Universal healthcare grassroots movement

fiestynurse · Jul 8, 2001

CaronRN58, WOW! What a great article! A Hospital CEO speaking out about the need for a single-payer national health system. He really says it like it is.

RNed · Jul 9, 2001

Well some thought provoking ideas and opinions. First, I do not have the answers. However, we could review a few issues presented.

Natelie. Absolutely we should have a safety net. I have asked for years why this country does not have a heatlhcare progam for any child under the age of 18. Regardless of parental income. One would think we could all agree upon taking care of our young. However, we continue to fail in this regard. Why should the parents income be a factor related to medical services needed for a child. It shouldn't. Provide me with a program to accomplish this and you have my support. This program should include Bill Gate's children. Lets be fair, just because he has money doesn't mean he should have to pay for their healthcare.

To some other points. The ethical and moral dilema. We as a society have a ethical and moral obligation to provide a safety net. However, that safety net can not equal the quality of those providing the safety net. If so, we might as well assume a socialist communistic society. If we need to pay for their house, grocerys and healthcare equal to ours - do we not take the incentive away to become educated, resourceful or dare to say "rich". If I can have no more or provide no more for my family than what the "have nots" can why am I working so hard !!

Life is not fair. No disrespect intended but if we were to acheive fairness, I'm sure it would be based on the standard - is everyone equally miserable rather than - is everyone equally happy.

Once again, insurance has been interchanged as healthcare. Insurance does not level the playing field. So, we do develop a universal insurance program. Will it have a deductible? If so who pays for the working poor. And if some services are not covered? Do the rich have an option of paying for that care out of their pockets? Is that fair to those without the money? Do we tell the rich guy sorry, you can't pay for that heart transplant out of your pocket. The poor guys can't have it, so you can't have it !

My family rarely uses healthcare. We do healthy things and remain healthy. However, I pay a substantial amount of money to insure the family. Why should the alcoholic, drug addict or couch potatoe get to spend my healthcare dollars. He/she killed their liver, not me!! Unless, we can regulate human behavior healthcare will remain unfair.

Liberty is Choice ! Everyone has a choice. The choice of going to school, getting an education, making money, making decisons based upon good financial planning, not smoking, not drinking, pregnancy and on, and on, and on. Life is choices. To limit this liberty or to deny one a choice is counter to all the freedoms we currently have.

The act of being benevolent is wonderful. However, we can not mandate others to do so. It needs to be a free act otherwise it is not benevolent - it is taxation !!

When we envy what other have and revel when taxation takes their wealth for the benefit of others, we stand against liberty.

Healthcare is not a right, it is a choice, just like all the other choices life presents.

Again, I am not against better access to healthcare. However, I do not think universal insurance is the best answer, nor will it solve the problems. There will always be the "have nots" and the "haves".

JennieBSN · Jul 9, 2001

Originally posted by RNed
Liberty is Choice ! Everyone has a choice. The choice of going to school, getting an education, making money, making decisons based upon good financial planning, not smoking, not drinking, pregnancy and on, and on, and on. Life is choices. To limit this liberty or to deny one a choice is counter to all the freedoms we currently have.

The act of being benevolent is wonderful. However, we can not mandate others to do so. It needs to be a free act otherwise it is not benevolent - it is taxation !!

When we envy what other have and revel when taxation takes their wealth for the benefit of others, we stand against liberty.

Healthcare is not a right, it is a choice, just like all the other choices life presents.

Beautifully stated, RNed!! The crux of my argument exactly.

July 6th was 'cost of government day.' This means that July 6th is "the day of the calendar year that the average American worker has finally managed to earn enough money to pay his or her share of the total cost of government - federal, state and local"(Neal Boortz). Universal healthcare would simply push that date back further. The social programs to help the indigent of our society are growing bigger every year, and the cost of those programs is passed down directly to those of us who exercised good decision making and responsibility for our actions. In essence, we are being penalized for good decision-making.

I too think benevolence is a wonderful thing. However, I do not like being FORCED to be benevolent. No one ASKS me if I want to pay for the medicaid, AFDC, and SSI programs in my state and country, I am FORCED to do so through taxes. No one ASKS me if I want to pay for the free healthcare that the welfare brood mares receive in this country...I am FORCED to through taxation.

Children are truly vicitms of circumstance. They are relegated to live the lives their parents have made for them. I agree with RNed that they should, therefore, have free healthcare...even the 'RICH' kids. This is not forced benevolence, it is taking care of those in our society who genuinely do not have a choice. Adults, however, DO have choices. If their choices lead them to poverty and poor health, so be it. TOO BAD, SO SAD. I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's indiscretions and poor decision making simply because I was more responsible and have the means to do so. That is communism/socialism. Last time I checked, America was a Republic.

Mijourney · Jul 9, 2001

Hi. I agree with some of the points that have been made by the posters who feel that health care should be a choice. For me, the issue is not whether health and medical care are funded solely by government, private industry or a combination of the two or something else. I just don't see having access to good quality health and medical care as limiting someone's freedom. In fact, I think having acess to good health and medical coverage is liberating. It has the potential of making the people in the world smarter, stronger, and thereby freer. I assume that most of us would like an opportunity or chance to have a choice. Choices are limited when you can't get access.

Cdn_Psych · Jul 9, 2001

Oh, where do I even begin to reply?

I'm a Canadian RN & I'm astonished to learn that I live in a "communist" country because my healthcare costs are (largely) paid through taxes. One of the things that seems to be overlooked here is that whether you pay for your health care by taxes or by "choosing" to pay a corporation (to deny you care), you still pay.

The beauty of the Canadian system is that it is a single-payer system (though that is slowly changing due to corporate pressure from the multinationals). As a result, our administration costs are much lower than the "free market" model in the USA, and the system covers everyone. We spend far less for health care than the USA does and everyone is covered. A universal, single payer system is much more *EFFICIENT* than the free market model of the USA.

The other thing you may wish to consider is the fact that bacterial and viral pathogens do not respect socioeconomic status. It's easy to say that those poor people with TB got what they deserve (what a callous thought), but the fact is that if TB is allowed to flourish among those who are poor, the presence of this communicable disease is a threat to *YOU* because it is a communicable disease that can be passed on to *YOU*.

Whether you pay the government through taxes, or pay an HMO for managed neglect, you still pay. The "communist/socialist" system we have in Canada is cheaper and universal.

I think it's the sensible way to go.

Originally posted by kday

Beautifully stated, RNed!! The crux of my argument exactly.

July 6th was 'cost of government day.' This means that July 6th is "the day of the calendar year that the average American worker has finally managed to earn enough money to pay his or her share of the total cost of government - federal, state and local"(Neal Boortz). Universal healthcare would simply push that date back further. The social programs to help the indigent of our society are growing bigger every year, and the cost of those programs is passed down directly to those of us who exercised good decision making and responsibility for our actions. In essence, we are being penalized for good decision-making.

I too think benevolence is a wonderful thing. However, I do not like being FORCED to be benevolent. No one ASKS me if I want to pay for the medicaid, AFDC, and SSI programs in my state and country, I am FORCED to do so through taxes. No one ASKS me if I want to pay for the free healthcare that the welfare brood mares receive in this country...I am FORCED to through taxation.

Children are truly vicitms of circumstance. They are relegated to live the lives their parents have made for them. I agree with RNed that they should, therefore, have free healthcare...even the 'RICH' kids. This is not forced benevolence, it is taking care of those in our society who genuinely do not have a choice. Adults, however, DO have choices. If their choices lead them to poverty and poor health, so be it. TOO BAD, SO SAD. I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's indiscretions and poor decision making simply because I was more responsible and have the means to do so. That is communism/socialism. Last time I checked, America was a Republic.

natalie · Jul 9, 2001

If you believe you are spending a good portion of your paycheck on the indigent, you're wrong. It had become popular political folklore to rail against the taking of our hard-earned cash to pay for these "low-lifes." And somehow, the hardworking poor that cannot afford healthcare got tagged as lowlifes. Medicaid accounts for less than 6% of the federal budget.

Guess where the huge percentage of the budget is at? Senior citizens. They're the ones that vote more than any other group, and they're the ones that have received the beneficients of the elected leaders that want to become re-elected. Social security and medicare are prime examples of SOCIALISM alive and well in the US. They are NOT means-tested programs and are the ONLY non-means tested programs in this country. Don't get me wrong. I want my tax money to go to social security, but I want it to go to those seniors that need it. It's evolved so far from the original intent of FDR. He wanted to provide a safety net for the POOR elderly. At that time, the mortality average was somewhere around age 65.

Social security and medicare account for 35% of the federal budget. 35%-that's huge. Do any of you know of well-to-do seniors? I know plenty. And they're all getting free retirement and free healthcare.

Before anyone replies that they paid into the system and deserve it back, please know that the time paid in is equal to less than 5 years of benefits received. So they retire at age 63 and have used up their benefits before age 68. My in-laws did this and they are 75 years of age. They're not well-to-do, but are taking trips to Hawaii, traveling around the US, and buying a new car every 2 years. They're doing it off their SS monies.

Feistynurse, appreciate all your expertise. Surely if we can afford these luxuries to financially-stable seniors, we can take a look at providing healthcare to the lowlife, hardworking slug that makes $8/hour. And surely we could provide decent end-of-life care for the seniors in nursing homes.

This is a great org. that has been around a while.

http://www.concordcoalition.org/

fiestynurse · Jul 9, 2001

Here is something else to think about. What about all the extra coverage that we pay for that could be eliminated by a single-payer system. You pay insurance premiums for your health care coverage and then you pay for car insurance to cover the medical expenses of injured drivers, then we have medicare and medicaide that you help finance through taxes and then there's workers compensation insurance that pays for medical expenses of an injured worker.... WE PAY FOR ALL OF THIS.

A social insurance system that pays for all of this would be so much more efficient, with more money left over for actual care.

In addition, did you know that medical care debt is quickly becoming one of the top reasons why people file for bankrupcy in this country. WE PAY FOR THIS TOO.

natalie · Jul 9, 2001

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010704/hl/care_1.html

US: Children of the Working Poor Lack Health Care

By Alan Mozes

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Children of American working families living at or just slightly above the poverty line--the ''working poor''--are the most likely to fall through the cracks in the health care system, according to a recent study.

``Children in working poor families were far more likely to lack health insurance coverage and to experience disruptions in insurance coverage compared to children of non-working poor parents and compared to children in moderate to affluent families,'' said study lead author Dr. Sylvia Guendelman.

Guendelman and Dr. Michelle Pearl at the University of California at Berkeley analyzed data on close to 14,000 children of working poor, poor, and moderate to affluent families that had been collected in a 1997 US Census Bureau (news - web sites) ``National Health Interview Survey.''

They found that 16% of the working poor children who were in less than excellent health had not visited a doctor within the past year, compared to 12% of the poor and 9% of the moderate to affluent group. They also found that overall access to all types of health care was much more difficult for children of the working poor, who were less likely to have a regular source of care.

In addition, the researchers noted that children of the working poor were uninsured at four times the rate of the moderate to affluent children.

In 1996, the poverty line was defined as an income of $31,822 for a family of four. The study authors defined the working poor as earning less than 200% of the poverty level.

Guendelman and Pearl reported their results in the June issue of Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine.

Despite the implementation of the federal Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIPS) in 1997--designed to provide insurance at the state level to about 5 million uninsured children of the working poor--barriers to enrollment still exist. Guendelman and Pearl stated that the program has suffered from insufficient outreach and too much red tape, forcing a large portion of eligible children to delay or completely miss receiving the care they need.

Guendelman told Reuters Health that about 25 million American children live in working families that earn less than 200% of the poverty line. And she suggested that federal welfare-to-work policies implemented over the past few years should take responsibility to ensure that these children get and are able to maintain health care coverage.

``The working poor have received far less attention than welfare folks, and studies such as mine begin to portray the realities of this often neglected population,'' Guendelman said. ''Our findings were not unexpected given that until recently poor working families were given few incentives and have not been eligible for means-tested programs such as Medicaid.''

SOURCE: Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine 2001;155.651-658.

Cdn_Psych · Jul 9, 2001

Here is a direct link to the Portland (Maine) Press Herald story previously mentioned by CaronRN58:

http://www.portland.com/business/stories/010708buckley.shtml

JennieBSN · Jul 9, 2001

Cdn: Your system IS socialist. That's why it's called socialized medicine. Glad you like it. Keep it in Canada.

Also, no duh I can get communicable diseases. Here's the catch...I WORKED HARD to develop a nice savings, a nice cushion to my checking account, to become debt-free, and to have a job that offers healthcare that I pay for. SO...if I get TB, I will not be asking the rest of the country to ante up to pay for my infection.

Call me callous, call me whatever...that's also another beauty in America that's now fading thanks to the p.c. movement...FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

As for what we pay for others' healthcare via taxes, what about the mark-up we get in our regular hospital/medical care to pay for those who 'can't.' Don't give me this 'working poor' junk. My family WAS the 'working poor.' They sacrificed cable tv, nice cars, nice clothes, name brand food, pets and lots of other luxuries most people think of as 'necessities' to get by. I was one of the 'working poor.' I baked my own bread in 25 cent loaf pans I bought at the salvation army. We pinched EVERY PENNY. My one 'luxury?' A $4.98 bag of bird seed once a month so I could sprinkle it on the patio to watch the wild birds eat it. Since we couldn't AFFORD a pet, this was my way of having a 'pet.'

My sister worked for the state government before she had a baby, and she saw firsthand the amount of waste and fraud plaguing the already inept system we have. If I wanted to, right now, I could drop everything and live on the govt. dime. This 'not having access' is bull. It's called being LAZY. Like my friend who got pregant out of wedlock at age 16, and when questioned why she didn't go ONE MILE down the street to get FREE ocp's? "It was too far." You bet your butt once her baby was born, however, it wasn't 'too far' to go get her WIC check, food stamps, and AFDC money.

Sob stories don't cut it for those of us who have been poor and gotten out of it through hard work and saving. It just makes me nauseous, all this bleeding heart mess. My own FATHER came out of IMMENSE poverty and horrible physical abuse in his family. He CHOSE to get grants to go to college, study, get a good job, and SAVE. He CHOSE to get counseling and delay having children so he wouldn't perpetuate the cycle of abuse with his own children. He and my mother CHOSE to pinch pennies and cut corners to give a decent life to me and my sister.

Whatever. Think what you want about the indigent of this society. Just don't ask/force me to pay for them.

Mijourney · Jul 10, 2001

Originally posted by fiestynurse
Here is something else to think about. What about all the extra coverage that we pay for that could be eliminated by a single-payer system. You pay insurance premiums for your health care coverage and then you pay for car insurance to cover the medical expenses of injured drivers, then we have medicare and medicaide that you help finance through taxes and then there's workers compensation insurance that pays for medical expenses of an injured worker.... WE PAY FOR ALL OF THIS.
A social insurance system that pays for all of this would be so much more efficient, with more money left over for actual care.

In addition, did you know that medical care debt is quickly becoming one of the top reasons why people file for bankrupcy in this country. WE PAY FOR THIS TOO.

Yes, fiestynurse. I'll look at this from another standpoint. I guess you could say that even though copays, deductibles and other costs are not formally called taxes, in fact they ARE taxes. Well, you say you're being taxed by choice? I'd much prefer to have a system, since I'm going to pay taxes one way or another, where I'm paying less out of my pocket for good quality coverage and services. A more refined, efficient system I feel should reduce alot of the sucking sound we hear coming from pharmaceuticals, overpaid execs, managed care organizations and the like. You say that you're paying premiums by choice? I can imagine that an unforeseen major catastrophe in effect would consume all the money you ever paid into your insurance. Once you've maxed out your health insurance, it's over. Once you go broke you may end up at the mercy of the government anyway.

Cdn_Psych · Jul 10, 2001

kday,

Wow, are you always this hostile?

I don't understand why you're so opposed to having a single-payer system. If you have a choice of paying taxes to pay for your health care, or paying much more to a private corporation, why on earth would you choose to pay more? It hardly seems wise or reasonable to me.

As for keeping "socialized medicine" in Canada, well, I feel no urge to export the Canadian system to the USA (even though I think it is vastly superior to the US system). I'm far more interested in seeing the US system stay out of Canada, because it's not as good as what I already have (by just about any measure - cost, universality, or morbidity & mortality).

Originally posted by kday
Cdn: Your system IS socialist. That's why it's called socialized medicine. Glad you like it. Keep it in Canada.

Also, no duh I can get communicable diseases. Here's the catch...I WORKED HARD to develop a nice savings, a nice cushion to my checking account, to become debt-free, and to have a job that offers healthcare that I pay for. SO...if I get TB, I will not be asking the rest of the country to ante up to pay for my infection.

Call me callous, call me whatever...that's also another beauty in America that's now fading thanks to the p.c. movement...FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

As for what we pay for others' healthcare via taxes, what about the mark-up we get in our regular hospital/medical care to pay for those who 'can't.' Don't give me this 'working poor' junk. My family WAS the 'working poor.' They sacrificed cable tv, nice cars, nice clothes, name brand food, pets and lots of other luxuries most people think of as 'necessities' to get by. I was one of the 'working poor.' I baked my own bread in 25 cent loaf pans I bought at the salvation army. We pinched EVERY PENNY. My one 'luxury?' A $4.98 bag of bird seed once a month so I could sprinkle it on the patio to watch the wild birds eat it. Since we couldn't AFFORD a pet, this was my way of having a 'pet.'

My sister worked for the state government before she had a baby, and she saw firsthand the amount of waste and fraud plaguing the already inept system we have. If I wanted to, right now, I could drop everything and live on the govt. dime. This 'not having access' is bull. It's called being LAZY. Like my friend who got pregant out of wedlock at age 16, and when questioned why she didn't go ONE MILE down the street to get FREE ocp's? "It was too far." You bet your butt once her baby was born, however, it wasn't 'too far' to go get her WIC check, food stamps, and AFDC money.

Sob stories don't cut it for those of us who have been poor and gotten out of it through hard work and saving. It just makes me nauseous, all this bleeding heart mess. My own FATHER came out of IMMENSE poverty and horrible physical abuse in his family. He CHOSE to get grants to go to college, study, get a good job, and SAVE. He CHOSE to get counseling and delay having children so he wouldn't perpetuate the cycle of abuse with his own children. He and my mother CHOSE to pinch pennies and cut corners to give a decent life to me and my sister.

Whatever. Think what you want about the indigent of this society. Just don't ask/force me to pay for them.