Where do most of the uninsured live?

[HM2VikingRN]

So, here's the big takeaway: The overwhelming majority of uninsured U.S. residents are adult American citizens without children living in the south with moderately good health status. Oh, and one more thing: They're predominantly white. I didn't make a slide for that, but just trust me. The reason behind that is simple: There are many more white people in the U.S. than there are other persons of any other single race. So, the po' white south makes up most of the uninsured. Chew on that for a while. Then ask yourself where the strongest opposition to health reform comes from (hint: it's red states) and contemplate how much sense that makes.

Link embedded.

[herring_RN, ASN, BSN]

I was blessed to be aboe to volunteer for RAM in Los Angeles.

I've never seen so many people with a toothache in one week.

So much untreated HTN. People who couldn't even get an appointment with their former doctor after they were laid off and no longer insured.

They did cataract surgery in a trailer OR. One man hoped to get enough vision back to be able to work. He has been planning to see an eye doctor when he was old enough for Medicare.

He lives with his adult child. Many adults cannot afford to pay for their parents healthcare.

We did a lot of good but it wasn't nearly enough.

The RAM site - http://www.ramusa.org/

[SilentMind]

You may cite examples of people receiving too much care but seem uninterested in cases where people have no or limited access to care. You point out abuses of our current broken system as if that is reason not to change it. The point you make that someone has to "pick up the tab" is directly on point...we the taxed masses pick up the tab and it currently costs us 16% of our GDP to continue to do it this way. So, currently, you have people paying for the healthcare for themselves and for the uninsured and at the same time they may well be at risk for bankrupcy because their insurance does not cover 100% of their own healthcare costs. Indeed, their insurance company could decide to drop them, or deny claims, etc. It might be different to pay 16% IF 95% of our population had good access to care and there was no such thing as bankrupcy for medical expense...BUT we don't have across the board good access and medical bankrupcy is on the rise. Besides, NO OTHER country pays as much for spotty healthcare as the USA does. We need reform. We need it soon. We cannot sustain this system.

Well, maybe we can find some common ground after all. If we're spending so much on health care, then yes...it should be enough to provide for the majority of the population. Clearly, it isn't doing enough. If you're looking at reform from that perspective, I'm completely behind it. But the problem isn't the fact that insurance companies are making too much in profits, or that ceo's are greedy. It's the inefficient methods the government employs in employing these funds, and failing to see results. Throwing money at the problem is just a political maneuver that doesn't achieve anything, except for giving you the right to say you tried to fix it. Since the government is already spending so much on health care, it should be a perfectly reasonable expectation for them to get their **** together and figure out a way to make it work with what they have. My fear is that this health care bill, and like most others, I don't know whats in this bill....but my fear is that it's not going to do anything to address this problem. Instead its just going to inflate the spending on health care into the same inefficient channels, and at the cost of increased taxes and mandating others shoulder the burden. Again, throwing money at the problem isn't going to make it go away.

If you really want reform, you need to reform the way government does it's job. Maybe hold someone accountable for a change. Who knows?

[tewdles, RN]

Well, maybe we can find some common ground after all. If we're spending so much on health care, then yes...it should be enough to provide for the majority of the population. Clearly, it isn't doing enough. If you're looking at reform from that perspective, I'm completely behind it. But the problem isn't the fact that insurance companies are making too much in profits, or that ceo's are greedy. It's the inefficient methods the government employs in employing these funds, and failing to see results. Throwing money at the problem is just a political maneuver that doesn't achieve anything, except for giving you the right to say you tried to fix it. Since the government is already spending so much on health care, it should be a perfectly reasonable expectation for them to get their **** together and figure out a way to make it work with what they have. My fear is that this health care bill, and like most others, I don't know whats in this bill....but my fear is that it's not going to do anything to address this problem. Instead its just going to inflate the spending on health care into the same inefficient channels, and at the cost of increased taxes and mandating others shoulder the burden. Again, throwing money at the problem isn't going to make it go away.

If you really want reform, you need to reform the way government does it's job. Maybe hold someone accountable for a change. Who knows?

I am not sure what you are thinking here...what happens with money exchanged between customers, insurance companies, and the healthcare providers (docs, hospitals, labs, etc) is not controlled by the government. If those funds are "employed" in a fashion that is inefficient and ineffective, that is between the insurance companies and the providers. The government is neither providing the insurance or administering the care...it is a healthcare and capitalism cocktail. So, the inefficient channel that you are referring to are channels that were created by our current free market system. And that free market, capitalist system has an ugly side that occasionally raises it's head...we call it greed. I submit that the fact that insurance companies inflate their profits by denying health claims is evidence that they are motivated by profit at any cost...that translates into greed to me. So we agree, I say hold someone accountable...for me one of those someones is the insurance industry. I am ready for my government to say someting on my behalf. The party is over. You will now be regulated. We will stop protecting you from the big bad consumer who scams you (tiny fraction of population). You will be required to provide basic comprehensive health insurance for people at no profit...period...in return you will be allowed to sell other levels and facets of insurance in this country. It is time for meaningful reform.

[Onekidneynurse]

I was blessed to be aboe to volunteer for RAM in Los Angeles.

I've never seen so many people with a toothache in one week.

So much untreated HTN. People who couldn't even get an appointment with their former doctor after they were laid off and no longer insured.

They did cataract surgery in a trailer OR. One man hoped to get enough vision back to be able to work. He has been planning to see an eye doctor when he was old enough for Medicare.

He lives with his adult child. Many adults cannot afford to pay for their parents healthcare.

We did a lot of good but it wasn't nearly enough.

The RAM site - http://www.ramusa.org/

And they got care.... didn't they. WITHOUT GOVERNMENT intervention.

So when we add 47 million people to the fold will we get appointments quicker? I can't get an appointment with my doc tomorrow. He has too many patients.

[Onekidneynurse]

You may cite examples of people receiving too much care but seem uninterested in cases where people have no or limited access to care. You point out abuses of our current broken system as if that is reason not to change it. The point you make that someone has to "pick up the tab" is directly on point...we the taxed masses pick up the tab and it currently costs us 16% of our GDP to continue to do it this way. So, currently, you have people paying for the healthcare for themselves and for the uninsured and at the same time they may well be at risk for bankrupcy because their insurance does not cover 100% of their own healthcare costs. Indeed, their insurance company could decide to drop them, or deny claims, etc. It might be different to pay 16% IF 95% of our population had good access to care and there was no such thing as bankrupcy for medical expense...BUT we don't have across the board good access and medical bankrupcy is on the rise. Besides, NO OTHER country pays as much for spotty healthcare as the USA does. We need reform. We need it soon. We cannot sustain this system.

The point is that for every case you cite for lack of care I can cite one for too much care. I believe it's a wash.

[Jolie, BSN]

Am I the only reader who finds the reference to "po" whites" offensive?

Would a similar reference to "po blacks" be acceptable?

I doubt it.

[Jolie, BSN]

they may well be at risk for bankrupcy because their insurance does not cover 100% of their own healthcare costs.

You believe that anyone without 100% coverage is at risk for bankruptcy? Do you not expect anyone to have any responsibility for their own health care expenses?

Do you really believe our nation can afford to pay 100% of everyone's health care bills? Why stop there? Food, shelter and clothing are arguably even greater necessities than health care. Why not pay 100% of those costs, too?

[tewdles, RN]

You believe that anyone without 100% coverage is at risk for bankruptcy? Do you not expect anyone to have any responsibility for their own health care expenses?

Do you really believe our nation can afford to pay 100% of everyone's health care bills? Why stop there? Food, shelter and clothing are arguably even greater necessities than health care. Why not pay 100% of those costs, too?

I'm sorry, apparently you assumed some things based upon my statement. If you actually read what I wrote you will note that I did not say any of the things in your first statement. I did not say that I expected anything regarding responsibility....I merely made a statement about people and bankrupcy.

While I do understand that people are "excited" about this topic, I am getting tired of having words put in my mouth in angry and aurgumentative posts. Take a deep breath.

[tewdles, RN]

The point is that for every case you cite for lack of care I can cite one for too much care. I believe it's a wash.

Are you kidding? lol

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

I don't like the woed "po" but the linked material was clearly a direct quote from another author. I don't have the right to edit a word of another author for political correctness.

[Jolie, BSN]

I don't like the woed "po" but the linked material was clearly a direct quote from another author. I don't have the right to edit a word of another author for political correctness.

Perhaps not, but you could certainly post a statement of disagreement with quoted offensive material.

[GCTMT]

Am I the only reader who finds the reference to "po" whites" offensive?

Would a similar reference to "po blacks" be acceptable?

I doubt it.

Why wouldn't it? Po' whites and po' blacks, po' Asians, po people. I don't think anyone really gives a *expletive deleted*