[fergus51]

Originally Posted by LPNer

I can not speak for every state, but I do know that Ohio has a provision for people who do not qualify for or have private health insurance in the case of catostrophic illness.. A child with major medical problems will be provided medicaide, the rest of the family will not likely get it, but the sick child will. And, I have known people in years past that the county "took custody of" and then placed the child with her natural parents so medical bills would be taken care of. The parents did not loose their parental rights, so it does work out.

Sounds a lot like socialized medicine to me (the government takes care of the bills and the family doesn't have to pay). The only difference is in a universal system, their taxes would go to pay for it. Am I the only one who sees the similarities?

[LPNer]

Originally Posted by fergus51

Sounds a lot like socialized medicine to me (the government takes care of the bills and the family doesn't have to pay). The only difference is in a universal system, their taxes would go to pay for it. Am I the only one who sees the similarities?

No, I also see the similaraties. I also hear nurses from Canada, the UK, Australia tell us their systems just don't work like many Americans think they do. Socialized medicine is not the way to fix the health care system.

OK, so taxes are used to pay for health care. Given the way we know taxes are paid in this country, and probably others too, those who work to earn a larger income will pay more than those who don't earn so much. I do not like this idea, if I have to pay 50.00 a paycheck for inxurance, I expect anybody else with like insurance to pay the same, if they don't, well, I guess they just can't have the same insurance I have.

I am accused of being uncaring. This is not true.
I accept the the fact the socialized medicine will not work. For that reason, I am against paying more (oh yea, taxes would go up to cover it) for health insurance so the people down the street can stay healthy enough to continue working at a low paying job with as much disposable income as I do (because of the tax brackets) while I find it difficult to get convenient, quality health care because the line of people waiting to get in to see my Doc grows ever longer each day.
It is not that I do not care about people without health care, I just care about me and my own more. Maybe selfish, but not uncaring.

[Nancy2]

I have recently done quite a bit of research on different systems in France, Canada, Germany and the UK.
Most are funded with mandatory taxes (about 40% income tax) and in Canada their system coverage does not cover vision, dental or prescriptions!
All of the systems are now requiring an additional copay for visits to the doctor and very long waiting lists for anything that is not urgent or emergent(decided by someone else) The theory of universal coverage sounds good, but in practice it works nothing like the preachers tell us. The other thing is that RNs in these systems make way less money on average than US nurses. Also, none of them have RN-patient ratios, which would greatly increase the costs of theses systems and either make less facilities available or TAXES go WAY UP!
Think about it very carefully!!!!Please

[fergus51]

I never had any co-pays when I lived in BC or Ontario and our ratios were the same as here in the US. Eye exams were free every 2 years in Ontario, but I had to pay for them in BC. My taxes were the same percentage as they are here. My wage is more here when you factor in the time and a half I get for the last 4 of my 12 hour shift, but I think that has more to do with the high cost of living in California than anything else. I don't advocate a socialized or universal system for the US, but I maintain many Americans don't know what those systems are really like since they never live in them.

[LPNer]

Originally Posted by fergus51

I never had any co-pays when I lived in BC or Ontario and our ratios were the same as here in the US. Eye exams were free every 2 years in Ontario, but I had to pay for them in BC. My taxes were the same percentage as they are here. My wage is more here when you factor in the time and a half I get for the last 4 of my 12 hour shift, but I think that has more to do with the high cost of living in California than anything else. I don't advocate a socialized or universal system for the US, but I maintain many Americans don't know what those systems are really like since they never live in them.

We can read. And while that does not give a totally accurate picture, it is close enough for me to know that if nothing else, it would be akin to a return to the HMO, where you can't even go see a specialist unless a family Doc has sent you. Thanks, but I don't need that. OK, that may not be an exact example, but I am trying to build a concept here, not a study guide.

[iggynan]

Originally Posted by LPNer

We can read. And while that does not give a totally accurate picture, it is close enough for me to know that if nothing else, it would be akin to a return to the HMO, where you can't even go see a specialist unless a family Doc has sent you. Thanks, but I don't need that. OK, that may not be an exact example, but I am trying to build a concept here, not a study guide.

I was not really familiar with HMO's until I moved to AZ. I was from NY state, where the physicians strongly opposed them. It was culture shock for me when I first relocated. Since 1997, I have worked as a UR Nurse and then as a Case Manager for a Nursing Home. I presently have Cancer and I assigned my benefits to a local HMO. It eliminates a great deal of out of pocket expenses. I see numerous specialists, in fact more than I care to see! :hatparty: My opinion of the HMO concept has changed drastically. In fact, it simply boils down to an enormous attempt to try and contain health care costs, without jeopardizing the patient.

[kitty=^..^=cat]

Why would anyone NEED to go to a specialist unless they are referred by a more "general" type practitioner??

More and more specialists in my area are refusing to see direct-referrals without the patient having seen his/her PCP first. I personally think that's a good policy to have -- it cuts down on reimbursement problems and filters out the "doctor-hoppers" that do nothing except drain resources from pool...

[SmilingBluEyes]

Those of us in the military or dependents can't see specialists directly, either. We have to go thru our PCM and have a referral to do so. I don't have a problem w/that. Not EVERYone needs to SEE a specialist first-off anyhow.

[donmurray]

Originally Posted by Nancy2

I have recently done quite a bit of research on different systems in France, Canada, Germany and the UK.
Most are funded with mandatory taxes (about 40% income tax)
All of the systems are now requiring an additional copay for visits to the doctor

Two corrections:
The UK "National Insurance" (health) employee contribution is 11% of salary plus a further 1% for those earning over £31000 pa. Not 40%

There are no "copays" to see a doctor

[LPNer]

I too have had HMO coverage and found no reason to spend my good time waiting to see my primary Doc before I could see the allergist. Talk about a waste of MY time!

I can argue until I am blue in the face but those of us who choose government control of their lives will never change their minds any more than I will eveer decide I want the government dictating anything about my health care.

I will take my leave of this forum now. There has been little disscussion here, people have their opinions and attack when they read one different. We can qoute how we think it works elsewhere, we can read posts from nurses in other countries who are living with it now and nothing seems to change.

I think I am wasting my time. This is an issue that will likely see it's way around the government rounds for a long time to come before anything comes of it. That is unless we get unlucky enough for a liberal to get into the white house next time, but that's another argument that I learned many years ago not to get into to!

I do hope all those who are pro socialized medicine come to see the flaws in that kind of system and also come to understand we do not have a very good system now, but it sure beats the heck out of a government health care system.
Did you ever stop to think how much the IRS spends in payroll to it's own employees each year? How much of our taxes would actually be available to the defecit if we were at a flat tax and all those people were not on the government payroll? No, it would not pay the national debt, but it sure would help a LOT. And still there are arguments FOR socialized medicine?

Take care all.