Universal Health Care... what would this mean...

[nurseyNJNYC]

hypothetically, how would universal healthcare affect us as nurses? the demand? our salaries? ive had a taste of the whole universal healthcare thing with the movie Sicko coming out and the upcoming election... but i dont know enough to say anything... any ideas?

:cheers:

[mscsrjhm]

Again, we are not in survival mode. We have been treating the uninsured for years, and none of us are starving because of it.

I am not saying there is a bundle of money hidden under Mt. Rushmore-(?)

But we, as a powerful, rich country, DO have the resources, and the ability to create a method of health care for all of our citizens.

[BlueRidgeHomeRN]

[quote=jeolsz;2668599

and what is reasonable to you, might not be to me.. who is to judge?

agreed-i am not offering to be the judge of this one. however, the point exists in the american legal system that there is some standard of reasonable, "prudent" behavior.

good chance we can all agree that there are some blantant examples of the opposite, which have already been enumerated in this thread.

i believe that the question comes down to (as applies to uhc-the topic, after all..and let's assume we now have it in the usa)...

do we, as a society, collectively paying for uhc, have any input into the behaviors, choices, and lifestyles we choose to subsidize?

if not, then isn't this penalizing "low-use" consumers of the health care system, who take care of themselves yet pay the same as those who rack up $1 million in preventable inpatient bills?

what is fair, and to whom is it fair??:typing

[BlueRidgeHomeRN]

but we, as a powerful, rich country, do have the resources, and the ability to create a method of health care for all of our citizens.

where?? have you seen the national debt numbers???

warm fuzzies are nice, but who is gonna foot the bill..?.?.?.:uhoh21:sorry, but i was in business and finance before nursing...

the devil is in the details, and the plan always comes around to the bottom line---

ps-unless you mean natural resources, nations aren't rich:nono:

--individuals are.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

i don't know of any "reasonable and prudent" people who lead a 100% healthy life.

what percentage of unhealthy life style would be counted against us?

we do have the money are resources to provide health care to all. we are not in any kind of survival mode.

since we give health care to our criminals, we have already established, as a country, that we will treat people as humans, no matter what their actions.

as malcolm gladwell puts it:

in their eyes, insurance is meant to help equalize financial risk between the healthy and the sick. in the insurance business, this model of coverage is known as "social insurance," and historically it was the way health coverage was conceived. if you were sixty and had heart disease and diabetes, you didn't pay substantially more for coverage than a perfectly healthy twenty-five-year-old. under social insurance, the twenty-five-year-old agrees to pay thousands of dollars in premiums even though he didn't go to the doctor at all in the previous year, because he wants to make sure that someone else will subsidize his health care if he ever comes down with heart disease or diabetes. canada and germany and japan and all the other industrialized nations with universal health care follow the social-insurance model. medicare, too, is based on the social-insurance model, and, when americans with medicare report themselves to be happier with virtually every aspect of their insurance coverage than people with private insurance (as they do, repeatedly and overwhelmingly), they are referring to the social aspect of their insurance. they aren't getting better care. but they are getting something just as valuable: the security of being insulated against the financial shock of serious illness.

http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_08_29_a_hazard.html

[mscsrjhm]

If it is so horrendously bad now, why haven't we stopped providing criminals health care? It is getting worse, and we know we have to do something, but we are not the Donnor party yet.

And, yes, some nations are rich. I haven't had business and finance, but am aware of wealthy countries.

Compare us to third world countries...we are rich.

Yes, warm fuzzies are nice, but re the bill: I have assumed that each and every person on this forum knows what a bill is, and understands the rudiments of finance...namely-it is gonna cost ya.

And, it will cost me and my children. This is a given.

The how and how much is the debate. The who is everyone.

[MaraG.]

I have lived on both sides of health care. Insurance Required and Universal Health Care. I can see the pros/cons of both. For a nation, that has varying income levels, lifestyles and abilities to pay, I prefer universal care.

Working in acute care I see the good, bad and sad of this system. It is good that a health care system can reach out to an IVDU. Case in point one that is homeless and needs supports and medications to hopefully change his/her life. (Such as a PICC line for Ax and setting up drug/ETOH rehab) all at no cost to the individual. It is bad to see the waitlist for simple procedures and how the government has privatized so many of the essitiantial services such as linens, kitchen and housekeeping. It is maddening to tell your patient, "No I am sorry I have no towels for you to dry with, I do have a bib, one slipper or 2 washcloths tho." It is also maddening to have a room so dirty after housekeeping "cleaned" it that you have to call them back for a third time. It is frustrating to have a kitchen that has limited hours that you can't get a meal for you pt. that has come in in the middle of the night. Or a cafeteria that is closed at 1400 everyday. It is sad to see the elderly pt's that come in with "failure to thrive" as the diagnosis. And know that they will be made AAP with in a few days of their admit. (assessed and awaiting placement - basically waiting for a bed in long term care) This can take more than 3 months of a non-acute pt waiting in the hospital at a cost of about $2000/day. Not good for the pt (exposure to infection, poor sleeps, lack of stimulation, lack of a quality life)

But if that is the price I have to pay to know that anyone can come in to get medical attention regardless of insurability then I can find some way to be happy with it.

First threads spoke about nursing pay, people retiring etc.

I have found that people don't retire "early" because of health care coverage. most of the people that I see in the hospital are considered young if they are 75y or younger. (mind you I live in retirement capital of Canada) I find that nurses don't really retire earlier either. I work with several nurses that are 55 plus. (I am guessing, I don't want to start polling everyone on their age to get a more accurate figure)

As far as pay goes. I think that in my health authority we do get paid less than south of the border, but it is still good pay. As an LPN I get about $24/hr with all of the wage diff and what have you. I am full time with benefits and a pension. This wage is set to increase about 3% every year for the next couple of years. RN's start at about $27/hr and max out at $35 after working for a few years (I think that is right for RN's)

As nurses we don't have to track every item used on a pt. It is all there to use. If you put an attends on a pt and it rips or it is soiled right away no big deal, just grab another. A pt needs 4 units of blood, it is in the blood bank. Have a pt who needs Rimicade? well that's a little tricky as it is very $$$$ and sparingly used. But it is there if a dr orders it, no cost to the pt. (except the tax dollars of course)

In BC we do pay a set amount every month for our health care. My employer pays mine, but if I remember correctly it was around $90 for a couple. But this is based on income. As a student I did not pay it as my income was too low.

Yes this system has its drawbacks and can be frustrating, esp when the basic items yo need are not there (towels, kitchen etc) but It allows everyone to get treament (eventually) regardless of insurability.

[Simplepleasures]

do we, as a society, collectively paying for uhc, have any input into the behaviors, choices, and lifestyles we choose to subsidize?no, we can use incentives, education, etc. but health care will /should not be denied or limited based on personal lifestyle. you will be along for the ride as will all americans.

if not, then isn't this penalizing "low-use" consumers of the health care system, who take care of themselves yet pay the same as those who rack up $1 million in preventable inpatient bills?

what is fair, and to whom is it fair??:typing

the "low cost" consumer can, become a high cost consumer overnight if they say, get hit by a bus,fall down some stairs-breaking a lot of bones, get mugged and need brain rehab, get a communicable disease from a needle stick,have an aneurysm and need rehab, get breast cancer, come down with an autoimmune disorder,etc, etc, etc. we cannot as a civilized society withhold health care for those people whos lifestyle we do not agree with.its called risk shift, or social insurance, most advanced societies do it already, its going to happen in some form or another. the current system is imploding. it is fair for all, there are no gaurantees of good health forever, even if you do all the right things.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

ok-i'll bite? where is this money, and who "owns" it?

as you requested:

a universal public system would be financed this way: the public financing already funneled to medicare and medicaid would be retained. the difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). the payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees' health care. the income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments. for the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#raise_taxes

in other words:

1. get rid of administrative fat.

2. paying for health care is a duty that we owe each other and to society at large.

3. get rid of the premium system monster and replace it with a payroll tax (and/or) allow employers to purchase health insurance directly from medicare on behalf of their employees.

[BlueRidgeHomeRN]

as you requested:

2. paying for health care is a duty that we owe each other and to society at large.

quote]

assuming that i agree that this is an obligation, why stop at health care?

do not many of these individuals also lack adequate housing? is that not also a duty? what about secondary education? many smart people cannot afford a college or post-graduate degree? working parents, especially single parents, need high quality child care? is this not, too, a duty we owe each other?

[BlueRidgeHomeRN]

and, yes, some nations are rich. i haven't had business and finance, but am aware of wealthy countries.

quote]

sorry, i have to disagree. nations can only be "rich" in natural resources, such as farmland, diamonds, and oil. the "wealth of nations" is held by individuals, business', and governments through levies and taxes on individuals and business. let's be as precise as we would be in charting. any money for any program comes from one of the first two sources, even if administered by the third.

[Simplepleasures]

as you requested:

2. paying for health care is a duty that we owe each other and to society at large.

quote]

posted by blueridgehome:

assuming that i agree that this is an obligation, why stop at health care?

do not many of these individuals also lack adequate housing? what individuals, you mean americans that would all have uhc? or are you referring to poor individuals? if so, there is already a federal program that deals with adequate housing, its called hud. is that not also a duty? yes. what about secondary education? many smart people cannot afford a college or post-graduate degree? most smart people are smart enough to avail themselves of student loans or grants, another federal program that already exists, all four of my children got through college with student loans and grants, my youngest daughter got through undergrad as well as law school on student loans and grants. working parents, especially single parents, need high quality child care? is this not, too, a duty we owe each other? low income single mothers have such programs available already. no need to change any of these programs when uhc comes into existance.

uhc is a health insurance program that will be administered by the government and its various chosen entities. the right to higher education and to adequate housing, and childcare already exist, soon uhc will be a right all americans will have too.

[BlueRidgeHomeRN]

uhc is a health insurance program that will be administered by the government and its various chosen entities, why would any of the good programs that already exist need to be used as an argument against uhc. the right higher education and to adequate housing, and childcare already exists, soon uhc will be a right all americans will have too.

sorry again, but the programs you mentioned are all limited to those who already qualify for mediciade due to poverty...uhc is only a change on paper for these folks, as they already have medical care.

what about the working poor, to "rich" for medicaide, hud, title x, etc..

if we have a duty to provide healthcare coverage for them (the people without current coverage) what about their other needs? there is no "right" to these items currently. try to be consistent.