Socialized Medicine the myths and the facts

Having worked in a country which has socialized medicine I can certainly see the pit falls and the benefits. What I don't understand is the fear behind having socialized medicine In my opinion socialized medicine has more positive benefits than negative benefits. Nurses Announcements Archive Article

The first and the most obvious concern is the cost to the patient and their family, we all know how devastating an illness can be for patients and their family many times I have witnessed the despair when a diagnoses meant further treatment which insurances question and in some cases wont cover. I have seen patients needing costly drugs to keep them alive and being unable to afford them, causing repeated admissions to repair the damage so called none compliance has caused. The first question in none compliance is were the pts actually refusing to take their medication or was it simply they could not afford to buy their medication because they don't have enough money and other bills need to be paid first? If the real reason is the cost then surely it would be more simple of we provided these medications at a more effective price or that all medications cost $5 no matter what they had? Outrageous I hear you shout but the cost of the repeated admission is far more costly than by helping prevent a repeat admission, by providing medicine they can afford.

How about blood tests could these not be done in the doctors office before the pt leaves for home and forgets to go and have a blood draw, or simply cannot get to the lab to have them drawn. I have personally waited in doctors office hours (and paid for the privilege) then been sent to the lab, miles away to sit and wait for blood work to be done. Why could the doctors not employ somebody to be at the office to draw blood on patients?

We should be looking at improving preventative medicine rather than patch it up and see.

Many times I have seen patients discharged with a new diagnoses of diabetes, no follow up at home can be organised because in my city nothing exists to assist these people. There should be a diabetic home nurse who monitors these patients in their own home-rationale, this would again help prevent admissions for diabetic complications, and none compliance.

So you wonder what has this got to do with socialized medicine. Well, in the UK if you have...

  • Children
  • Over 60 for women and over 65 for men
  • Diabetes
  • Asthma
  • Thyroid problems, etc...

...then you get all your medicines for free.

There are in place specialized RN's who focus is on preventative care in the community. There are telephone help lines which anybody can utilize for free.

Maternity care is free a midwife will be assigned to you for the duration of your pregnancy and up to 6 weeks later. The cost of the birth-nothing no matter how you deliver.

I have been asked what kind of care do you receive in a socialized medicine country and I ask them, I am a product of socialized medicine you tell me how my care differs from nurses who have paid outrageous amounts of money to train as a nurse?

Of course even in the UK you can have private care if you chose to pay, this is an advantage if you need hip replacements, knee replacements, eye surgeries-other wise you may have to wait. There are initiatives in place to reduce waiting times for surgeries in the NHS and I hear that dr's can now book surgeries from their office at hospitals all over the UK which helps reduce waiting times, plus hospitals get fined if they don't meet their quota.

I agree MRI's and CT's are not as freely available, but again initiatives are in place to improve the waiting times. Emergency care no different all patients will receive emergency care.

Poor conditions yes there are poor hospitals and there are excellent hospitals, no different to Phoenix AZ.

Questions??

This might sound like a silly question. But what do folks mean when they say health care is a right? Take care.

I never went along with the "health care as a right" thing, until I read a statement comparing health care as a right to those rights in the Bill of Rights, then I got on board.

The government doesn't buy me a printing press, a gun, a church, a meeting hall, or a bus ticket to DC to petition my government. A right to health care thrown in there is fine by me, just means the government can't PREVENT me from seeking out my OWN, PRIVATELY obtained health care.

Specializes in Medical.
This might sound like a silly question. But what do folks mean when they say health care is a right?

The term 'rights' usually refers to legal or moral entitlements or permissions. The US Bill of Rights is an example of the former - is deals with legal rights and freedoms and is clearly a response to former British rule.

The 1946 Constitution of the World Health Organization is an example of the latter, focused on moral rights. It opens witha preamble and outlines why all people have a right to health care access, both for the good of the individual and for the good of the community as a whole:

Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.

The health of all peoples is fundamental to the attainment of peace and security and is dependent upon the fullest co-operation of individuals and States.

The achievement of any State in the promotion and protection of health is of value to all.

Unequal development in different countries in the promotion of health and control of disease, especially communicable disease, is a common danger.

Healthy development of the child is of basic importance; the ability to live harmoniously in a changing total environment is essential to such development.

The extension to all peoples of the benefits of medical, psychological and related knowledge is essential to the fullest attainment of health.

Informed opinion and active co-operation on the part of the public are of the utmost importance in the improvement of the health of the people.

Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples which can be fulfilled only by the provision of adequate health and social measures.

Specializes in psychiatric, UR analyst, fraud, DME,MedB.
The term 'rights' usually refers to legal or moral entitlements or permissions. The US Bill of Rights is an example of the former - is deals with legal rights and freedoms and is clearly a response to former British rule.

The 1946 Constitution of the World Health Organization is an example of the latter, focused on moral rights. It opens witha preamble and outlines why all people have a right to health care access, both for the good of the individual and for the good of the community as a whole:

:yeah:Very good inforamtion adn good to know! Thank you. You are very resourceful!:)

Specializes in Medical.
I never went along with the "health care as a right" thing, until I read a statement comparing health care as a right to those rights in the Bill of Rights, then I got on board.

The government doesn't buy me a printing press, a gun, a church, a meeting hall, or a bus ticket to DC to petition my government. A right to health care thrown in there is fine by me, just means the government can't PREVENT me from seeking out my OWN, PRIVATELY obtained health care.

The difference, at least for those who support universal health care, is that health care access is a positive right - if you can't afford health care you can't use it and therefore have been prevented from accessing it. This is in contrast with the vast majority of the rights in the Bill of Rights, which are negative - you cannot be prevented from free speech, owning arms, practicing your religion, attending a meeting etc.

Why is it inconceivable for a average salary earning individual to pay for their own medical expenses? I hear a lot of people talking about solutions to our current healthcare mess. But I rarely hear people talking specifics on how the healthcare mess started in the first place. Does anyone have expertise on how and when this mess first started?

IMO - HMO's and managed care systems are the culprits of the escalating costs of medical care. Both these systems take the responsibility of paying out of the hands of the person receiving the care. This is very important to understand because it removes the market incentive and results in incremental and artificial rises in healthcare costs. I think there is an obvious correlation between the government and corporations paying for medical bills and the rise we've seen in medical costs.

IMO - The current proposals to remedy our healthcare mess are not much different than the remedies that caused the mess in the first place. The only difference is that the current proposed rememdies are on steroids and are gift wrapped in beautiful colors.

I was curious what folks thought of the idea of changing our tax codes to allow individuals to deduct ALL healthcare costs from their taxes, just as employers can? Take care.

Having worked in a country which has socialised medicine I can certainly see the pit falls and the benefits. What I dont understand is the fear behind having socialised medicine In my opinion socialised medicine has more positive benefits than negative benefits.

The first and the most obvious concern is the cost to the patient and their family, we all know how devestating an illness can be for pts and their family many times I have witnessed the despair when a diagnoses meant further treatment which insurances question and in some cases wont cover. I have seen pts needing costly drugs to keep them alive and being unable to afford them, causing repeated admissions to repair the damage so called none compliance has caused. The first question in none compliance is were the pts actually refusing to take their medication or was it simply they could not afford to buy their medication because they dont have enough money and other bills need to be paid first? If the real reason is the cost then surely it would be more simple of we provided these medications at a more effective price or that all medications cost $5 no matter what they had? Outrageous I hear you shout but the cost of the repeated admission is far more costly than by helping prevent a repeat admission, by providing medicine they can afford.

How about blood tests could these not be done in the doctors office before the pt leaves for home and forgets to go and have a blood draw, or simply cannot get to the lab to have them drawn. I have personnally waited in doctors office hours (and paid for the priviledge) then been sent to the lab, miles away to sit and wait for blood work to be done. Why could the doctors not employ somebody to be at the office to draw blood on pts?

We should be looking at improving preventative medicine rather than patch it up and see.

Many times I have seen pts discharged with a new diagnoses of diabetes, no follow up at home can be organised because in my city nothing exists to assist these people. There should be a diabetic home nurse who monitors these pts in their own home-rationale, this would again help prevent admissions for diabetic complications, and none compliance.

So you wonder what has this got to do with socialised medicine. Well, in the UK if you have certain illnesses for example

  • Children
  • Over 60 for women and over 65 for men
  • Diabetes
  • Asthma
  • Thyroid problems, etc...

then you get all your medicines for free.

There are in place specialised RN's who focus is on preventative care in the community. There are telephone help lines which anybody can utilise for free.

Maternity care is free a midwife will be assigned to you for the duration of your pregnancy and upto 6 weeks later. The cost of the birth-nothing no matter how you deliver.

I have been asked what kind of care do you recieve in a socilaised medicine country and I ask them, I am a product of socialised medicine you tell me how my care differs from nurses who have paid outrageous amounts of money to train as a nurse?

Of course even in the UK you can have private care if you chose to pay, this is an advantage if you need hip replacements, knee replacements, eye surgeries-other wise you may have to wait. There are initiatives in place to reduce waiting times for surgeries in the NHS and I hear that dr's can now book surgeries from their office at hospitals all over the UK which helps reduce waiting times, plus hospitals get fined if they dont meet their quota.

I agree MRI's and CT's are not as freely available, but again iinitiatives are in place to improve the waiting times.

Emergency care no different all patients will recieve emergency care.

Poor conditions yes there are poor hospitals and there are excellent hospitals, no different to Phoenix AZ.

Questions??

I agree that our halthcare system needs improvement, but "free" isn't exactly free. Someone pays for the meds, ER care, Midvifes/OB care...We are already being taxed to death, and you think it is a good idea to continue. Our government isn't the best at amanging money/resources, if you haven't noticed. I, and my family, 4 children and a husband am uninsured. i admit that if we need care we probably won't go to a doctor unless it's an emergency or critical. But I definately don't think that socialized medicine is the answer. We need to improve upon what we already have. I am soooo sick of hearing about how our Country is not good enough, and we need to fix it, make it like other countries. Also, spending more money is NOT going to get us out of a recession!!!!

Specializes in ICU, MS, Radiology, Long term care.

These are good posts. It is clear to see the solution to this mess is complex. I try to think in a big picture. In the twentieth century healthcare went to those that could afford it. In that respect those that had the financial resources would live longer and be able to fill the positions in society needed for that society to progress. Have we reached the point where we can afford to allow most people to live healthy lives? If most people lived longer healthier lives would the amount and quality of their input to society justify the expense? Or, is it just the way the amount of money for healthcare is distributed? IMO, if people didn't go bankrupt because of a chronic or protracted disease then it seems probable that most people would be able to live more productive lives.

Specializes in psychiatric, UR analyst, fraud, DME,MedB.
The difference, at least for those who support universal health care, is that health care access is a positive right - if you can't afford health care you can't use it and therefore have been prevented from accessing it. This is in contrast with the vast majority of the rights in the Bill of Rights, which are negative - you cannot be prevented from free spach, owning arms, practicing your religion, attending a meeting etc.

The proposal for the new health care plan is a way to accomodate those that do not have any, and to lower the private insurance's very expensive ( and still going up...) and non affordable premiums to millions who can not afford it. Look , I sue to have a choice of HMO or PPO. With HMO , I have no worries if you stick w/ your in network provider, but now at work we have no choice --- only a PPO is offered.....the 20% payable form this is very expensive in the long run, depending on what you have done or fixed ! Since the private insurance get together to "fix" their prices, the government insurance will serve as a viable competetion, and nothing better than a competetion to have a better deal for all!

I know we all have our doubts of some of the government quality insurance performance :mad:, especially for the past 8 years. You see , our president is trying to fix this area, and to fix it right ....... you also have to fix the other "branches" by either trimming or pruning dead branches and leaves that do not do any function to the tree anymore. I am talking about deadwood government employees that is just doing a countdown for their retirement. I am sure some of us have seen this as I have.

Look, something different is definitely better than what we have now . Also the side benefits of this deal is tha the ED will not be used anymore for a "clinic" for thos that do not have health insurance. We need more urgent care that opens for a long period of the night and early morning hours, to accomodate patients until the doctors offices opens up. This will take care of the people and business , as well once the system is intact.

I can understand the fear of "new" things, but when you see that what we have is not a viable system, because this high fees will bankrupt everybody in the long run......we all can learn from the AIG, or even GM. Things were left so long in turmoil for the sake of profit and greed. If we do not fix this now, then the prognosis is chaotic.

:nurse:

Specializes in psychiatric, UR analyst, fraud, DME,MedB.
These are good posts. It is clear to see the solution to this mess is complex. I try to think in a big picture. In the twentieth century healthcare went to those that could afford it. In that respect those that had the financial resources would live longer and be able to fill the positions in society needed for that society to progress. Have we reached the point where we can afford to allow most people to live healthy lives? If most people lived longer healthier lives would the amount and quality of their input to society justify the expense? Or, is it just the way the amount of money for healthcare is distributed? IMO, if people didn't go bankrupt because of a chronic or protracted disease then it seems probable that most people would be able to live more productive lives.

It is complex. But to see if people are worth--- is an ethical issue.....it is like asking as to who should live and who should die. If we have an efficient , working health care , nobody has to go bankrupt because of medical care and bills! That is why we need to fix it.:nurse:

Specializes in OB, HH, ADMIN, IC, ED, QI.
This might sound like a silly question. But what do folks mean when they say health care is a right? Take care.

What is meant by any right? The right of free speech (as long as it's not loaded with swear words), the right to practise the religion of our choice (without having our places of worship burned down), the right to expect our government to provide adequate public transportation, rescue from killer floods, fires, etc., the right to get healthy when we're ill (without losing our shirts and homes), and prevent disease through healthy lifestyles (being able to feel OK about insisting that newer sex partner(s) use condoms, having sexual identities with which we're comfortable, that may be alternate ones (without having to fight off imbeciles who disagree, the right to choose not to be a parent, by not carrying through pregnancies that may result from illegal date rape, which is violent criminal rape, marital rape, or simply having poor decision making skills; and the right to access and not pay very dearly for preventive measures (vaccines, educational programs, food that is uncontaminated, water that is free of chemicals and filth) and safety at work, as well as other rights I've left off.

Those who settled this land may not have had some or all of those rights in the land of their birth; and when they came here, they wanted to ensure their and future peoples' rights, writing a constitution with amendments that make sense. However, growing as rapidly as we have, and consisting of human beings of varied backgrounds, we've had our difficulties along the way. So the rights most of us want need to be reiterated over and over, and measures need to be taken to keep us free to have them, without bias - even if it means that the remuneration of some health care providers, pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, etc. has to go through a "correction".

Currently, it is illegal for individuals to cross State lines to purchase health insurance.

A market study by eHealth Insurance found that prices vary drastically from State to State. For example, in their study they found the 10 top cities for affordable health insurance all had policies with premiums under $60/month. In contrast, for the exact same policy in New York City the premium was $334/month. The study found that there is a direct correlation between the amount of regulation the State Governments place on the insurance companies and the costs of the premiums. For example, in New York City their State Government forces Insurance Companies to sell policies at the same price to everyone, regardless of age or health for the sake of universal access. This results in increased premiums for everyone. Younger people tend to drop or not get the policies because it's unfair to them.

A market study by the AMA surveyed 294 Metropolitan Cities and found that in 95% of the cities 1 insurance company provided coverage for 30% of the population. In 50% of the cities 1 insurance company provided coverage for 50% of the population.

IMO - We have a monopolized managed care system with little or no competition, entwined with hyperregulation by State Governments, entwined with our Federal Government making laws cripling competition by not allowing interstate commerce of insurance policies....... and we wonder why the average salary earning individual can't afford health insurance anymore??? Take care.

Specializes in OB, HH, ADMIN, IC, ED, QI.

Saude:

I'd like to know the link to the study you sited, as you quoted only what the prices are, and while they could be red and green apples, not apples and oranges, an important aspect of any insurance coverage, is the "cap" on it. I was told that I could have health insurance at a Home Health agency where I worked in 2004 (VA), for $325,/month. (No one had "benefits", as we were considered "per diem", unless we worked 40 hours/week - and no one was supposed to do that). Well, I asked what the "cap" was, no one knew it (or had taken that policy, as their spouses had adequate insurance at their work). Upon investigation, the yearly "cap" of coverage - that is, the total amount that would be paid for every health care service obtained was.........(drum roll)........$1,350!

Crooks!!

Nowadays, health insurance companies may cover much more, but the pharmaceutical formulary covered only the cheapest drugs. For example if you had a MRSA infection, only methicillin might be covered........never mind that it wouldn't work! Pharmaceutical companies give breaks in their prices according to how many of their products might be used by the individuals covered by any one insurance company. That means that Universal (please think of it as that, not "socialised") coverage has much more bargaining power, to get lower drug prices, and tyherefore it will cost less.

There are government buildings in each large community, all of which have extra offices, including Humasn Resources, so no new ones would need to be built (a high cost for private insurance companies). Doctors' offices all have insurance workers who must figure out the varied and complicated differences in reimbursement for medical services, and handle appeals for things that aren't covered. Those can be utilized by government workers, whose only task would be to pay doctors and their staffs, for their services rendered, not to make medical decisions. Medical equipment would also have much more efficient usage, as it would be distributed according to where it got the most use - not to be competitive with other offices.

Since the administrative costs would be less, as those workers would not get extravagant bonuses, and gifts from drug company reps and labs. Since there would be fewer employees doing that, in regional/central places, that will be cost saving, too. Billing individuals and tracking payments would be obsolete!

Since scheduling could be standardized, patients could book their own appointments according to outlines placed in a computer program by their caregivers, privately according to confidential access #s, by taking the empty spaces on a computer from home or the libraries. They would be programmed to avoid making appointments with a doctor other than theirs. That would avoid the constant rescheduling that goes on now, when patients go home from their doctors' offices, find there is a time conflict with a family member, or on their calendar, and have to call back to reschedule it.

Routine blood, urine testing and x-rays could be programmed for people before their appointments, so it wouldn't take two times seeing their doctor, to have appropriate ones done and then explained. If a doctor wanted to add a test, he/she could input that. When/if patients need more frequent appointments, that can be programmed into computer systems by the doctor or his/her staff, and if s/s arise, patients could input that data before their blood is drawn, so phlebotomists would keep an extra vial for additional tests. Test results would be available for the doctor and patient by the time the appointment occurs. When/if a patient wanted to change doctors or see nurse practitioners instead, the information about them would go to that HCP, without new signed requests, as only the patient could program that.

There are multitudes of ways to manage healthcare, using computers, which are more efficient and rule out errors that are often made by employees who are just learning their jobs. The personal touch would be during the office visit, which could be longer due to greater availability of staff, as other office work would be unnecessary for them to do..... IT folks could work from a central computer center, instead of going to the place where any difficulty might happen, similar to what the TV techs do now.

Now doesn't that seem better than replications of all the above activities in myriads of locations? I'd not like a robot examining me, though........:lol2: