[jjjoy]

Originally Posted by graysonret

If Canada's system is so fantastic, why are they coming here for medical treatment, instead of the other way around?

I do know people with dual citizenship who won't give up their right to use the Canadian health system just in case. And we certainly have heard of people buying medicine from Canada.

But, apparently, you think people like that should be punished for their success.

Paying a higher percentage of taxes on a higher income isn't "punishment." It's one way of spreading out the costs involved in keeping a society running smoothly. There are many variations, each with their own pros and cons. I tend to think extremism in any direction tends to lead to undesirable excesses.

Sometimes, the tax consequences do seem to create disincentives to earn more, but such regulations can be tweaked to create more incentives. In that case, you can argue for adjusting tax laws instead of suggesting that those in favor of certain social programs "think people should be punished for their success."

Well, if you become a successful nurse, maybe the government will take your suggestion and tax you more than some other nurse, based on your "success". Welcome to socialism and the Soviet system.

One of the main differences between the national health plans that are out there today and "the Soviet system" is that the citizens do have a say in the path their country has chosen. If enough people change their minds about it, the country will change it's system. It wouldn't happen overnight, but neither would just a few government officials decide unilaterally to continue enforce a system indefinitely that a majority of the people consistently do not want and do not support (through elections and the like).

[reznurse]

The California Nurses Association have great ideas.
http://www.calnurse.org/

[StudentOzGirl]

In Australia we have what you would call a Universal Health Care system. Every citizen of Australia is eligible for free healthcare through hospitals and heavily subsidised healthcare with gp's - which is paid for by means of tax revenue. At present the administration of it is shared by the Federal government and individual states, thus budgets and wages etc can differ from state to state. Whilst its not perfect, it does ensure that everyone regardless of their financial situation has access to high quality healthcare. Health issues are prioritised with the highest priorities being attended to first, and others go on waiting lists.

The beauty of our system I feel is that those who are not prepared to wait can elect to go 'private', which means skip the waiting periods and pay for the treatment themselves or through their insurance.

People who are on any form of government assistance also have what we call healthcare cards which can entitle them to free dental, optical and gp visits amongst other things.

Yes there are many things that could be improved but no-one is ever turned away.

I only post this, to give those in the US an idea of what it could be like. I think the issues of waiting lists, wages and staff shortages are truly universal regardless of the healthcare system that is used.

[HM2Viking]

I had Lasik done in Canada in 2000. I paid $1000 US in Winnipeg vs. what would have cost $4000 in Mpls MN.

The primary reason was that in Canada (by law) the medical equipment device maker could not collect a royalty fee for the surgeon's use of the laser.

[mytara]

I believe the fears of having to wait for care and accept sub-standard conditions under UHC is outdated. Consider or speak with people in healthcare in the other countries there is where the real answers lie. Don't be listening to anything sponsored or set up (known or unknown) by insurance co. pharmaceutical co. and the likes and much of what we are fed in way of information if you dig deep is propoganda againts UHC. I think as nurses we owe it to our patient to get the truth out, question and demand specifics from the candidates to encourage some sort of UHC. The only problem is the fear that our government owes to much to the insurance co. and AMA to ever be able to pull it off.
As for our effects again it will differ depending on where salaries are in your area of the country but again if you talk with nurses in Canada or Europe they are not far off and are really please with the lack of struggles to provide for their patients.
Again can we pull it off in this country..... not really sure it is possible

[fronkey bean]

[quote=HM2Viking;2643722]

Originally Posted by fronkey bean

Because the same tired objections keep coming up......

The graph shows 2 pieces of information per country. National per capita health expenditures are on the vertical axis. The national per capita expenditures could be reduced by 30% with administrative simplification. Individual expenditures are on the horizontal axis. Individual expenditures could also be reduced by 30%.

NrsKaren, the description of "business cost shifting is dead on accurate.

Again the same tired stuff. Individual expenditures, i.e. out of pocket expenses. Even w/ high out of pocket expenses we still come off cheaper b/c we're not paying the outrageous taxes that countries w/ socialized medicine pay.
The reason the same tired objections keep coming up is b/c the same tired flawed reasoning for UHC keeps coming up.

[fronkey bean]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

This graph shows how increasing numbers of un and underinsureds increase the cost of health care for everyone....

not as much as in countries w/ UHC where my taxes would go through the roof.

[fronkey bean]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

I think our peers in the OECD have been doing a better job in restraining health cost growth.

So they're spending less on their citizens than americans spend on themselves-- does that mean they're getting a better deal or does it mean that their citizens are getting fewer services?

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

In the interest of clarity I want to point out that Medicare is NOT allowed to negotiate for bulk price discounts while DOD/VA can negotiate. As a result the DOD/VA system obtains significant cost savings.

I have pointed out in the past in other threads that other countries can learn from us in the "right care" dimension but we can also learn significant lessons from what they do better. Our system is horribly broken and in need of repair.

I don't agree that our system is " horribly broken". There is certainly room for improvement but it works very well in a majority of the cases.

Originally Posted by ShaunES

The argument that American government is uniquely incompetent, and cannot do things that every other nation in the world can do, is simply nonsense. Not only has America, and the American government achieved many things that other countries have not, America has so many resources and the improvement in care and cost from moving to UHC is so large that even with incredible inefficiencies it would still be a good idea.

The American gov't isn't uniquely incompetent -- other governments are just as incompetent. That is why taxes in these countries go up and services become harder and harder to come by. I have a friend who takes regular trips to Romania and under there UHC program if you go to have a baby you had better have a "gift" for the MD if you want him/her to show up at the hospital to deliver your baby.

Originally Posted by cuddlesrose

Is there not something that is a balance of the 2 systems. Private sector and universal health care?* I can see both sides of the issue, also. But if this means that baby boomers do not have to work until they are to old to enjoy life then this might be the only answer?

Of course there are compromises. It is just in the current political environment compromise is considered traitorous by both sides.

[bradleau]

I am not sure what would happen to my pay. But I do know that the medical tests that I am currently scheduled to have done, WOULD NOT HAPPEN. So what if I am having apparent seizure activity, or weakness on one side that would indicate a stroke. I am not critical, I am taking Plavix. I still work full time. I feel fine most of the time. Right now I get very good followup and intervention on chronic health issues. THAT WOULD NOT HAPPEN with a Universal Health Plan. My backup health plan is with my husbands retired military service. Last year my insurance thru work paid for his Lap band surgery. Now the military/TRICARE will pay for it. And will refund back to Feb. of 2007. His was done Dec.20,2006. I truly doubt he would be alive if we had waited, and if we had known it would be covered. So I am out a few hundred dollars out of pocket, plus the cost of carrying the insurance.

[ZippyGBR]

Originally Posted by earle58

in theory, universal healthcare sounds good.

but i think pt outcomes would suffer drastically.

i'd have a look at the MINAP data from the UK ( looking at pain to needle for MIs whether thromblysis or PCI is the method of choice in a locality) among other measures before stating that socialised medicine has poorer outcomes

plus of course the numbers that aren't measured becasue chronic disease is managed effectively in primary care - other posters have suggested that reduced levles ofcomplications from diabetes etc is a probable outcome

much longer wait times, regardless of acuity level.

ED visits concluded in under 4 hours?

Primary care appointment within 48 hours with your 'own ' doctor or walk in service via WIC

none -acute ? cardiac chest pain and possible cancer diagnoses seen in secondary care in under 14 days even if there is no acute factor presenting ( and some two week rule referrals have been 'how quick can you get to where the consultant is working at the moment?') ( acute cardiac chest pain will get you same day admission and if necessary in patient angio in a day or three)

free at the point of delivery treatment for non urgent and elective procedures end to end in 18 weeks or less ?