Socialized Medicine: The Argument to Support Moving Forward

[madwife2002]

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.

[hypocaffeinemia, BSN, RN]

yes we need government to build roads and maintain an army.

Why do you favor socialized roads and military? Wouldn't less government intervention lead to better roads and militaries as companies could compete in the free market?

Isn't your support of socialism for roads and militaries but not healthcare a bit of a double standard?

[TakeBack]

I wouldn't check if the Anesthetist was in network just as he was about to put me under. I would check that weeks in advance. Most hospitals contract with a specific anesthesia group or do it in house. It is a simple phone call.

You see, the problem with healthcare now is it causes Americans to be responsible. First, you have to make sure you have health insurance. If you can't afford it, you need to find better work so that you may do so. Then, if you have a high deductible, you need to make sure you are saving money every month, just in case you may need to use your plan. Or, you can use the money you would be saving to cover your deductible and pay more each month for a plan with a lower deductible. Either way, it's your choice. But the problem is America is filled with a bunch of lazy people who think they are entitled to everything. Even people who come here from other countries are falling into this entitlement mentallity. This country used to be filled with hard workers who were too proud to take a handout and who would do whatever it takes to keep their family safe and fed. Now, they walk around with their hands out complaining about how it's just to hard and how the working class can't make it. I sincerely feel bad for people who may do everything right and something terrible happens and they lose their insurance. If the total strain on the healthcare system was just from people in that situation, then we wouldn't have the problems that we have now. But it's not, it because of a large amount of people who don't have health insurance because it isn't important to them. Because they would rather have a nice car and fancy clothes. Because by now, society has taught them that it will be taken care of by someone else.

Government run healthcare may supply the whole country with healthcare, but it will have to be rationed compared to what we are used to now. The economics of this country cannot support healthcare for the entire nation without rationing, or cost analyzing, or whatever you want to call it. And it will, with no doubt, teach the American people how to be less responsible and more dependent on the government. This tactic has been described in many books written over many decades, and is the first main step towards Socialism, Facism, and Communism. Those government styles may work in France and Norway and wherever else, but I'm quite sure that the American people will lose their minds when they realize all of the other things that come with those governmental systems besides Universal Healthcare.

The problem with this thinking:

The economic structure dictates that there will ALWAYS be a segment of ther workforce that makes LESS than what is necessary for premiums and out of pocket costs. For every worker who "finds better work", another will replace them. We never lose that steady supply of low income workers who cannot afford premiums or are underinsured. These folks who can barely afford the premiums, by definition, will hardly afford the deductible.

To paint them all as lazy and unmotivated is a judgment call on your part, and a terribly uneducated one at that.

Second, "rationing" occurs now on the basis of who can pay and who can't. So swaths of americans go without basic preventive care, immunizations, meds etc b/c they can't afford it. And news flash- it's not becuase they're all buying iphones instead.

I am required to buy auto insurance to drive; going without health insurance places a burden on fellow americans by way of increased taxes and premiums. There is direct and indirect harm in both cases.

[TakeBack]

My litmus test is the copy of the Constitution I carry with me at all times. If it's not in there, the Federal goobement has no legal authority to act.

I can't find anywhere in there where it says the goobs can step in and do what they're proposing and what you're supporting--and believe me, I've looked. I'd be willing to bet our Congresscritters would see that too--if they'd ever bothered to read that document. Healthcare is NOT a right, contrary to what bleeding hearts would have us believe. People who push for crap like this use psychological bombs like this to yank at heartstrings and try to guilt trip people into following along.

I can't find anywhere in there where it says we can bail out banks or car dealers, and many of the other bits that have been shoved up our asses lately.

This isn't new with Obama--we've allowed the Fed goobs to incrementally impose crap like this on us far too long. We've gotten what we deserve. Now it's time to wake up and put the engine in reverse.

So spout your opinions and your what-ifs all you want. If socialized medicine is so good, move to a country that offers it. What the Federal gooberment is purporting is illegal under the Constitution. Period. The argument ends there.

Molon Labe!

There's a reason the constitution was written with the intent of it being a dynamic document; a reason for the ammendment process.

Strict constructionism is long the limit to progress.

[TakeBack]

I am against the gov't providing healthcare simply for the simple fact that the US Gov't isn't well known for handling it's money well. When I read the constitution I can't find the amendment that gives us the right to free healthcare. I'm not saying it doesn't work in other countries but people here in America people get crazy over free stuff. Remember the long lines when Denny's was giving out a free meal? It is human nature to be wasteful when you don't have to pay for something.

Who is saying it's "free" (besides SP detractors)? Cost goes somewhere. Cost for the uninsured under a private health insurance system goes to policy holders and tax payers......

Private insurers have a pretty good track record for handling money poorly as well. AND they get to deny payment on top of that. What a sweet scam!

[TakeBack]

I suppose that some of those promoting a Nationalized style of health care are from countries that are already on that system. It is unfortunate if you have not experienced the personal freedom of CHOICE.

Who has more choice- a medicare pt or a privately insured pt under an employer policy, who is chained to a network or providers AND a job lest they lose their (limited) coverage?

[TakeBack]

I believe I can speak with experience that this will not work!!!!! My husband is active duty military and our health care comes from the government (Tricare). You do not get seen when you need to be seen: For example yesterday I called to have my daughter be seen for an ear infection it was 8/26, They can not see her for a simple ear infection till 9/1. Im sorry that is not good health care system. If socialized health care comes to the US there will be waiting lists for simple care and the ones who need something like hip, knee or joint replacements will be waiting for years.

Socialized medicine does not work!!!!!!

:heartbeatTricia:heartbeat

In Canada:

Arthroplasty wait times

Table 5-2, p 20

http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/products/Final_Wait_Times_AIB_EN_080229.pdf

Additionally your daughter can go into any ED for her otitis there. Wait times are 40 min to a few hrs on average last I read (higher in big metro areas, negligible in smaller markets).

[TakeBack]

My point is that the government controls the money, the workforce and the policies. Personally I feel less government is better, yes we need government to build roads and maintain an army. Having government manage health care is not the intrusion I personally want.

But the NHS is Europe's largest employer, I personally don't want to give the US Government control of my healthcare. But that is a personal choice, and the democratic process will decide which is the route America should choose.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6092658/Cruel-and-neglectful-care-of-one-million-NHS-patients-exposed.html

One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today.

NHS is a gov't financed, gov't administered system.

US, if it adopted a SP system, would retain private providers. They would be limited no differently than they are by private insurance regulation now. Only with cheaper admin costs and less waste on pharma gaming, advertising.....

[NMiller1]

I cannot understand how some of you think that health care is 'free'. Can you take your car to the mechanic for free? Don't they operate to make money? Are your groceries free? I guess they don't stay in business to make money either. How about the department store? DO YOU WORK FOR FREE? Don't you like to have a little profit if you have a sale of some sort? One of the main reasons that the cost of health care has gone up by leaps and bounds are the frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits that have been filed and the outrageous awards that have been given out - to some - NOT all.

So if you want to start ragging on a group of people who are pulling money out of your pocket - go after the attorneys - the ambulance chasers. But that isn't even being addressed.

I don't have the best insurance right now. I work for a small company. I have purchased insurance on my own in the past and have had some exclusions for pre-existing conditions. You know what though - it was MY choice. I purchased what I thought would best work for me and then I made sure that I took care of myself to limit expenses for the areas not covered. We all make choices - where we live, what we wear, what kind of car we buy - heck, even how much car insurance we carry! The small group of the population that may be uninsured can be taken care of.. I do think that some reforms are needed (start with tort reform), but you don't go to the extremes that this administration is wanting. Their motives are not in any of our best interest. They are power hungry. I don't have much trust in an administration that admires Hugo Chavez.

[elkpark]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6092658/Cruel-and-neglectful-care-of-one-million-NHS-patients-exposed.html

One million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling care in hospitals across Britain, according to a major report released today.

"... The charity has published a selection of personal accounts from hundreds of relatives of patients, most of whom died, following their care in NHS hospitals. They cite patient surveys which show the vast majority of patients highly rate their NHS care - but, with some ten million treated a year, even a small percentage means hundreds of thousands have suffered. ...

... This report is based on the two per cent of patients who feel that their care was unacceptable. Two per cent is too many but we are concerned that this might undermine the public's confidence in the world-class care they can expect to receive from the NHS. ...

... These accounts tell the story of the two percent of patients that consistently rate their care as poor (in NHS patient surveys). She added: "It is important to note this is not representative of the picture across the NHS. 'The NHS treats millions of people every day and the vast majority of patients experience good quality, safe and effective care - the Care Quality Commission's recent patient experience survey shows that 93 percent of patients rate their overall care as good or excellent.' ..." (from the article linked above, emphases mine)

You don't think that 2% of US hospital patients have bad experiences and outcomes? Have you seen the figures about how many people die in US hospitals each year because of medical errors and poor care? The reports and figures quoted in the article are over a six-year period (2002-2008). I don't know, but I'm guessing that the US outcome figures would be at least as bad, probably significantly worse (adjusted for overall number of patients).

[madwife2002, BSN, RN]

I suppose that some of those promoting a Nationalized style of health care are from countries that are already on that system. It is unfortunate if you have not experienced the personal freedom of CHOICE. The US was founded on principles that embraced personal liberties which we have over the years.... slowly... been losing one by one for "the greater good". There is NO free health care. Period.

Ten years ago, while visiting New Zealand, I read an article in the paper that a certain county / region will not be authorizing any more tonsillectomies for the rest of the year as they had all been allocated. (this was March). I just could not believe it.

Oh - and I do not want to pay 80% of my pay in taxes - thank you very much. I prefer as little "state run" intrusion in my life as possible.

The problem with the government is that they do not know how to run any industry. Outside of our military, they have a poor record. Standard VA care is a nightmare, medicaid, and medicare is going bankrupt - even the post office. The government WILL end up pushing private insurance coverage out by making private insurance coverage so expensive that the average person can't afford it. And as the system is over loaded, decisions will have to be made regarding allocations of services. I'd rather fight with my insurance company. If they **** me off, I still have the freedom to get a different carrier.

For anyone who is not a US citizen. Please (respectfully) - mind your own business as you don't have a dog in this fight. Our forefathers left tyrannical rule many years ago so that their descendants could live FREE. You may not be able to understand how much we cherish that freedom.

Believe it or not there are a lot of countries who have 'freedom' but I understand that you do not want discussion from Nurses from other countries about your healthcare, but honestly i feel that is how we learn by being educated by what is happenening in other countries good and bad. We are a nursing website and we should welcome input from peoples experiences. NObody is going to tell America what to do, It will do it's own thing-rightly or wrongly, but this is a discussion forum and providing we are not being rude or personnal I do not see harm in allowing nurses from any country or any walk of life contributing to this discussion.

[Ginger's Mom, MSN, RN]

Why do you favor socialized roads and military? Wouldn't less government intervention lead to better roads and militaries as companies could compete in the free market?

Isn't your support of socialism for roads and militaries but not healthcare a bit of a double standard?

No my personal belief less government is better, military and an infastructure is a necessary evil. And yes many communities do outsource road building which is good since private industry usually does it better and less expensive.

[Mijourney]

I don't see supporting a little government intervention and supporting a little private industry intervention at the same time is problematic. After all, many of us, usually eat more than a one course meal when we do eat. In fact, I'm willing to bet that most of us in the U.S. eat our food on the same plate for our meals. The question for me comes down to this: can we take the best of both worlds and combine them? People on one side say government is the best for us. The other side says private industry is best. As indicated in an earlier posting, I feel that a hybrid system may be a workable solution as long as it puts emphasis on the young and on quality of life. With that said, I feel that because the U.S. is a capitalistic society (not bad depending on where it's taking us), that too much talk is spent on the economics of health care instead of how focusing on reducing acute and chronic disease, encouraging better food choices and exercise, and increasing quality of life will reduce expenditures in this country. We've got to start now getting our young people straight with their body, mind, and spirit by changing our walk and talk in life; we adults set the example. Otherwise, we will lose another one or two generations and we will be right back where we are today: discussing how to get outrageous health and medical costs under control.