Silence8
Posts: 833
Joined: 11/2/2009 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl ~FR I have been reading this thread with interest. Everyone seems to come back to the same question.. money. From a nursing perspective, i can honestly say that covering that many people will save money. Lets take someone with high blood pressure. If this person has no insurance, it can lead to stroke, renal failure, heart and lung issues, as well as visual problems. I dont need to site a source, this is pretty common knowledge. Without insurance, this person becomes ill and ends up in the ER. Costs in the ER are astronomical compared to a Dr's office and a few blood tests. The illness, lets say renal failure, requires stent placement (surgical) and dialysis (typically three times a week at an outpatient center). Now they are unable to work, and go on disability. Take the same person with insurance, seeing a Dr for preventative care, and the bp issue is found, medication started, and the patient will hopefully follow the therapy and can continue to work. Am i the only one who sees the potential cost saving measure here? Not to mention all the time saved in labor costs in the ER? Freeing up valuable bed space and health care on the hospitals end even in admissions and discharges? This makes a lot of sense. At the very, very least, there absolutely positively should be universal healthcare for children (especially babies), before small problems become big and expensive. (There isn't, right? Man, you really think there would be, right?) Thanks for reading. Kucinich's caving spurred this rant...
|