Patriot Nurse explains why Obamacare is a DISASTER - Protect Yourself! .

  1. 0
    Why Obamacare is a DISASTER

    Patriot Nurse is a straight shooter. Or, based on her other gun ownership videos maybe that should be a sharp shooter?

    She doesn't look like the sort of person that would waste many rounds.....

    She's a prepper. She's an ardent supporter of the 2nd amendment. Also saying in another video she seems to have some link to the IDF.....? Despite that possibility what she says in her videos seems sensible and relevant. So I've linked her here.
    Last edit by JustBeachyNurse on Jan 17, '13 : Reason: imbed video
  2. Get the Hottest Nursing Topics Straight to Your Inbox!

  3. 31 Comments so far...

  4. 7
    Spare me. I'm totally over the Obama-means-no guns-means freedoms denied-means no healthcare thing.

    Some folks need to have reality checks in place before they make YouTube videos.

    And no, I didn't watch the video.
    Last edit by roser13 on Jan 17, '13
  5. 6
    Quote from roser13
    Spare me. I'm totally over the Obama-means-no guns-means freedoms denied-means no healthcare thing.

    Some folks need to have reality checks in place before they make YouTube videos.

    And no, I didn't watch the video.
    Looks like it's essentially a very long ad for her entrepreneurial venture. Content wise the usual hair-on-fire warnings about how our healthcare system will be like the -gasp- NHS! Or the County Health Department! She did put a plug in for prevention to avoid chronic lifestyle-related diseases at the end.
  6. 5
    Yes nothing could possibly be worse than our system becoming more like the NHS. It's not like the UK is ahead of us in almost every conceivable benchmark of healthcare or something.... (well, maybe not their teeth)
    somenurse, TheCommuter, OCNRN63, and 2 others like this.
  7. 2
    And why are long wait times at county clinics always dragged out as a "major problem"? So we have to wait. So what?
    Not_A_Hat_Person and somenurse like this.
  8. 1
    Quote from BrandonLPN
    And why are long wait times at county clinics always dragged out as a "major problem"? So we have to wait. So what?
    I would say that long wait times are a big problem: if you are employed, there is the issue of being off the clock while waiting; if you have kids at a sitter, you are paying the sitter during your long wait, and perhaps you have other things that need doing, which can't be done, while you are waiting.

    In England, the long wait includes weeks and weeks just to get an appointment with your "consultant" and then perhaps months before you get to see a specialist; then months again before your gall bladder can be removed.

    I would hardly call that a better system or outcome than we have here currently.
    VivaLasViejas likes this.
  9. 6
    I give her credit for taking the time to share her views and to put some thought into this, although the basis of her statements is poor.

    Health reform could have gone in two basic directions on the spectrum of privatized vs. socialized, we went fully in the privatized direction, not in the direction of HHS. (Private/for-profits insurers and providers were not only not hampered by the changes, much of it went in their favor). You can have a private insurer system, a single payer system, or government managed insurance, she seems to argue against all of these, I'm not sure what her proposed alternative is.

    Insuring the previously un-insured won't suddenly add a whole bunch of high-burden patients. Patients with chronic, poorly managed CHF are already bogging down our hospitals, whether or not they have insurance, broadening coverage just means this patients are more likely to be managed in the outpatient setting rather than with repeat hospitalization, which is exponentially more expensive.

    The one group we do expect to see more of is elective procedures, which she argues are the only thing that gives hospitals enough income to keep Nurseatient ratios up, so she should be all for more elective procedure patients.

    There will be less specialist MD's, although that's not due to Obamacare, which is a very, very good thing. One of biggest money drains in our system is over zealous (and over compensated) specialists.
    Ayvah, somenurse, TheCommuter, and 3 others like this.
  10. 5
    Quote from tntrn
    I would say that long wait times are a big problem: if you are employed, there is the issue of being off the clock while waiting; if you have kids at a sitter, you are paying the sitter during your long wait, and perhaps you have other things that need doing, which can't be done, while you are waiting.In England, the long wait includes weeks and weeks just to get an appointment with your "consultant" and then perhaps months before you get to see a specialist; then months again before your gall bladder can be removed. I would hardly call that a better system or outcome than we have here currently.
    Well, I'm a believer in the saying "the ends justify the means". Countries like the UK have higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality rates, and more comprehensive access to basic healthcare to the *entire* population. If long wait times are the price, I say so be it.
    somenurse, TheCommuter, tewdles, and 2 others like this.
  11. 0
    Quote from BrandonLPN
    Well, I'm a believer in the saying "the ends justify the means". Countries like the UK have higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality rates, and more comprehensive access to basic healthcare to the *entire* population. If long wait times are the price, I say so be it.

    I am sure you read about the premie in England that was surpassed the weight requirement for intubation only because there was something (I can't remember now what) weighed also? Otherwise that baby would have summarily been allowed to die with no effort whatsoever to try and save it.

    And I guess you will be more than happy to be miserable for months or even years before you get a resolution to any health problems you might incur, if I understand you correctly.
  12. 6
    Quote from tntrn
    I would say that long wait times are a big problem: if you are employed, there is the issue of being off the clock while waiting; if you have kids at a sitter, you are paying the sitter during your long wait, and perhaps you have other things that need doing, which can't be done, while you are waiting.

    In England, the long wait includes weeks and weeks just to get an appointment with your "consultant" and then perhaps months before you get to see a specialist; then months again before your gall bladder can be removed.

    I would hardly call that a better system or outcome than we have here currently.
    There's no doubt the UK under-spends on healthcare. Although the differences between our system and there's is not just that they under-spend, our over-spending accounts for the bulk of the difference.

    The UK does suffer from longer wait times, although most of their major indicators of the quality of care their system provides is superior to ours, but to fix the problems they do have would require increasing their spending by a certain percentage. Whatever that percentage is, it wouldn't be anywhere near the current 240% difference in what we spend compared to the UK. They could add $200 Billion to the NHS, more than enough to make up for any differences and then some that make our system "better", and we'd still be paying 70% more per person.

    While the wait is longer in the UK for a lap-chole, it's not "years", it's 18 months at the maximum from the initial GP referral to procedure (averages 12-18 months unless their is medical need to do it sooner).
    Ayvah, OCNRN63, Not_A_Hat_Person, and 3 others like this.


Top