Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
One would think that simply because it was a universal system, it would speak for itself, given the seeming blanket approval for "all things UHC."
If you explain what makes a health system good, UHC or not, you will likely find Singapore ranks high on those indicators. Since I don't agree with all the indicators, I'll let you decide. I still think it will be tough to discredit the system.
Otherwise, it would be disingenuous to advocate to emulate other models while ignoring successful systems like Singapore.
And I would challenge you to tell me why the Singapore system is NOT good.
thank you for this link, it actually reinforces what i said, these children are dealt with on a clinical basis not as the government dictates, the rcog are a group of doctors, not politicians and reading a little further into the article and it looks like a discussion about the ethics of treating under 24 weaker because we can rather then because we should. this is a discussion by the clinical experts, not politicians
the royal college of obstetricians and gynaecologists (rcog) says the huge efforts to save babies born under 25 weeks are hampering the treatment of other infants with a better chance of survival and a healthy life.
kirsty cassidy, 22, lost her case against a doctor who decided not to resuscitate her prematurely born daughter, rebecca, because she was "non- viable".
sheriff principal robert hay, giving judgment after a fatal accident inquiry at ayrshire county hospital, scotland, said the decision made by the doctor was both reasonable and in the best interests of the child.
hmm that looks like a clinical, not financial reason to me
an article on the red tape one must go through just to see a specialist in sweden...and the waiting lists in canada...
this is a worry, because despite the government spending lots on cash to improve services we still have poor survival rates, so there is funding available but it's going into the wrong places which means that we will likely fail to meet the government targets to improve cancer survival.
i don't live in canada and know little about their healthcare so will let one of the canadians take this one up if they wish.
this isn't to mention the fact that in these same countries, it's almost impossible to sue a doctor for malpractice...b/c they are an employee of the government.
ha ha ha ha ha ha, :lol2: this is quite probably the funniest thing i have heard today, really, where on earth did you get that from. what absolute nonsense, of course doctors can get sued, this is why my dad who is a surgeon has to pay thousands of pounds a year in medical indemnity insurance, and this is why as a nurse i have to belong to a organisation that will provide me with indemnity insurance.
i have also personally known of two friends that have had to bring relatives over to the usa to have surgeries performed because their home country, that had socialized medicine, had them on a waiting list that was too long.
i am sure you have, and i have never disagreed that there are waits for elective surgery in the uk, but these waits have been dramatically improved over the last few years and for emergency surgery you will get treated quickly.
One would think that simply because it was a universal system, it would speak for itself, given the seeming blanket approval for "all things UHC."
If you explain what makes a health system good, UHC or not, you will likely find Singapore ranks high on those indicators. Since I don't agree with all the indicators, I'll let you decide. I still think it will be tough to discredit the system.
Otherwise, it would be disingenuous to advocate to emulate other models while ignoring successful systems like Singapore.
And I would challenge you to tell me why the Singapore system is NOT good.
Actually H et S, I know very little about the Singapore system and would be interested to know more about it, would you be able to enlighten me please
Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.
One would think that simply because it was a universal system, it would speak for itself, given the seeming blanket approval for "all things UHC."
If you explain what makes a health system good, UHC or not, you will likely find Singapore ranks high on those indicators. Since I don't agree with all the indicators, I'll let you decide. I still think it will be tough to discredit the system.
Otherwise, it would be disingenuous to advocate to emulate other models while ignoring successful systems like Singapore.
And I would challenge you to tell me why the Singapore system is NOT good.
I do not claim it is not good for Singapore.
I do not know enough about their system.
Since the United States does not have a health care system it would help for US to learn why you think it would be good for the United states to emulate.
thank you for this link, it actually reinforces what i said, these children are dealt with on a clinical basis not as the government dictates, the rcog are a group of doctors, not politicians and reading a little further into the article and it looks like a discussion about the ethics of treating under 24 weaker because we can rather then because we should. this is a discussion by the clinical experts, not politicians
really 1997.........................
oh go on then, i'll bite.
hmm that looks like a clinical, not financial reason to me
written by someone who obviously loves uhc, not really a credible source is it?
this is a worry, because despite the government spending lots on cash to improve services we still have poor survival rates, so there is funding available but it's going into the wrong places which means that we will likely fail to meet the government targets to improve cancer survival.
i don't live in canada and know little about their healthcare so will let one of the canadians take this one up if they wish.
ha ha ha ha ha ha, :lol2: this is quite probably the funniest thing i have heard today, really, where on earth did you get that from. what absolute nonsense, of course doctors can get sued, this is why my dad who is a surgeon has to pay thousands of pounds a year in medical indemnity insurance, and this is why as a nurse i have to belong to a organisation that will provide me with indemnity insurance.
i am sure you have, and i have never disagreed that there are waits for elective surgery in the uk, but these waits have been dramatically improved over the last few years and for emergency surgery you will get treated quickly.
i find it very, very sad that a staff member of allnurses.com would resort to sarcasm.
i didn't use sarcasm with you.
but i guess it's all you have when you asked for sources, i posted sources, and it was easier to attack me than to put up a valid argument.
i only debate issues with people that can participate in an intelligent manner, not personal attacks.
I find it very, very sad that a staff member of Allnurses.com would resort to sarcasm.
I didn't use sarcasm with you.
But I guess it's all you have when you asked for sources, I posted sources, and it was easier to attack me than to put up a valid argument.
I only debate issues with people that can participate in an intelligent manner, not personal attacks.
i don't think sharrie was rude to you at all.
sharrie is a nurse who has worked in the UK for years and i think she might know a little bit more about UHC than those of us here on the other side of the pond, seeing as how she has been a health care provider in a government based heath care system. i would take her word as very credible.
journalists here in the US put us in an uproar when they post garbage about long ER wait times, or nurses not answering lights fast enough causing someone to fall, or something like that..... so why not hear it from the mouth of a nurse who works in that system instead of relying on journalism?
some information about the rising cost of litigation in the nhs
key facts
- in 2006-07, 5,426 claims of clinical negligence and 3,293 claims of non-clinical negligence against nhs bodies were received by the nhsla. this compares with 5,697 claims of clinical negligence and 3,497 claims of non-clinical negligence in 2005-06.
- £579.3 million was paid out in connection with clinical negligence claims in 2006-07. this figure includes both damages paid to patients and the legal costs borne by the nhs. in 2005-06, the comparable figure was £560.3 million. the figures for non-clinical claims are £33.9 million for 2006-07 and £31.3 million for 2005-06.
- the average time taken to deal with a clinical claim under the clinical negligence scheme for trusts, from notification of the claim to the nhsla to the date when damages are agreed (or the claim is discontinued), is 1.46 years.
- the nhsla estimates that its total liabilities (the theoretical cost of paying all outstanding claims immediately, including those relating to incidents which have occurred but have not yet been reported to us) are £9.09 billion for clinical claims and £0.13 billion for non-clinical claims.
- 96% of the nhsla's cases are settled out of court through a variety of methods of "alternative dispute resolution" (adr): an analysis of all clinical claims handled by the nhsla over the past ten years shows that 41% were abandoned by the claimant, 41% settled out of court, 4% settled in court (mainly court approvals of negotiated settlements) and 14% remain outstanding. fewer than 50 clinical negligence cases a year are contested in court.
clinicians are subject to malpractice claims, if they are working within the nhs then there is vicarious liability so the trust will cover some of the legal costs, but this is supported by the clinicians own legal representation.
if it is believed to be as a result of not following standard operating practice or not following procedures then the clinician is on thier own, the vicarious liability does not cover it.
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
I do not claim it is not good for Singapore.
I do not know enough about their system.
Since the United States does not have a health care system it would help for US to learn why you think it would be good for the United states to emulate.
The info is out there for all to see.
I'm not campaigning to be like Singapore. Someone challenged me to share what I would believe to be an acceptable alternative; I pointed out Singapore, a UHC country no less.
2) I think a lot of the problems with this debate is that people are crossing different UHC systems in both praise and criticism. The people making the point that the US adopting a UHC does not mean adopting THE Canadian/Singapore/UK/etc system are quite right, we in fact would have the luxury of looking at data and outcomes from various systems before enacting our own.
To add to this too, a point I've made before but which I feel is worth re-making, is that "Their system has problems too" is not equal to "Our system is equally as good". The Canadian system for example often has long waits for surgery - the problem could well be (in fact most definitely is) underfunding, not the system itself, and that is something Canada is working on.
3) I guess this point has died down a bit, but to the idea that "UHC is bad because it means those of us making good health care decisions must pay for those making bad ones" I would say that this is not necessarily a barrier to UHC - could UHC co-exist along with a system requiring those with widely-recognized bad habits? I don't see why not. Alabama charges state employees 25$/month if they smoke to supplement their health care costs. I see no problem with perhaps adding a tax on cigarettes, alcohol, fatty foods, etc and shunting that money directly into health initiatives for problems caused by such bad habits. I'm ok with other suggestions too which would force people to take better care of themselves, it keeps health costs lower for everyone.
You don't have to tell me, but let me post 2-3 year old references and the next post will be an attempt to discredit my position because of the 'age' of the data.
Fortunate for some, they get special dispensation.
Honnete, You discount antectdotal evidence sited which contradicts yours, why gripe about references? I haven't seen any of yours that are two years old which are so clear. It seems that you will not consider ANY evidence that might be contrary to your opinion.
Could it be that just maybe though libertarianism might seem workable for you that there are millions of other people for whom social democracy works quiet well?
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
Honnete, You discount antectdotal evidence sited which contradicts yours, why gripe about references? I haven't seen any of yours that are two years old which are so clear. It seems that you will not consider ANY evidence that might be contrary to your opinion.
Could it be that just maybe though libertarianism might seem workable for you that there are millions of other people for whom social democracy works quiet well?
Mahage
I may not be sure what you are referring to; which anecdotal examples did I use?
I'm sure that there are 'millions' who find a system where they benefit by the hard labor of others to be what works 'quite well' for them
:lol2: 
Honnête et Sérieux
283 Posts
One would think that simply because it was a universal system, it would speak for itself, given the seeming blanket approval for "all things UHC."
If you explain what makes a health system good, UHC or not, you will likely find Singapore ranks high on those indicators. Since I don't agree with all the indicators, I'll let you decide. I still think it will be tough to discredit the system.
Otherwise, it would be disingenuous to advocate to emulate other models while ignoring successful systems like Singapore.
And I would challenge you to tell me why the Singapore system is NOT good.