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

Socialized Medicine: The Argument to Support Moving Forward

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.

0 Votes
madwife2002

About madwife2002, BSN, RN

RN with 26 years of experience many of those years spent in dialysis. I have worked in acute care, home, ICHD as a CN, FA, and currently a director.

26 Articles   4,777 Posts

Share this post

Specializes in RN, BSN, CHDN.

I would now to present two senario's

Senario One

A 42 yr old has a car accident through no fault of his own. The EMT arrives to the scene and takes man to the nearest ER department to recieive treatment, the hospital is 10miles away from the accident. The pt has xrays, A CT neck, An MRI brain, some pain medication and sent home. The following weeks, months and years he finds himself with constant pain and he needs to visit the doctor initially weekly, then monthly, he will need physio therapy, more MRI's, more CT's, back specialists, neurologists, pain management specialists, psychologist, more physio, medication for life.

In his state his health insurance wont pay out because they dont pay out for car accidents-he was unaware.

The driver was uninsured so the money will come out of his own pocket.

1st yr Aprox cost

EMT cost $800

ER visit $4000

Medication aprox $1000 (pain meds muscle relax, anxiety meds, nerve meds, on and on)

Doctors visits initially 4 $240 averaging $80 per visit

Doctors visits aprox 15 $300(Doctors visits for 1 yr because it becomes chronic and you get your insurance to pay because you work)

consultants various Iyr $3500(average $35 co-pay)

PTtwice a week for 6 mths $1800

the list of payments is endless

(this is based on real facts and evidence)

Senario 2

A 42 yr old has a car accident through no fault of his own. The EMT arrives to the scene and takes man to the nearest ER department to recieive treatment, the hospital is 10miles away from the accident. The pt has xrays, A CT neck, An MRI brain, some pain medication and sent home. The following weeks, months and years he finds himself with constant pain and he needs to visit the doctor initially weekly, then monthly, he will need physio therapy, more MRI's, more CT's, back specialists, neurologists, pain management specialists, psychologist, more physio, medication for life

Recieves the same treatment as the first no difference. The care is the same

Co pay for meds $10 per item regardless of what he recieves aprox $500

the rest of the treatment

NO CHARGE

Which one would you chose??

0 Votes

Are you serious? The only thing I can respond with is "SHEEP"! Following and believing others without using your own critical thinking skills. As most people have been taught throughout life, nothing is ever free. This "free" healthcare is paid for by burdening current and future generations of Americans with greater taxes and national deficits. Patients willl not have access to the level of healthcare that is currently available unless you buy a supplemental plan. Well, isn't that exactly what we do now? And if you have to have an extra plan to get all the care you need, then what exactly is the government providing? Obamacare is nothing but a government-sponsored vote-purchase plan! No matter what you chose to call it, socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried and it will fail here too!

0 Votes
Specializes in RN, BSN, CHDN.
Are you serious? The only thing I can respond with is "SHEEP"! Following and believing others without using your own critical thinking skills. As most people have been taught throughout life, nothing is ever free. This "free" healthcare is paid for by burdening current and future generations of Americans with greater taxes and national deficits. Patients willl not have access to the level of healthcare that is currently available unless you buy a supplemental plan. Well, isn't that exactly what we do now? And if you have to have an extra plan to get all the care you need, then what exactly is the government providing? Obamacare is nothing but a government-sponsored vote-purchase plan! No matter what you chose to call it, socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried and it will fail here too!

I am not a sheep but somebody who has experienced 1st hand both socialised medicine and private insurance. I dont follow and believe anything I have experience and knowledge which comes from those experiences.

BTW I am perfectly serious. What personnal experiences have you got to share to back up your theories?

0 Votes
Specializes in PACU, ED.
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. 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.

Really? I thought hospitals billed Medicare with DRG codes, at least that's how it's done today. In fact, the government keeps adding to a list of "never events" for which they will not reimburse the hospital. Would that change under government run health-care? How would the government know how much money to send to a hospital if they didn't relate them to services provided?

0 Votes
I am not a sheep but somebody who has experienced 1st hand both socialised medicine and private insurance. I dont follow and believe anything I have experience and knowledge which comes from those experiences.

BTW I am perfectly serious. What personnal experiences have you got to share to back up your theories?

here are some people that agree with you,http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09235/992461-109.stm
0 Votes
Are you serious? The only thing I can respond with is "SHEEP"! Following and believing others without using your own critical thinking skills. As most people have been taught throughout life, nothing is ever free. This "free" healthcare is paid for by burdening current and future generations of Americans with greater taxes and national deficits. Patients willl not have access to the level of healthcare that is currently available unless you buy a supplemental plan. Well, isn't that exactly what we do now? And if you have to have an extra plan to get all the care you need, then what exactly is the government providing? Obamacare is nothing but a government-sponsored vote-purchase plan! No matter what you chose to call it, socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried and it will fail here too!

We pay taxes now for people who don't have health insurance and must go to ERs in crisis for care. We subsidize hospitals that don't have enough privately insured patients in order to make sure that their doors stay open. So are you saying that we should continue to burden current and future generations with those taxes rather than opt for a plan that emphasizes prevention and therefore ostensibly lowers costs? And since "socialism has failed everywhere," I presume you do not drive on public roads, use the U.S. Postal Service, have never attended public schools, don't obtain vaccines, and are rallying for the abolition of Medicare?

If socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried, why is it that those darn French -- and those Swedes, those Canadians, those Swiss -- and people in 31 other countries have longer life expectancies than Americans, yet pay less for health care?

Oh yeah, that's right. They're sheep.

0 Votes
Obamacare is nothing but a government-sponsored vote-purchase plan! No matter what you chose to call it, socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried and it will fail here too!

HA are you SERIOUS, socialism failed everywhere? Did you ever want to visit France, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, England, Belgium, Switzerland or even near... Canada? Go outside your village before throwing bold statements like that. All of those countries are SOCIALIST countries with a national health care and free higher education, and their are all clean and fairly safe with happy citizens.

Man I wish you a luck with getting job in nursing, I noticed that it is hard to get a nursing jobs and that hospital beds are empty... miracle, people stop being sick or maybe they just can not afford private health care anymore? :banghead:

I will buy a supplement plan I can afford it, but I hope that all of as Americans will have at least some basic health care even if they can not afford it.

Thank you all for your attention ;)

0 Votes
Specializes in RN, BSN, CHDN.
here are some people that agree with you,http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09235/992461-109.stm

Thank you for that link

0 Votes
I am not a sheep but somebody who has experienced 1st hand both socialised medicine and private insurance. I dont follow and believe anything I have experience and knowledge which comes from those experiences.

BTW I am perfectly serious. What personnal experiences have you got to share to back up your theories?

I'll offer this personal experience, or rather my sister's. Ten years ago, she was diagnosed with uterine cancer. She lives in Canada. You know those long waits we hear about? Didn't happen. Not only was she offered immediate care, she received treatment from a surgeon of global renown who had recently begun performing a then-new operation that allowed her to retain her fertility. She was in the hospital for 10 days, then had follow-up nursing care at home for weeks. Her direct out-of-pocket cost? Between $40 and $50 to the hospital -- because she wanted a private room. If that had happened to me here in the States, you can bet it would have cost me a whole lot more, and I pay for my health insurance biweekly on top of my taxes.

Now my sister is not one of those aforementioned "sheep" who thinks her health care is free. Of course not. What it is is a) affordable, b) accessible, and c) there when she needs it. Period. These days, she's not only cancer-free, she's taking her toddler to a pediatrician on a regular basis -- because she's already paid for the service through her taxes, and her employer is not saddled with a skyrocketing premium courtesy of a for-profit insurance company. It must be great not to have to worry about subsidizing your insurance company's losses in the stock market.

Baa baa.

0 Votes

Here is my scenario, Breast Cancer pre menopausal, in the UK a mammogram would not be required until age 52

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default_printer_friend.asp?page=3303

Patient would have to prove a need for the mammogram, then would get the treatment recommended by the government.Patient would be offered a lumpectomy and radiation( and maybe standard chemo) through the cancer treatment team. No option to go another center for a second opinion.

UK breast Cancer survival rate lower than the USA. Cost is Zero.....life expectancy is ????

United States, Normal HMO, get mammogram, large invasive tumor found. First opinion suggests a lumpectomy, goes for second opinion a large cancer center. Opportunity to go out of state for third opinion if desired. Mastectomy with immediate reconstruction done ( reconstruction is not done at time of initial surgery) Tumor was too large. Aggressive non fomulary chemotherapy given.

Fast Forward- GYN recommends genetic testing ( not covered in UK) tests positive for BRCA - which is high rate for ovarian cancer. Patient is cancer free.

Cost - $50 for some prescriptions.

For my own selfish reason I prefer when fighting a life threatening disease that I would have options not the state telling my doctor what they can do for me.

0 Votes

Socialize Medicine - from American's view point. My daughter sprained her ankle in Australia, she was refused to be seen in the emergency room in Melbourne. She had to purchase and fit her own crutches (which she did not do correctly).

I paid the mandatory Australian Health fee which was over $500. I also had a letter from my insurance that they would cover care world wide. My daughter also had a credit card which had over 10K. She offered to pay cashe.Yet she was not treated and sent away never with an evaluation done by a health care professional.

The damage was her ankle was so bad she couldn't walk on it. She went to an orthopod who referred her to an ankle specialist. I was told that her ankle had the worst damage this doctor had seen short of an impact fracture. It took months for her the heal from the surgery and her ankle will never be the same. Thanks to socialized medicine.

So I am a bit shaded when it comes to socialized medicine.

My last question is if socialized medicine is so wonderful why do nurses from the UK and Australia wish to come to the USA?

0 Votes