I am watching Michael Moore's "Sicko" for the first time....

Valerie Salva, BSN, RN · Mar 26, 2009

If they are illegal, they deserve ONE dialysis treatment and a bus ride back to Mexico.
It doesn't matter what label you put on a healthcare system, any system is finite, and a socialized system will never be able to afford the flood of illegals jumping on the dole if we are just going to give free care to everyone regardless of their legal status.
I truly don't understand how folks think we can somehow absorb everyone who enters and abuses the system.

I was waiting for this comment-

I don't want them here, either- I want them sent back to their countries, too.

But the fact is that in our neglecting of our southern border during the past several presidential admins, we let them in, and they are here. Our gov't has already made it clear that the majority will not be deported- they are here and we have to deal with them- so now what?

In the meantime, we are currently providing them with the most expensive form of dialysis there is- acute inpt tx.

So now what? Providing them w/ chronic, outpt dialysis is certainly not a solution, but it will save millions over what we are spending on them now, as well as free up resources.

Valerie Salva, BSN, RN · Mar 26, 2009

Uh, yeah, it doesn't...because you are the only one to introduce these connections. No one but you has made these insulting, irrelevant, and pointless generalizations.
I could just as easily make lame and insulting generalizations about advocates of socialized medicine, but it would be no more productive as your false generalizations about people who are not fans of Canadian/European style healthcare.
It's nice when folks can make their point somewhere other than the extreme end of the spectrum. No one has said that it's the "end of America as we know it." I will submit that a socialized system is not necessarily better for us as a country.

She was exagerating and being sarcastic- true. But what she said is fundamentally the truth.

I live in the south. To say anything supportive about universal health care, unions, protecting the environment, against global warming or against Bush pretty much does get you labled as an anti-christian, anti-American liberal (gasp!)commie here.

allnurses Guide · Mar 26, 2009

Sorry about your pain.
If you waited five years, it sounds like it was an elective surgery.
Elective surgeries are not priorities in socialized systems. Canada totally stopped doing them several times last year because there were insufficient blood supplies. Some elective surgeries are flat out not covered. Changing to a UHC/Socialized system might not have changed the fact that you had to pay for it, and MRI wait lists in Canada are up to several years for some non-urgent cases.

That's amazing, because I work in the UK and I've spent the last month busting my backside to make sure that all of our elective, non urgent patients who are on the surgical waiting list are assessed and fit for their date for surgery. If only I knew they weren't prioritised I needn't have bothered and I could have taken the holiday time that I'm owed. :coollook:

Of course they are prioritised, and treated within the targets that we have set out for us. The urgent cases take priority and then the non-urgent in order of admission to the waiting list get given dates for surgery. If it is felt that one patient is more clinically urgent then they are prioritised.

Honnête et Sérieux · Mar 26, 2009

That's amazing, because I work in the UK and I've spent the last month busting my backside to make sure that all of our elective, non urgent patients who are on the surgical waiting list are assessed and fit for their date for surgery. If only I knew they weren't prioritised I needn't have bothered and I could have taken the holiday time that I'm owed.
Of course they are prioritised, and treated within the targets that we have set out for us. The urgent cases take priority and then the non-urgent in order of admission to the waiting list get given dates for surgery. If it is felt that one patient is more clinically urgent then they are prioritised.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/BA649

Number 6, "Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer."

Honnête et Sérieux · Mar 26, 2009

She was exagerating and being sarcastic- true. But what she said is fundamentally the truth.

By the very definition of an exaggeration, it is NOT true.

I live in the south. To say anything supportive about universal health care, unions, protecting the environment, against global warming or against Bush pretty much does get you labled as an anti-christian, anti-American liberal (gasp!)commie here.

More hyperbole.

I live in "the south" as well, and your last statement is another grossly inaccurate insulting generalization.

allnurses Guide · Mar 26, 2009

This source has a point of view

The NCPA's goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.
http://www.ncpa.org/about/

This one does too

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single_payer_resources.php

allnurses Guide · Mar 26, 2009

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/BA649
Number 6, "Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer."

I would seriously doubt any cancer patient waits over a year to get radiation therapy, the government is very strict about time to treatment in urgent patients and nowhere in the targets does it state that 12 months is an acceptable period of time to wait.

I can't comment on Canada, but in the UK we have a time to treatment target of 18 weeks for non urgent and with cancer the wait from referral to treatment is 61 days (31 days from specialist review to actual treatment commencing), however if the patient is more clinically urgent or with a aggressive cancer they are prioritised accordingly. Those waits include investigations / scans etc etc, treatment must have started by the 61st day

that's not to say it's perfect but it is a work in progress. What I find a little irritating is the lack of acknowledgement of the fact that these healthcare systems have made great progress in improving waiting times from those that are so opposed to universal healthcare systems.

Also please remember I am making no judgement about which system is best, I think there are flaws and difficulties with all of the systems but this mine is better than yours gets tiresome.

Honnête et Sérieux · Mar 26, 2009

Well, I suppose there is no discussion to be had if we are just going to ignore the information that was presented.

And I understand that you don't like it when someone brings out the "mine is better than yours" argument, but it's only fair and reasonable when people bring the Canadian/UK models into the discussion to point out their positive points.

Can't have it both ways.

allnurses Guide · Mar 26, 2009

I would seriously doubt any cancer patient waits over a year to get radiation therapy, the government is very strict about time to treatment in urgent patients and nowhere in the targets does it state that 12 months is an acceptable period of time to wait.
I can't comment on Canada, but in the UK we have a time to treatment target of 18 weeks for non urgent and with cancer the wait from referral to treatment is 61 days (31 days from specialist review to actual treatment commencing), however if the patient is more clinically urgent or with a aggressive cancer they are prioritised accordingly. Those waits include investigations / scans etc etc, treatment must have started by the 61st day
that's not to say it's perfect but it is a work in progress. What I find a little irritating is the lack of acknowledgement of the fact that these healthcare systems have made great progress in improving waiting times from those that are so opposed to universal healthcare systems.
Also please remember I am making no judgement about which system is best, I think there are flaws and difficulties with all of the systems but this mine is better than yours gets tiresome.

thank you Sharrie.

It seems no system is perfect.

I think it is good to continue to point out facts regarding safe and effective healthcare.

When we get healthcare for all in my beloved country I will continue to work for improvement.

I love my hospital. I started working as an LVN more than three dacades ago. Cared for patients in six decades (counting Candy Striper days).

My hospital truly provides safe, effective, therapeutic, compassionate care. But we continue to strive for improvement.

Valerie Salva, BSN, RN · Mar 26, 2009

By the very definition of an exaggeration, it is NOT true.
More hyperbole.
I live in "the south" as well, and your last statement is another grossly inaccurate insulting generalization.

I will agree to disagree.

As for Canadians having to wait, I'd rather wait a little than have to go bankrupt.

Valerie Salva, BSN, RN · Mar 26, 2009

I was waiting for this comment-
I don't want them here, either- I want them sent back to their countries, too.
But the fact is that in our neglecting of our southern border during the past several presidential admins, we let them in, and they are here. Our gov't has already made it clear that the majority will not be deported- they are here and we have to deal with them- so now what?
In the meantime, we are currently providing them with the most expensive form of dialysis there is- acute inpt tx.
So now what? Providing them w/ chronic, outpt dialysis is certainly not a solution, but it will save millions over what we are spending on them now, as well as free up resources.

Honnête et Sérieux-

Any opnions on this?

allnurses Guide · Mar 26, 2009

Well, I suppose there is no discussion to be had if we are just going to ignore the information that was presented.
And I understand that you don't like it when someone brings out the "mine is better than yours" argument, but it's only fair and reasonable when people bring the Canadian/UK models into the discussion to point out their positive points.
Can't have it both ways.

I didn't ignore your link but it is outdated information,

If you take a look at the references used for this site,

referance 1 - "Recent Cancer Survival in Europe: A 2000-02 Period Analysis of EUROCARE-4 Data," Lancet Oncology, Vol. 8, No. 9, September 2007, pages 784 - 796.

hardly up to date information, "a 2000 - 2002 period analysis"

Reference 6, from which your claim that cancer patients wait a year for radiological treatment

Nadeem Esmail, Michael A. Walker with Margaret Bank, "Waiting Your Turn, (17th edition) Hospital Waiting Lists In Canada," Fraser Institute, Critical Issues Bulletin 2007, Studies in Health Care Policy, August 2008; Nadeem Esmail and Dominika Wrona "Medical Technology in Canada," Fraser Institute, August 21, 2008 ; Sharon Willcox et al., "Measuring and Reducing Waiting Times: A Cross-National Comparison Of Strategies," Health Affairs, Vol. 26, No. 4, July/August 2007, pages 1,078-87; June O'Neill and Dave M. O'Neill, "Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S."; M.V. Williams et al., "Radiotherapy Dose Fractionation, Access and Waiting Times in the Countries of the U.K.. in 2005," Royal College of Radiologists, Clinical Oncology, Vol. 19, No. 5, June 2007, pages 273-286.

Note the bolded reference, dated 2005. These figures are out of date by 4 years, great progress has been made in those 4 years.

Not ignored, merely pointed out more up to date information