This is an article I came by that supports what believe and is supported by research from very respected sources. Its worth the read. I hope you find it as interesting as I did.
This idea has been called the alpha myth because it is fundamentally the root of all other myths.[1] It is the straightforward belief that Americans have access to the highest quality healthcare available in the world. A different way to present this myth is to state that citizens in other countries experience long waits for healthcare, that they must rely on generalists, and that they suffer worse outcomes as a result.
This belief is widespread and well-entrenched in the American mindset. So it is perhaps surprising that in a 10-nation 1990 survey on the level of satisfaction with the national healthcare system, the United States ranked 10th.[2] These results were then reproduced a decade later.[3] Although Americans believe the US system is the best, clearly they are not as satisfied with the healthcare they receive as are citizens of other countries.
Exactly!!! The original argument was fallacious. Why do people that already pay refuse to change a system that is blatantly bad.
They are blind...
By the way, children, the handicapped and aged persons are no more special than anyone else. Why should they get 'free' care and no one else? Either everyone should get free care or no one should.
If you don't want to pay for those poor people that the poster said are obviously lazy then why should we pay for anyone?
BTW - It's hard to misinterpret something that is so plainly stated and if you have time to post on allnurses you aren't working all that long... :)
Seems to me the Healthcare System in our US of A will have little choice but to implode upon itself unless some serious changes are made. However our country has a habit of not doing much to stem off catastrophe. It gets identified, gummed to death, with no real solutions.
example : social security in trouble for years now. They can give the estimated year funds will be gone. Have they come up with a solution? Not that I am aware of. Appears to be the same with our current delivery of Healthcare. They know, we know, it is broken, a calamity waiting to happen. Yet, talk, is all we see. As pointed out previous, we spend the most per capita in this country on taking care of the sick, yet we rank? #27 was the last I heard.
the issue that you are not grasping is that you are already paying for their health care, just in the most expensive and unproductive way. every time your premium increases for your health insurance you are paying for the indigent/charity services that your and other facilities have provided. cost are a direct result of our system ignoring the uninsured and believing that the emergency room is the answer. have some compassion and some common economic sense about the issue.
so which is it: are we already paying for healthcare for the uninsured, or are all these folks not getting healthcare? one cannot argue this in two contradictory ways.
also even if the 47 million are the lowest form of worthless life on the planetthey will still end up in our er one day and their problems will cost us triple what it would have if they had been able to get regular screenings and managment of chronic conditions.
unfortunately, most patients with chronic conditions (even the educated and insured) rarely control their conditions, and the less educated and minorities have the worst track records of what we used to call "non-compliance" even though their risk factors are much higher. for example, medicare coverage of all esrd patients on dialysis has led to a huge majority of these folks continuing to eat, drink, and smoke what they want, while their blood sugars go through the roof and they die an extremity at a time, all on the taxpayers' dime.
it is too bad that er's have to spend money treating every drug seeker and shot up criminal that walks or rolls through the door. there is no accountability. if there is ever a single payor system, someone would have to figure out how to weed out those who abuse the system while abusing themselves and expecting some pill, treatment, or surgery to make them "all better" with someone else footing the bill...or the whole thing would be bankrupt in a decade.
by the way, children, the handicapped and aged persons are no more special than anyone else. why should they get 'free' care and no one else? either everyone should get free care or no one should
even the most primitive of societies recognize the difference between not being able to produce versus not being willing to produce. only people without arms are relieved of the [metaphorical ] obligation of rowing their own boat.:smackingf
it is too bad that er's have to spend money treating every drug seeker and shot up criminal that walks or rolls through the door. there is no accountability. if there is ever a single payor system, someone would have to figure out how to weed out those who abuse the system while abusing themselves and expecting some pill, treatment, or surgery to make them "all better" with someone else footing the bill...or the whole thing would be bankrupt in a decade.
the point is the uninsured use the er for their primary care and it is not a cost effective way to deliver care. as for the drug seekers, your right they are a pain in the butt sometimes but they have an addiction and if there were more importance put on mental health and the issues of addiction in this country then maybe we could reduce the problem. you are taking a complex problem and making it personal.
my point is that we all are paying anyway so it would be better if we were at least paying for the method that will yield the best results. under the current sysytem we are not weeding, as you put it, out the seekers and criminals we are just giving them costly substandard care. i guess you believe that the medical field should hand out justice in the form of denial of care for those we decide are unworthy.
i hope your opinions expressed above are not the same level of compassion and empathy you show your patients. i also hope you are never on the other side of the coin and in need of help because if the system runs your way you will be out of luck! life is not something you have complete control over and a persons life can go from great to sad and out of control very easily.
The point is the uninsured use the ER for their primary care and it is not a cost effective way to deliver care. As for the drug seekers, your right they are a pain in the butt sometimes but they have an addiction and if there were more importance put on mental health and the issues of addiction in this country then maybe we could reduce the problem. You are taking a complex problem and making it personal.
My point is that we all are paying anyway so it would be better if we were at least paying for the method that will yield the best results. Under the current sysytem we are not weeding, as you put it, out the seekers and criminals we are just giving them costly substandard care. I guess you believe that the medical field should hand out justice in the form of denial of care for those we decide are unworthy.
So am I to understand that if we institute universal healthcare, you believe that irresponsible and unaccountable patients will suddenly comply with utilizing healthcare in a cost-effective, responsible manner and make appointments with a PCP rather than plugging up the ER with unnecessary visits, thus keeping healthcare costs at a minimum and quality at a maximum?
i guess you believe that the medical field should hand out justice in the form of denial of care for those we decide are unworthy.
nope--i think society as whole should decide when expensive care is counterproductive, the exact same way unos is allowed to make *gasp*value judgments in deciding who gets an organ for transplant. active alcoholics don't get new livers from unos (unless they are famous baseball players or actors, but that's a different story..) come back and have this debate when you have worked dialysis or a diabetes clinic.
life is not something you have complete control over and a persons life can go from great to sad and out of control very easily.
agreed...accidents, cancer, house fires are all tragic and can hit anyone at anytime. in my experience, both in nursing and in the business world, 70% of people whose lives are "out of control" made and continue to make poor judgements on a regular basis.
and my patients get treated with respect and empathy--which is very different from sympathy . . .
so am i to understand that if we institute universal healthcare, you believe that irresponsible and unaccountable patients will suddenly comply with utilizing healthcare in a cost-effective, responsible manner and make appointments with a pcp rather than plugging up the er with unnecessary visits, thus keeping healthcare costs at a minimum and quality at a maximum?
The point is the uninsured use the ER for their primary care and it is not a cost effective way to deliver care. As for the drug seekers, your right they are a pain in the butt sometimes but they have an addiction and if there were more importance put on mental health and the issues of addiction in this country then maybe we could reduce the problem. You are taking a complex problem and making it personal.
My point is that we all are paying anyway so it would be better if we were at least paying for the method that will yield the best results. Under the current sysytem we are not weeding, as you put it, out the seekers and criminals we are just giving them costly substandard care. I guess you believe that the medical field should hand out justice in the form of denial of care for those we decide are unworthy.
.
These are very good points. I think we can all agree the emergency rooms are used inappropriately. How are these issues being addressed? Some facilities triage. Some area have free standing walkins ,which are owned by the hospitals yet less costly than the emergency rooms. Perhaps, one way of dealing with it is at the emergency room. If not a true emergency is to send the patient to the available walk in clinics in the area, as opposed to treating them in the emergency room. Educating the public as to services available in the community other than using the emergency rooms. Course don't let me get started on nurses who bring their own family members to the emergency rooms, even though they know better. have insurance, have their own primary care doctors. Hold that thought. Seems to me the last time I called my doctor he was the one who told me to go to the emergency room. I get it. That must be one the entries to the system which needs to change. Doctor, needs to see patient first in office, then determine if emor is needed, or in patient hosp. What to do if office is closed. Are 24 hour doctor's offices needed? hmm now that is a new thought.
...the medical field should hand out justice in the form of denial of care for those we decide are unworthy....
The question is, who gets to decide? A government bureaucracy? The taxpayer? The whole population?
Looking at history, the farming system in the former Soviet Union tells the story about how our medical system would work if we allowed a bureaucracy to decide. Less work, less productivity, less quality, more entitlement, more corruption.
If only taxpayers decided, then, what about the so-called civil rights of those who don't pay any taxes (at least half of Americans effectively pay zero). Should paying taxes make someone more of a decision maker? (Are non-taxpayers 3/5 of a person? Anybody? Anybody?)
What about the whole population? If in a democracy, if large numbers of people can vote themselves a raise, eventually, those getting the raises (in this case, healthcare funding) would outnumber those paying in. The inevitable outcome is bankrupting the system (take a look at Medicare) by the majority grabbing benefits and the minority paying in.
So, who decides? When you know what you believe about this, then you will know what should be done.
I lived in Europe under UHC and the ER was pretty damn dead everytime me or my husband went to the hospital... but the PCP's office, omigosh, now appointments take a long time to get, and the waiting time to see the doctor was long. But I think this had more to do with the fact that we were in a rural area where there weren't more physicians.
While I support UHC (Single Payor System) which the US will probably never have there were some issues that I saw first hand. I had my daughter there, and my OBGYN was just shy of incompetent, but because he was a govt employee, the people admitted that his tenure would not be threatened, and medical malpractice is rare there.
But on the flipside, you can pay a nominal fee of 30-50 dollars or Euros and get a "private" doctor, this fee would be like a deductible and the govt subsidizes the rest..
Plus no drive by baby deliveries there.. no mam. A week is standard stay for a routine lady partsl delivery. In delivery, the govt pays for your midwife (hebamme) and licensed doctor. Additionally, well child care through 3 years is required if you want to recieve the job protection of the govt, so new mothers are paid monthly and their jobs are kept for them for 3 years. I had no prior employment and still earned money.
I admire this system, because people tend to be quite proactive with their health. For example, my father-in-law who has now had a heart attack was sent courtesy of UHC to a wellness spa in upper austria, which I might add is the prettiest place on earth, to be placed on a restrictive diet and monitored excercise. Now this place looks like a resort in many ways..but they finally figured out how to get people to take responsibility for the prevention of very costly diseases...
Something to consider, I mean taxes are high there, but also high here. I found some good and bad about the system, but if we if these high costs are going to be passed on to all of us anyhow, then I'd rather everybody get the care they need... and not in the ER.
Eventhough only a student, and you all are on the front lines you may very well know better than me, I am also wondering if we could see a decrease in medical malpractice and even frivilous suits if such a system were implemented?
Atheos
2,098 Posts
Exactly!!! The original argument was fallacious. Why do people that already pay refuse to change a system that is blatantly bad.
They are blind...
By the way, children, the handicapped and aged persons are no more special than anyone else. Why should they get 'free' care and no one else? Either everyone should get free care or no one should.
If you don't want to pay for those poor people that the poster said are obviously lazy then why should we pay for anyone?
BTW - It's hard to misinterpret something that is so plainly stated and if you have time to post on allnurses you aren't working all that long... :)