · Jun 11, 2009

It's called choices and we all have the ability to make them. there are plenty of people who are self employed that provide health insurance for themselves. Do they have to choose between a job they love and working as a slave? Do you think all employers are slave masters? Perhaps they can choose between cable TV and health insurance or cell phones and health insurance or not eating out and health insurance. Before doing a job that you love and forgoing health insurance how about providing for the ones you love no matter how slavish the work is.

Tell me, what difference does is make? If only ONE person is unable to obtain insurance, goes uninsured, and is unable to access care when they need it, does it really make a difference if it is one or 40 million? You focus on the unimportant, rather than the problem, and that is, insurance is unaffordable to buy on your own. Even if someone makes a good living, there may be other issues, that make it too expensive to obtain insurance. Pre existing conditions is one of them.
My daughter's gymnastics coach, is uninisured. They have seven children. Her husband is a contractor, and gets no insurance with his job, and she runs a gymnastics club, and is self employed. Are they unworthy of insurance?
Should a person have to choose between a job they love, and/or working like a slave for someone else, just to be able to obtain insurance for themselves and their family? That is like holding someone hostage. I think that employers would like to keep the status quo. If individuals can opt out of having to work for someone else, only to obtain insurance for themselves, and family, or be an entreupeneur, and self employed, be their own boss, and make far more money, why should they not have that choice? Employers would rather have the slaves held hostage to their job.
It should not be. We are a wealthy nation, and can more than afford to provide a single payer insurance for EVERYONE, and leave no one out. Read my post about insurance companies. I worked for an insurance company, and I had to jump through hoops for certain things. I probably paid more for my insurance, that they paid for claims for me and my children.
I do draw the line at allowing illegal aliens to access our health care, now, and if we go to a single payer system. We can afford to do this. Insurance steals over 30% of our health care dollars. JMHO and my NY $0.02.
Lindarn, Rn, BSN, CCRN
Spokane, Washington

RN Power Ohio · Jun 11, 2009

Wow, there are so many assumptions here I don't know where to begin...

Perhaps they can choose between cable TV and health insurance or cell phones and health insurance or not eating out

First, you are assuming that those who are not "choosing" to purchase health insurance are instead making frivilous choices such as cable TV and dinners out.

how about providing for the ones you love no matter how slavish the work is.

While I am sure this must not be true, this statement sounds makes it sound as though you agree with involuntay servitude.

As an advocate of choice, would you agree that a person has the right to self determination and should be allowed to choose their occupation?

Should not quality of life mean something?

And what of those who choose to pay insurance premiums for their family (I checked into this and it would cost more than my home mortgage-forgoing cable TV has hardly made a dent in that premium) and are still denied the care they need when they need it? Or have such high deductables that they must file bankruptcy to pay 20% of a very large medical bill (when they are not working because they are ill or caring for a family member)?

And what of all the people who are working in slave like conditions and still not having the option of employer sponsored medical coverage while earning barely enough to cover basic necessities like food and shelter for their families (Wal-Mart sticks out in my head).

How did the notion come about that people who are uninsured (or underinsured) are simply choosing frivolity instead of responsibility?

To be fair one must appreciate their own personal biases and strive to overcome them.

RN Power Ohio · Jun 11, 2009

Ranks of underinsured U.S. adults increase 60%

The number of adults nationwide who have health insurance but face financial risk due to high out-of-pocket expenses - known as the underinsured - increased 60 percent between 2003 and 2007 to more than 25 million, a study released today found.

Middle- and higher-income families, those with annual incomes of at least $40,000, experienced the sharpest increase among the uninsured, nearly tripling from 4 percent in 2003 to 11 percent in 2007, according to the study by the Commonwealth Fund, which was published online in the journal Health Affairs.

While an estimated 47 million Americans have no insurance at all, health experts say people who are required to pay high deductibles and co-payments for limited benefits often go without care due to costs.

"Lack of insurance is only one part of the problem as even the insured have serious gaps in coverage," said Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, a private fund that supports independent health research. "Insurance coverage is the ticket into the health care system but, for too many, that ticket does not provide genuine access to care."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/10/BUD1114PTO.DTL

CRNA2007 · Jun 12, 2009

Where are all these slavish working consitions? doe syour friend have any employees? does he/she treat them as slaves? Assumptions are made when describe working for someone else as a slave. Sweatshops in America have been gone for almost a century now. People at wal-mart are forced to work there and AS SLAVES? Your insinuations are laughable and as such cannot be taken seriously.

Wow, there are so many assumptions here I don't know where to begin...
First, you are assuming that those who are not "choosing" to purchase health insurance are instead making frivilous choices such as cable TV and dinners out.
While I am sure this must not be true, this statement sounds makes it sound as though you agree with involuntay servitude.
As an advocate of choice, would you agree that a person has the right to self determination and should be allowed to choose their occupation?
Should not quality of life mean something?
And what of those who choose to pay insurance premiums for their family (I checked into this and it would cost more than my home mortgage-forgoing cable TV has hardly made a dent in that premium) and are still denied the care they need when they need it? Or have such high deductables that they must file bankruptcy to pay 20% of a very large medical bill (when they are not working because they are ill or caring for a family member)?
And what of all the people who are working in slave like conditions and still not having the option of employer sponsored medical coverage while earning barely enough to cover basic necessities like food and shelter for their families (Wal-Mart sticks out in my head).
How did the notion come about that people who are uninsured (or underinsured) are simply choosing frivolity instead of responsibility?
To be fair one must appreciate their own personal biases and strive to overcome them.

CRNA2007 · Jun 12, 2009

now it's the underinsured can't really measure the underinsured kind of like saved jobs, one paycheck away from homelessness, working 4 minimum wage jobs to make ends meet. So someone has a high deductible and can't get health care? Unless their primary practitioner is charging $6,000 per visit they certainly can see a practitioner for their health care needs. The vast majority of people with helath insurance have minimal co-pays for in network physician visits in addition there are a lot of clinics that have sliding fee payments for low income workers.

Ranks of underinsured U.S. adults increase 60%
The number of adults nationwide who have health insurance but face financial risk due to high out-of-pocket expenses - known as the underinsured - increased 60 percent between 2003 and 2007 to more than 25 million, a study released today found.
Middle- and higher-income families, those with annual incomes of at least $40,000, experienced the sharpest increase among the uninsured, nearly tripling from 4 percent in 2003 to 11 percent in 2007, according to the study by the Commonwealth Fund, which was published online in the journal Health Affairs.
While an estimated 47 million Americans have no insurance at all, health experts say people who are required to pay high deductibles and co-payments for limited benefits often go without care due to costs.
"Lack of insurance is only one part of the problem as even the insured have serious gaps in coverage," said Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, a private fund that supports independent health research. "Insurance coverage is the ticket into the health care system but, for too many, that ticket does not provide genuine access to care."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/10/BUD1114PTO.DTL