On the Bridge to Single Payer: Nurses Give Power to Patients

By Donna Smith, community organizer 

SAN FRANCISCO -- The nurses of the California Nurses Association and the National Nurses Organizing Committee do much more for patients than bedside care and patient advocacy.  These amazing fighters give the patients bruised and battered by this broken healthcare system a voice in the darkness. 

And today, as many patients joined the nurses' march across the Golden Gate Bridge, the honesty and courage nurses often show to their patients in their most vulnerable moments transformed into a gift of dignity and shared purpose.  Together, nurses and patients called for guaranteed, single payer healthcare for all.

Above you see Hilda Sarkisyan, mom of the late Nataline Sarkisyan -- the beautiful 17-year-old girl who died after her insurance company first denied her liver transplant and then reversed its awful decision too late to save her life.



Part of what often makes this fight for reform more challenging is that many of its victims are dead or too sick to take to the streets in protest.  So having our nurses and many of our doctors stand by our sides as we cry out for justice means everything.

Today, as we marched across the Golden Gate, we patients who were able did so on behalf of the more than 100,000 people who die every year of preventable causes -- either lack of access to medical care or inappropriate care or medical error often caused by unsafe staffing levels for nurses and other medical professionals.

We patients who are strong enough to fight do so because we cannot do otherwise.  Hilda never wants another mother to bury her child following an insurance company's denials of care.  And I cannot stand to think about other moms and wives and cancer victims fighting financial trauma as they already are battling life-threatening illness. 

 And the RNs of CNA/NNOC understand that we fight this fight -- as they do -- because we know a better and more just system is possible for all. Thank you nurses. 

Thank you for caring enough to lift us and embrace us in this cause.  And for a marvelous and historic walk, thank you.  It is a day of action that will matter when the walls come tumbling down.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What a feeling it was!!

I was up near the front of the march and as we turned off the bridge and looked back for the first time, to see a solid line of nurses in our red scrubs stretched nearly all the way across the great span was just a truly wonderful feeling. Being there with so many nurses from so many places united in a common goal is inspiring every time I get to do it.

"...the beautiful

"...the beautiful 17-year-old girl who died after her insurance company first denied her liver transplant and then reversed its awful decision too late to save her life."

The insurance company didn't deny her treatment. The insurance company denied coverage for the treatment because it didn't meet the terms of the contract. To which the physicians and hospitals then refused to transplant the liver because they wouldn't get their almighty dollar. They're the ones who killed her. Not Cigna.

Why don't you post the real facts of that case? That two experts in the field conducted reviews of her file and agreed the treatment was considered experimental. That even CMS, your beloved flawed model for single payer coverage, probably wouldn't have covered the procedure due to her condition either. A vegetative state that even the doctors who treated her admitted might give her 6 months at a 65% survival rate. Might.

Don't let the truth get in the way of your propaganda.

Ye Shall Know the Truth

and the truth shall set you free... as one great teacher once said.

Scuzz, seems like you are pretty angry and defensive on behalf of the for-profit private insurance industry. You are entitled to your opinion. Sounds like maybe you work for these folks...

But the for-profit insurance industry has a legal responsibility to protect and profit its shareholders -- not its patients or policyholders. It is the wrong motivation upon which to deliver one of our basic human rights.

In this case and many, many others, we never get the chance to know what the outcomes might have been. And your argument that the greedy providers are the ones killing patients sounds like what the medical directors of HMOs and insurance companies are trained to say about denials -- it's one way to hide the truth or at least attempt to shield oneself from responsibility, but it sure isn't honest.

Thanks for commenting though -- just couldn't disagree more with your assertions and certainly wouldn't condone your point of view as constructive to the sort of responsible reform needed within a system benefiting wildly from human suffering.

Facts vs. opinions

Scuzz is right. Donna, I didn't see a single opinion in Scuzz's post. It's all just facts.

let's face it - coverage policies are contracts with terms and conditions - not blank checks. Single payer systems also have terms and conditions that restrict services.

Yes, we will have choices to make

My full support for single payer includes knowledge that tough decisions will have to be made -- but I would far prefer those tough decisions be made by my doctors and by health professionals in consultation with me rather than by for-profit insurance company bureaucrats who pretend to operate in my best interests.

The for-profit model has laws and restrictions too -- the shareholders are the most critical and the most legally protected class under our current system. Even the doctors and others currently working for insurance companies and reviewing insurance claims for processing get bonuses based on claims performance. And as a policy-holder and premium-payer, I am not first in line when in this model -- I am not even close to first in line.

So, I support the model that most supports me and the position that healthcare is a basic human right and not a commodity.

Rights

I don't understand the notion that 'healthcare' is a basic human right. It is no more a right than food or shelter or employment or happiness is a basic human right.

Is healthcare a basic human right?

Hmmm.....maybe you are right. Healthcare, food, shelter, possibly these are not actually basic human rights; however, I can't help but wonder...I think they could better be described as necessities for life. And, by what yardstick do we evaluate, judge if you will, a society, and just how civilized it is? Where then does America the Beautiful fall?

nataline...just my opinion...

Just my opinion, but not quite sure how Cigna can be completely exonerated from any responsibility for the care that Nataline did not recieve. I wonder how all that responsibility magically passes through the insurance company and lands square in the laps of all the money grubbing, killing doctors? Hmmm...why do I purchase health insurance...and what do I seek from a doctor?

My curiosity is peeked however. You seem to have an imtimate knowledge of the case, just who were the "two experts in the field" you refer to? What were their credentials and who paid them for their expert opinion?

Let me also comment that I have seen patients who were written off for dead recover, multiple times.

I don't want a decision about my healthcare, or the healthcare of my family, made based on wheather or not an insurance company makes a profit. Do You?

Coverage

http://cbs2.com/local/Cigna.liver.transplant.2.617233.html

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/92696.php

Credentials are not mentioned but generally an insurance company would consult with relevant specialist physicians.

It was also reported that the policy was self funded, meaning the parent's employer was financially responsible - CIGNA was only administering the plan terms. In other words, it wasn't CIGNA's money at stake whether the transplant was approved or not. CIGNA's problem was a PR one, and they made it worse by confusing the issue and offering to pay for it with their own money (which they had no obligation to do) after word got out and bad press built up. That was widely interpreted as 'reversing' their decision.

Universal Health Care

It's been over 50 years since they said that Universal Health Care wouldn't work in Canada. Well, guess what? It's still here and it does work. It's not perfect, but I thank whoever that we got it. Keep up the good work! I seen somewhere that the United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide Universal Health Care. Can that be possible with all the wealth?

I shoot two people in the

I shoot two people in the head.

One dies because the bullet enters his skull and blows his brains out the back of it.

The other lives because the bullet rims around his skull and comes harmlessly out leaving a flesh wound.

Should the conclusion be that trying to shoot a person in the head isn't always an obviously fatal action? Because in reality, the former would happen 99 times out of 100.

Yet, your argument is that the insurance company should spend thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars on an outcome that at best has a 1% chance of working. Despite what their contract covers or not. Someone has to pay for it, the doctors and hospitals don't want to suck it up, so some private company can do it for them, huh?

That's what government grants are for. That's what privately funded research is for. I find it hard to believe that any insurance company contract states that they should pay for doctors to test our their theories on human guinea pigs. If they're that concerned with advancing the cause of medicine...then do it for free or apply for and get the aforementioned grants. Like your counterparts would have done even 50 years ago.

Physician, heal thyself.

shoot two people

Scuzz...Scuzz...Scuzz...

Before you start spewing statistics to bolster your opinion you had best check your facts. Per American Surgeon, "In hospital mortality for patients with intracranial injury secondary to GSW was 51%." Also, I did not have an intimate knowledge of Natalines case; however, I did read that with the transplant she was given a 65% chance of 6 months. And Jeffery Kang, Chief Medical Officer of Cigna, states that they "approve 90% of liver transplants," with no mention that they are experimental. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/92696.php

As far as the doctors and hospitals "sucking" it up. A doctors tools don't include actuarial tables. I have yet to see anyone expecting, or even suggesting, an insurance CEO should scrub in.