NursingLink

I'm just wondering. There has been alot of talk lately about reforming healthcare from the government. How do nurses feel about this?

Personally, I'm terrified due to the stories I've heard from nurses I worked with from other countries in the 90's. I used to ask them why they were working here in the US. they used to say thet pay was substandard, conditions were horrible, and innovative medicine was no longer practiced. They said time and time again that the US had the best medical care in the world. I understand costs are spiraling out of control, but there has to be a better solution . Letting the government take over is crazy.

They can't run education, what makes them think they can run healthcare? Why aren't any outraged nurses and doctors speaking up? I konw some doctors met with the government on this topic, but I don't think few should speak for the many. Our livelihoods will be affected.Pay will be cut. I promise. In France, MD's only make 50,000-100,00/year.  They have universal healthcare. Can you imagine what nurses are being paid?

This was a piece done on 60 minutes during the campaign.I was horrified. If docs are making that salary, then wow, what must the other medical people be making?

There is no doubt that the U.S. has the technology.  But what good is technology if a person cannot access it?  A few years ago, my husband became self employed.  We then had to buy private insurance.  Because I have a pre-existing condition, my rates were high.  We dropped the insurance in 2005 when the premium for me alone was $1300.00/month.  He paid 400.00/month for him and the kids, so altogether that was $1700.00/month.  That's ludicrous!  A previous co-worker of mine is from Canada.  she said that she didn't understand why everyone held Canada up as the poster country for what's negative about socialized/universal healthcare.  she said it worked for her and her family just fine.  She still has family there and they get healthcare.  I don't want free healthcare.  I am quite willing to pay, but the rates must be reasonable.  There are other countries in the world that have functioning healthcare systems where all their people have access to it.  Why doesn't someone go over to these countries and see how it's done.  Copy the good aspects and fix the bad ones.  Canada, I know, taxes the heck out of cigarettes and liquor to get extra funds.  Can we start with that?

 Cancer meds are denied to patients in England?? What about here in the US, where we are paying through the nose for health insurance and still being denied for lifesaving treatments and drugs?  And for what?  So United Healthcare, or Humira, or Blue Cross can eek out a little more profit this quarter?  Oh, but we have the opportunity to pay for them ourselves...  and lose our homes, and go bankrupt in the process, all while still paying the same high premiums for health insurance.   

I don't know if universal health care is the answer, but this system does need to be fixed, before it's too late.

angienwgeorgia says ...

Yup, that's what that guy said..........google him.   I'm against Universal Healthcare, totally.   If we are forced to do this by law............they do need to do the wellness program with it.   That would mean no tobacco products, non prescriptioned drugs, alcohol <especially for those who have chronic liver problems>................this means drug screen like new employers for benefits.  Why should people who dont use tobacco, non prescriptioned drugs, and chronic drinkers be forced to pay for their healthcare.    Now for those who want to lock me up for that note, add on A1c for diabetics, triglicerides, cholesterol levels, sodium levels...........all of this to target non-compliance.   Just think............for those who want Universal healthcare, big brother will probably monitor our french fries and doughnuts.   :)                              btw.............is Nobama smoking in the whitehouse to anybody's knowledge?   Federal buildings are non smoking buildings.............right?  

Angie, I worked with nurses from England, Canada, and Australia years ago when I lived in New Orleans. I always asked them why they were here instead of what I consider beautiful countries. They all said the same. That universal healthcare was a nightmare. Equipment was old and outdated, pay was low, and the system was overwhelmed and overcrowded. So, I agree with you.

Micheal Moore did a documentary called "Sicko" to tout universal healthcare. He went to Cuba and tried to show how great the care was there in comparison to here. What he failed to show(Thank-you John Stossel) was that was the hospital for the few wealthy Cubans. Stossel showed other hospitals in Cuba and the were filthy and had old broken down beds and equipment. If the govt plans to give everyone healthcare it will be very expensive. Therefore, they will cut back on staff, equipment,and reseach in medicine.

I know our system needs fixing, but universal healthcare is not the answer.

Universal Healthcare may be a nightmare, but so is the system here. I'm agreeing with valery23 on this.  Trying to do somwthing is better than doing nothing.  How many working people in this country have no insurance?  Why can't the brilliant minds come up with something that takes into consideration the best each country's system has to offer.  Millions of people live in countries like Canada, Australia and England and they're not all clamoring to come to the US for medical care. They're not all dying from sub par care or waiting lifetimes for needed surgeries.Many of those countries have better statistics than here in the US.  I still believe it is insurance company greed (their lobbyists) that prevent progress.

Its not that simple angie.  Some people have planned the best they can and still end up on hard times.  Imagine being a single mom  going along doing the best you can and end up with cancer.  You can no longer work..... so you no longer have healthcare.  Your future depends on interventions for which you cannot pay and obviously you cannot afford private health insurance because you are now unemployed. 

THAT is a real story.  Things like this happen all the time.  Its not about planning and it's not all about mooching.  You can plan all you want and still fall on hard times.  EVERYBODY needs help some time.

I wonder if all the people who like to complain about "handouts" and "free rides" and "socialism", and assistance from "our tax dollars"  will decline Medicare when they get older......or tell their elder family members to not use their benefits? 

Probably not ever!

It’s obvious that there is a lot of fear, confusion and frustration over the present day health care system. I speak from personal experience. In my own home, there’s those of us who currently are without insurance and some of us with insurance. It is not a pleasant feeling that I get at the end of the day when my youngest child says she’s not feeling well and I’m concerned about what I’m going to have to cut out of my budget to take care of her. I know the current system is far from perfect and needs improvement in a multitude of areas. This, however, is a reality of life. In order to effect changes in our current system it is important that we are intellectually honest and research multiple sources of information and viewpoints. To turn a blind eye to the facts because it does not conform to your ideology will gain you and this country nothing. In my view, when a government is given the power to decide what level of treatment the people are permitted (as outlined in the recently passed into law stimulus bill 2009 pages 442, 446 establishing a national coordinator for health who is an individual directed by a board who is comprised of an equal share of bureaucrats and physicians to impose a cost per patient diagnosis and treatment based upon an economic value to quality of life equation) opens the door for passive or even active euthanasia. An example would be The Netherlands.  According to the 1990 Remmelink Report, 9.1% of all deaths in The Netherlands were active euthanasia cases in which a majority of these were involuntary. This study did not account for all cases of euthanasia and did not reflect cases involving children, disabled newborns, and mentally ill patients, nor did it account for the voluntary and involuntary withholding or withdrawal of lifesaving treatments. I find this to be an unacceptable situation. There are many places we can enact change. An unpopular choice amongst the politicians (of which the majority are lawyers) is tort reform. A simple law of “loser pays” could stop many frivolous law suits and help reduce the high cost of professional liability insurance that nurses, doctors and even the pharmaceutical companies enjoy now. We live in a privileged country. For those of us who have stepped foot out of it, we know this to be fact. At times, privilege comes at a high cost, as in the case of medications. Development and research do not come free. Years of risk and capital that usually never goes anywhere must be paid by someone.  This is a cost we bear for our privilege. Those who tout the benefits of drug programs in foreign countries like Canada and France must admit (if they are intellectually honest) that they are subsidized by the US people. If other countries were burdened with an equal amount of responsibility it would greatly reduce our cost. These are only a few of the health care options that I have personally researched and I could probably spend the rest of my natural life finding other ways of responsibly reducing health care costs. If the government was truly concerned about lowering the cost of healthcare they would focus their attention on the imbalance of responsibility.  This is the job that is outlined in the US Constitution for our government. If they did their job, it is most likely that no entitlements would be necessary and the average US citizen could afford adequate health care. I implore all to learn the FACTS because what you don’t know can kill you.  http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/fctholl.htm , http://www3.fertilethoughts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=638487 

sorry, universal healthcare belongs in a nanny state.  I know people fall on hard times and its difficult.  I was a single parent with little ones myself in nursing school.  I had 2 kids with bronchitis every week.........so I've been there too.   I still stand by my beliefs being against universal healthcare <aka medicaide/medicare>.   

I used to work in Florida, the very wealthy Canadians would bypass 'universal healthcare' in Canada and come to Florida for surgery.  Their thought was if they had to come across the border to pay for their healthcare, they might as well do it in Sunny Florida.  I've also heard stories from other nurses as well. 

Here is some information on the Texas Chip program for RN2bjenny;  As far as I know, Chip is available in all states.

http://www.chipmedicaid.org/english/index.htm

To begin with the Government has no Constitutional authority to be involved in health care at all, which should settle the matter. However, as with anything else government involvement in healthcare has been an unmitigated disaster.

While the "Universal Healthcare" proposal seems to be a laudable goal, reality strikes rapidly.. The oft touted example of Canadian health care has glaring problems that are glossed over by our proponents of "Universal Healthcare".

One question. We see many Canadian nurses working here, and many Canadian patients coming here for timely care, or care that is unavailable there. How many American nurses go north to seek employment, or how many of our patients jump the border for  the promise "free" medical care?

The Government has no money, other than what they take from the people, and therefore government programs, for all their high sounding ideals very quickly fall prey to the ugly realities of budget constraints. Rationed care and medical decisions being made by bureaucrats, not doctors, is not my idea of what a health care system should be striving for.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Someone pleeeese straighten me out!!!  When you say that we can't give healthcare to everyone, that everyone would then suffer, what are you indicating?  That not every one deserves decent healthcare?  Maybe I'm misconstruing what "universal" means.  does universal mean run by the government or does it mean coverage for all.  I don't advocate "Free" care, rather, sensible affordable care for all.  I've been a nurse for 40 years.  I have experienced the outrageous waste that goes on in our system first hand.  I also know that there are people working hard in all fields who don't have access to affordable health care for their families.  Maybe they work for a small company who can't afford to offer this. Maybe they make lower wages and can't afford what's offered.  Wouldn't it be better to offer some kind of at least basic plan so people wouldn't freak out about having to see a doctor, rather than ending up in an ER, not being able to pay the bill and having those costs passed on to us? We live in a country where we have no qualms about paying grown men to throw balls in hoops for millions of dollars, or having grown men hit at balls with wooden sticks and pay them millions, too.  Or have some dim wit actor say lines in a play and pay him/her millions to do it.  Yet we have trouble with spending money to save people's lives.  I'm talking about the normal folks here, not the ones who have enough cash to pay out of pocket for their medical expenses! 

MaggyC says ...

Someone pleeeese straighten me out!!!  When you say that we can't give healthcare to everyone, that everyone would then suffer, what are you indicating?  That not every one deserves decent healthcare?  Maybe I'm misconstruing what "universal" means.  does universal mean run by the government or does it mean coverage for all.  I don't advocate "Free" care, rather, sensible affordable care for all.  I've been a nurse for 40 years.  I have experienced the outrageous waste that goes on in our system first hand.  I also know that there are people working hard in all fields who don't have access to affordable health care for their families.  Maybe they work for a small company who can't afford to offer this. Maybe they make lower wages and can't afford what's offered.  Wouldn't it be better to offer some kind of at least basic plan so people wouldn't freak out about having to see a doctor, rather than ending up in an ER, not being able to pay the bill and having those costs passed on to us? We live in a country where we have no qualms about paying grown men to throw balls in hoops for millions of dollars, or having grown men hit at balls with wooden sticks and pay them millions, too.  Or have some dim wit actor say lines in a play and pay him/her millions to do it.  Yet we have trouble with spending money to save people's lives.  I'm talking about the normal folks here, not the ones who have enough cash to pay out of pocket for their medical expenses! 

Emotions aside, it is very easy for politicians to promise us the moon, the problem is that someone -- meaning you -- is eventually going to have to pay for it, either by higher taxes or far less than promised care.

For an overview of government provided health care, take a good look at the VA system. We continue to send our young men and women into harm's way, When they are injured in the process they come home to bureaucratic red tape and substandard care. This administration has even sent up a trial balloon, that got quickly deflated, thank God, that these men and women use their private insurance first then apply for VA care. Not that quality care is not available through the VA System, but do you seriously believe that a bilateral amputee PFC from Iraq is getting the same degree of care that the president or some congressman gets when they check into Walter Reed?

It really comes down to the same simple math that is destroying the Social Security system. Upon inception there were 45 -50 people paying into the system for every one receiving benefits, today it is 2 or 3. Universal health care is going to be the same sort of Ponzi scheme.

The more the government promises the less they are going to deliver. There are three ways they can cut costs, less (rationed) care, higher taxes, or reducing the number of health care workers to care for each patient.

Be careful what you wish for -- you just might get it.

  First,if there's anyone left on this topic,I have to say I'm impressed with all the articulate perspective's expressed.

Then...I hate to say it,but IMO a single payer system is way overdue,which is apparent fiscally if people realize these 2 (of many)

s/s of a mortally wounded healthcare system:

1) We are the ONLY industrialized nation that does'nt have a Nat'l healthcare "saftey net,"per se available,

we spend double what most industrialized nations spend per citizen/per capita,so for example England spends $2,000. annually per citizen,we spend $4,000.We are spending easily double what they and the others do! What is wrong with that picture?Well,for starters,I've had 2 patients this yr that our lovely private health insurence co.'s refused to cover,despite ea. pt being a member and one paying in for 14 yr!Outrageous!That individual is currently my pt,the other was deceased BEFORE the insurence company would agree to pay for his care,r/t some technicality that they(insurance) were happy to get hung up on.

2) We are THE ONLY industrialized nation that the pharmaceutical's  have the lucrative racket going on with...

per my friend,the Pharmeceutical Rep.,who loves his six figure salary,I might add:"...well,of course the drug prices are much more expensive in the US.What other country can we get that kinda money out of for meds?"The inference here is that in the other indutrialized nations Nations,the Pharm's don't run the show pricewise as they do here,they lobby congress aggressively,are in bed w/the FDA,and I guess that's enough for one post- Oh,and just a secret,although it is common knowledge to many:the Pharm's do not pay for the bulk of R & D -our government does thru Universities and Grants.The pharms simply clean up & market the finshed product,which ironically they would'nt have to do with a single payer system.

I can most defintely say IMO the Pharm's are waging active war(aggressively lobbying congress,etc) against a single payer option for people,as it signal a new era in drug prices,IMO.Various parties are also empoying scare tactics,(IMO sorta like when Bush/Cheney got us into the Iraq War-but this is a different topic)

Elderly people (and others)will no longer have to choose between buying their meds or food,which I see to often in our current healthcare ,"dilema"-yes,this is tragic!I see too much of it ...particularly here in rural New England.

In addition,hate to say it,but I believe a single payer system would force by default our healthcare system into being about being healthy/getting healthy(wellness programs,etc,as now pardon my cynicism ,but iUS Healthcare seems sometimes about only making money sometimes for select parties),with whatever medical system works,eastern,Western,Homeopathy...England has a sorta hybrid of three or 4 major medical models and it works fabulously!

  Are people niave or do many perhaps not realize that many Hospitals/Hospital Assoc. are about making money(yes,despite their non-profit status) as are the insurers who determine who gets what treatment,and when...this in itself is a fundamental conflict of interest,ya think?! The proverbial Fox in the Chicken coop, IMO.

-sarah

Please. Anyone who wants to, find a person from England and ask them about their universal healthcare. Bet the story won't be all wine and roses! I have repeatedly stated over and over, nurses from other countries come to work here b/c their universal healthcare is deplorable.

The media can spin it anyway they want. Bottom line, there is no real proof that it's some great success to insure all. It will glut the system, thin meager resources and cap salaries.

I THINK  UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE IS VERY BAD NOW BECAUSE SO MANY PATIENTS CANT AFFORD OR BUY THE EXPENSIVE MEDICIEN,WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE.