[nicurn001]

Salary is market related wherever you live , so when I lived in Europe I was paid less ,so was everyone else !. Relatively speaking I was,as here ,well paid .

I have expereince of the Healthcare systems of both Europe and the USA ,I would say , on balance ,they are basically the same ( some area's of care better here , some better there) , except in Europe I never had to worry about the BILL , or how it would put me at risk of bankrupcy ,a patient has enough problems being ill ,without the worry of how to pay for their condition ( great stress inducer for an MI patient ).
Access is limited in both cases by the insurance provider . Which comes back to my point earlier I would much rather have somebody who is not oriented to making a profit from my healthcare problem , make the decision regarding access to provision of healtcare to me

[nursegamma]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

In essence there would be no net increase in costs. We are already paying for single payer and not getting it.

I am rather tired of the go to guns attitude of your posts. The vitriol does nothing to advance the discussion.

Please see:

PNHP Co-founders Drs. Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein published this definitive study of the administrative costs of the U.S. health system in the August 21, 2003 edition of the New England Journal of Medicine. After analyzing the costs of insurers, employers, doctors, hospitals, nursing homes and home-care agencies in both the U.S. and Canada, they found that administration consumes 31.0 percent of U.S. health spending, double the proportion of Canada (16.7 percent). Average overhead among private U.S. insurers was 11.7 percent, compared with 1.3 percent for Canada’s single-payer system and 3.6 percent for Medicare. Streamlined to Canadian levels, enough administrative waste could be saved to provide compressive health insurance to all Americans.
Read “Costs of Health Administration in the U.S. and Canada” (pdf)

at: http://www.pnhp.org/publications/nejmadmin.pdf for a full discussion of the impact on administrative waste on health care finance.

As a Canadian, I appreciate the Universiality of our Health system. I know that in spite of paying into a system quarterly I know that the people who need help are getting it and when I need it it will be there. The administration of this system is partnered with UNA, provincial nursing bodies, and doctors as well as government persons. We all know as a nurse that if you don't like the way the world is change it. Get involved and lobby for a better system that has nursing professionals - yea, that means you-helping to design the policies & budgets for a healthier tomorrow for all.

[nursegamma]

As a Canadian, I appreciate the universiality of our Health system. I contribute to a system quarterly (about $1400 annually) and know that the money is being used to help those who need it, just like it will for me if I need it. The system is cost effective because it is partnered with UNA, provincial nursing bodies, and doctors along with government authorities. As a nurse you know that if you don't like the way the world is, you have to get involved to change it. Lobby for a better system, as a professional- yea that's you- you have the unique mandate of advocating for your patients and yourselves. Voices make a difference!

[mianders]

There are problems with the US healthcare system, but there are also problems with the Canadians and Europeans also. I am not willing, nor are most of the people I know willing,to take on a replica of the healthcare in other countries. If you are satisfied with it then that is great. One survey can not convince me that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes to foot the cost of everyones healthcare. I could do a survey and come up with an entirely different result. Surveys are useless.

[ingelein]

Originally Posted by mianders

Have you ever spoke to anyone that lived in a country with "socialized medicine" or "socialized health insurance"? The people that use it and the healthcare providers themselves will tell you if you have an emergent problem you can be seen, but if your problem is chronic the wait times are extremely long to have anything done. I know several people from Eurpoe and Canada and they are not very impressed with the healthcare system they have. This is not the solution.

YES, I do as a matter of fact, I have several cousins in Germany and several more cousins in Canada, they have told me that they would NEVER consider trading their style of healthcare for ours. They are glad they may never lose their homes and life savings to medical debt. Get REAL.
If your illness in chronic here in the good ol USA you can be expected to be dumped from your insurance , or try paying the HUGE COBRA payment. What you worked for so very hard for so many years will vanish to pay medical bills.The wait to be approved for SSDI is up to 3 years in some states,not every average middle class worker can survive this type of catastrophe.

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by mianders

There are problems with the US healthcare system, but there are also problems with the Canadians and Europeans also. I am not willing, nor are most of the people I know willing,to take on a replica of the healthcare in other countries. If you are satisfied with it then that is great. One survey can not convince me that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes to foot the cost of everyones healthcare. I could do a survey and come up with an entirely different result. Surveys are useless.

The point is that we are paying for National Health care and not getting it. 25% administration and PROFIT would buy one heck of a lot of health care. See:

Americans already pay for national health insurance — they just don’t get it. In this 2002 Health Affairs paper, David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler point out that the standard accounting miscategorizes two major public health expenditures as private: the tax credit for private health insurance and the cost of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program.
When these costs are accounted for, it becomes evident that Americans already pay the world’s highest health care taxes. In fact, the amount of public health spending in the U.S. is greater than the combined public and private spending of nations which provide universal comprehensive health insurance. A single-payer system could provide such coverage to all Americans with no need for additional health dollars.
Read “Paying for National Health Insurance — And Not Getting It” (pdf)
Source: http://pnhp.org/single_payer_resourc...r_everyone.php

Compare the health statistics between states with essential universal coverage to those without universal coverage. The states with universal coverage are healthier overall. see http://allnurses.com/forums/f195/ver...-a-260007.html (These relationships continue with HS graduation rates and lower poverty rates.) This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue it is an American issue.

[ZASHAGALKA]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/bu...C5k7qAsEHG51Qw
NY TIMES
Economic View
Beyond Those Health Care Numbers
By N. GREGORY MANKIW
Published: November 4, 2007

"STATEMENT 1 The United States has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than Canada, which has national health insurance.

Maybe these differences have lessons for traffic laws and gun control, but they teach us nothing about our system of health care.

Americans are also more likely to be obese, leading to heart disease and other medical problems. The causes of American obesity are not fully understood, but they involve lifestyle choices we make every day, as well as our system of food delivery.

The health system in the United States gives low birth-weight babies slightly better survival chances than does Canada’s, but the more pronounced difference is the frequency of these cases. Whatever its merits, a Canadian-style system of national health insurance is unlikely to change the sexual mores of American youth."

"STATEMENT 2 Some 47 million Americans do not have health insurance.

To start with, the 47 million includes about 10 million residents who are not American citizens.

The number also fails to take full account of Medicaid, the government’s health program for the poor. For instance, it counts millions of the poor who are eligible for Medicaid but have not yet applied. These individuals, who are healthier, on average, than those who are enrolled, could always apply if they ever needed significant medical care. They are uninsured in name only.

The Census Bureau reports that 18 million of the uninsured have annual household income of more than $50,000.

About a quarter of the uninsured have been offered employer-provided insurance but declined coverage."

"STATEMENT 3 Health costs are eating up an ever increasing share of American incomes.

The reason that we spend more than our grandparents did is not waste, fraud and abuse, but advances in medical technology and growth in incomes. Science has consistently found new ways to extend and improve our lives. Wonderful as they are, they do not come cheap.

Fortunately, our incomes are growing, and it makes sense to spend this growing prosperity on better health."

~faith,
Timothy.

[HM2Viking]

From Paul Krugman:
Beyond that, a large fraction of the population — about one in four nonelderly Americans, according to a Consumer Reports survey — is underinsured, with “coverage so meager they often postponed medical care because of costs.”
So, yes, lack of insurance is a very big problem, a problem that reaches deep into the middle class.
...
And lifestyle isn’t the explanation: the most definitive estimates, such as those of the McKinsey Global Institute, say that diseases that are associated with obesity and other lifestyle-related problems play, at most, a minor role in high U.S. health care costs.
...
The reality is that the best foreign health care systems, especially those of France and Germany, do as well or better than the U.S. system on every dimension, while costing far less money.

But the best way to counter scare talk about socialized medicine, aside from swatting down falsehoods — would journalists please stop saying that Rudy’s claims, which are just wrong, are “in dispute”? — may be to point out that every American 65 and older is covered by a government health insurance program called Medicare. And Americans like that program very much, thank you.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/op...on&oref=slogin accessed today.

As usual the evidence refutes the purported wonders of the free market for efficiency in providing affordable care. Single payer delivers better results at lower overall cost for everyone.

[teeituptom]

One- If they cant balance the budget, then let it be for something that helps people, rather than keep this war going and possibly extending it.

[teeituptom]

Originally Posted by Alois Wolf

I'd rather pay slightly higher taxes for National Universal Health Care than what I'm paying right now for Aetna HMO.

That is nicely stated