Socialised Medicine the myths and the facts - page 21
The first and the most obvious concern is the cost to the patient and their family, we all know how devastating an illness can be for patients and their family many times I have witnessed the despair... Read More
Sep 24, '09Quote from sharrieI think you need to read Lauritasols account a little more carefully, she is a US citizen who is currently working in the UK, there are plenty of others that want to come and work here in those links
Additionally, from personal experience, I am a recruiter in the NHS and I regularly get applications from US nurses to come and work in my area in the UK. Their reasons for wanting to come, opportunity for myself and my family, and to experience other cultures.
I am not saying that people don't travel and want to work in the US, personally it's not something I would ever want to do, I have ample opportunity and an excellent standard of living here in the UK. Do you honestly believe that there are not US nurses who don't want to travel and work in Europe.
Experiencing another culture is one of the good things a person can do. It is a mind opener and it teaches you to think out of the box ! You realize there are so many different ways to get to one point from another point!!! Only a different culture can give you this kind of impact of awareness !!!!
Sep 24, '09Quote from MaritesaRNThank you for your concern, I believe her fever was over 104F, she got medical intervention after a US University Official found a doctor. I forgot to add several other US Students were also ill and unable to find care in Australia All these students paid a similar fee to access the Australian healthcare. Please read the whole thread. My point it was not Universal Care for my daughter.Wow , you are really angry and hurting ?? I just have to put in my 1 cent here. How high was her fever? There must be a reason why she was refused ??? In ER , we have a triage as you all know, so it sounds like her fever was not high or bad enough to be admitted? Who knows ?? but your anger and condescending words to one of us overshadowed your daughters cause ! Do you relaize that ? Throwing around your weight in academic excellence , and what else?? oh , putting his ideas down because he is only 10 years tenure in comparison to your 30 years? Issues and baggages need to be taken care of , or it will just keep on spreading, in all areas of your life. There was nothing in his writing that put you down or you daughter. I 'm sorry to point this out , but you are just bleeding all over the place.:heartbeat Be !
Sep 24, '09Hi MedSurg - I don't get universal health care in foreign countries, either (with the exception of reciprocal countires like NZ and the UK). That's why I have travel insurance when I go overseas, even to countries with a reciprocal agreement.
You've mentioned paying $500 to the Australian government - was that a form of insurance? I ask because I wasn't aware that was an option, not because I'm doubting you. I can see how you could feel doubted or defensive here, particularly because your daughter was in difficulty twice when she was far fromhome and you were unable to help her, so I wanted to be clear.
Jan 6, '10Show me one, just one government program that is run efficiently and effectively! Why do we think the government can make the situation better? I personally like being able to go to the doctor when I want and not have to wait months and months for elective non life threatening procedures. Don't be fooled into thinking that you can get all the "free" health care you want. I have a friend who's mother died waiting for cancer treatment in Canada. Aside from the inadequacies that national programs have, we also have to think about the cost. It might be "free" to everyone but not to the people who actually work. Countries that have plans like this have enormous amounts of taxes taken out to fund these programs. I personally rather pay for my own health insurance rather than everyone else and their brother too.
Jan 6, '10Hello everyone,
This is a very interesting subject. Does anyone know anything about the healthcare in Australia and New Zealand?
I come from a country with socialized medicine (Eastern Europe and currently living in the USA). It might have not been the greatest but you still had access to healthcare and didn't get a bill. If you needed an emergency appendectomy you had it. We still had to pay for all prescription medications but for certain conditions there was a discount on medications or they were free. For years and years people pointed Sweden as the country with the "best" socialized healthcare system.
Jan 6, '10Let me tell my 5 cents.
I was worked as nurse at USSR and Russia. Socialised medicine - it is horrobol. There is no free medecine.
Let me tell how it works
Hospital get procsimatly $16 per day for patien. Count cost of medicine (prise like in USA ) + cost of food + work of nurse doctor, nurse and ect. + all suplai. The average doctor's salary is roughly comparable to that of the average industrial worker. As resolt Patients must bring sheets, blankets and pillows, as well as DRAG! Everything! In Russia, the family must make food for the patient and bring it to them in the hospital.
REMEMBER IT IS SOCIALISED MEDICINE!
There is long waiting list for diagnostic procedire, for operation. There is a private western-style healthcare is quite expensive ( cost thr seme as in USA) and it is usually necessary to pay for treatment up front.
Free in medicine it means some people will get averything, rest of people will get zero!
Do you want to work in this socialised sistem? I DON NOT!Last edit by Lenna-GA on Jan 6, '10
Jan 7, '10Lenna:
Welcome to the USA, where the only form of medical care available is the western style of expensive up front payment, care. Even if you have insurance, you still have to make a (small, anywhere from $5. to $50) payment before seeing a doctor or nurse practitioner or physician's assistant.
For people over 65 years of age, there is Medicare, which some people think (mistakenly) is like socialized "medicine". I paid from mine, in every paycheck I received while I worked, (that was mandatory)from the age of 23 until I was 65 years old. I don't know if there is a specific time that working people have to pay into that plan before they're eligible to partake of it at 65 years of age. I do know that the amount you get at 65 years of age, every month, depends on how much money you earned (it is mandatory to have a % of earnings taken from paychecks for it).
What I do know, is that for a very long time, though it happens less now, men made much more money than women, so when a woman turns 65 years of age, she can get half of her husband's "social security" money, as half of that is usually more than the amount she earned all the years she worked. The amount of social security that comes from similar (higher) mandatory payments taken from paychecks was supposed to support retired seniors. That program is in great trouble financially, as the men who set it up (at that time no women were in government) made arrangements by law, that enables all the wives a man ever had, to get half of his share, while he got the entire amount when he turned 65. So if a man married 4 times (not as uncommon as it once was), 4 women get half his alottment, which amounts to twice what he gets, and he gets another whole payment. That means that one man's payments into the system (that has no record of how many wives he had) can result in 3 whole monthly payments from social security. That way, he isn't liable for more divorce support payments when they're older. Poor planning!
The Reform of Health Care bill (law) that has caused so much outcry from doctors who convinced patients that it was bad, even before copies of it were available to read, as they immediately realised that they would not be able to make millions of dollars a year, as they do now. Insurance companies that want total control of medical care costs, to make the most money possible, and pharmaceutical companies that want to charge very high prices for their products have "lobbyists" who are paid huge amounts of money to persuade the politicians not to vote for programs their employers don't want.
The pharmaceutical companies lie, saying that the high prices charged are due to research they had to finance while developing new drugs. However all drugs are made through government and private charity grants, and any expense paid by the companies is deductable from their taxes!
There is also what is called a "hidden agenda" which is known as (dirty) political influence, happening. A Senator was able to ensure that his state would not have to pay for medical care of any of the people living there, in return for his vote for the reform bill. That means that all the other states will pay for the people in that state's health care.
What is planned, is definitely not socialized medicine as it involves insurance companies that profit greatly from the high premiums paid to them by employers and employees (originally, employees were not supposed to pay the premiums, as their salaries included that). These companies try very hard to keep medical expenses down, so they can profit more, and do not insure people who have "preexisting conditions" like diabetes, cancer, bone and inherited abnormalities, heart or lung diseases, and all the developmental disabilities that have been funded by the government successfully here for a long time. The people with those conditions can only receive help from the government if they don't work, so rehabilitation isn't an option for them most of the time.
Since mental diseases are thought to be caused by patients even though there has been proof of physical causes for hundreds of years, people here are embarressed to have such a problem. The specialists who care for these patients charge very large fees, and prescribe medications for them, without seeing those patients often enough to know if the medicine is doing any good.
Even children are treated that way, sometimes by a teacher recommending the medication for a child who is unmanageable. Usually that does more harm than good.
Dental care and vision correction is not being provided at all in the proposed law. It is well known that infections arising from rotted teeth cause heart diseases. Without corrected vision, no one can do an adequate job, or read materials necessary for their well being. In that way, not much has changed since the industrial revolution.
Although working conditions in the USA look much better than facilities in Russia and other countries, there really isn't an improvement in actual health care. <amy of our doctors stidied medicine to make a lot of money and don't have people's health interests in their hearts. I'm from Canada and have relatives still there who get excellent, timely health care. My sister is 80 years old, and she will have a spinal fusion there, tomorrow. Doctors are paid there according to how many hours they work, not as it is here, by the number of patients they see and surgeries done. That makes them want toi see too many patients and do surgery even when it isn't indicated. The proposed reform law doesn't change that.
The reason people are afraid of change in health care here, as they don't know what it is and many think any change is bad. Politicians take advantage of the lack of knowledge people have, and let them know only their viewpoint about laws. It is up to the votong public to let their representatives in government hear their opinions of proposed laws that they can actually read. Most of us find the wording of laws very cumbersoime, and they are worded in lawyer-speak which is hard tro get through, much less understand, so we give up, saying that's what elected officials have been voted into their positions to do.
Yet we don't know those who get our votes, or we don't take the time to vote, or read what is on the ballot, which is why some very bad laws have gotten through, which yield monetary benefit for few people and hardly any services for those who pay for it.
The above could be called "Lois 'splains It All" (from a weekly TV program that was popular in the 1950s called "I love Lucy". In that series, Lucy was a much maligned ditzy woman/housewife who made fun of her foreign born husband, especially when he attempted to "'splain it all". Her efforts to show that she could do whatever he could, were shown as hilarious.......
Lenna, I hope the information I've given you, rounds out what you may already have been told, that passage of this bill means that our medical care will resemble that provided in Russia. The reason "socialized" has been used in reference to the Reform of Health Care Bill, is that those opposed to it know that any form of socialism has been viewed with fear, here. Many bad things have happened in this country that exploited peoples' fear of socialism.
Jan 7, '10Quote from talaxandra
5) How much are taxes in [Australia] and how much goes to health care?
I earn mid-tier wages ($34,000 - $80,000 PA). My taxes are calculated at $4,200 + 30c for every $1 over $34,000, less salary packaging and deductable expenses, like those for work, self-education and charitable contributions. Tax is taken out of my pay every fortnight; at the end of the financial year I lodge a tax return with all my deductable expenses and either owe the government (has happened once in 20 years) or get a refund.
Healthcare funding comes from the Medicare levy is an additional 1.5% tax, calculated on my taxble income. If my annual salary were $65,000 that works out to $975. As I have chosen not to take out private health insurance, I would also pay an additional surcharge of 1%. which comes to another $325.
This is a great illustration of a huge part of the problem, in the US we already spend more on public healthcare thna many countries that have universal health care. If we were talking about paying $975 per person we would not have this debate at all but the public option we're talking about is going to spend more per person than we probably spend now in private healthcare.
Jan 7, '10Lamazeteacher ....you hit it right on the head ! Well spoken and right on target !!! We need the change for a health care reform, because it is not serving all people, as it should . A lot falls right thru the cracks. The insurance company participates in the name of profit only ---that is it! So the government must design a plan wherein they could share the profit of the insurance as well as the loss. Medicaid is burdened heavily by a lot of people who can not afford health insurance, and this "loss" can be shared w/ the insurnace companies, in terms of less taxes on the insurance part if they participate in a program , where they are the "complementary" insurance from a public option plan. It is happening now, such as medicare beneficiaries having a suplementary private health insurance, if they can afford it. This will help spread out the "loss" widely instead of the government alone handling all the non insured people. For a rich country , all should be covered w/ a reasonable health insurance. We need to look at the other country's health insurance structure so we can learn and even copy......but of course private insurers and other profiteering group will do their best to get in the way. To be honest whatever name you call it -----socialism or whatever , we need a system that allows ALL to have an affordable health insurance for EVERYBODY. the current health system we are in right now is a joke .
We need radical changes in our health system.
Jan 7, '10Before we start the argument as to how capable the government is ...we need to study the health system of the Dutch, Switzerland and England -------------how come theirs work and ours do not? Have you watched what some of our senators are up to? It took a longtime to even squeeze the start of the health reform , because our nation is pretty much ran by very rich people who controls these scenarios, and and some of their money are invested in these " capitalistic " approach of the health system ...... then we talk about it ! I do not understand why some people are so againts the health reform ...what we have now is just not for the people but for the money , and I am talking about the big insurance companies among other things such as the drug companies and big time greedy investors purely for profit and do not care who they step on , as long as they get their money.
so why are some of you so belligerant in the health reform , unless you are one of those that got bought to say bad things about the health reform.
Jan 7, '10Thanks, Kim. Of course, the question is why US health care costs are so much higher than those in the rest of the western world while at the same time delivering care to a smaller percentage of the population.
Until now I think I have never thought about preventative health care measures. Is this seen as a priority in the US? I know our road trauma casualties have significantly reduced since the TAC introduced shock ads and the media began reporting the road toll, along with mandatory seat belt legislation, reduced speed zones and a nation-wide 0.05 alcohol level. There are similar campaigns for alcohol moderation, reduction of under-age drinking (which is 18), illicit drug use and smoking. At the same time there are positive health messages about healthy eating and regular moderate exercise.
Jan 7, '10Talaxandra
according to the ATO site you would not be liable for the Medicare Levy Surcharge if you earned $65,000 pa
"a single person with no dependants and had a taxable income for MLS purposes greater than $70,000"
so that $325 is still yours!
Jan 7, '10Quote from kim5814I disagree, Kim. The United States actually spends less on public healthcare than most other non 3rd world countries. The budget cutbacks have gone on for many years, and freezing new hires is common. I have been a Public Health Nurse for 48 years, and haven't liked what I've seen here. I came from Canada in 1963. That was before Canada's "universal health care" was in high gear, yet the public health programs there included school nursing; and much more was expected of public health nurses. We made many more home visits there, staffed clinics, and had scheduled meetings with the doctors in our communities to have "same page" objectives.This is a great illustration of a huge part of the problem, in the US we already spend more on public healthcare thna many countries that have universal health care. If we were talking about paying $975 per person we would not have this debate at all but the public option we're talking about is going to spend more per person than we probably spend now in private healthcare.
The "County Hospital" concepts practised until the past few decades in the United States were a disgrace! Only poor people went there, unless a patient was pregnant with a communicable disease. Medical students and interns/residence were responsible for patent care, getting occasional consultation from staff doctors. The judgments given on patients were abominable. I recall being told with a laugh accompanying the comment, that a patients weren't told that they'd undergone a procedure that sterilized them! "They've had enough babies!!" was said. "Who decides that?"
When private companies bought the County Hospitals, a sigh of relief went up from the governing groups in the communities, and it was found necessary to place stringent controls on all the programs. The concept that patient care wasn't always the first objective at most facilities was new to me when I first arrived. I still feel that it should be, with research and education added when financially indicated; and if those programs don't interfere with standards of care.