Why would a nurse oppose Universal Health Care? This nurse

[Thickasabrick]

is the wife of someone I work with and so I don't talk to her but her husband will just say that "she just is".

I'm thinking they both vote republican but other than the "socialism" meme....why would people oppose it?

If we did have universal health care, would there be enough doctors to see everyone? Would the medical profession get less pay? It seems like they would get more. I just really don't understand why some people would be against it...other than really selfish people who just don't give a shit about anyone except themselves.

Thoughts?

[elleng]

1. They don't understand it.

In fact, its just a bunch of words here in the U.S., at the moment; I think of it working one way, and you prolly another, etc.

SO the 'scare' words stick, for those unable to stop and think.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. They fear teh socialisticism will eat their babies.

If somebody cannot defend their position on an issue other than 'because', then they have no rational position and other than poking fun at their infantile emotional thinking there isn't much hope. Ask your colleague if they intend to not use medicare when they retire, or is universal health care for old people 'good' but 'bad' for the rest of us?

[raccoon]

113. Great talking point, Warren, I will use it.

" is universal health care for old people 'good' but 'bad' for the rest of us?"

[Cleita]

3. My late husband's dialysis nurse and her husband a fireman drank the RW

kool-aid. They believe everything should be privatized and people who don't work three jobs to afford health insurance aren't trying hard enough. Anything else is socialism. I pointed out to her one day that neither she nor her husband would have a job if it weren't for government socialism. 95% of dialysis treatment is paid for by Medicare and it goes without saying that her husband, the fireman, is on the city payroll, or paid by a government agency. That shut her up permanently. I don't know if it changed her mind but she sure didn't want to dicuss her RW politics with me again.

[Thickasabrick]

4. Sweet! Good comeback!

[dorktv]

14. of my psycho right wing colleagues, only ONE has ever held a

non-government job.

So if he blathers on about how he thinks the market is perfect, he can talk. The others are idiots.

[peace13]

5. She has good insurance for her family and herself.

Any change may effect her in a bad way. In short, she is selfish.

[buckettgirl]

6. well

As a nurse, I can tell you that Medicare is pretty screwed up. You have no clue. Its a bear to deal with. I have seen the biggest waste of resources, jumped through more hoops, done more pointless paperwork than you can imagine - you damn near have to care plan how often someone breathes. :sarcasm:

I want universal health care, but I don't want it run by the government - specifically, I don't want it run by politicians and lobbyists who haven't the faintest clue what good medical and nursing practices are. I don't want it run by the private sector either - because healthcare is too important to be a "for profit" business.

I don't have an answer. I just don't want it to end up like Medicare.

[Thickasabrick]

8. Thank you - that may be where she is coming from too. Not being

a health professional, I don't really understand all the in's and out's of this thing. I guess nobody will until we see the plan. I've got great insurance but if I lost my job I wouldn't. My son can't find a job and he is too old to be on my plan so he is going around without any so for that reason, I'm hoping it will happen...but I guess those are selfish motives on my part.

[Cleita]

10. Medicare works quite well. As someone who has had to do the billing as

well I don't know what you are complaining about. I found fighting with insurance companies, getting approvals and jumping through hoops to get the right coding, quite exasperating especially when dealing with rejected claims and dragged out payments when accepted. At least with Medicare it's pretty much spelled out what will be covered and paid for if you fill the forms out right. At least it was back before Bush. Now, I'm sure eight years of Bush meddling in Medicare has produced some bad policies and maybe that's what you are dealing with. Private sector will always deny care to those who need it either because they can't pay or because the insurance won't pay. The government is a better bet to make sure everyone gets access to health care especially those who need it most, the sick. I do hope a new government establishes an agency with firm guidelines for dealing with this like other countries have. That lock box that Gore used to talk about for Medicare and Social Security funds would sure be welcome now.

[JerseygirlCT]

18. Question for you both

would one simple step be to universalize the forms?

If all the insurance companies had to use the exact same forms, wouldn't that save some of the reams of paperwork generated these days?

[Cleita]

22. I used to use the same generic form for all the insurers.

As long as the patient signed the assignment and I filled them out with the right codes, the insurance companies didn't reject them because of the form. Many patients had lost the forms so the insurance couldn't insist on it. The rejection came in dealing with the different coverages people had. That's where it got complicated and where phone time was burned up trying to assert if there would be coverage. Also, once the claim was subjected there was more phone time finding out when it would be paid and if it would be paid once too much time had passed for timely payment. Medicare has it's own forms and codes that you have to use but they are uniform in their purpose. A lot of the paperwork today I assume is done on line so it isn't as voluminous as it was in my day but I'm sure it is no less time consuming.

[Horse with no Name]

56. Here is an answer. With nationalized healthcare...you wouldn't need the forms. n/t

[theboss]

115. You are always going to need the forms

I don't assume that universal healtcahre means an end to pre-authorization.

[Greyhound]

117. Why not? Don't most nations with socialized medicine avoid this travesty?

You get sick or are injured you go to the doctor/hospital and receive treatment, the pay part comes after.

No "pre-existing conditions", no denials for "experimental treatments", your doctor decides what you need and delivers it. That's what my European friends tell me anyway.

[Horse with no Name]

55. Thanks for this. I am a nurse too

and I don't get what the hell the OP was talking about. Medicare works much better than private insurance.

[SharonAnn]

13. My internist says that Medicare is his preferred insurance provider.

They're clear and specific about what they cover and they pay promptly.

he says the private insurers are far, far worse. They'll pre-approve something, then deny it after the procedure is performed. They'll reject bills time and time again for no apparent reason. The cost of dealing with them is huge.

[Cleita]

24. Yes, this was the experience I had with private insurers vs. Medicare.

Today though I understand that they are months behind in payments because of understaffing and cost cutting done by the Bush administration.

[buckettgirl]

30. I'm not referring to the billing

I work in a non-profit nursing home.
The state and federal regulations that come along with having Medicare and Medicaid residents is nuts.
Things that have to be documented, double and triple documented. The things that have to be carefully worded. The detailed care plans. The assessments, and the frequency of assessments. If you have had to deal with the policies and procedures and surveys on the fed and state level (we're aren't even talking about corporate) then you know what I mean. It is obvious that people who haven't a clue what is to do the job are the ones making the regulations.
This is part of the reason I will no longer be working in a nursing home.

And the waste of resources - people want treatment JUST BECAUSE it is covered; not necessarily because it is medically necessary. And then the people receiving medical treatments that are covered, but for whom the outcome will be no different than if they didn't receive the treatment.

Doctors make up diagnoses just to get treatment/services covered. Really, a resident c/o a vague pain in a joint - most likely arthritis (esp. if the weather has changed); so lets go run off for an x-ray, even though the assessment doesn't warrant such a follow-up. So you go to schedule the x-ray - OOPS can't use the diagnosis of rule out fracture. So lets come up with something else to make sure it is covered. And then the x-ray comes back showing degenerative changes - well no shit sherlock, they are 90 years old with osteoporosis, of course there are degenerative changes, and its most likely arthritic pain. Lets try some aleve. All that, when could have just tried some aleve to begin with.

[Cleita]

38. So you think the private health plans are better?

The private health plans want nothing to do with people like the elderly who actually need health care. I think it's cool that the elderly can get diagnostic care even if you think all they need is Aleve. I don't feel you have a right to decide what resources should be used on whom. Maybe in your mind those tests weren't necessary, but think about it, the money is paying for workers like yourself who do the diagnostic work instead of Mr.United Health Care CEO who has a private plane, unreasonable salary and all the golf he wants. Why are you against some ninety year old people actually getting some help even if the diagnosis didn't come out the way you liked it? I hope you never are ninety years old in the world you want. I'm 68 years old and I have a lot of aches and pains that hurt, and that Aleve doesn't quite fix, yet people think I'm spry. I hate to think if I live to be ninety what the pain must be like.

[buckettgirl]

68. Thanks for twisting my words

If you don't think that there is a tremendous waste of healthcare resources in the country - then I want to know what hole you crawled out of.

If I were "against" old people, I wouldn't be working in a nursing home. DUH. My job is to keep these people happy and comfortable; which my residents would be happy to tell you that I do a good job and will miss me very much when I am gone. I definitely follow the mindset of "do not hunt trouble"; because at 90 years old, if you look (not very hard) you WILL find something wrong. If the outcome is going to be the same with treatment as it would be without treatment, then the resources shouldn't be wasted.

As I stated, I don't have answer - no, I'm not for private health insurance. I'm for universal coverage, so long as it is adequately managed - and that means people of all aspects of healthcare must be involved in its management and in the forming of its regulations - NOT POLITICIANS AND LOBBYISTS.

* On edit - just to clarify, do not hunt trouble does not mean do not treat. If a problem presents itself, of course it is assessed and appropriately reported. But I am not going out of my way to find a problem, either.

[JeanGrey]

79. Look, I agree with her. My Mom was in nursing care and

they got her out of bed and walked her down the hall twenty feet and back. For that they billed "physical therapy" to the tune of sixteen hundred bucks. It is a SHAM. She got NO physical therpay.

Nursing homes are money pits for those that own them.

[Cleita]

85. Look I'm familiar with dishonest health care providers billing for stuff they don't do and

every Medicare bill you get has a form to report this type of thing. It doesn't mean that the diagnostic tests being run are superfluous. Only a medical doctor can determine that and if workers in these homes think things are being done that are dishonest then they should report it to Medicare. You can even do it online.

[JeanGrey]

108. I did, several times. Nothing changed. And as far as tests,

that was a joke. You had to beg for a test and then you'd be told the results would be in in say, three days and half the time they couldn't even find them. I can't tell you how many times I stood there watching them shuffle through piles of paper looking for test results. Really instills confidence. I don't know how anyone can work in a nursing home. It would kill me.

[buckettgirl]

133. Thats part of the reason why I'm leaving the nursing home.

I wanted to make a difference in the lives of our elders - and on a personal level, I'm sure I did. But the fact remains, that it is a bear to work in a nursing home, all the way around. Throw in the fact that I work for a corporation that doesn't give a damn about residents or staff, and all the administrative/political BS - its no wonder we can't keep employees anymore. It used to be a good place but corporate is running it into the ground (it won't be the first time they have done this to a nursing home either). And truly unfortunately, the residents are the ones who will suffer for it - thats just not right.

[buckettgirl]

134. Its not about being dishonest

What you do not seem to understand is that nurses in a nursing home do
1. Work with these residents everyday and know them VERY well (both personally and medically)- including the families and what the families wishes are
2. Doctors, PAs, and ARNPs RELY on the assessments of the nurse to determine what problems exist. They couldn't function without us.
3. Many of these providers like to disregard the assessments and knowledge of their nurses just because they can get reimbursements for treatments and procedures, even if the nursing assessments show they aren't necessary.
4. It is also part of my job NOT TO WASTE RESOURCES. Wasting resources = high cost of health care.
Just because someone sneezes, does not mean they need a visit with the doc; especially when someone actually ill could be using that visit (resources).
5. Something is not superfluous "just because" I think it is. If I feel that something is a waste of resources it is based on a PROFESSIONAL, EDUCATED ASSESSMENT.

This is true of all RNs. We all must use our nursing judgment every day to help determine who gets what and when. Its called Prioritization. This is what the NCLEX exam (state boards) is based on in its entirety.

I do take offense for you to imply that it is not my job to decide what is wasteful and what is not.
You need to keep in mind that nurses are typically the only ones unbiased in looking out for the well-being of clients. I don't get anything by doing or not doing something; I receive the same pay regardless. The care my residents receive is directly resulted from nursing assessments - nothing more, nothing less. And I can only speak for myself, but I do treat my residents equally because it is my license on the line if I don't.

[orleans]

39. but you don't want to deny health care to everyone for these reasons...

do you?

[demodonkey]

48. I hope your nursing home is better, but see my post #44...

...Most nursing homes are crap. The for-profit ones are in it for the money (like Manor Care's CEO getting $181 million when the Carlyle Group bought them out) but the non-profits are not always so good either.

My 49-year old brother is dead because of "care" he got for a broken shoulder in a non-profit nursing home. He ended up septic with TWO concurrent infections.

Now a for-profit is doing their best to kill my mother who is my last immediate family. Long story but bottom line is they sent her off to the hospital and now she is stuck there because they are demanding she go on Medicaid when she still has insurance and needs therapy.

I am so FED UP with this nonsense. People who are sick, hurt, or disabled need CARE, not crap.

Nursing homes should be treated as hospitals; and not allowed to discriminate against patients for financial reasons. If we had single-payer and covered long term care (which we must if we really want to provide full healthCARE) there would be no incentive for these places to discriminate.

[buckettgirl]

69. Only slightly

I am leaving the nursing home I work in because corporate is running it into the ground. At this point, the only reason my residents get good care is because we have good employees, but even at that, alot of us are trying to get out.
My nursing home is part of a non-profit organization which took over a few years back. This corporation is willing to sacrifice patient care for their bottom line.

My grandmother died in a nursing home because of bad nursing care - namely no one was paying attention to her lab results; her clotting times were too high and she bled out and it killed her.

I agree that people who are hurt, sick, and disabled need care - and GOOD care at that. But I don't believe that structuring a universal health care plan to be like Medicare is a good answer either.

I think the path to good health care in this country includes a single payer system that is formed and regulated by people who work in the healthcare profession, and includes cradle to grave coverage.

[demodonkey]

73. Well we agree on single payer cradle to grave single-payer system...

...with one small difference; I think consumers should have a seat at the table too when it comes to forming and regulating.

[JeanGrey]

80. Then can discriminate for a LOT OF REASONS. Practically

any. Did you know that a nursing home does NOT have to take your mom? If they feel she is too much trouble they will simply refuse. There is no law against it. Then you will be forced to put her wherever she will be accepted and a lot of those are hell holes.

It is always sad when people realize how awful the rules that govern nursing homes are.

For instance that you cannot be away from the nursing home more than seven days or they give your bed away and you could find yourself in a strange room with a strange roommate and half your stuff gone.

My mom was sick enough to be hospitalized many times and guess what? She was ALWAYS miraculously read to go back to the nursing home in exactly seven days!

[Cleita]

86. Nursing homes are not all they should be, I agree.

Most government health plans provide for non-profit nursing homes and hospitals. They get a fixed number of dollars a year for each bed and payroll and overhead. The idea is for them to fill all the beds with everything they need provided. There is no extra billing or even any billing, just a check at the beginning of each year after a budget has been worked out with the government agency that is overseeing the payments to health care providers and collection of the money to pay for the system. They of course are subject to inspections on a regular basis to make sure that they are operating under agreed upon guidelines. Read up on how some of the Scandanavian countries do it.

[JeanGrey]

107. It has to be better than the U.S.A. It is hard for me to believe there

are ANY regulations after what I saw and experienced and my Mom was in three centers. Yes there was rampant fraud from Medicare, and terrible treatment. The only time she got really good care WAS in a non profit. For profits are horrendous unless you can afford five grand a month or more.

[buckettgirl]

132. they don't give your bed away

any nursing home worth a damn will make sure that any resident sent to the hospital will have a bed-hold policy. I have had residents hospitalized for 6 weeks that had nothing happen to their bed or their room.

And yes nursing homes can refuse to take new residents. I wish you could see the process to understand. We have turned down some new admissions because, although they are elderly and have dementia, they were VIOLENT. This again, goes back to fed and state regulations. You don't want someone in your facility who could be a danger to others. Its puts you in a hell of pickle with state.

To put it in perspective, how would you feel if your mom was in a nursing home which just admitted a man with dementia (and they knew he had a history of violent behaviors) and within 24 hrs, that man hit, pushed, or kicked your mom for no other reason than he is an elderly man with dementia with violent behaviors. You would expect your nursing home to do its reasonable best to protect your mother and its other residents - which sometimes means refusing to admit.

[Horse with no Name]

57. The reason it is this way is because many nursing homes

defrauded Medicare/Medicaid for billions of dollars. For example--a resident got their toenails trimmed, Medicare paid to have a leg amputated. The patients were billed for procedures(and CARE) that was never provided. It was rampant.
The paperwork you are forced to do has to do with that. Strictly the fault of the industry that gripes about having to "prove" that they did what they said they did.

[SharonAnn]

71. The Frist family business was fine $1.2 BILLION in Medicare/Medicaid fraud.

Just think about that! Fined more than $1.2 billion.

That's HCA (Hospital Corporation of America) which was headed by Senator Frist's father (chairman of the board) and his brother (president.

These fines were levied for exactly these types of fraud. Miscoding, duplicate billing, completely fraudulent billing, etc.

They were levied in 2000, 2001, and 2002. Why didn't they make big headline news all over the country?

[Horse with no Name]

77. That is a rhetorical question isn't it?

;)

[ChazII]

19. I am not in the medical profession

but my son has a tumor. The last thing I need is the gov't 'helping' me with his problems.

[Cleita]

26. So what are you going to do if you can't pay?

You know single payer doesn't mean the government is going to be doing surgery and treatment. That will be the same doctors and hospitals that always do it. It means the health care providers are going to get paid because even if you lose your job and your insurance, you are covered for payment. That's it. It's so simple I can't believe people don't understand it.

[orleans]

37. ...until someone loses their job & their insurance. just keep in mind

not all of us are fortunate to have the benefits your or your family have
and we get sick too.
sorry to hear about your son--

[demodonkey]

44. Guess what, if your insurance runs out or won't pay, sooner or later the govt WILL be helping...

...only in that case your son's only option may end up being Medicaid which is WELFARE program. Hope you don't go bankrupt or worse in the meantime. It would be a lot easier for everyone concerned and he would probably get more consistent care on single-payer.

It is beyond me why people fear single-payer healthcare but think it is perfectly fine to bankrupt families when someone gets sick, strip their dignity along with much or all of what they have worked for, and then in the end the government has to pay anyway?

It's really bad if you are old, become disabled and need long term care that involves a nursing home. They REALLY take everything (you can keep $40-$45 per month of your income to pay your personal expenses) and the "care" is horrible. My mother nearly died in September because nurses refused to take her vitals. I had to go home and get our thermometer and blood pressure meter and do it myself. Turns out she was burning up with an infection and her blood pressure was eighty-something over forty-something. She had an infection that was brewing for days but was ignored even though I kept telling staff something was wrong. And this was when she was on INSURANCE!!

I wish your son luck, but again I think we ALL would do better with single-payer healthcare for ALL.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

91. Really?

You'd rather a bureaucratic asshole from some for-profit company "helps" your son?

Forgive my obtuseness, but this is the dumbest thing I've read on DU in a long time.

[DeepBlueC]

97. Jesus, I'm in Canada and my doctor helps me

If I need a specialist they refer me. If I need tests they are ordered. If I need surgery it is done. The office doesn't have separate paperwork for each HMO, no VISA relationship required. The government's role is invisible to me. I don't have to wait for anything either, and I can choose my own GP, my own specialists too if I have preferences. Navigating one's way through medical opinions and options is challenging anywhere, but the premiums are part of the tax system and what a family pays per year here is quite a bit less than what American families pay per month. Low income people pay no premium at all. Works for me.

[Greyhound]

118. For logic's sake, please "just say no" to Raygunisms.

(See, that's irony there)

[Indiana_Dem]

20. I'm a nurse, too, and I agree with what you're saying.eom

[Cleita]

27. Tell me something. Why are nurses doing insurance billing?

In my day we who specialized in medical billing did it. All the nurses and doctors did was clarify the diagnosis and treatments so we could take it from there.

[Indiana_Dem]

32. We have to do the right tests and have them documented properly.

We have to fill out a form for this and a form for that. I have no idea. I just do what I'm told. I don't actually do the billing. I have to know what forms need to be filled out for this test and/or that test and how to word it for proper billing and reimbursement.

[Cleita]

36. So you are objecting to the form.

Welcome to the club. The forms and all that comes with them is because it is so easy to cheat if you don't do it and the watchdogs who are constantly under scrutiny because there is "waste" have to show that there isn't any cheating going on. Thank all your corporate sponsored Republican legislators for that. I understand in Canada, since there is only one payer, the system is really simple and direct. For each patient there is a check off list for the medical attention they got. The form usually on a CD burned at the end of the month is mailed to the government payor. It's so un traumatic that people like me have been put out to pasture and the medical assistants handle it without anguish.

[DeepBlueC]

98. quite right. I am in Canada

Single payer SAVES the expense of all that crap. More resources spent on the actual practice of medicine.

[rainbow4321]

47. Ugh...that damn ABN form

Advance Beneficiary Notice
http://www.medicareinteractive.org/page2.php?topic=counselor&page=script&slide_id=191

We have to fill it in and have all the patients sign it if they are getting a flu or pneumococcal shot.
Medicare will pay for one flu shot a year...so if you are a Medicare patient, and you are given this form, MAKE sure your doctor has on record the EXACT date you got your flu shot last year. If you got it on, say Nov. 2 2007 LAST year, and you got it on Nov 1ST **this year**, you are screwed, Medicare will NOT pay for it.

Cuz they don't go from January to January in their calender year for shots given, they go from the day shot given in 2007 to day shot given in 2008. When we are lucky enough to have had a nurse who actually recorded the given date in 2007 and the date actually made it to the computerized medicine list, we are able to tell the patient if it is too soon to get the shot. We give them the option of returning to get it after the one year mark.

The clinic is pretty strict about us getting these ABN's signed because if for some reason Medicare will not pay for the shot (i.e given too soon), having that signed ABN is the ONLY way the patient can be given a bill for it. No signed ABN, the patient cannot be billed, the clinic eats the cost of the shot. By the time they tack on an "adminstration fee" to the cost of the shot, the damn bill is $74.00!!!! Yet you can get it places either for free or $25 or less.

And this is a county hospital clinic with the $74 flu shot! Good luck finding a patient who has an extra $70+ laying around to spend on a shot.

[Indiana_Dem]

95. Your freakin' kiddng me!? I wish they would tell us these things!

I have to complete the form for EVERY admission even if they're not Medicare patients. However, most of the time thepatient can't tell me the specific date, usually just the month and year. Sometimes all they can tell me is that they had it "last fall". So that's what I write.

All I was told was that if the form wasn't filled out for Medicare patients, the hospital doesn't get reimbursed. I thought they meant reimbursed for the hospital stay! So, I am always sure to fill it out. Most of the nurses don't even fill them out, though! I have to keep telling the new nurses becausenobody ever tells them and they don't know any better.

This is the crap I can't stand about being a nurse. I don't even condone getting a damn flu shot during a hospital stay because if they get the shot and have a reaction, how can one pinpoint whether it's a reaction or part of the disease process? I think it's a stupid measure. Then it isn't likely to get recorded on the doctor's chart in his office. Then with some patients--they have bad memories and aren't sure if & when they got a shot in the office or not--or what kind of shot it was! It's so stupid! UGH!

[rainbow4321]

96. Nope, not kidding....

We even had to go to a mandatory inservice on it...during which most of the time eveyrone kept point fingers at it being the nurses' responsbility if the paperwork was not signed.
And the lady who does the charges for the clinic will hunt us down like there is no tomorrow if the Medicare patient doesn't have the ABN form and records show that they were given the flu shot.

So we in turn had to drill it into the clerical staff's collective heads that if THEY don't use their "Medicare" stamp on the patient's paperwork before they pass the outpatient chart/paperwork thru the window to the nurse, and after the doctor visit we are told by the doc "so and so needs a flu shot" WE don't have time to go back and look thru the computer and records to find out if they are a Medicare patient or not...cuz for the most part, our patient population has no clue who is paying their bill...Medicare, Ryan White, the hospital's indigent program, the county insurance policy, Medicaid..they have no clue.

And, the nurses also added that since it is the clerical staff that is checking them in initially and if they know it is a Medicare payor account, they need to automatically put the damn ABN form WITH the paperwork before they hand it all thru to the nurses so we don't also have to go hunt down the ABN sheet before giving the shot.
Sounds trivial until you take into account that in ONE eight hour day, I gave 25 flu shots..for like 4 days in a row back when the shots first came out. That's 25 trips of trying to find out the payor and track down the needed paperwork.
And no one really could answer why the financial stuff kept landing in the nurses' laps.
And you are right. No one knows ever the exact date of when they got their last shot. So if the med records are not kept up from the previous year, it is a crap shoot on if Medicare will pay or not. Hence the urgency on the side of the hospital to get the form signed. No ABN, no reimbursement, not even from the patient. We have the doctor's chart right in front of us and still cannot tell sometimes...it really would suck to be trying to find out the date for an inpatient!!!

[Indiana_Dem]

102. It's because of these things that we need some sort of uniform national health care

and it shouldn't be the floor/clinic nurses job to figure out the financial end!

I'm an admissions nurse and in 14 years I've gone from a 1 page admission (front & back) to a 56-page admission (if printed out from the computer!!). At least if the patient has been to the hospital before I can drag over the history and just add anything new instead of having to go through each system over and over again. I almost would like to see that microchip they keep talking about that carries all of the patient's individual history and all of their tests on it.

If we had some sort of uniformity for all on something like the flu shots, it wouldn't be so cumbersome and time consuming for the nurse to figure out. Things are just too complicated. That's why I keep saying in this thread that we need to make sure any national health care system is made smoother and more efficient not more difficult. It's a nightmare the way it is for patients and health care givers included!!

[eridani]

60. Under current single payer proposals, cost control will be done sensibly--

that is to say by global capital and operating budgeting. That would be analogous to controlling the movements of a herd of cattle by putting a fence around them. What you are going through is analogous to hiring a whole bunch of cowboys with individual sets of reins to each cow.

[alarimer]

63. Having it run by insurance companies is a non-starter.

Their overhead and penny-pinching bullshit is MUCH worse than any government-run system could ever be.

Insurance companies certainly do not know what good medical practices are. They nickel and dime everything to death and some bean-counter makes all the decisions, so as to provide the most profit to their bottom line rather than what is best for the patients.

[Canuckistanian]

67. Universal health care DOESN'T mean "run by the government"

Here in Canada, I don't go to see a government official when I'm sick, I go straight to a doctor.

No government official, beaurocrat or office worker EVER has anything to do the doctor-patient relationship or the treatment that the doctor and patient decide is best.

The ONLY thing the government does is PAY THE BILLS. That's it. And that's the way it should be.

[Doremus]

92. You don't suppose the last 8 years of gutting our govt agencies has anything to do with it?

I do.

Purposely hollowed-out shells so that everybody can say "we can't trust the government, look how bad they screw up."

It's the repuke mantra. Now that they're kicked to the curb we can make our agencies work again.

[rucky]

7. You'll find these folks have contempt for poor people.

That they're poor because they choose to be, and they should be punished. They see healthcare as a privlidge, not a right.

[Indiana_Dem]

21. You're right BUT as a nurse myself and hearing the doctors' views on socialized medicine--

there needs to be some way to curb those who come to the ER for a cold. There should be a limit to certain things. For example, they could maybe say you can only come to the ER with such-and-such complaint only 5 times per year, and if it is more than that, you must find a supplemental insurance to cover.... something like that. We see far too many people who take advantage of the system and take up valuable time away from other very important and emergent treatments--. Sometimes you see all the beds filled up in the ER with minor things and then in comes a REAL emergency and their is no room. You end up having to shuffle these people around to make way for the more emergent patient. In the first place, these minor things shouldn't even be in the ER but then these people don't have a doctor or the office is closed and there is not clinic open--and on and on.

It's doable but there will have to be some limits and strict rules in order to run health care efficiently if everybody can come walking in any old time, anywhere.

[Cleita]

28. Back at ya. A personal experience.

I have been told to go to the ER by my primary care because it was a holiday weekend and the doctors weren't available. I didn't have a cold but I had a fall and a contusion that needed attention. I went to a store front clinic that does urgent care. They told me they didn't deal (??) in that and that I had to go to my primary care physician. So I went to the ER who did treat me but told me I should've gone to my primary care. They were busy with broken bones from all the yahoos who go riding ATVs at the dunes. It happens every holiday weekend. Now the contusion was something I could have cleaned and dressed myself but it was in a place that I couldn't reach. No there was no family to help me. They were on vacation. So what should I have done waited until Monday, while an infection set in?

[Indiana_Dem]

33. No you shouldn't have waited. Anything that needs stitches needs to be stictched within 3 hours.

But that's what I'm saying. The system is all screwed up. We need to find a system that works the best for every type of problem 24/7. National health care might enable a clinic to be open 24/7 for such things.

The part that concerns me is the part where many show up almost weekly into the ER with cough/cold symptoms or chronic back pain problems and clog up the emergent care. If there was a 24/7 clinic with a Physician's Assistant or something like that then it would be nicer. Then again, you don't want one person to make 50 visits in a year for the same thing. There would have to be a limit so the system wouldn't be overtaxed and the taxpayer be taken advantage of for things like this.

[orleans]

40. maybe if these people could afford to go see a fucking doctor

they wouldn't be sitting around in an emergency room for a few hours just to get some cold medicine. realistically--would you? hell no.

[Cleita]

42. You got it.

:fistbump:

[orleans]

45. hey, and while we're on the subject

i posted this the other day...
have you heard any more about this?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4508639&mesg_id=4508639

[Cleita]

46. Oh man they are all over the place. I will put that on my to do list. n/t

[orleans]

50. thanks. let me know if you find anything out. i'm real curious about this

and i'm not getting a lot of answers--from google or from here. but i think it has the potential to be a real big fucking deal.

can you imagine?

a friend of mine was going to take some time off to get into rehab--and was thankful that at least his boss wouldn't know (new job and all) and i'm thinking if he is planning on doing that he should do it pretty quick.

[Indiana_Dem]

43. actually I haven't ever even gone to a doctor for a cold or for cold medicine.

I don't get sick that often, and when I do I go buy some Benadryl,Tylenol and some cough syrup that lasts me a long time. A lot of people think they need antibiotics every time they get a cold.

[Cleita]

49. As a nurse don't you tell them the difference between viruses and

bacteria? Antibiotics won't help their colds (viruses) but if they have developed bronchitis it will. Also, I would never take Benedryl for a cold. It helps allergies, but does nothing for viruses.

[Indiana_Dem]

94. i do if I have a chance but usually by the time they get to me they have pneumonia!

I work on a med/surg floor.

[Frank Cannon]

53. You're exactly right

Too many people use the ER as their source of primary care because they can't afford insurance, period. That sucks for everyone.

[qwlauren35]

72. Not disagreeing...

Some people will never be able to "afford" to see a doctor. For some people, the co-pay is too much. However, I think there may be other people who can't afford the off-hours care because of when they work.

I'm not completely sure what the solution is.

[bobbolink]

75. Ohhh, but it's so much easier to BLAME poor and sick people, isn't it?

You're being waaay too sensible..... looking at the reality, rather than assuming that all people are just sooo bad.

:yourock:

[DeepBlueC]

99. It's 24 hours for stitching

Bleeding, of course, needs to be controlled, but the edges of a wound will still be able to be joined up to 24 hours later. At least that is the standard here in Canada and I have never suffered for observing it.

[Indiana_Dem]

103. Oh, I've been taught 3 hours as a rule!

But if you practice that in Canada then it must be okay. I've seen ER docs refuse to do anything if it happened the previous day.

[alarimer]

64. Doctors are afraid they will have to work 5 days a week.

Instead of taking Friday to go play golf. Maybe they are afraid they won't make as much. Certainly there will be no $25 aspirins. Talk about padding the bill. People go to the ER for a cold BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO OTHER FUCKING HEALTH CARE. Why is that so damn hard to understand? They wouldn't do that if they could go to the doctor without being charged $200 to see the doctor for 5 minutes.

[Indiana_Dem]

87. You could be right about that. Some are like that. But most work way over 40-50 hours a week.

It depends on what kind of doctor you are. ER doctors work 12-24 hours at a time. Surgeons have it the best. They're the ones who don't work as much. The family doctors are the grunts. They work 4-1/2 days in the office and are on-call once during the week and share weekend call with their group, usually. This doesn't count their trips to the nursing homes and alot of other stuff.

Second. Personally, I've NEVER gone to a doctor for a cold. I have colds. I just never go to the doctor when I'm sick (with or without insurance). I let it go through its cycle and use over-the-counter meds if needed. So, no, I don't understand why people feel like they have to go to the doctor when they have a cold. Thus, I would not ever go to an ER for treatment even if I did or did not have insurance, either.

[Hippo_Tron]

109. Maybe doctors that have their own practice play golf on Fridays

But those that work under managed care systems likely don't.

[mondo joe]

66. If people had good access to primary care they wouldn;t use the ER for colds. NT

[Indiana_Dem]

89. No--the Medicare/Medicaid people still come to the ER regardless because it's paid for.

They don't have to worry about payment so a great deal of them choose to come to the ER instead of a clinic...or they don't think twice about coming to the ER after hours instead of waiting for the clinic or the doctor's office to open. I'm serious. This is the reality and if we have national health care there will have to be the appropriate avenues set up for the masses so that everything runs as smoothly as we want it to.

[sandnsea]

74. 24 Hour Urgent Care Clinics

I have no idea why doctors complain about people going to the ER - but don't have the common sense God gave a goose to set up 24 hour care clinics - especially in cities.

And this is exactly why we DO need government involvement. So that the people can demand the services the doctors are too selfish to implement themselves.

[Indiana_Dem]

88. Our hospital set up my small rural city's first clinic this year.

But it's not open 24/7. It has helped some, but the Medicaid/Medicare people don't care because it will pay for their ER visit regardless. So we still get the Medicaid/Medicare people (this is what irritates the doctors and staff). The ones with/without regular insurance usually go to the clinic unless they don't know about it.

[sandnsea]

90. Oh bullshit

You're a bigot.

[Indiana_Dem]

93. Maybe I'm not wording it right.

The clinic visit cost is $75. Medicaid/Medicare will not pay for the $75 visit to the clinic...but it WILL pay for either the doctor's visit or the ER visit. Instead of waiting to go see the doctor, they use the ER because at that particular time that they want to be seen, the ER is the only place they can go on Medicaid/Medicare. They can't pay the $75, so they go to what they can go to.

I am not blaming those on Medicare/Medicaid, it's the SYSTEM! In this sense, I'm saying they don't think about the cost of what an ER visit costs--it is not costng them anything. Otherwise, if they had no insurance or their own private insurance they would probably rather either wait for the doctor's office to open or would pay the $75 cost of the clinic vs. the cost of the ER visit.

If we get a nation-wide system, things like this will have to be ironed out or everybody against socialized medicine will claim they were right. Call me a bigot if you want but don't forget I'm on your side of the debate! I've worked in health care for 14 years now and I am one of the most compassionate nurses you'll find no matter who you are. I give people the benefit of the doubt because I've been there. I grew up on my single mother's welfare benefits! I know what I see people doing and they aren't even really aware of it. The system enables the behavior.

[Princess Turandot]

110. Medicaid physician fee payments are extremely low for primary care docs..

as a result, it's been my experience in NYC that Medicaid covered patients most often come to hospital EDs because no other care is available to them. Physicians are not obligated to participate in Medicaid. If the number of MDs willing to see Medicaid patients in your town isn't adequate for the number of Medicaid recipients in the town, where should those patients go?

Additionally, pediatric visits are a large part of Medicaid ED visits. Poor moms don't care any less for their kids than middle class or wealthy ones. I know quite a few people who do not hesitate to rush their kids to EDs in off hours for all sorts of ailments; the only difference is that in their cases, their private peds doc calls the ED first, to facilitate the visit.

Also, in NYC and other largish cities, primary care docs are often scheduled full up in advance. When a Medicare recipient gets sick, you're talking about someone who is at least 65 and often older. Often enough when they come to the ED, they're pretty sick. If it's January and a 75 year old is having breathing difficulties, they can't wait to see their MD in two days. In my experience, the largest rate of inpatient admission from ED visits comes from Medicare covered individuals.

Not to mention that in largish + cities, people without serious problems are triaged out to the waiting room, where they may sit for hours before being seen. The notion that someone goes to an ED to be seen at the time they want or to be seen w/o little wait, does not jive with the patient's reality in the ED.

[Indiana_Dem]

120. Thanks. You worded the situation a little better.

The only difference in my smaller town is that all of the peds and a few of the primary docs do take Medicaid patients.

I truly wish that if we have the chance to create socialized medicine for the U.S., we can organize the flow a little better than it is now. If not, we are going to overloaded.

[Marrah_G]

140. My local hospital has a split emergency room

One for minor little things and another for real emergencies. It seems to work out pretty well.

Also if we had socialized single payer medicine people could actually go to the doctors office or local clinic instead of the emergency room.

Also more clinics- especially in poor areas.

[Warpy]

9. Ignorance. There is no other reason. Just pure ignorance

She's probably hearing nasty things from conservative doctors, backed up by nasty things from a conservative preacher and of course she gets all her news from Pox.

Because she isn't interested in doing her own homework, she's stuck in a right wing never never land and will never grow up.

We aren't going to change these people, their souls are ossified. We have to unite and do what's best for all of us in spite of them.

[Miss Chybil]

11. Bill Moyers on Nurses and Universal Health Care Coverage

May 9, 2008

BILL MOYERS: We turn now to health care. You don't need me to tell you that 47 million Americans are uninsured, and it's not news to you that medical costs are increasing faster than the rate of inflation, or that more Americans than ever are afraid a single major illness could bankrupt them. It's little wonder that when the Gallup poll asked people on the eve of this election year to name the most important thing that can be done to cope with health care, 63% mentioned universal coverage — more than any other fix. Critics were quick to cry "Socialism! Socialism!", and even before Senator Hillary Clinton unveiled her healthcare plan, they attacked it, too, as "socialized medicine." It took the McClatchy News Service, which some of us consider the finest news organization still on its feet, to reach back into history for some context on this debate. McClatchy's Kevin G. Hall reminded us that Senator Clinton's "socialistic" plan bears a striking resemblance to changes proposed in 1974 by President Richard Nixon, who was, some will remember, a Republican. Here's what Nixon said in his final State of the Union address:

PRESIDENT RICHARD NIXON: I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health-insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses."

BILL MOYERS: Nixon's plans were foiled by the White House crimes known as Watergate, which forced his resignation.

Thirty-four years later, we're no closer to health care for everyone, despite the number of Americans who need it. But now, some very determined people are taking up the fight for universal health care. They're nurses — who day in and day out — encounter the human consequences of a broken system. Here's our report, by Producer Peter Meryash and Correspondent Rick Karr.

read the rest of the transcript here... http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05092008/transcript1.html

[Cleita]

12. That was a great show. Bill Moyers has always been on top of this issue

and has come up with some of the best source information to counter the astroturf.

[huachucalady1]

15. Health Care?

It it not just the poor who do not have health care.  I know
many people who work hard at there jobs and make more then
average pay that can't get Insurance.  I was in Australia last
year and they have Universal Health care and everyone I talk
to love it.   They don't understand why the richest country in
the world can not afford to take care of there people medical.

[Cleita]

31. Welcome to DU.

We don't have it because the health care industry of insurers and HMOs are unwilling to give up their cash cow and they spread any number of lies about how badly it works in other countries. Americans unfortunately believe it.

[JerseygirlCT]

16. I don't know.

My old doctor (left his practice, darn it - loved the guy) definitely favored the idea.

My new doc is too new for me to have sussed out on the topic.

[rug]

17. Because she's already covered.

[Incitatus]

23. I can only think of two reasons.

1. They think the quality of their care will be diminished.

2. They don't give a shit about anyone else and don't want one cent of their taxes going to help poor little Johnny fight cancer.

[PassingFair]

25. Many people believe that they will have to wait too long for care.

The biggest objection I hear is "I know SOMEONE
from Canada who had a brain tumor and came to
the US for treatment because there was an EIGHT
MONTH wait for chemo in Canada."

I only wish I had had a Canadian standing next
to me to refute that.

Personally, I know Canadians that won't come to
the US because they are afraid that a medical
situation could bankrupt them...

[Cleita]

29. That's part of the astroturf being spread here in the USA about Canada.

Another that I heard was someone who couldn't get hip surgery for eighteen months because the orthopedic surgeon was only allowed to do two surgeries a week. I put that one on DU in the Canadian Forum and it was refuted immediately by our DU Canadians, God love them.

[JeanGrey]

82. It seems though I remember a case where a man sued the

Canadian government because he had to wait too long for a (was it?) hip replacement and wanted to get private insurance, I think that was illegal and he sued. Wasn't the outcome the Canadian court allowed purchase of private insurance? It's been a while so the details are sketchy.

[Cleita]

84. That story has been debunked. More astroturf.

Private insurance is allowed in Canada only for health care that their Medicare doesn't cover. So even if he got insurance, it wouldn't cover hip replacement.

[JeanGrey]

106. Okay I found it. It wasn't debunked.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7505/1408

The court judgment was given in a case brought by Jacques Chaouilli, a Quebec doctor whose patient, George Zeliotis, had waited nearly a year for hip replacement surgery. Dr Chaouilli and Mr Zeliotis argued that Quebec’s ban on buying private insurance for services already covered by the public system yet not readily accessible violated both Quebec’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court agreed: "In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance, while it might be constitutional in circumstances where health care services are reasonable as to both quality and timeliness, is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services."


So you can get private insurance even if it is covered.
I knew I had read about this, a man who waited a year, I just couldn't remember all the details.

[Cleita]

111. Good for you for finding something more recent and pretty

relevant considering that the Canadians realize introducing a two tier system will erode their medical system. It's in the article you linked to. Now we know that our shit of a system is trying to introduce our market based medical system into the Canadian system so I'm not surprised that they are introducing law suits about this probably about hip surgeries that aren't even true. Now with all the complaints you have about our system, I am really surprised by the inconsistencies you have about this. When I am really challenged about the Canadian system, guess what I go ask the Canadians. So do join me at the Canadian Forum here at DU and we will see what they have to say.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=190x25857

[JeanGrey]

112. Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. What inconsistencies?

Everyone knows we need Universal Health Care - but I want it to be the best - better than anyone's. Not all Universal Health Care is that great but ours CAN be. I've heard many talk about expanding medicare and I think that would be great, but we do need to improve medicare. Cut out the fraud, and expand services to cover everyone.

I'm confused about one point, what do you mean by "our system" is introducing lawsuits? Are you saying we had something to do with this particular case?

Against thanks for the link!

[Cleita]

114. Again you are buying into the RW meme about fraud.

Honestly, there isn't that much fraud. It's pretty tightly managed, and if you see fraud Medicare encourages you to report it. I know you were upset about what was happening with your mother but that's something that can be fixed if you report it to the Medicare people. There is a reason for the hospital stay and then seven days later into the home. It's the way Medicare coverage is written so the doctors are doing what they have to do to keep your mother covered. Otherwise you would have to pay for her nursing home out of pocket. This is something that has been done by these crooks in our government because they have recently cut nursing home benefits. Here you write to your Congressional Representatives and Senators and tell them you are displeased with the coverage and want them to change it. It's up to us to be diligent about what they are doing. I have heard from a reliable source in Canada that our insurance companies are trying to undermine the Canadian system to acquire an insurance market in Canada. This just smells like something they would do. I have no proof but I'm willing to bet if some reporter followed the people involved in this lawsuit, it would lead right back to them as have other shenanigans that they have pulled.

[JeanGrey]

119. Look you will go nowhere trying to say there is no fraud in

Medicare. My Mom was in nursing homes for five years. And the seven day thing isn't something that has recently happened - this was way back in the 90's.

And I have written congressmen and ombudsmen and you name it.

If you have any proof that "we" are behind the Canadian thing I'd sure like to see it. I think claiming that is ludicrous without proof.

Wouldn't it just be smarter to admit that not all NHC are perfect and in fact many have flaws? In this way WE CAN make ours better!

[Cleita]

121. Yes, but I get upset when people propagate insurance company propaganda.

Because other people pick it up and we are that further back from getting this done in a cost effective way. No one says NHC is perfect but it's a helluva lot better than what we have. Also the Canadians are able to deliver quality health care for half of what we are per annum to everyone. Our cost is $7,000 + per person and we still have forty percent of the population uninusured and larger number under insured. If you keep nitpicking on what you don't like about Medicare you may not have it one of these days and you will have to pay your mother's health expenses out of your pocket instead because no insurance company will cover her because she is high risk. I will try to find some other information for you. The thing with your mother that you don't like and that you think is waste is legal. No one is cheating.

[JeanGrey]

125. It is CHEATING and it should not be legal. Sorry.

That is HOW we got into this mess in the first place and there is no place for it in a national health care system. We have to root OUT waste and keep it out. Taking that 1600 hundred for walking someone ten feet is the same as stealing with a gun. THE SAME.

My Mom is dead so at least she isn't suffering anymore. And yes I realize there is quality health care in a national system but not for everyone. I want OUR system to be the best and have all of the advantages and none of the flaws.

[Cleita]

122. While I'm still looking for information for you, I ran across this an

interesting read about a woman in her quest to find a doctor that would take Medicare that includes a history of how we got it and what the past Republican Congresses have done to weaken it, privatize it and defund it. It might help explain why you have what you consider problems with your mother's nursing home. There has been a militant movement by conservatives to ruin Medicare and thereby drowning it as Grover Norquist once said he wanted to do.

http://dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1230

[JeanGrey]

126. Thank you but I have no problem knowing that the righties

tried to destroy medicare and are the reason for the problems we are having. But WE must take on the mantle of IMPROVING it and not do what they did. I don't want to see a country so grateful to have ANYTHING that even substandard care is accepted. We can make our system the best in the world and do away with the problems Canada and England have. I understand France's system is quite good.

[Cleita]

123. More about the plaintiffs in the Canadian lawsuit.

http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/ReferencesView.aspx?PersonID=784093423

Chaoulli is a physician and Zeliotis is a patient who has suffered as a result of waiting lists.
...
182 The Attorneys General made two preliminary objections: first, that the claims raised on this appeal are not properly justiciable; and second, that neither Dr. Chaoulli nor Mr. Zeliotis has standing to bring their claim.These objections should be rejected.
...
(2) Standing of Dr. Chaoulli and Mr. Zeliotis
...
In our view, for the reasons given by the trial judge, as previously mentioned, Mr. Zeliotis has not demonstrated that systemic waiting lists were the cause of his delayed treatment.

187 Dr. Chaoulli's situation is different.He offers himself as an advocate for private health insurance.He is a medically trained individual who has a history of conflict with the Quebec health authorities and of disobedience to their rules governing medical practice.
...
Second, Dr. Chaoulli and Mr. Zeliotis are both Quebec residents and are therefore directly affected by the provisions barring access to private health insurance.
...
The trial judge, having heard all the evidence, concluded that the delays Mr. Zeliotis experienced in obtaining hip surgery were caused not by excessive waiting lists but by a number of other factors, including his pre-existing depression and his indecision and unfounded medical complaints (p. 793):

The truth is that, in light of his personal medical impediments, the fact that he was already suffering from depression, his indecision and his complaints, which in many respects were unwarranted, it is hard to conclude that the delays that occurred resulted from lack of access to public health services, and in fact even Mr. Zeliotis's complaints about delays are questionable.It was he who initially wanted a second opinion, it was his surgeon who hesitated because of his problems, and so on.Thus, his complaint to the director of professional services at the Royal Victoria Hospital . . . was not corroborated.An out,of,court examination in connection with another case is puzzling, as Mr. Zeliotis said he was in very good health . . .

Mr. Zeliotis sought a second opinion, which he was entitled to do, and this further delayed his surgery.More importantly, his physician believed that Mr. Zeliotis was not an "ideal candidate" for the surgery because he had suffered a heart attack and undergone bypass surgery earlier that year.

So that article was astroturf after all. They neglected to give the reason that he had to wait so long for surgery. It was not the waiting list but Mr. Zeliotis own foot dragging as well as his physicians hesitance to operate because of his heart problem. You'd never know the real circumstances from that article.

That whole article is a hit piece on the Canadian health system. This phrase alone says it because it's not true as any Canadian will tell you.

The controversy brings to head long standing complaints that Canada’s healthcare system is underfunded and staggering under escalating costs, staff shortages, and increasing demands for services.

The author of that article David Spurgeon writes many articles for that apparently conservative magazine and he comes across as an advocate for private care. It's harder to find a link to USA health insurance publicists or lobbyists because frankly I would have to see their ledgers to know who is paying for stuff but this is how it's done sprinkling disinformation and half truths in what appear to be respectable publications, then people take it at face value. Oh this guy had to wait a year for hip surgery and it turns out not to be true. It was used as a way for those doctors to try to get the Canadian court to allow private health insurance to be sold in Canada. I wonder who is going to be selling that insurance? I'm betting Blue Cross and a few others are offering their services in their newly set up Montreal offices, with headquarters in NYC of course.

[JeanGrey]

127. "Unfounded" Unfounded says who? See this is what I am

talking about. Suppose they weren't "unfounded" but the system decided they were - and you have no path to another route. Doesn't that bother you?

It depends on who you believe. Apparently the court believed him because he won.

As far as blue cross setting up offices - do you really think that we are going to get NHC and giant companies like Blue Cross are just going to disappear? I only wish that were true.

[Cleita]

129. That's a copy of one of the court documents so they didn't believe him.

They based their decision on some other legal technicality, which I'm not going to google for you because you really don't seem to want to know the truth. Just do your own googling. The fact is that the doctor is a well known advocate of privatized health care. He wants it and hates the government system. He found a schmuck that agreed to make a legal case for him and he won this time. I don't think he was using his own money to pay those lawyers who took the case for him. I'm done.

[JeanGrey]

130. If you can find out any evidence whatsoever that some

corporation from the U.S. backed him I'd like to see it.

[Cleita]

131. What kind of resources do you think I have?

I'm neither a journalist nor a lawyer. Something tells me though that you are more involved than you are letting on. I debunked your year's wait for hip surgery. It simply wasn't true. What Canadian other than a mentally ill one that the doctor got to make the lawsuit wants to exchange their health care system for ours? That doctor should really move to the USA if he thinks he's going to do so well with privatized health care. So that isn't his motivation or he would do it. Circumstantial evidence points to him being backed by private insurers and those guys are our guys here in the USA. I'm done.

[JeanGrey]

137. It wasn't debunked. He won the suit. Had it not been true

why then did they rule as they said? And no, I'm not "more" involved if you mean personally. I see no circumstantial evidence unless I am missing something. And here you are with wild accusations about "trading" health plans and that the lawyer was "mentally" ill. I'm done with this.

[JeanGrey]

138. According to the article this was their decision:

"In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance, while it might be constitutional in circumstances where health care services are reasonable as to both quality and timeliness, is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services."

That doesn't sound like a technicality to me.

[JeanGrey]

128. And I'd also like to mention while we are discussing this that

I have medicare as well and I also keep a thousand dollar a month insurance policy to cover what medicare does NOT which is a great deal! Especially drugs. I have thousands of dollars of drugs and if I only had Medicare part D, I'd be screwed. Although it is better than nothing for many.

Did you know if Medicare as the primary payer decides they aren't going to cover something, my secondary insurance can refuse as well? Leaving someone holding the bag? How is this fair or should be legal? It is ridiculous and NHC HAS TO BE BETTER

[DeepBlueC]

136. this is Medicare as the Republicans envisioned it

easy to give up on because it "doesn't work" by design. I'm an American living in Canada and I would have been back home years ago but I can not afford to be sick there. Here I am just fine and all of these complications you envision are not ones that I see. I read about them in the newspaper but I can not say that I have experienced any lack of access, delays. I think you are crazy to prefer the American system where senior citizens have to shop for new and opaque "choices" which have big holes in them you are not supposed to notice and kids go uninsured. How about just insurance, not insurance with qualifications? If you have a large enough risk pool, like a whole population, young and old, sick and healthy, you get broad coverage at lower costs.

[JeanGrey]

139. Where on earth did you get the idea I "prefer" the American

system? IT IS TERRIBLE which is what I've been trying to convey! But I want our NHS to be THE BEST

[Indiana_Dem]

34. Well, heck, there's a wait here, too, sometimes!

My mother had to cancel an office visit for Monday with her liver specialist. I called to reschedule and guess when the soonest time to reschedule was? JUNE 22ND, 2009!!!! Can you believe that?!

[demodonkey]

51. Bullshit. I have NO insurance, so if I get something bad I have to wait FOREVER for care unless...

...I want to go bankrupt or lose everything I have.

Please just let me die. I would rather be dead than deal with another financial mess.

Look at the mess we all had when DUers had to raise money for the surgery to try to save Andy Stephenson's life. It was hell, for us AND for Andy and his family. And so senseless.

[Cleita]

52. Maybe new DUers need to know about that.

Anybody good at mining the archives? I know the threads are there. It's just a matter of knowing the right titles to get at them.

[walldude]

81. I feel for ya man.. No insurance here either

3 people in my house with "pre-existing conditions". My wife had chest pains a few months ago, had to take her to the emergency room. Turned out to be bad gas. $7000 to find that out. The whole health industry needs to be re-worked.

[MiniMe]

35. She must listen to Faux Noise, Rush, and Hannity going on about

universl healthcare is bad, it is socialized medicine.

[orleans]

41. because she's an asshole? n/t

[Horse with no Name]

54. This is the topic that will filter out the nurses who became nurses

because they wanted to help their fellow man and the nurses who were looking for good paychecks and job security.
There is a difference between the two--and the latter ones mostly oppose ANY type of "socialized" care. I work mostly with those types of healthcare providers.
By their protests...you shall know them.

[Indiana_Dem]

61. I went in for both reasons...

I am definitely for socialized medicine. All I wanted was job security but not necessarily the high pay. You're right. I'm surrounded by doctors who don't want socialized or single payer insurance. However, many of the nurses are not opposed to it. The only two concerns I seem to hear about are not getting treated promptly and the quality of care issues. If we could make sure and address those two concerns we might be able to win some more over.

[rainbow4321]

65. Some of us are in it for all three reasons

Which is why if socialized medicine comes to be, there will HAVE to be some sort of **federal protection for all nurses**. Because as it stands now, there is no protection on patient:nurse ratio or mandatory overtime.
I work in a county hospital and not too long ago someone posted on the hospital's "rumor or truth" page asking if the hospital nurses could be forced into working OT or be fired. The administrators answer was, basically: yep, you have to work whatever it takes if your manager decides that there is not safe staffing..if you refuse, this is a right to work state and you can be terminated. Great incentive to stay in the profession, huh?

If the hospital has to absorb costs, the first people who will have their salaries cut and hours increased WILL be the nurses. Good luck keeping that healthcare system going with no one wanting to do bedside nursing care anymore. We are already in a crisis. Baby boomers retiring, middle aged nurses getting burnt out and leaving the profession--or doing like me and leaving the acute care inpatient setting and working in outpatient clinics (Mon-Fri, 8-5, holidays off).

Anyone wanting to ENTER nursing school is shit out of luck...because nursing instructors are not paid enough, they are leaving those jobs at an alarming rate---translates into fewer classes being offered, few classes mean less students accepted = fewer new nurses in the future.

And I have no guilt feelings over wanting a good paycheck and job security. Why should I? Why should any nurse, for that matter?? We keep people healthy, keep people from falling out of the system (especially at my county run facility), in a lot of cases WE are the first ones to see a patient take a turn for the worse and notify the docs (who are home in bed, not at the patients' bedsides). And this is a group people who others say shouldn't expect job security and a decent salary??

[Horse with no Name]

76. Many institutions that I have worked at have had mandatory overtime

in the past years. One was probably not far from where you work.
There is NO protection right now. The facility that I work treats nurses as "one size fits all".
Safe Harbor is filed so frequently by staff that I wonder why the State Board hasn't stepped in. Oh? I forget. The State Board is by design an entity to protect the public...not to protect the nurse.
I am NOT advocating that nurses shouldn't have job security and benefits. What my point was that the ones who got into nursing MERELY for those things and NOT because they enjoy what they are doing...are generally the ones that advocate AGAINST "socialized medicine".
They are generally the ones that bitch because of Medicaid as well.
I work with many of them. I've learned to keep my mouth shut because it makes my work life easier.
It is not that possible for me to leave my current job because I have no desire to start driving several hours to work again, even though I did it for many years.

[Indiana_Dem]

105. Thank you for your post, too!

I'm fortunately in a geographical location where I've never seen any involuntary overtime being forced. If I ever start seeing that I will retire from nursing or find another area of nursing that doesn't implement it!

I work with many nurses like this, too. There are a few of us who stick together who think differently.

[Indiana_Dem]

104. Thank you for this post! Greatly appreciated. eom

[BleedingHeartRN]

124. Amen sista!!!

I DO enjoy helping people, but I'm not Mother Teresa either. When healthcare got turned into a consumer-driven, competitive, free-market industry everything started going completely to hell. It's not like we have "choices" when we do have insurance either. I have to select from a very small, pre-determined list of providers or pay through the nose, and I have the "premium" plan.

As rainbow so eloquently put it, nursing is a broken field and it's facing some serious problems to sustain itself long-term. Healthcare as whole, is imploding in the U.S. and the key problems are not Medicare/Medicaid, but the influence of FOR PROFIT pharmaceutical, medical equipment, and insurance companies.

Like rainbow, I've long left the bedside to obtain a Master's Degree in the highest paid nursing specialty where I can be guaranteed only one patient at a time. It's a win-win for me - I'm well compensated for doing a job I love and giving people the care that I deem acceptable.

[Edweird]

58. Nurse and asshole are not mutually exclusive.

[Hekate]

59. Perhaps she votes her husband's class, rather than her own. Seemed that way w/ 2 nurses on my street

When the issue of having a nurse's union came up at the hospital, these two women had opposite views. One was the wife of a Social Security Admin employee (she was pro-union, and Democratic), and the other was the wife of a small-business owner (against the union, Republican).

(The Democratic couple were at my house on Election Night, whooping it up with me at Obama's win. Sadly, the Republicans are worried about an influx of "socialist" legislation now.)

Nurses generally go into the profession with high ideals of helping sick people, so I don't think "selfishness" is the issue. I think it's fear of the unknown, misinformation, too much propaganda from for-profit insurance companies, etc. Hospital nurses as a group are already overworked and understaffed. Nurses are absolutely necessary, but they are expensive, so hospitals with budget problems keep looking for ways to cut their numbers and increase their patient load. Changes over the last 20 years have done little to benefit nurses, so I think a lot of them are worried that any more changes are likely to have the same negative impacts.

Just my speculation based on observation.

Hekate

[Indiana_Dem]

62. The worries are real (in your last paragraph).

I'm all for nationalized health care. All I ask is not to be burdened with a high patient load and mandatory OT hours. If that would happen, I would quit in a heartbeat.

[Enthusiast]

70. She is ideologically Republican

therefore she has been influenced by the coolaid.

We need to study the world's socialized health care systems and adopt the good qualities of several. We can't continue to reward the insurance industry for doing nothing other than obstructing care.

[Orsino]

78. Then she wants some people to go without health care.

That's not a credible position for a nurse to take.

[and-justice-for-all]

83. Because they are ignorant...

and fear any change from the 'norm'. UHC is a must, no questions.

[JDPriestly]

100. Because she is afraid of it. In fact, it won't change her life much

except simplify the paperwork and give her more freedom.

[1]

101. i'm guessing she's just tired from doing her job. and the thought of another 40 million ...

entering her world does not thrill her all that much.


but i'm just guessing...

[LWolf]

116. Because she's a republican.

On the other hand, the American Nurses Association supports HR 676.

[TheKentuckian]

135. Because they're greedy, inside the box thinking,

you're on you own, I gotz mine, type mothermufuckers.