Canada's healthcare saved her; Ours won't cover her

Thank you VanLPN, please stay on topic, any further off topic discussions will be deleted

I will connect this to the OP...

I am amazed by the "compassion" of nurses sometimes, particularly those who are just "calling it like they see it". My God man, these are people you are talking about. When you are looking at a person standing in front of you it is not always (if ever) clear how they got to a given point in their life. What hurtles they faced. Their parents faced. Their peers. What gives you that right? I am not going to say I have never felt let down by my fellow man (oh like say right now for instance) but that attitude indicates a complete lack of respect for people, and I can't see how that reconciles with the very basic foundation of nursing principle.

So to tie this to the OP, Canada seems to have a system that takes care of everybody. I don't believe that anyone is claiming its perfect, but what it does (and as cheaply as the US system) is provide help to those that need it, and yes, even some that CRNA2007 would deem unfit or "deadbeats".

There has been valid discussion about wait times, access to life saving services, health care professionals salaries, etc. These are all excellent things to discuss, but I want to remind certain people here that a great person once said "I tell you with certainty, since you did it for one of the least important of these brothers of mine, you did it for me". I got into health care for this reason. I think it is valid no matter what your spiritual background is, and I certainly respect that it might not be the motivation for everyone. My point is that it is not about the money and yes it might add some extra burden, but if there are countries like Canada, Australia, UK, etc that seem to be having some success in taking care of everyone, then I think we should consider that. Clearly, our system does not. We are failing miserably: Life expectancy, infant mortality, number one cause of bankruptcy. This has all been covered before. Are we to ignore that?

Often times when I consider two points of view, I try, if possible, to assess the motivations involved. Where does someone's position come from? In this case, what motivates some people's desire to have a health care system like Canada? I feel certain that it is not to "confiscate wealth", but rather to help that person standing next to you. That woman, man, or child that you might not know, but who needs help. As a future FNP, I might find myself busier than I would have been. I might not make any more money for it, but I can look my son in the eye and be proud.

What motivates some to not want a Canadian-style system? Obviously, some big insurance companies would loose money. That is a valid concern for them, and for me as well. As I have said before, these companies employ thousands of people, some skilled, some unskilled. These people use that income to pay taxes, provide for their families and to build better lives. Don't get caught up in the CEO stuff guys, it is a distracter. It may sound like they make big money (and they do), but in the big picture it is not. Some people are worried that it would move us closer to socialism. This is not a fear of mine, because I don't think it would happen, but for some the concept really goes against the grain. I must respect that. I think that since it is important to a large number of US citizens, it is a valid concern.

I think the solution lies somewhere in the middle. Calling people deadbeats does nothing to help us find that middle ground. What it does do is to polarize, distract, and hinder success.

Ivan

nurture: the sum of the environmental factors influencing the behavior and traits expressed by an organism

Think about the etymology of the word and how it applies to our profession. Establishing an environment that encourages responsible behavior is part of our professional obligation for advocacy on behalf of patients not against them.

If we expand access to primary care we should achieve a reduction in ER usage.

(Maybe an expansion of urgent care hours is part of the solution.)

That started to be a problem 4 1/2 decades ago, in Canada until educational programs started up to direct people to more appropriate places for the average type of sick visit. Now conveniently located clinics are held until 9 or 10 P.M., usually in doctors' offices that are in shopping malls. (Safer parking situations and access to needed supplies.) I've gone with my sister to one of them. It's adjacent to a supermarket, "Loblaws" and an extended hours pharmacy, "Shoppers' Drug Mart" at Fairview, in Toronto. The ERs see mostly accident victims and serious reactions to drugs....... Patients referred by the open clinics, have patients admitted directly, rather than sitting in crowded waiting areas, as we do. It's a "patient first" motivated system.

Children with high fevers can be treated at home, by tepid baths and pedi tylenol, rather than being taken to ERs in warm clothes and covers, after advice is sought on a special line for that purpose. That line can also dispatch ambulances, if necessary.

Health Care availability is a matter of attitude. When those attending clinics receive respectful attention, most of them return that and cooperate with directions they're given. They appreciate their system and wouldn't live here, in fear of financial ruin by the cost of illness.

Please adopt a wait and see attitude, instead of predicting disaster! The supporters of the changes being made don't wish to see more financial reverses for our country or less efficient delivery of health care. Intelligent, knowledgeable medical care providers have been working on this for years.