How Will Universal Health Care Change Nursing?

dtp232323 · Jun 26, 2009

No, no complaints at all about the staff. Fortunately, I have insurance and chose to go to a more familiar setting to take care of the problem. I thought the risk of staph was decreased with more available soap for all. Yes, it was a very rural area. Like I said, I am no expert.

allnurses Guide · Jun 26, 2009

I am no expert on the Canadian system, but I did spend 10 hours in an ER chatting with nurses, receptionist and aides. They had one doctor who drove 45 KM (about 100 miles) from his home to reach the hospital and they were happy to have the one. The equipment (computers included) appeared to be over 20 years old. There was no soap in the room or restrooms. It seems there was only one size gloves available. The admitting lady told me they were very close to having to close their doors due to lack of funding. The nurse seemed embarssed after scotch taping my arm ID band to hold in it place. I shouldn't have told her ours (in the states) had to be cut off with scissors. I asked what locals did when they were ill. They said the GP's accepted a certain number of patients and other people did without. This is not what I would like to become accustomed to.
I fell down 20 stairs, fractured a bone in my elbow (I had no idea if there were internal injuries) and chose to fly back to the state to use more modern facilities with soap, better lighting and probably a more rested staff. I also did not want to bring staph with me from Canada. I was so happy to go to my local ER and wait 2 hours. At least I knew there would be a CT, MRI, or ultrasound available if needed.
We do need to fix our system. I don't think government control is the way to do so.

FYI 45km=28.9 miles, not 100 miles.

TinkRN8 · Jun 26, 2009

Are you worried about states losing their personal independence? In Canada, each province individually controls their healthcare budget. This was already mentioned on this thread. So that isn't necessarily a concern.
I don't want people to lose sight of the big picture. American currency has "In God We Trust" written on it and Presidents are always stating "God Bless America", but the fact is, I believe the US constitution states that church and state must be separate!!!! Yet we don't hear many people protesting because of that. Using religion to bond the masses is a good technique.
Is that what you refer to when you mention "brainwashing"? Do you mean that Americans don't know what is true when it comes to their government, and therefore can't trust them to run healthcare? Perhaps this is valid, I don't know.
Regardless, tax payer funded healthcare as you can see does not *have* to affect the constitution, and what we all need to be focusing on is how to help those who are suffering because they can't get care. That is the main issue.
No one should lose their home because of having to decide between a mortgage and cancer treatment. IMHO.
I'm curious to see what will happen in the coming months in regards to this issue...
Edit: I have to admit that as a Canadian, I know nothing about the US laws or 'constitution'. Zero. And nobody should expect me to. But I still think that a valid option can be found that makes everyone happy.

Sorry, I just had to comment on the "separation of church and state" comment, as this is a real pet peeve of mine. I understand you are Canadian and admittedly are not a scholar of the US Constitution. Just some education for you and those in the US who seem to throw this around incessently...again, sorry, but this is a huge pet peeve of mine. The US Constitution does NOT state anywhere anything about "separation of Church and State". It does give us freedom of religion, to practice whatever religion we choose without interference or persecution from the government. This stems from the fact that England is a church/state run entity...the King/Queen was not only the head of government, but the Church as well. Depending on which point in history you are looking at, or which monarch, Catholics or Protestants were severely persecuted by the other.

The term "separation of church and state" came from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to one of the Baptist congregations in 1802, clarifying and explaining how the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment work together. Establishment meaning that Congress will make no law regarding religion, and Free Exercise meaning that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

This has nothing to do with the healthcare issue, but just had to comment.

In regards to government run healthcare, our constitution was founded on principles of freedom from government, as that is what our Founding Fathers were running away from....England. States' rights always supercede Federal rights...at least, that is how it is supposed to be. Unfortunately, we are in a time where the Federal Government is making a historical, unprecedented push to take over every aspect of our lives here in the US. For me, and many others, that makes us VERY uncomfortable. The US was founded on principles of autonomy, and the more government interference there is the less autonomy we have.

Personally, I don't want a government entity telling me who, what, when, why and where I can obtain healthcare. That should be a personal decision and no interference from the "government". The issue in the US, I think, is not necessarily the quality of care, but the quantity of those who have access. Healthcare costs in the US are outrageous fueld by drug companies and litigation. If Congress really wants to reform healthcare, they need to look at what is making our current system unaffordable or inaccessible to some and address those issues. For example, I am on a group plan through my work. A group plan allows ALL employees to opt into the program, regardless of pre-existing conditions. However, If I were to have to obtain private insurance on my own I would not be eligible due to pre-existing conditions, or have those conditions excluded. That is absurd, as that is why I need health insurance in the first place (I am asthmatic and have endo and fibroids). Also, I do not purchase one of my asthma meds because I simply can't afford it...even with insurance paying part of the cost. It is just too expensive. These are the issues that need to be addressed if true healthcare reform can occur in the US (drug costs, tort reform, etc). The WHY of why healthcare costs are so high are not really being address, the government just wants to come in and take over. I am sure that has nothing to do with the drug lobby and the fact that lawyers run Congress and the Senate. Just saying.

If you want an idea of what a government run system would look like research the VA and Indian Healthcare System.

Not to mention the fact that the US government has absolutely NO WAY of paying for any of their proposed plan. We don't have the money. So, where do you think that money is going to come from? Cutting medicare and medicaid benefits? Aren't those the very people the government is supposed to be helping? I hope that Obama wants to do the right thing and not just push through legislation to say he did something. The consequences of that are dire and this country just can't sustain that kind of measure.

talaxandra · Jun 26, 2009

That part is rather simple, significant cuts in pay and ample increase in workload.

Universal Health Care will equal less jobs and lower pay. Patient care will ultimately end up suffering whether it be to an underpaid physician or an angry underpaid overworked employees.

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'.

talaxandra · Jun 26, 2009

scenerio: patient goes to the dr. for minor problems a few times in a row, maybe not sick at all. they end up getting denied healthcare b/c they seem to be crazy by the provider, or worse jail, psych facility.

what now? no citizen is denied health care in a uhc country. why on earth would a patient presenting repeatedly be jailed? we have very strict guidelines for psych admissions, and that scenario doesn't come close.

intergrated patient record data base scenerio: background checks have reveiled that you were prescribed xanax back in 95 and you were seeing a psychiatrist. can you tell me a little about what was going on in your life then and why it won't affect your job.

employers don't have access to medical records here. i can't speak for other uhc countries but we also don't have an integrated data base. in any case neither seeing a psychiatrist or other mental health professional nor being prescribed an anxiolytic would be grounds for denying employment.

romania is not even an oecd-30 country, let alone an oecd-10 country, which are the uhc systems we've been comparing. any doctor or nurse receiveing extra money for providing care would lose their registration here, and nusing is most certainly considered a profession, both here and in the european countries my colleagues have worked in. that includes: england, scotland, wales, the isle of man, ireland, spain, germany, france, switzerland and the netherlands

we don't always agree but

you're comparing romania to 1st world national healthcare? wow. i hope you realize how ridiculous this sounds. it's not your fault, i'm just shocked. sounds like typical american brainwashing to me....

:yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat:

talaxandra · Jun 26, 2009

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.

kinesjl · Jun 26, 2009

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.

jdub3 · Jun 26, 2009

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.

allnurses Guide · Jun 26, 2009

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".

jdub3 · Jun 26, 2009

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....

MaritesaRN · Jun 26, 2009

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.

:bugeyes: 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

Long Term Care Columnist / Guide · Jun 26, 2009

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.