I want to know what nurses think about socialized medicine. - page 13

I'm doing a report on Socialized medicine and dont know much about how people feel about it as I live in Idaho.What are any of you Canadian nurses feelings about it? Good or Bad?... Read More

  1. by   herring_RN
    Quote from Spidey's mom
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...th_care_1.html

    [FONT=times new roman,times]. . ."Well, there you have it. The savings for taxpayers over three years: Nearly $5 trillion. Not requiring bills hundreds of pages long: Priceless! A few short regulations and we have a viable health care system for the future covering over 99% of the population, devoid of the treachery of Medicare and without dependence on the federal government. It's very simple, very sensible, and so easy even a government official can understand it. It's even short enough for Congress members to read fully, though some may require several days. Oh, yes, Mr. Obama, I want our $600 billion back."

    [FONT=times new roman,times]
    The link won't work.
    Can you explain the few short regulations that will cover 99% of the population?

    Maybe my links will work.
    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=245
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/ea...nsur200706.pdf
    http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175
  2. by   herring_RN
    Maybe it is my computer.
    I can't even open the links to sites I just looked at.
    And this is what I got:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...iberalism.html

    Not about healthcare at all.
    Sorry.
    Gonna reboot.
  3. by   Spidey's mom
    It worked for me.

    [FONT=times new roman,times]President Obama made it clear this week that he
    [FONT=times new roman,times] was not going to settle for any delay in reforming health care. There are several proposals on the table ranging from government controlled "private" health care plans such as the [FONT=times new roman,times]Wyden-Bennett[FONT=times new roman,times] Health Reform Plan to the plan Mr. Obama prefers, fully government funded health care. All of the proposals are designed so that private insurance will be squeezed out of the market. Mr. Wyden's plan may seem more palatable initially but we must remember that ideologically the plan is the same as Mr. Obama's plan. The end result will therefore be the same; single-payer government controlled health care.

    [FONT=times new roman,times]Under the Wyden-Bennett plan, a new federal bureaucracy will be established and a new agency created in each state called the Health Help Agency (HHA) to manage the Healthy American Private Insurance, or HAPI plans. The name itself causes such a nice, warm feeling in my tummy that I can already see the health benefits! HAPI plans will be sold through the state HHA, which will determine the contributions of individuals and employers. Each state will have at least two HAPI plans available so that people can double their happiness.

    [FONT=times new roman,times]Mr. Wyden considers them private plans because there will be private insurance companies and private health care providers. They would be in fact as "private" as Medicare. Eventually, private insurance will cease to exist and the government will take over, perpetuating the [FONT=times new roman,times]purposeful dependence[FONT=times new roman,times] that Medicare was designed to ensure.

    [FONT=times new roman,times]There are several fundamental problems with all of the plans proposed by the Democrats.


    • [FONT=times new roman,times]1. The plans are cost centered as opposed to patient centered. In other words, the Democrats are not pro-choice. In every case we can see that the Democrats have come out on the side of the government's right to mandate rather than patient choice. This is true in health care and in the abortion issue where the government protects only select choices. The government makes choices and the people abide by those choices.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]2. The government uses flawed statistics in order to push its health plan proposals. The [FONT=times new roman,times]myth[FONT=times new roman,times] of the 45 million uninsured and skewed life expectancy and infant mortality numbers are examples.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]3. Democrat proposals are going to cost much more than they will admit. Haven't we seen this somewhere before? Medicare costs are [FONT=times new roman,times]much higher[FONT=times new roman,times] than published with a debt of $38 trillion and fiscal [FONT=times new roman,times]collapse[FONT=times new roman,times] looming by 2018. Now, President Obama wants to add another entitlement program.


    [FONT=times new roman,times]Goals of a good health care system:


    • [FONT=times new roman,times]1. Simplicity. (Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi, this means lack of complexity)
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]2. Available to all members of society, including the poor.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]3. Offers good, basic lower cost health care options.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]4. Portable. Not tied to employer or the government.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]5. Prevention of exclusions for those who have had "pre-existing" problems.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]6. Expandable. Option to purchase more extensive plans according to personal choice and ability. There is no Shangri-La. Wealthier people in Britain buy private insurance and those in Canada come to the United States for care. The Wyden plan proposes options for more extensive plans as well.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]7. Shared, sustainable cost and some personal financial responsibility for all.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]8. Patient health centered care. Preventive care with financial penalties for continued poor choices and rewards available for good health practices.


    [FONT=times new roman,times]Solution:


    • [FONT=times new roman,times]1. Don't pass any of the Democrat health care plans. Savings of at least $3 trillion over the next five years.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]2. Immediately do away with Medicare, Medicaid, and The Center for Medicare and Medicaid services. No other major industrialized nation has a separate system for the elderly, disabled and the poor. Scrap the Joint Commission on Hospital Accreditation. Savings of nearly $1 trillion in federal tax dollars yearly, $1 trillion in savings for states and billions in savings by dissolving the tyrannical Joint Commission.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]3. People should be responsible for purchasing their own health care, not the government or the employer, making health insurance completely portable. Scrap Hillary Clinton's HIPAA act at a savings of billions yearly. Let's make it HIPAA-posthumous.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]4. A Health Insurance Company must offer a good basic low-cost health care plan with expanded health savings accounts. Taxpayer cost zero dollars.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]5. No health exclusions for three years. Taxpayer cost zero dollars.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]6. Health plans should promote healthy practices and preventive health. Taxpayer cost zero.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]7. For the poor, government should subsidize the premiums, not be involved in paying providers. Taxpayer costs by my estimate around $600 billion per year.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]8. Retired people of lower means should be helped as above but should not have a separate insurance plan run by the government. Sorry, Medicare is dead. Promises were broken, but we are mature people and we need to get over it. Let's not let it happen again! Taxpayer cost around $300 billion per year.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]9. End tax penalties for individuals purchasing individual health insurance. Taxpayer cost zero dollars as these penalties are merely punitive, designed to make people dependent.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]10. The health insurance companies in each state should have the option of creating a risk pool from some of their premium funds. Taxpayer cost zero dollars.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]11. Laws should be changed to allow for private health co-ops to be formed as an option for those so inclined. Taxpayer cost zero dollars.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]12. Patients should be free to change insurance plans at least twice yearly and since their insurance would not be controlled by their employer or the government no permission is needed from them. Taxpayer cost zero dollars.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]13. There should be no legal right for insurance plans to dismiss competent and qualified contracted physicians for "no cause", when that no cause is really due to the physician acting as a patient advocate.
    • [FONT=times new roman,times]14. Tort reform with penalties for frivolous lawsuits and the loser paying some of the costs.

    [FONT=times new roman,times]Well, there you have it. The savings for taxpayers over three years: Nearly $5 trillion. Not requiring bills hundreds of pages long: Priceless! A few short regulations and we have a viable health care system for the future covering over 99% of the population, devoid of the treachery of Medicare and without dependence on the federal government. It's very simple, very sensible, and so easy even a government official can understand it. It's even short enough for Congress members to read fully, though some may require several days. Oh, yes, Mr. Obama, I want our $600 billion back.

    [FONT=times new roman,times]Frank S. Rosenbloom, M.D. President of Oregon Right to Life. He blogs at [FONT=times new roman,times]summacontraprobus.blogspot.com
  4. by   HM2VikingRN
    46 million is not a myth Even conservative opponents to reform have claimed that 85% are covered by health insurance. Using 300 million as the population of America, 85% coverage yields 255 million. 300-255 leaves 45 million uninsured. Those who are uninsured and then insured do subtract off that number but with our dynamic economy they are replaced by others who become uninsured d/t unemployment.
    In 2006, 43.6 million persons of all
    ages (14.8%) were uninsured at the
    time of the interview, 54.5 million (18.6%) had been uninsured for at least part of the year prior to the
    interview, and 30.7 million (10.5%) had been uninsured for more than a
    year at the time of the interview.
    • The percentage of children under the age of 18 years who were
    uninsured at the time of the interview
    was 9.3% in 2006.
    • In 2006, almost 58% of currently
    unemployed adults and nearly 23%
    of employed adults aged 18–64 years
    had been uninsured for at least part of the past year, and more than 33%
    of currently unemployed adults and nearly 14% of employed adults had
    been uninsured for more than a year.
    • In 2006, the percentage uninsured at the time of interview among the 20 largest states ranged from 7.7% in Massachusetts to 23.8% in Texas.
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/ea...nsur200706.pdf


    With a 15% unemployment rate I would venture to guess that we have closer to 75 miliion involuntarily uninsured at this point in time (factoring in uninsured family members). The Commonwealth Fund estimates that there are over 100 million Americans who are un/underinsured at this point in time.

    We can't subtract the 12 million undocumented immigrants from those in need of health care. We have a moral obligation to assure access to health care. They still get sick and still need care.

    The majority of states experienced significant declines in employer-sponsored coverage this decade. A new analysis of the under-65 population documents the variation in both the level and extent of coverage lost between 2000-01 and 2006-07. Forty-one states experienced significant losses in coverage across every region of the United States.
    http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshot...hots_20081009/

    Also: http://epi.3cdn.net/d1b4356d96c21c91d1_ilm6b5dua.pdf
    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Jul 3, '09
  5. by   HM2VikingRN
    Health Care for America:

    Using that system, the Lewin analysis found that Health Care for America could greatly
    expand coverage while lowering national health spending by about $100 million in its
    first year of implementation. Those savings would grow over time.
    The greatest gains would be realized by the self-insured and by employers who currently
    provide insurance, particularly at small firms.

    The federal government would spend an additional $49 billion on health care in the first
    year, but that amount would diminish over time. Meanwhile, state and local governments
    would save about $23 billion a year, largely through a reduction in emergency and safety
    net services.
    http://www.sharedprosperity.org/hcfa/lewin-summary.pdf

    This is not a compete mirror of the current HELP act but it is definitely the seeds of the proposal. It isn't true single payer. It maintains the private insurance system but it imposes true competitive forces.
  6. by   Spidey's mom
    http://www.lp.org/blogs/donny-fergus...iled-in-europe

    "Guillaume Vuillemey, a researcher at France's Institut Economique Molinari, and Philip Stevens, a researcher at Britain's International Policy Network write in today's Washington Examiner about how Obama's proposed government takeover of the health care system has worked in Europe.
    Hint. Not so well."
  7. by   Spidey's mom
    Quote from HM2Viking
    46 million is not a myth Even conservative opponents to reform have claimed that 85% are covered by health insurance. Using 300 million as the population of America, 85% coverage yields 255 million. 300-255 leaves 45 million uninsured. Those who are uninsured and then insured do subtract off that number but with our dynamic economy they are replaced by others who become uninsured d/t unemployment.


    No one is saying that 46 million ARE insured .. what we are saying is there are reasons that make it a questionable number - there are reason WHY they are uninsured and some of those reasons are . . .20-somethings opt NOT to get insurance, those making $50,000 opt NOT to get insurance even when they can afford it, 10 million are here illegally, and also included in that number are people who are between jobs who will get insurance shortly, etc.

    steph
  8. by   HM2VikingRN
    Health reform advocates do put people and real patient choice first:

    This report focuses on those who would benefit from such health reforms, including the estimated 116 million working-age adults—two-thirds of all adults—who report that they are uninsured or underinsured, have medical bill or debt problems, or experience difficulties obtaining needed care.
    A national health insurance exchange with competing private plans and a new public plan has the potential to provide greater choices, better benefits, and more affordable premiums. If coupled with broad system reforms, the average family could save $2,314 a year by 2020, as the annual increase in health costs slowed from 6.7 percent to 5.5 percent. Cumulative national savings over the period 2010 to 2020 would be $3 trillion, compared with projected trends.
    http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Cont...nd-Center.aspx
  9. by   nicurn001
    Quote from Spidey's mom
    No one is saying that 46 million ARE insured .. what we are saying is there are reasons that make it a questionable number - there are reason WHY they are uninsured and some of those reasons are . . .20-somethings opt NOT to get insurance, those making $50,000 opt NOT to get insurance even when they can afford it, 10 million are here illegally, and also included in that number are people who are between jobs who will get insurance shortly, etc.

    steph
    The bottom line is for whatever reason a patient presents themselves in an ER without insurance , we pay for it either through taxes for the uninsured or higher premiums if privately insured.
    We can argue the number of uninsured , but ,you cannot simply remove uninsured people from the total because they are not legally here or chose not to insure themselves , unfortunately when they become patients , their care has to be paid for .
  10. by   Multicollinearity
    Quote from K98
    I only know of one case, my brother's father-in-law. It didn't end well.
    One of my Canadian relatives comes to the US every winter. She has health coverage in both countries. She nearly died of a heart condition while in the United States. She was admitted to hospitals in the US twice, and the cardiologists told her she was too old for surgery and to go home and rest.

    She made it home to Canada, barely, and she was admitted to a hospital there. They performed surgery the next day and now she's doing well.

    Anecdotal stories abound.
  11. by   herring_RN
    It WAS my computer. Not sure why. Working OK now.

    First there is no deadline.

    I think Congress MUST debate as long as it takes.

    Our lack of any healthcare system for all Americans is horrible but I think an inferior and costly plan will be worse that the time it may take to truly discuss all options.

    I'll let others discuss the "simplicity" of doing away with employers offering health insurance and eliminating Medicare. And who will pay for the "20 somethings" who choose not to buy health insurance when they are in an accident or become seriously ill?

    I see no ban on denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions or cancellation of policies for "unreported" minor health problems. Where is the choice of doctor?

    I agree with scrapping the Joint Commission. No more tax dollars for private companies. Let regulatory agencies survey hospitals and other healthcare agencies. In California the state will license a hospital and ensure Medicare reimbursement for free. But hospitals like to pay to be inspected.
    As I said before I don't want our taxes to go to companies with the goal of making a profit rather than paying for healthcare.
    7. For the poor, government should subsidize the premiums, not be involved in paying providers. Taxpayer costs by my estimate around $600 billion per year.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...th_care_1.html

  12. by   HM2VikingRN
  13. by   misswoosie
    As a follow up to my post about the NHS in the UK I wanted to illustrate that there are immense financial targets in all aspects of the NHS. Even ward Sisters are expected to manage their budget (not sure how your training as a RN equips you to do that, or why it should be expected.

    Bearing in mind the staffing ratios and salaries I posted -I took this info from the UK National Audit Office websitE. They are an independant body that review many government agencies, not just the NHS.

    The National Health Service (NHS) had a surplus
    of 1.67 billion in 2007-08, representing approximately
    two per cent of total available resources. At the start of
    the financial year, the Department set the NHS the target
    of delivering a combined surplus and contingency of
    around 0.9 billion. During the year the contingency
    was not required and the surplus grew as a result of NHS
    organisations exceeding savings plans and a reduction
    in the price of generic medicines. The surplus has been
    carried forward into 2008-09 and the Department
    has committed to making it available to the NHS for
    spending in future years.


    I wonder how far into the future they are talking about considering nurses were given a below inflation pay rise this year because the unions stupidly agreed a 3 year deal last year when inflation was low.It was agreed with the condition that the government would review it ,but now they are refusing to review it as the hospitals are saying they can't afford to pay nurses more!This was written in th nursing press prior to the refusal to re-open pay talks.

    Unions have submitted their evidence to the NHS Pay Review Body calling for a recommendation that the government reopens the talks on pay. Helen Mooney analyses the facts and figures

    Evidence submitted to the NHS Pay Review Body last week made the case for an improved pay rise for nurses and other non-medical NHS staff (NT News, 28 October, p2).

    As the economic downturn continues and the UK slips into a recession, unions have claimed nurses are facing tough times ahead and the original pay deal agreed earlier this year is no longer reflective of the cost of living.

    The current 7.99% three-year pay deal equates to a 2.75% pay rise for nurses in the year 2008-2009. Awards for the next two years agreed between the government and the unions mean an extra 2.4% in 2009-2010 and 2.25% the following year.

    However, a 'reopener clause', which was written in to the agreement, means that the Pay Review Body can be called on to make recommendations to the government, should the economy deteriorate - which it now has.

    The system effectively means that nurses' pay decisions are in the hands of the independent Pay Review Body - and ultimately the government, which can decide in favour of or against a Pay Review Body recommendation.

    The documents that were produced by the unions as evidence for the Pay Review Body make for depressing reading.

    They warn that staff across the NHS are now facing severe hardship and for nursing a recruitment and retention crisis is predicted.

    Graduate intake is down - at the end of July 2007 there were 3.7% fewer students attending undergraduate nursing courses than the year before.

    In addition, more than 25% of students are dropping out of their courses and those who are already working in the profession are leaving before retirement age.

    The evidence also shows that record numbers of NHS staff are now accessing help on managing severe debt and house repossessions. Many are also being forced to take second jobs and to work overtime because of the impact of inflation and the rising costs of fuel, food and childcare.

    Karen Jennings, staff side chairperson and Unison's head of health, said: 'Hard-working staff across the NHS accepted a three-year pay deal six months ago believing the government and economic predictions that inflation had peaked and would start to fall.

    'This clearly hasn't happened. No one then could have predicted the worldwide credit crunch or that inflation would
    hit a 16-year high,' she added.

    She warned that the government had to make sure that working within the NHS was an attractive career option and to do so it would need to 'pay workers decently'.

    'The reopener clause was intended to be a safety net for NHS staff. They need that safety net now,' she said.

    The RCN has urged the government to take action in the face of recruitment and retention warnings.

    Chief executive and general secretary Peter Carter said: 'NHS staff put their faith in the government when they accepted their pay deal - now it's time for the government to honour the day-in day-out commitment of NHS staff by agreeing to reopen talks to secure a fairer pay deal across the health service.'

    Heads of midwifery across the UK last week warned of a service 'buckling under the pressures of rising birthrates, inadequate funding and a lack of staff'.

    The findings of a survey conducted by the RCM of all heads of midwifery across the UK reveal that as many as 75% consider they do not have enough staff to cope with the current workload, yet despite this one-third have been asked to cut their budgets and reduce expenditure.

    The survey also shows a significant drop in midwives' morale with one-quarter of heads of midwifery saying their staff are unhappy.

    As a consequence recruitment and retention has been hit with over one-third of survey respondents saying it has become a problem - compared with only 13% last year.

    Jon Skewes, director of employment relations and development at the RCM, called on the government to make
    sure that more midwives joined the profession and that those who are already in employment are retained.

    'This will not happen without fair reward. Midwives are facing a double whammy of static resources at work and salaries not keeping pace with inflation so they are increasingly hard-pressed in terms of household bills,' he said.

    'Better resourced and fairly paid midwives translate directly into better care for women,' he added.

    Meanwhile, the union Unite has gone a step further.

    It is the only union not to have accepted the original three-year pay deal, which it described as 'derisory' and last week it balloted its members on industrial action.

    David Fleming, Unite's national officer for health, said: 'I appreciate that we are living through very difficult economic times but that is no excuse for dedicated and hard-working NHS staff to be penalised by derisory pay awards as a result'.

    In its submission of evidence to the Pay Review Body, Unite criticised the government for its 'lack of economic rationale' in the current pay agreement.

    'The economic crisis and recession should not be seen as a reason to decrease investment in the NHS and avoid tackling the problems in staffing levels,' it said.

    'Previous low levels of pay for NHS staff and a lack of investment led to a decay in the service,' it added.

    But despite the compelling evidence, there are doubts that the government will commit itself to improving pay for nurses during these testing economic times.

    The two-stage reopener clause means that the unions have first to convince the Pay Review Body and then the Pay Review Body has to convince the government - that NHS staff should receive more pay.

    The government's decision last year to stage the pay deal for nurses in England and threats earlier this year of another staged pay deal if unions rejected the multi-year package on offer, show the government is willing to ignore pressure from staff and the review body.

    Key staff side recommendation

    'In view of the significant and material changes in recruitment and retention and wider economic and labour market conditions, staff side organisations seek a review of the pay uplifts for 2009 and 2010. Staff side seeks revised awards for 2009 and 2010 significantly above inflation levels, that restore income lost from 1 April 2008 as a consequence of the steep rise in inflation and that recognise that the high inflation level has had greater impact on low paid staff.'


    Some say that the Pay Review Body simply will not have sufficient influence to bring about change.

    Mike Travis, RCN steward at Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust in Liverpool, said: 'I have complete confidence in the staff side evidence, which has been built up over time but it depends how the Pay Review Body will react when it is put under political pressure.'

    But Ms Jennings was more positive about the possible outcome. 'I would be very shocked if the government did not listen to any recommendation the Pay Review Body may make to reopen talks,' she said.

    NHS trusts, represented by NHS Employers, have already vowed to fight any attempt to increase pay to staff in the health service.

    The Department of Health has also produced its own evidence to the Pay Review Body, which was submitted at the time of
    writing and is likely to make similar arguments.

    Gill Bellord, director of pay, pensions and employment relations at NHS Employers, said: 'Employers have told us that they support the three-year pay deal for Agenda for Change staff and do not think there is sufficient evidence to justify a review of the provisions agreed with unions'.

    If a Pay Review Body recommendation is put forward and the government reopens talks, discussions will begin in the new year.

    Any extra pay increase that is agreed on top of the existing one would come in to force in the financial year beginning
    April 2009.

    To read more about Pay 2008 click here.

    What the evidence shows

    Staff are experiencing severe hardship as a result of rising inflation. One union found that three-quarters of members needed to work overtime to meet living expenses and one-fifth could not afford to heat and maintain their homes.

    More than 200,000 nurses are aged over 50 and due to retire within the next decade.

    Recruitment continues to be low in the NHS and for the first time in two years there has been an increased reliance on bank and agency workers.


    Hopefully this will give a picture of how nursing can suffer as a result of a government run health care system.

close