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??

Specializes in CTICU.
If individuals are ignorant of our American Constitution then their opinions have no authority and their responses are worthless.

As you seem incapable of posting things other than repetitions of what you posted in other threads, allow me to repeat myself as well. People's opinions are worthy, regardless of their knowledge of the US constitution. In fact, since this thread was started to discuss things about working in a UHC system that is NOT in the US, knowledge of the US constitution (by the way, it's not an "american constitution") is irrelevant.

Specializes in Acute Care, Rehab, Palliative.
How long does a patient have to wait to be seen by a doctor for back pain?

I recently made an appointment with my GP for back pain and my appointment was the next day. The last time I was in the ER I waited 20 min.

Perhaps health care for all should be referred to by the title 'Universal Health Care'.

There are so many people, especially in the US, who have mental 'blinders' that come down the minute the word 'socialized' anything is used.

One could argue that this is ignorance, and launch into an attempt to explain various economic approaches:

raw, unbridled Capitalism, as practiced by the 'Robber Barron's', at the end of the 19th century,

Capitalism, with (supposedly) controls, as is practiced in the US today,

hybrid systems, as in most of Western Europe,

pure Socialism, pure Communism.....

To me various economic systems, their purposes, their successes and failures are a very interesting subject of conversation, WITH a person who has some knowledge about these systems.

It is better not to even enter into such a discussion with people who do not have knowledge however, the topic becomes a one sided charged political harangue.

A civilized discussion, such as we (most of us) are having on this thread allows us all to air our views, but as we see, if the topic is titled 'Socialized Medicine", the judgment about the subject under discussion is already formed in the minds of some, with the utterance of that first word.....Socialized.

As has been pointed out over and over by discussion participants, sucessful models of Universal Health Care in other countries is actually a mix; health care for all citizens of a country, YES, but if you want more, or if you want 'extras', private room, more pictures on the wall, ect......You just PAY for the extras, in good old true Capitalist fashion!

As has been pointed out over and over by discussion participants, sucessful models of Universal Health Care in other countries is actually a mix; health care for all citizens of a country, YES, but if you want more, or if you want 'extras', private room, more pictures on the wall, ect......You just PAY for the extras, in good old true Capitalist fashion![from quezen Premium Member]

Yes, but take for example, something common, like gallstones. They are extremely painful at times. It is much cheaper to prescribe pain medication to treat the symptoms when they occur, than to actually have the surgery to remove the gallbladder. Approximately 750,000 Americans will have their gallbladder removed this year. So for those people who have significant and frequent episodes of pain, they will be given a subscription for pain meds, as THE standard treatment for gallstones. Surgery is too expensive for this many people in a socialized system when a simple prescription can cover each temporary time they are in pain. So with socialized medicine, I guess they can pay extra for the surgery if they want to.

Think about it. This is just one example of EXTRAS that will not fall under standard level of care.

Canada: Population 33,000,000

USA: Population 300,000,000

....nursing shortage, doctor shortage....hmmmmmm........

do you think:

Nurses will work for less pay? I know friends of mine that make $100,000.00 NO Overtime.

Doctors will be willing to GIVE UP their salary? Yeah...right....

For the good of the people? .........

Yeah..

Right.

Just so you are aware, the percentage of healthcare costs that actually benefit the doctor is only 3%. Perhaps we should all (I am talking about 99% of the American population) acknowledge the fact that decreasing a doctors salary won't affect the cost of healthcare. Check to see how much profit, the Not-For-Profit hospitals in your citiy made last year. Then check to see how much the CEOs of all your local hospitals made. It should be public knowledge.

Yes, but take for example, something common, like gallstones. They are extremely painful at times. It is much cheaper to prescribe pain medication to treat the symptoms when they occur, than to actually have the surgery to remove the gallbladder. Approximately 750,000 Americans will have their gallbladder removed this year. So for those people who have significant and frequent episodes of pain, they will be given a subscription for pain meds, as THE standard treatment for gallstones. Surgery is too expensive for this many people in a socialized system when a simple prescription can cover each temporary time they are in pain. So with socialized medicine, I guess they can pay extra for the surgery if they want to.

Think about it. This is just one example of EXTRAS that will not fall under standard level of care.

From my experience when I've talked to people in the real world from the general public who support government funded health care, they really don't care that much about America's roots and foundations. I can already hear the blanket statement comments. ;) But like I said this is from my experience.

As far as the physicians report, I can honestly say I've NEVER talked to a physician who supports government funded health care. And I've worked at many hospitals. Even the majority of nurses I've been in contact with do not like the idea of government funded health care. So from my experience I'd have to say the statistics have some sort of bias because these majorities you speak of just aren't reality from where I come from. Take care.

If you ask whether people would be happier if somebody else paid their medical bills, they generally say yes. But surveys on consumers' satisfaction with their quality of care show overwhelming support for the continuation of the present arrangement. The best proof of this is the belated recognition by the proponents of health-care reform that they need to promise people that they can keep what they have now.

Specializes in ICU, APHERESIS, IV THERAPY, ONCOLOGY, BC.

Thanks for this. A core question remains whether the US has researched EU models sufficiently to be able to weed out what does not work vis a vis areas of success. It is a daunting task to bring change for 300,000,000. people despite the fact that change is sorely needed. EU models are based on smaller land masses and populations, however the common thread remains - quality health care for all. Government spending decrees control along with private corp. Control and analysis of funds and spending, good decision making and goals with insight and solid planning should make this doable for most.

Specializes in Medical.
Yes, but take for example, something common, like gallstones. They are extremely painful at times. It is much cheaper to prescribe pain medication to treat the symptoms when they occur, than to actually have the surgery to remove the gallbladder. Approximately 750,000 Americans will have their gallbladder removed this year. So for those people who have significant and frequent episodes of pain, they will be given a subscription for pain meds, as THE standard treatment for gallstones. Surgery is too expensive for this many people in a socialized system when a simple prescription can cover each temporary time they are in pain. So with socialized medicine, I guess they can pay extra for the surgery if they want to.

Think about it. This is just one example of EXTRAS that will not fall under standard level of care.

I don't know where you got this idea from, but in Australia acute cholecystitis is treated with analgesia, antibiotic therapy and lithotripsy or cholecystectomy (open or, preferrably, laprascopic). Chronic cholecystitits patients are waitlisted, but that only menas their (non-urgent) surgery is delayed, not that it isn't done. In Australia last year the median waiting time for an non-urgent cholecystectomy ranged by state from 33 - 90 days, with a median national wait of 47 days (source).

According to the Better Health Channel, a health and medical information site funded by the Victorian government,

Some other forms of treatment for gallstones include:

  • The gallstones are broken down by sound waves (this method is very rarely used and may worsen symptoms).
  • Medications are sometimes used, but the success rate is variable and side effects are common and treatment is expensive. (source)

And:
Treatment options

Gallstones that present no symptoms generally don’t require any medical intervention. Treatment depends on the size and location of the gallstones, but may include:

  • Dietary modifications – such as limiting or eliminating fatty foods and dairy products.
  • Surgery – to remove the entire gall bladder, or stones from bile ducts. Around eight in 10 gallstone cases showing symptoms will require surgery. Procedures include ‘keyhole’ (laparoscopic) surgery and abdominal surgery (laparotomy), where the gall bladder is removed through an incision in the abdomen.
  • Lithotripsy– a special machine generates soundwaves to shatter stones. This treatment is used for those people with small and soft stones, which accounts for around two out of 10 cases of gallstones with symptoms.
  • Medications –some drugs can dissolve gallstones but this treatment is only rarely given, due to side effects and a variable success rate (source)

The default treatment is surgery.
Specializes in psychiatric, UR analyst, fraud, DME,MedB.
How long does a patient have to wait to be seen by a doctor for back pain?

:yeah:I truly agree from both of the above. Enough is enough , too much profiteering in the health system , and people falling thru the cracks whiel the insurance company is making lots of money ...at the expense of who??? the people !!!! Yes, no system is perfect , but socialized medicine must be working since other nations are using it, such as Canada, UK, France, Holland have a wonderful system for their seniors ( they put money into it and they are getting it back-- here in the US, we do not even know if those putting in for social security will get it back in the future????) We need a compelte overhaul of the system since it is not working ...obviously !

Specializes in RN, BSN, CHDN.

I think the US could utilise an effective Universal healthcare system, they would need to learn from other countries where they are going wrong, what they have done wrong, how to correct it, what they do right and how to improve. I know in the UK they are streamlining left right and centre. The NHS has been in place since 1945 so there must be lessons to learn.

Specializes in Gerontological, cardiac, med-surg, peds.
i think the us could utilise an effective universal healthcare system, they would need to learn from other countries where they are going wrong, what they have done wrong, how to correct it, what they do right and how to improve. i know in the uk they are streamlining left right and centre. the nhs has been in place since 1945 so there must be lessons to learn.

i like this resource: sick around the world

in sick around the world, frontline teams up with veteran washington post foreign correspondent t.r. reid to find out how five other capitalist democracies -- the united kingdom, japan, germany, taiwan and switzerland -- deliver health care, and what the united states might learn from their successes and their failures.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/etc/synopsis.html