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.

Too bad, under the current system insurance companies make decisions for you all the time in determining what qualifies and what does not for coverage. They do it based on profit margins, if health care was socialized then it would be on the basis of need and medical assessment; doesn't that sound like a more appropriate litmus test?

So you don't trust the government to do anything under any administration?

I trust government to change as the will and need of the people change.

I trust that under the current system people will continue to suffer and die.

We must change things in order to improve them.

Yes, Medicare and Medicaid are cumbersome and difficult to deal with.

Yes, VA hospitals are grossly underfunded.

Yes, Military healthcare is slow to secondary recipients.

That is all true.

However, those systems will no longer be needed under a universal healthcare program.

Wipe off the board and rebuild a newer, better structure.

Change is the only thing that can help us to progress.

Healthcare as it is only serves the wealthy and middle class. I have had more interviews than I care to remember or relate of families all over the USA who appeal for financial assistance; all of whom ran into bankruptcy and lost their homes because of medical bills.

This is not freedom that my ancestors fought and died for.

If the government can run the laundry list above how will it manage Universal Care? I don't think the bill I read eliminates any of the above, VA and Medicare will remain with less funding. Read the bill. I have also done thousands of interviews with families with no insurance, once connect with Medicaid they got services that as a middle class person did not have like a home health aide after surgery, food stamps, and housing. It sounds like the people you interviewed did not have good social workers helping and connecting them for services. According to your bio, you have been out of the USA for eight years and polices change.

Personally I think saving my life is worth going bankrupt over. I had a major medical issue which occurred right after my parents both died, needless to say I was not in a good place financially. I was able to budget and keep up with all my bills. Once the crisis was over my husband and I worked two jobs and paid off our debts. We could have final bankruptcy but all it took was hard work. I know the high quality health care I had saved my life.

I don't feel that I should pay for people who mismanage their funds. And by the way my husband and I supported my parents financially, physically and emotionally through their illness without any government support.

Specializes in RN, BSN, CHDN.

I am enjoying the debate on here and value everybodies opinion but I do ask for us all to respect each other and try hard not to personalise when somebody doesnt agree. Thank you all once again for such interesting points of view

Specializes in RN, BSN, CHDN.

http://allnurses-central.com/world-news-current/five-myths-about-419176.html

Read the link on this thread very enlightening

Thanks for the link. One issue I have not all states have plans with pre existing exclusions ( perhaps that is an issue since every state has it's own rules), also the friends I have in the UK state there is a postal code issue ( meaning some postal codes have better services than others).

The bigger issue that no US legislator has addressed is all the law suits which drive costs up.

I do agree US Healthcare has to change... I am not sold socialized medicine is the way to go, but it is certainly interesting to discuss.

I think the discussion and debate has been interesting. Many of the posts have been based on someone's political ideology, in my opinion. My thought is that the provision of health care has moral ramifications that outweigh the economics and politics of it.

You can not have a robust, competitive country of people who are spiritually, physically, and mentally fit unless you have a country of people with access to the best that health care has to offer. To have the type of access to health care that all the citizenry of the U.S. needs to stay strong and competitive and even improve our standing among civilized countries in terms of our health status means that something radical needs to be done with health care.

The turf wars and politics need to be pushed aside and once and for all, it needs to be decided whether access to quality health care is a right or a priviledge. If we truly value life from womb to grave or from cradle to grave, then why are we debating whether to provide access for everyone to get quality health care. I'm confused that on the one hand we can say, "our children are our future", "life begins in the womb" and so on, but many of us refuse to help cover our children. It does seem a little hypocritic to be bantering back and forth about the economics and politics of health care coverage when our country is morally and defensively falling apart at the seams. After all, some of us are willing to insure our pets in lieu of contributing to the needs of the poor which morally we are called to do.

I think it is important for us as health care providers and supporters to pull out all the health care legislation on the table and put it side by side and vote. Doing nothing is not an option. If we come up with socialized medicine as the best way to be inclusive of everyone than so be it. However, there need to be stipulations for those who we feel are seemingly getting "free" health care unlike there was when the program called welfare was instituted. As far as the VA is concerned, I personally do not have issues with supporting our Vets or our troops through a specialized program. If they are not getting adequate care in that program, then it needs to be ramped up.

I agree with your point that we need to sort out if health care is a right or not.. If a right then the government has to be the principle provider. In one way the bill jump ahead - this needs to be decided.

I personally do not put too much stock in WHO data or the NY Times. Why don't you start building a perfect world where you live now and the US can copy it!

Wait, you don't take stock in the World Health Organization?

That's such a bizzare thing to say on so many levels.

NY Times, okay fine.. you like Fox News and want to take that avenue.. but to deny research and statistics from a global organization is just surreal.

Let me ask you a question then; what data do you use to determine that the USA has the best healthcare available and that there is no need to change?

Interesting, you do not live in the USA, but what to tell me how much I need to pay in taxes. I have had a personal incident with a socialize healthcare, so I know how bad and how long the consequences of bad care can be. I rather face bankruptcy and live then die.

I am an American Citizen; almost all of my family and those I love are living in the USA.

I plan to return to the USA within 4-5 years; my life in the Philippines is temporary and I have only been here for two years. So please; stop treating me like I am completely insensitive and out of touch with what is going on in the USA.

I have had multiple very bad incidents with US healthcare as it stand now, I know how bad and how long the consequences of that bad care has been. Incidents with myself, my family and those I've had to help through humanitarian resources.

Many people who have filed for bankruptcy lived why beyond their means. Now you want me to pay for their irresponsible behavior.

I'm not talking about those who have spent money like water. I'm talking about average families with average incomes and normal spending habits being knocked out of financial stability from a single hospital stay.

I have hundreds of stories...

One that burns in my mind is a man who worked for a Fortune 500 company as a data analyst. His company provided him "platinum level" insurance.

While traveling in another state, he was involved in an accident which damaged his eyes and left his right hand shattered. As a result he could no longer perform his job.

The "platinum" healthcare insurance he had refused to care for more than half of his treatments as they considered reconstructive surgury on his hand and wrist to be "elective" and they considered his eyes to be sufficient for work even though he is now severely limited.

There were treatments he could have recieved to preserve portions of his sight but the insurance company denied him.

Within 3 years of this event he and his family were completely bankrupt, he and his wife both working full time to support themselves and children, although he is stuck at a minimum wage job.

His insurance's lack of coverage is directly responsible for his condition, they charged the highest rates for his co-pay and refused to cover many necissary procedures because he was in another state or because an attending doctor was not "in network."

Had he been in a situation involving socialized healthcare then he would have gotten the treatments he needed at a minimal out of pocket expense and even if he'd still lost his sight, he would have at least had the chance to have procedures that were denied to him under the current system.

Unfortunately the best that our resources were able to do was to connect him with an optical surgeon to partially restore sight in one eye and get him a better job and some start-up money.

So society still pays the burden of our broken and shattered healthcare system because humanitarian aid organizations (donations given by Americans) have to divert funding to helping heal households damaged by the greed machines that run health insurance.

Half of the amount of money spent by NGOs annually could be used by the US Government to facilitate socialized healthcare... so the American taxpayers are already paying the burden; just through other avenues.

That's what you don't see.. what you can't see because only the NGOs really get to see these figures.

I finally asked him the other day what he does. He tells me he's on disability and used to work at a bread company. I then hear him on the phone talking about his medicaid. There is nothing phisically wrong with him. (Remember all of the stuff he moved) He can drive. (I have seen it myself) He does nothing but sit on his butt all day long and live off of the government.

As someone who worked for humanitarian aid organizations and have assessed situations of people who are disabled I can tell you that he does not represent the majority of cases in the USA.

I can also tell you that I would have reported his sorry butt to the authorities for fraud.

When the UK papers are filled with horror stories and that their cancer survival rate is decreasing and below the US I think it is a fair statement.

You presently live in a country where the government runs things and nurses are unemployed and the health care is third world. So I do think if we are going to compare we need to look at all aspects.

I think saying they are "filled with horror stories" is a bit sensationalistic.

Where did you get the idea that the government here in the Philippines takes care of healtcare?

You are sorely mistaken.. there is no socialized healthcare here.

There are government-run clinics where the fee for care is not as much a private-run hospitals but the only way you can get any care is cash up front.

I think it is the decades of American influence that created this system.

you are right...he did have the option to purchase health insurance. He decided that he could not afford those premiums, his options represented too much of his montly income for coverage that he decided was too sporifice and so he opted to gamble. He was not eligible for medicaid. There are too many people in that very situation.

I've been in that situation, in many ways I still am.

It is hard to pay a premium of $280 at a young(ish) age when you are earning $2,000 a month when that premium won't cover dental, optical (especially for someone who wears corrective lenses) and still has deductibles; the gamble is that you put away whatever you can afford into a savings account and hope that it will be enough.

That was 5 years ago in the USA after I'd lost my job and had to take over the full premium for myself

Specializes in Pediatrics.
i have low co-pays and am very happy with my insurance. for a recent surgery this year i paid $125 to the hospital which covered everything; surgery, anesthesia, and an overnight in the hospital. i did have a $15 copay at the surgeon's office prior to surgery but that also covered the followup visit 10 days later.

however, i did have to change primary md with this insurance as my old dr decided to opt out due to low reimbursements by my plan. a public option which competes with private insurance and pays at medicare rates would encourage private insurance to decrease their reimbursements as well just so they could stay competitive. as docs opt out of low paying plans, choices decrease. it's just economics.

private insurance is paying dr's medicare rates right now!!!! i am a clinical manager in a pediatric dr's office and we have this discussion ever couple months. the insurance companies pay less and less while we have to spend more and more on medications, vaccines etc. my office manager & billing department is told time and time again by insurance companies "we pay the medicare rate" which is ridiculous because how many 70 year olds are receiving children's vaccines!

i am all for some type of reform. healthcare shouldn't be this expensive. insurance premiums are sky high while insurance companies don't want to paying.

the middle class pays a larger percentage in taxes as it is. then we are screwed when it comes to our health coverage. i would rather pay another 1-2% and be fully covered without a high deductible. unfortunatley i have a $5,000 deductible and have reached it two years in a row one for health problems the other for the birth of my baby. i make good money but $10,000 is not chump change!!!!