Looking at Healthcare in an Election Year
ADVANCE received the following comment from Karen Tweedy, RN, CCRN, in response to an opinion poll asking users if they still planned to vote in the general election after Hillary Clinton dropped out. The question should have been addressed specifically to Clinton supporters. As Tweedy's comments go well beyond this issue, we invited her to be part of the Nurse Perspective blog. Please feel free to add to the conversation.
Your magazine's opinion polls reflect a political bias toward Democratic politicians and policies. Why not ask if we will vote in the presidential election without Mike Huckabee on the Republican ticket? You are signaling a political message to your readership. As a critical care nurse of 28 years, the last thing I want to see happen is for the government to take over healthcare. Recall what government has done to the tax code, social security, the national debt and public education. Socialism has been a failure everywhere it has been instituted throughout history and it pains me to witness the media lap up and dispense socialist ideals as positive potentialities.
Our healthcare system needs work for sure. It is a conflict of interest for employers to have control of our healthcare coverage. We need fair and transparent pricing, free market competition and the ability to choose our own healthcare providers. (Human doctors could learn from veterinarians.) We should have access to insurance plans at fair rates as individuals. I would like to see the healthcare industry emphasize the individual rights and responsibilities that this country was founded upon. I care for many patients who are appalled to pay one dollar per day for a prescription medication, yet smoke cigarettes, own a tricked-out cell phone, get a manicure every two weeks, eat at restaurants regularly and subscribe to every cable channel available. These people think that someone else should pay for their medical care. And they are readmitted regularly with healthcare problems due to noncompliance.
Yes, there are people in genuine need who haven't chosen a pop-culture lifestyle over their health. Those who have to choose food over medicine deserve our compassionate assistance. Those who have made the conscious decision to trash their own health and put their financial resources elsewhere are not entitled to the hard-earned money of their fellow citizens. And that's basically what national healthcare means ... take from those who work hard enough to have a taxable income -- the harder they work, the more the government takes -- and dispense it to those who put their priorities elsewhere. And in such a system we will suffer along with other countries that have socialized medicine ... physician shortages, long waits for procedures/surgeries and the squelching of research and innovation in healthcare. No, thanks. I'd keep this broken system over that mess.
I remember as a young person thinking that as a compassionate person, I had to agree with Democratic principles (like killing babies out of convenience and calling it a choice, she says sarcastically). After some years of experience, thought and study, I realized that I never could articulate my position. There was no real logic behind many of those political premises. And that the truly compassionate approach was one that encouraged personal growth and responsibility and relieved restrictions on progress ... helped folks to help themselves and rewarded them for their efforts.
So, back to my original observation. Many of us who have taken the time to become informed regarding healthcare policy are adamantly opposed to Hillary Clinton's proposals. Your opinion polls seem to assume that your readership is comprised of all Democrats who agree with nationalized healthcare, or should.