[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by suanna

Unfortunately that samg corporation has a vested intrest in you dropping dead quickly rather that undergo expensive treatments/tests/hospital stays.

As opposed to socialized medicine where they can look at the actuarial tables, and decide whether any of us gets treatment. The gov't isn't your friend and their decisions won't be made, in your best interest, or in the interest of your health.

To the extent that insurance companies would rather not pay out, that is offset be the desire to attract business in the free market. You might be right, but only because the gov't has conspired to hand your insurance off to your employer. YOU are not your insurance company's customer; your employer is.

That being the case, that your insurance company isn't responsive to you because YOU aren't the customer, you are right. Thank your government for that.

The gov't IS THE PROBLEM. They will not be the solution. If you give them more control over your life, they will just become a bigger problem in your life. Oh, and the bigger the problem, the more they charge (tax).

I'm more compassionate than that. Gov't restricted healthcare is a fair share in a dismal outcome. No, thanks. I'll take my chances with someone interested in profit before I will with someone interested in a power-trip over my life, ANY DAY. At least you can negotiate with someone interested in the bottom line.

Someone that thinks your life would be better if only THEY lived it for you - THAT'S SCARY.

Profit is the most compassionate thing ever invented by man. It's why you have most of what you need and want. THANK GOD somebody decided to make a profit selling you a place to live, clothes to wear, food to eat, telecommunication devices to talk and post, and transportation to get around. Profit had done wonders for your life.

(Oh, and btw, the $700,000 my insurance company has shelled out in the last 3 months for my daughter says you're wrong.)

~faith,
Timothy.

[HM2Viking]

Blind faith in the vicissitudes of the (mostly) opaque insurance reimbursement system seems naive to me.

PNHP calls for a politically controlled and transparent reimbursement system. I personally think that our current reimbursement system meets the definition of clinical insanity. Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result.

The countries with all variants of single payer are able to hold health care inflation essentially flat while our inflation rate continues to accelerate.

[HM2Viking]

From PNHP:

<H3>Is national health insurance “socialized medicine”?

No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for the government and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. Examples also exist in Great Britain and Spain. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized financing, or socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage their medical practices or hospitals.

and

<H3>Who will run the health care system?

There is a myth that, with national health insurance, the government will be making the medical decisions. But in a publicly-financed, universal health care system medical decisions are left to the patient and doctor, as they should be. This is true even in the countries like the UK and Spain that have socialized medicine.
In a public system the public has a say in how it’s run. Cost containment measures are publicly managed at the state level by an elected and appointed body that represents the people of that state. This body decides on the benefit package, negotiates doctor fees and hospital budgets. It also is responsible for health planning and the distribution of expensive technology.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...php#socialized

</H3></H3>

[ZippyGBR]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

I haven't earned less that 100k (as a non-management, bedside RN) in the last 4 yrs. . . I prefer our system better.

I take it back, I fell JUST (less than 1k) short this past year, but I took the month of December off to be with my newborn.

<snip>

~faith,
Timothy.

do you do charge ? are you mandated to do charge? as a band 5 we're techncially not manadated to do and can in theory refuse if a band 6 or band 7 Nurse is on duty ('management' band 6 being team leaders /'permanent charge' roles and band 7s are unit nurse managers )

there's also the apples and oranges aspect of the overall package?

what's you pension like? the NHS pension is pretty good ( moving from an 80ths system to a 60ths system with little change in contributions from most nurses (higher earners are going to be paying more) the pension tops out at half your best salary from the last three years your worked ( and is then index linked) as well as the lump sum on retirement and 'free' life insurance

working week 37.5 hours , no mandatory Overtime and whereever i've worked if you've stayed more than 1/2 hour after the planned shift end you get the time back ( and if th trust plays by the rules and doesn't give you the time back in IIRC 3 months you can opt to have it paid as overtime)

interesting to mention taking December off following the birth of a child , IIRC it's 9 months paid maternity leave for the mother and 2 weeks paid paternity lealve ...

then there;s the sick pay - none of this earning hours of time to blalance betwen leave and sick time ... once you've worked forthe NHS for 4 years you can if necessary have 6 months full average pay and 6 months half average pay sick leave...

[ksilty]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

The French can have their system.

I prefer mine.

Communism/Socialism doesn't work, and I don't want to either work for, or be treated by, a 'healthcare collective'. You'll pardon me if I don't have that much faith in the Federal Gov't.

.

I lived in Italy for 2 years. My first husband was Italian, so as a citizen through marriage, I had access to the Healthcare System. I was young and healthy, I'm sure that made a difference, but I did have a baby there, so I had some exposure to the system. I can't complain. I had a family doctor who referred me to an OB. He took good care of me - I delivered in a private Clinica, and the only money we paid was the optional charge for a private room so my husband could stay with me - he couldn't boil water and the hospital fed him during my one-week stay - very common in Italy. I can't say what it would be like if I were elderly or had a chronic disease.... One thing I did notice, however, is that the docs try to jack up their bill by performing more expensive procedures. My OB immediatly suggested a C-section because it pays more. I had been warned by friends and was ready for it. Stood my ground and still had a good outcome.

[_Dave_]

Vetinary medicine is not nearly as regulated as medical practice for humans. That is why it is cheaper. Vets compete and keep prices down. Also the Vet is allowed to use his brain more and do what he thinks is best without worrying about getting sued or losing his liscence.