Socialized Medicine: The Argument to Support Moving Forward

Many people have a misunderstanding that if the government funds health care then THEY control our health care - a concept which in all reality is impossible. What they do provide is funding for hospitals and any facility that delivers health care. It's up to the facilities to decide how to spend the funds allocated to them. Nurses Announcements Archive Article

They will run things as they do now except they would have a lot more input and would not be controlled by the insurance companies as they are today.

There would be a department within the Government whose main task would be to establish performance-improving strategies for the hospitals and a timeline for them to be met. Guidelines would be implemented for hospitals to follow and protocols would be initiated by the hospital itself to help them achieve the goals set out by the government. The aim being that care will be standardized across the country. This meaning that hospitals who provide substandard care now will be expected to improve their standards of care in the future. Of course, this would not be achieved quickly nor would it happen overnight, and yes it would cost money, but in the long run, it would be cost effective. The main aim is to improve the quality of care to the patient and at the same time establishing across the board initiatives which all hospitals would need to follow in order to ensure all hospitals are providing the same standard and quality of care. Independent companies would be established to govern the government for example in the UK they have an independent company known as NICE,

Quote
"NICE is an independent organization responsible for providing national guidance on promoting good health and preventing and treating"

More emphasis would be made on care in the community, focusing on keeping the chronically ill out of the hospital and in their own homes. Health education would play a major role focusing on prevention rather than cure. For example, some of our expensive hospital beds are often taken up with the chronically ill which could well have been managed in their own home, freeing up valuable nursing time which can now be spent with the acutely ill. Opening up more opportunities for nurses to develop their skills and utilize their education for something other than carrying out orders from Doctors

NICE | The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

Diabetes can be effectively managed in the home with a team of skilled health professionals, accessing the hospitals for major illnesses rather than glucose control. Nurses could play a major role with diabetics in the community, after all, a large part of our formal nursing education focuses on health education, which a lot of us struggle to find time to implement in the hospital environment

Patients will be more compliant with their medication because it is now affordable. They would not be worrying shall I pay the bills or shall I pay for my medication. This would mean Asthmatics, Diabetics, COPDers wouldn't be having the same crisis situations finding themselves in hospital costing a fortune.

Of course, there will always be non-compliant patients, this group will never change easily, but my question is would we see a reduction in non-compliant patients if we made medication affordable. If we had no co-pays for hospital, tests, procedures, scans or doctors visits? My guess is yes we would see a reduction because some of those non-compliant patients are in this situation through no fault of their own but because of financial constraints either due to a poorly paid job or their pension doesn't quite cover everything they need.

Health professionals could more readily access the schools, youth groups with a lot more health education, again focusing on prevention rather than cure. "Catch em, Young".

I am sure you will be saying to yourself we have all this anyway yes but it would be "free" to establishments affording them to spend their funds elsewhere within the education system but at the same time ensuring we start our children's knowledge of a healthy lifestyle off earlier.

Everybody could afford to be pregnant and access high-quality pregnancy care. It would not only be the rich who are able to afford expensive pre-natal care, classes and education it would be available to all without further cost. Pregnancy care is an ideal opportunity for health care professionals to discuss dental care, diet, smoking cessation, birth control, pap smears the list is endless of what you could provide in health education to the younger generation which they can take through life. This population has probably had not much in the way of health care since their teenage years so are ripe for further education, again focusing on prevention rather than cure.

Of course, we all have heard the horror stories of the NHS there are plenty of them, there are more of the negative kind than the positive kind mainly because we focus in on the negative more readily. The Media are only too happy to report stories which involve sensationalism and negative press than to focus in on the 'nice' stories because 'nice' stories don't sell newspapers. Have you always noticed how bad press is always top of the news whereas the nicer stories are thrown In at the end?

The UK is one small country, whereas the 50 states of America are almost like 50 countries so if we took all the negative press in one day from each of the states of America it would be interesting to see/read how many horror stories we would find from the current medical health care system in the USA. Then we could compare the horror stories to the ones reported from the UK then correlate the figures to establish which country offers greater health care and what cost.

Remember the people who pay insurance here in America it will not cost you any more money unless you choose to take out private health insurance. The difference is it will not cost you one cent more unlike now where there are numerous co-pays for anything you access.

Think about it NO co-pays for:

  • Doctors Visits
  • Blood Draws/lab work
  • Mammograms
  • Pap smears
  • Children's immunizations and check-ups
  • Emergency room visits
  • OT
  • PT
  • Speech and language therapy

The list is endless.

Several points. It is true that insurance companies frequently deny services. But, it is also true that those of us insured frequently do not take the time to thoroughly review our policies. Do we really pay attention to what the employer has purchased for us?

Second, once again I digress to moral ramifications of insuring everyone. The question this time is whether having access to quality health services is a luxury or necessity?

Third, for those of us not interested in a universal health coverage plan, should we begin to ration health care for those of us who are not motivated or refuse to take care of ourselves and engage in high risk activities that affect our health? Take for instance, the person diagnosed with hyperlipidemia who eats pizza and eggs everyday despite instructions to the contrary.

Do you know that your treatment plan would not be paid by Medicaid or Medicare , medicare only covers 80%.

????

I don't understand what you mean by this. Medicare and Medicaid don't turn down 20% of claims (which is the only interpretation of your comment I can come up with that seems to makes any sense) -- they just pay a lower percentage of the bill the provider submits than the provider would like. The other poster's treatments would be paid for if s/he had Medicare or Medicaid (unlike her current private insurance).

When a medicaid patient gets admitted the hospital gets $4000k for any inpatient admission.....so $200k bone marrow transplant the cost to the hospital is $194,000. A medicare patient has to pay 20% of their patient hospitalization so if the same patient had Bone Marrow transplantation they would have to pay $40,000. Many Medicare patients don't have the money to pay for deductible. So the hospital has to pay the the difference. The horrible for profits from insurance companies have to pay $300,000 so that $100, 000 goes for the your raises. An Hmo would pay $240,000. Get rid of the insurance and you will see that services will have to cut. It real time economics.

My point if we have an government based program, nurses would be paid less since Mr Obama said the difference would go to the citizens for health care coverage, not for nursing salaries.

Unless you have access to patient bills you would not know this. I have been in positions where I had access to these bills.

If you have worked in admin, have you seen similar bills? Or are you just repeating what you read on the internet?

What positions have you held in a hospital where you have access to the bills that insurance has been charged. Are you a case manage, admin , or work for insurance since these are the only ones who have access to the bills.

It pains me when I have to ask a Medicare patient for a credit card when they go home on IV meds since that is not a covered benefit, ( unless they have the dreaded supplemental insurance).

Specializes in PICU, NICU, L&D, Public Health, Hospice.

It may pain the nurse who has to ask for a credit card...but trust me...it DOES NOT PAIN THE INSURANCE COMPANY to deny coverage for diagnostics, surgery, aftercare, home care, dressing supplies, medications, etc. They go happily on their way and give a big bonus to the execs who have the biggest profits, never questioning if people suffered because of their choices. When my husband had an urgent surgery (90% obstruction of the transverse colon) that the insurance company refused to pay for, we tried to negotiate a payment with the university hospital. They refused to accept from us what medicare would pay for the procedure...they refused what the private insurance would pay for the procedure (more than medicare) and required that we pay the "MSRP" for the procedure and then threatened to sue us. Remember...we HAD INSURANCE...and now we are on the brink of bankrupcy because of ONE healthcare event that insurance refused to pay for. Oh yeah...I did try to pursue the insurance company on this but...a retirement savings will only go so far in legal matters, especially when you are hounded for $150k from the hospital with ongoing UNCOVERED medical expenses and a primary wage earner out of commission.

What a dream in a perfect world ~ take a look at the VA healthcare AND THE SEVERE PROBLEMS BROUGHT TO LIGHT RECENTLY!!! NATIONAL HEALTHCARE AT ITS FINEST!!! I have been to Europe, I have been a patient in a French hospital in Caan, France. I have several friends in the UK and I know who ends up having their healthcare rationed. You could NEVER convince me that the government controlled healthcare could ever compare to the free democratic way of receiving healthcare that we enjoy today.

I support the option of everyone getting IMPROVED healthcare, but I do not support taking away my option to the quality of healthcare I receive in this country.

Oh, I see ~ you want more government BS!! We should add more DRGS or should we call them DDDDDDRGS????? Or maybe more RED TAPE!!!!!!!!!

?? public school ?? Our public school system is broken!!!!!The US post office??? Oh please!!!! FedEx and UPS puts them to shame!!!!! VA Hospital care ~ absolutely deplorable and shameful to our Veterans. ?? Medicare ?? As one who will seriously have to deal with the implications of the Medicare reductions that Obama is proposing to support his plan, I am very frightened!

I have!! I was hospitalized in france, i do know!!!!!!!! It absolutely sucks!!!!! If you have a complication, hope you make it out alive!!!!!!!!!!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ratio of deaths in the countries that have socialized medicine is not any higher than the U.S. Therefore, I could only conclude that some how, some way, socialized medicine has worked at some level. I'm only trying to look at the situation from a practical standpoint.

The debate about socialized medicine in the U.S. has everything to do with $$$ and nothing to do with quality of life. We are in a capitalistic country after all and to my understanding the Christian Bible contains over 2000 scriptures about money - more times then any other subject. Interesting, hmm.....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ratio of deaths in the countries that have socialized medicine is not any higher than the U.S. Therefore, I could only conclude that some how, some way, socialized medicine has worked at some level. I'm only trying to look at the situation from a practical standpoint.

From what I've been able to research the ratio is the same or within a 2% margin depending on the country.

The most important thing for me is that EVERYONE gets access to healthcare, unlike the tens of thousands who go without healthcare until they are in a critical state because they cannot afford to make the office visits they need.

The debate about socialized medicine in the U.S. has everything to do with $$$ and nothing to do with quality of life.

Of course, with hospitals being run by corporations it is all about money.

The thing is, the USA is a living contradiction, we have the worst healthcare in the industrialized world and yet we have the best trained medical professionals. There is a serious problem here!

From what I've been able to research the ratio is the same or within a 2% margin depending on the country.

The most important thing for me is that EVERYONE gets access to healthcare, unlike the tens of thousands who go without healthcare until they are in a critical state because they cannot afford to make the office visits they need.

Of course, with hospitals being run by corporations it is all about money.

The thing is, the USA is a living contradiction, we have the worst healthcare in the industrialized world and yet we have the best trained medical professionals. There is a serious problem here!

Everyone has access to emergency health care, that is what is doing the US economy in. Some changes do need to get done, but I don't believe socialized medicine is the path.

medicare.gov ... Part A: (pays for inpatient hospital, SNF, and some home health care) For each benefit period Medicare pays all covered costs except the Medicare Part A deductible (2009 = $1,068) during the first 60 days and coinsurance amounts for hospital stays that last beyond 60 days and no more than 150 days. The patient pays only the $1,068 deductible for the first 60 days. They do not pay 20% of the balance after the deductible. The 20% co-pay applies to Part B covered services after a $135.00 per year deductible. I'm sorry I don't know how to embed a link or make separate paragraphs since I'm new to this blog posting business.