I want to know what nurses think about socialized medicine.

It's not provided "at no cost to (you)" by your employer -- your employer's not in the "charity" business. The insurance premium each month is just factored into your overall compensation package. It's income that you've earned but never see.

Negative. I receive no insurance from my current employer. My insurance is part of my retirement compensation. In any case, I don't need more taxes deducted from the meager pay that I receive working as an RN. I took a huge pay cut to become a nurse and I'd like to keep as much of what I make as I can.

Read the link...It points out that substituting a payroll tax for insurance premiums will lower your costs....(You do pay for your health insurance because it is given to you in lieu of wages........)

I don't need to read a link to know that I don't need to be paying any more tax than I'm currently paying. I take care of mine, you take care of yours. Self reliance. One of the principles this country was founded on. Look it up.

Please read the link I have added here. It is a letter to Mr. Obama concerning a better way to go with Health Reform.

Phttp://www.galen.org/component,8/action,show_content/id,13/blog_id,1143/category_id,2/type,33/

Frankly I find the tone of your response to be disrespectful. If you choose to ignore the respectful point that I was making that is your choice. I pointed out that your wages are lowered because you receive health care through your employer. Insurance by definition is a social product. IOW you pay premiums to lay off the risk of losses into a pool that you cannot bear on your own.

I also pointed out that your cost for health care would be lowered under a universal health care system and your wages would rise commensurately. IMO a strong social safety net actually encourages innovation and entrepeneurship. Our current non-system ties people to their employer and prevents innovation.

I'll take a pass on the Galen institutes proposal. It will create even more fragmentation and bureaucracy in the health care system.

The link had a typo.
Here is one that works.

http://www.galen.org/component,8/act..._id,2/type,33/

Respect is earned. I don't receive insurance through my employer. You must have missed that part. The bottom line is this. We all pay our own way. You take care of yours, I'll take care of mine. I don't need the government dipping into my paycheck any deeper than they are now. All of the costs for this proposed nonsense are ESTIMATED. The actual cost will be higher, much higher. You think our for-profit system is inefficient? Give it to the government and stand back. Even my left leaning union buddies are starting to balk at El Presidente's proposals. Please, somebody name ONE cost efficient government program. Just one.

I realize I'm wasting my effort, because you have clearly made up your mind about this and are not going to be swayed by facts, but, since you specifically asked, I'll name three efficient government programs for you (and, if I were actually interested in putting any time and effort into discussing this with you, I'm sure I could find info on plenty more).

Medicare and Medicaid spend a fraction of what the private insurance companies do on administrative/overhead costs --2-5 cents on the dollar, vs. 25-30 cents of every dollar by the private companies:

"We have a couple of estimates of how high administrative costs are - i.e., expenses incurred by the health care system to do things other than to provide health care services. One prominent study that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2003 estimated that the cost of administering the US’s health care system was about $300bn in 1999. A more recent study in the International Journal of Health Services found that in 2003, administration costs in the US health care system ate up about $400bn, or about 25% of total health care spending.

By comparison, national health care systems incur administrative costs of a few percent of total health expenditures: according to the NEJM study Canada's national health insurance system spends just 1.3% on overhead, and the US's Medicare and Medicaid programs have administrative costs of between 2-5%."

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2006/0...istrative.html (the site has links to the actual studies cited above)

The WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) program saves much more $$ over time than it costs to offer the program:

"The Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides supplemental food, nutrition and health education, and social services referral to pregnant, breastfeeding, and post-partum women, and their infants and young children who are both low-income and at nutritional risk. A number of statistically controlled evaluations that compared prenatal women who received WIC services with demographically similar women who did not receive WIC services have found WIC enrollment associated with decreased levels of low birth weight among enrolled women's infants. Several also have found lower overall maternal and infant hospital costs among women who had received prenatal WIC services compared with similar women who did not receive prenatal WIC services. A meta-analysis of the studies shows that providing WIC benefits to pregnant women is estimated to reduce low birth weight rates 25 percent and reduce very low birth weight births by 44 percent. Using these data to estimate costs, prenatal WIC enrollment is estimated to have reduced first year medical costs for U.S. infants by $1.19 billion in 1992. Savings from a reduction in estimated Medicaid expenditures in the first year post-partum more than offset the cost of the Federal prenatal WIC Program. Even using more conservative assumptions, providing prenatal WIC benefits was cost-beneficial. Because of the estimated program cost-savings, the U.S. General Accounting Office has recommended that all pregnant women at or below 185 percent of Federal poverty level be eligible for the program."

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1382070

"WIC lowers Medicaid costs. Prenatal WIC participation reduced Medicaid costs in the first 60 days after birth for newborns and their mothers by $277 in Minnesota, $347 in Florida, $493 in Texas, $565 in South Carolina and $598 in North Carolina.

WIC saves money. Every dollar invested in WIC for pregnant women produced Medicaid savings of $1.77 in Florida to $3.13 in North Carolina. Minnesota saved $1.83 while South Carolina and Texas saved $2.44 in Medicaid costs for every dollar in WIC expenditures.

WIC increases birth weight. Prenatal WIC participation improved average birth weights by 113 grams in South Carolina and 117 grams in North Carolina. Birth weights rose by 51 grams in Minnesota, 73 grams in Florida and 77 grams in Texas.

WIC improves birth outcomes. The average birth weight of preterm infants whose mothers received WIC increased between 138 grams in Minnesota and 259 grams in South Carolina. Birth weight is an especially critical factor in the survival of infants born at less than 37 weeks gestation.

WIC improves prenatal care use. While WIC and non-WIC participants had similar demographic characteristics, WIC participants were far less likely to receive inadequate prenatal care, 9.6 percent compared to 22.4 percent. In addition, WIC participants average one or two more prenatal care visits than nonparticipants.

WIC yields even greater Medicaid savings. An October 1991 addendum to the original Mathematica WIC/Medicaid study includes in its estimates the cost of Medicaid claims for illnesses that began in the first 60 days after birth but extended beyond the 60-day period. When these costs are included, the new data show that every dollar in WIC yields Medicaid savings from $1.92 in Florida to $4.21 in Minnesota, with Texas at $2.57, South Carolina at $3.17, and North Carolina at $3.94. Prenatal WIC enrollment is now found to reduce Medicaid costs from $376 in Florida to $753 in North Carolina, with Texas at $519, Minnesota at $636 and South Carolina at $736."

http://www.odh.ohio.gov/ASSETS/35FD3...5/wicfacts.PDF

Elkpark,

You support government efficiency with government documents? Please. Of course government administration is less expensive, they can mandate costs. The government can mandate access. The government can mandate everything.

My brother is married to an English woman. Her parents live in the UK. Her father developed prostate cancer at age 65, and the NHS allowed him medication for comfort. Period. He died two years later. If he was here in the US, he'd still be with us.

There is much talk of the 45-47 million Americans without insurance. What about the rest of us who are satisfied with our coverage? My daughter is 22, a recent college grad. Most of her friends are uninsured, by choice. They could easily pay for it, they choose not to. Foolish? I think so. Should I pay for it? No. They have the means and the choice.