How Will Universal Health Care Change Nursing? - page 18

How will universal health care change the Nursing profession? Will we finally get ratios? Will our pay go up, or down? What about benefits? Will the quality of care improve, slide, or stay the... Read More

  1. by   talaxandra
    Quote from sade
    canada's health care system is based on 3 principles: universality, comprehensiveness and equity.

    but is a patient in canada a person or a number?

    the prioritization and waiting lines leads me to think the latter. if canada's government truly believes in these 3 core principles then why does it refuse to reimburse it's citizen's when they opt for medical care outside it's borders? the answer to this, once again, leads me to the latter.
    you've conflated three concepts here - priorities, waiting lists and funsing for external provision of care.

    as you haven't clarfied what you mean, this may not fully address your point. however, prioritisation is something every health care system does, on both a micro scale - like triage desks - and on a macro scale. policy makers (macro) have to set guidelines based on groups of people not individuals, but professionals within the system have the freedom to base treatment on individual need and circumstance.

    i keep hearing here about waiting lists and rationing, but to the best of my knowledge there isn't anywhere that has no waiting lists, and no system that doesn't limit what's covered to some extent. the existence of both these aspects in any health care system is insuffieint to dismiss the validity of the system.

    why should my government pay for care i receive in a non-reciprocal country? australia has reciprocity with nz, the uk, the republic of ireland, sweden, the netherlands, finland, italy, malta and norway - if i get sick there i don't have to pay for medically necessary treatment and if one of their citizens gets sick here they don't have to pay. if i get sick in america i'd better have insurance, and i can tell you from professional experience that having coverage in the us won't buy you squat here.

    as canuckstudent pointed out, the canadian government pays for the costs associated with treatment not available internally, while patients who choose to have elective surgery overseas are liable for the costs associated with their decision.
  2. by   kinesjl
    Quote from talaxandra
    with lower health care costs you'll have more money to spend.
    On a per-person basis Medicare's administrative costs are actually higher than those of private insurance--this despite the fact that private insurance companies do incur several categories of costs that do not apply to Medicare. If recent cost history is any guide, switching the more than 200 million Americans with private insurance to a public plan will not save money but will actually increase health care costs.

    In 2005, Medicare's administrative costs were $509 per primary beneficiary, compared to private-sector administrative costs of $453. In the years from 2000 to 2005, Medicare's administrative costs per beneficiary were consistently higher than that for private insurance, ranging from 5 to 48 percent higher, depending on the year. This is despite the fact that private-sector "administrative" costs include state health insurance premium taxes of up to 4 percent (averaging around 2 percent, depending on the state)--an expense from which Medicare is exempt--as well as the cost of non-claim health care expenses, such as disease management and on-call nurse consultation services.

    It is worth noting that some of the additional private-insurance costs cited by pubic plan advocates, such as marketing and profit, are included in the above figures for private-insurance administrative costs. Directly provided health services and state health insurance premium taxes are also included.

    Even without these costs, Medicare administrative spending is still higher--suggesting that Medicare's administration is even more inefficient compared to private insurance than is suggested by its higher per-beneficiary administrative costs.

    Medicare administrative costs per beneficiary have substantially exceeded those costs for the private sector, this despite the fact that private insurance is subject to many expenses not incurred by Medicare. Contrary to the claims of nationalization advocates, moving millions of Americans from private insurance to a Medicare-like program will result in program administrative costs that are higher per person and higher, not lower, for the nation as a whole.
    Last edit by kinesjl on Jun 26, '09
  3. by   jdub3
    Quote from talaxandra
    I have read some horror stories on this board from US nurses about workloads that would not be tolerated here. As I have said over and over and over again, while some wages may decrease, without exorbitant insurance policies and with lower health care costs you'll have more money to spend. Disagree with my position by all means but show some evidence rather than just stating an unsupported 'fact'.
    Thats ok chief... I know better than to argue with a liberal or a socialist. Not worth my time... Or I could just copy and paste our constitution, but, you would put holes in it surely.
  4. by   ghillbert
    Quote from Sade
    If individuals are ignorant of our American Constitution then their opinions have no authority and their responses are worthless.
    How very objectionable of you. The question posited by this thread was "How Will Universal Health Care Change Nursing?". One would logically, therefore, think that the MOST valuable responses would be those of nurses with current or recent personal experience of working under a UHC system, no? It follow that almost all of these would be non-American, correct? I suspect I know more about the US constitution than you know about the Australian constitution.

    This website is not USA-Nurses... it's "ALLnurses".
  5. by   jdub3
    Quote from ghillbert
    How very objectionable of you. The question posited by this thread was "How Will Universal Health Care Change Nursing?". One would logically, therefore, think that the MOST valuable responses would be those of nurses with current or recent personal experience of working under a UHC system, no? It follow that almost all of these would be non-American, correct? I suspect I know more about the US constitution than you know about the Australian constitution.

    This website is not USA-Nurses... it's "ALLnurses".
    This topic directly ties in with US politics, what do you think is the driving force "prevention," "better healthcare for everyone?" That is very funny... Handouts for everyone! I do not value a socialist POV. I value the principles that our country was founded on. I strive to make something out of my life, I don't strive to let lazy people take a free ride on my back! Once you open the door to Socialized health care, thats it. In the famous words of BHO, "you ain't seen nothing yet..." Record spending, and record deficits, rising unemployment, ohh, I can't wait to see whats next....
  6. by   MaritesaRN
    Quote from Sade
    Quote from the Canadian Nurses Association. "The federal government's financial contribution to the health system must increase in exchange for assurances that pan-Canadian objectives regarding reduced waiting times and a broadening of the continuum of care will be met."

    So is there a problem with excessive waiting times for treatments or not??? All I here from those on this website is that it's propaganda, cohorts, or lies. Either the CNA is lying or those on this website are lying. Which is it???

    It's quite hilarious when they use words like, "federal government's financial contribution". Translation - more and more and more taxes from the PEOPLE... One thing we can be certain of about Canada's health care system is that it's always going to be hungry and will need to be fed more and more on a regular basis to survive or it'll soon look similar to Brazil's health care system. Take care.

    Saude, let us talk about the pitfalls of the universal or "socialized medicine" (apples and oranges) when we are on our way to the new system , and learn as we go thru the ongoing process. Negativity of the process before the start and beginning is a losers mentality.
    So people, tell me , are you happy w/ the health system now , like a contented fat cow, ready to be butchered or are you going to be a part of the change, that will benefit you , your family, your parents , your grandchildren , knowing that they have health care when they need it ? I know I do!
    The comparison of UK and Canada health system was not meant for criticism, but for some comparison . Just what i said before , no system is perfect , but it can be an ongoing process.:heartbeat
  7. by   VivaLasViejas
    [B]This thread is seriously off-topic and has degenerated into yet another flame-fest between political factions.

    Once again: disrespecting, belittling, and otherwise slamming other members for their opinions IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE here at allnurses. You are free to express your beliefs and opinions, but your freedom to swing your fist ends where another member's nose begins.

    This thread is closed for a time-out period.
    Last edit by VivaLasViejas on Jun 26, '09

close