Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have over 388,433 members! Join today to network with other nurses, laugh, share, and much more.
| No. 10 | 
Nov 15, 2007, 08:22 PM
Updated
Nov 15, 2007 at 08:25 PM by Elvish
 Re: Within the next few years the U.S. is going to have a nationwide, single-payer sy
Long waits to see docs, denial of care...those sorts of things NEVER happen here in the grand ol' USA... 
Nationalized healthcare is completely different than single-payer healthcare. And I for one think it is long overdue. 'Cause what we have now is really really broken.
I don't even know what to say to the previous post. ETA - I'm referring to bayoubengal's post, not CRNA2007. His was the previous post when I was writing this.
 | | Advertisement Sponsored Links | | | | No. 12 |
Nov 15, 2007, 08:34 PM
Updated
Nov 15, 2007 at 08:42 PM by bayoubengals
Re: Within the next few years the U.S. is going to have a nationwide, single-payer sy
SO what exactly is broken with our Healthcare system? I have never turned a pt away due to ability to pay. We see them all. Nationalized/singlepayer it is all the same who is this singlepayer-the government-taxpayers- is who.
| | No. 13 |
Nov 15, 2007, 08:38 PM
Re: Within the next few years the U.S. is going to have a nationwide, single-payer sy
The bottom line is, what every is good for business is what this country will be doing. This time, big business interests are somewhat in-line with the middle class. That being said, most middle level health care providers are screwed. Get ready for 'salaried' positions with lots of overtime and severe budget cost cutting (i.e. fewer nursing positions). How do I know this, very simple, every single country with a single payer systems does this, regardless of patient to nurse ratio.
We do need an equitable, efficient and affordable health care system. Unfortunately, for most nurses that will mean horrendous working conditions and low pay. Oh well...
| | No. 14 |
Nov 15, 2007, 08:39 PM
Re: Within the next few years the U.S. is going to have a nationwide, single-payer sy
I agree vegan, the problem is we are going to have one of those systems shoved down our throats. Our politicians are not willing to risk thinking outside the box, it would put their precious elected offices at risk.
| | No. 16 |
Nov 15, 2007, 11:30 PM
Re: Within the next few years the U.S. is going to have a nationwide, single-payer sy Originally Posted by bayoubengals  If this happens it will be the end of the excellent healthcare we have as we know it.
Nationlized healthcare is worthless, long waits for treatment, denial of services, look at britian and canada. Heard on the radio that 70,000 britons left the country last year for procedures they could not get in Britian. When I was in Great Falls, Montana, late 80's/early 90's, every weekend we were invaded by canadiens seeking healthcare and prescription medicines they could not get in thier own country with its nationalized medicine.
hope3456, let me put in my 2 cents on medicaid and uninsured. First off I have no problem taking care of them. I am presently an ER nurse and it is the attitude of those on medicaid that is a major part of the problem. You see to them its all free and they use it as such...little jhonny has a fever for 2 hrs and they are in the er, litttle jhonny scraped his knee and they are in the er, little suzy stepped on dads hand and it hurts in the er never mind that little suzy weighs a mere 40pounds and simplly stepped on the hand. You see they have know accountability, the average person visits the er less than once in 3 years, I have had medicaid pt's in the er 50+ times in 6months.
They abuse thier privelege(sp). Then make them wait while you are running a code or a code trauma and be accused of neglicting them.
Try working in the er and see for yourself.
Referenced studies seem to indicate the opposite: Objectives.
We compared health status, access to care, and utilization of medical services in the United States and Canada, and compared disparities according
to race, income, and immigrant status.
Methods.
We analyzed population-based data on 3505 Canadian and 5183 US adults from the Joint Canada/US Survey of Health. Controlling for gender, age,
income, race, and immigrant status, we used logistic regression to analyze country
as a predictor of access to care, quality of care, and satisfaction with care,
and as a predictor of disparities in these measures.
Results.
In multivariate analyses, US respondents (compared with Canadians) were less likely to have a regular doctor, more likely to have unmet health needs,
and more likely to forgo needed medicines. Disparities on the basis of race, income,
and immigrant status were present in both countries, but were more extreme
in the United States.
Conclusions.
United States residents are less able to access care than are Canadians. Universal coverage appears to reduce most disparities in access to care. (Am J Public Health. 2006;96:XXX–XXX. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.059402)
Full text at: http://pnhp.org/canadastudy/CanadaUSStudy.pdf accessed today. | | No. 17 |
Nov 15, 2007, 11:33 PM
Re: Within the next few years the U.S. is going to have a nationwide, single-payer sy Originally Posted by CroakerLicker The bottom line is, what every is good for business is what this country will be doing. This time, big business interests are somewhat in-line with the middle class. That being said, most middle level health care providers are screwed. Get ready for 'salaried' positions with lots of overtime and severe budget cost cutting (i.e. fewer nursing positions). How do I know this, very simple, every single country with a single payer systems does this, regardless of patient to nurse ratio.
We do need an equitable, efficient and affordable health care system. Unfortunately, for most nurses that will mean horrendous working conditions and low pay. Oh well...
See: Since we could finance a fairly good system , like the Norwegian, Danish or Swedish system with the public money we are already spending (60% of health costs), why do we need to raise the additional 40% (from employers and individuals)?
There are three reasons why the U.S. health care system costs more than other systems throughout the world. One, we spend 2-3 times as much as they do on administration. Two, we have much more excess capacity of expensive technology than they do (more CT scanners, MRI scanners, mammogram machines than we need). Three, we pay higher prices for services than they do. There is no doubt that we do not need to spend more than we currently spend to cover comprehensive care for everyone. But it would make the transition to a universal system very difficult at first if we spent less. That is because we have a tremendous medical infrastructure, some of which would likely retain its slightly larger than necessary capacity during the transition phase. Secondly, we would likely retain salaries for health professionals at their current levels. Thirdly, we would cover much more than most other countries do by including dental care, eye care, and prescriptions. And for these reasons we would need the extra 40% that we are already spending – but NOT more. We could cover all the uninsured for the same amount we are currently spending!
Source: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepaye...?page=4/#60-40 | | No. 19 |
Nov 16, 2007, 12:08 AM
Updated
Nov 16, 2007 at 01:09 AM by HM2VikingRN
|
| 330 members
3,434 guests 3,764
| 1 | | | 12 | | | 2 | | | 9 | | | 17 | | | 11 | | | 16 | | | 16 | | | 37 | | | 14 | | | 20 | | | 23 | | | 19 | | | 24 | | | 10 | |
|
Nursing News