Within the next few years the U.S. is going to have a nationwide, single-payer system - page 2

Liberals and conservatives may be duking it out over the issue of universal healthcare, but more than a few participants at the Health Industry Group Purchasing Association's 2007 International Expo,... Read More

  1. 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...
  2. by   bayoubengals
    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.
  3. by   Jabramac
    Quote from bayoubengals
    IWhen 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.
    Kind of like how many Americans look toward Canada to purchase medications they can't afford in the US.
  4. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from 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:


    [font=univers-oblique]objectives.
    [font=univers]we compared health status, access to care, and utilization of medical
    [font=univers]services in the united states and canada, and compared disparities according
    [font=univers]to race, income, and immigrant status.
    [font=univers-oblique]methods.


    [font=univers]we analyzed population-based data on 3505 canadian and 5183 us
    [font=univers]adults from the joint canada/us survey of health. controlling for gender, age,
    [font=univers]income, race, and immigrant status, we used logistic regression to analyze country
    [font=univers]as a predictor of access to care, quality of care, and satisfaction with care,
    [font=univers]and as a predictor of disparities in these measures.
    [font=univers-oblique]results.


    [font=univers]in multivariate analyses, us respondents (compared with canadians)
    [font=univers]were less likely to have a regular doctor, more likely to have unmet health needs,
    [font=univers]and more likely to forgo needed medicines. disparities on the basis of race, income,
    [font=univers]and immigrant status were present in both countries, but were more extreme
    [font=univers]in the united states.
    [font=univers-oblique]conclusions.


    [font=univers]united states residents are less able to access care than are canadians.
    [font=univers]universal coverage appears to reduce most disparities in access to care.
    [font=univers]([font=univers-oblique]am j public health. [font=univers]2006;96:xxx–xxx. doi:10.2105/ajph.2004.059402)
    full text at: http://pnhp.org/canadastudy/canadausstudy.pdf accessed today.
  5. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from 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
  6. by   HM2VikingRN
  7. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from bayoubengals
    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.
    This is what is broken:





    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Nov 16, '07
  8. by   dbihl
    Quote from CRNA2007
    All I hear from Democrats is a referendum on George Bush, who is not even running for re-election.

    that is because George Bush is a sociopath unable to feel empathy for any other living creature.
  9. by   hope3456
    Quote from CRNA2007
    I don't know what any of my patients have for insurance. How do you feel about providing services for people who work hard and have earned what they have?
    The reason I ask is b/c, in my experience as a RN, I see care rationed more on privately insured pts than on uninsured and medicaid pts. It seems that when Drs' write orders for these 'insured' pts, they know that 'God is watching.' I also have seen faxes come thru for Drs from the insurance companies denying their requests to cover certain meds for pts for 'this or that' petty reasons......it just doesn't make sense. That has been my experience lately and why I am very much on the bandwagon that the U.S. needs a new system.

    Recently I took care of a pt who did 'work hard and earned what he had.' He was a self employed contractor but didn't have health insurance when he had a massive MI requiring open heart surgery with complications, requiring a 2wk hospital stay. He owned a significant amount of properties - which no doubt he worked very hard for. The hospital went and put liens on them for payment, causing him a great deal of stress - probably prolonging his stay and ability to heal.




    I definately agree with the pp about we need to 'think outside the box' and come up with a system that works - instead of just comparing ourselves with Canada and assuming we will be the same way.
  10. by   Kyrshamarks
    Quote from HM2Viking
    Making every post a referendum about Hilary Clinton is a bit tiresome. A reasonable person would have read the article before posting a response.

    The article was discussing how a bipartisan concensus is emerging to bring forth a universal plan. I have friends who are financial analysts for large corporations. They are saying the same thing about how corporate america wants to see this happen.

    It also gets tiresome seeing you make every post a referendum agianst conservatives and some are also blatantly even anti US and anti corporation. Everyone is entitled to thier opinion and has the right to express it.
  11. by   CRNA2007
    not even for halliburton or big oil, or big pharmaceutical???? And you have intimate knowledge of this because....



    Quote from dbihl
    that is because George Bush is a sociopath unable to feel empathy for any other living creature.
  12. by   CRNA2007
    We obviously have the greatest healthcare and opportunities in the world!!! 20 million illegal immigrants can't all be wrong
  13. by   bayoubengals
    one of the major complaints about the canadian health care system is waiting times, whether for a specialist, major elective surgery, such as hip replacement, or specialized treatments, such as radiation for breast cancer. studies by the commonwealth fund found that 24% of canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room, vs. 12% in the u.s.; 57% waited 4 weeks or more to see a specialist, vs. 23% in the u.s.[39]
    in a 2003 survey of hospital administrators conducted in canada, the u.s., and three other countries, 21% of canadian hospital administrators, but less than 1% of american administrators, said that it would take over three weeks to do a biopsy for possible breast cancer on a 50-year-old woman; 50% of canadian administrators versus none of their american counterparts said that it would take over six months for a 65-year-old to undergo a routine hip replacement surgery. yet u.s. administrators were the most negative about their country's health care system. hospital executives in all five countries expressed concerns about staffing shortages and emergency department waiting times and quality.[40][41]
    in the canadian supreme court case of chaoulli v. quebec, chaoulli argued that the long waits were life-threatening and violated human rights, and that doctors and patients had a right to contract for private health care, despite the prohibitions on those medical services.
    canadians concede that waiting time is a problem that stems from the country's lower costs and commitment to universal coverage. in a letter to the wall street journal, robert s. bell, m.d., president and ceo of university health network, toronto, said that michael moore's film sicko "exaggerated the performance of the canadian health system — there is no doubt that too many patients still stay in our emergency departments waiting for admission to scarce hospital beds." however, ****"canadians spend about 55% of what americans spend on health care and have longer life expectancy, and lower infant mortality rates.**** many americans have access to quality health care. all canadians have access to similar care at a considerably lower cost." canadians pay 9% of gdp to insure 100% of citizens, compared with 14% of gdp to insure 85% of americans. the kaiser family foundation found that 63% of americans were worried about not being able to afford health-care services. !!!!there is "no question" that the lower cost has come at the cost of "restriction of supply with sub-optimal access to services,"!!! said bell. a new approach is targeting waiting times, which are reported on public web sites[42][43][44]
    in the u.s., patients on medicaid, the low-income government programs, can wait three months or more to see specialists. because medicaid payments are so low, doctors don't want to see medicaid patients. in benton harbor, michigan, specialists agreed to spend one afternoon every week or two at a medicaid clinic, which meant that medicaid patients had to make appointments not at the doctor's office, but at the clinic, where appointments had to be booked months in advance.[45]

    my emphasis on these statements, !!!!, ***.
    Last edit by bayoubengals on Nov 16, '07

close