Socialized Medicine the myths and the facts

[madwife2002]

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??

[KBron2000]

I very much agree with you. I have not experienced socialized medicine but it only seem like common sense. I hear the arguments that the government will be dictating the care you get. I don't see that it's any different with insurance companies. If your illness is too expensive then they just don't allow treatment. Also, don't even think about changing insur. co if you have a preexisting condition. My own sister ran into that a few years ago. The plan that the white house is trying to get passed into law would eliminate that and more. Yes, we may have to wait a little, but in most cases that won't hurt us. We have become a selfish, impatient, pampered society. I really wonder if some of the people who are against the new plan really care at all about the low income people who can not afford health care. Or do they just look down there noses at them?

[GiGiOm]

I think a single payer system is really the only way to go at this point. I don't see any seniors rescinding their medicare benefits for private insurance! But they don't seem to want young people to have decent access to health care. Shouldn't we make sure our young adults and middle adults are able to have access to health care without having their insurance canceled when they get sick and need to use it? After all, they're the ones who are still working. But I think we can forget anything but a gutted public option that nobody who is employed will have access to - unless their employers don't provide insurance. And if your employer provides a crappy policy, well, that is what you have to settle for. To me, this is not choice. This is only maintaining the status quo and making sure big insurance and big pharma is in the loop and their place at the feeding trough is maintained. I am unimpressed with the so-called reform on the table as it is. We deserve better than the rabbit turds they are attempting to feed us and pass off as raisins.

[Ginger's Mom, MSN, RN]

I very much agree with you. I have not experienced socialized medicine but it only seem like common sense. I hear the arguments that the government will be dictating the care you get. I don't see that it's any different with insurance companies. If your illness is too expensive then they just don't allow treatment. Also, don't even think about changing insur. co if you have a preexisting condition. My own sister ran into that a few years ago. The plan that the white house is trying to get passed into law would eliminate that and more. Yes, we may have to wait a little, but in most cases that won't hurt us. We have become a selfish, impatient, pampered society. I really wonder if some of the people who are against the new plan really care at all about the low income people who can not afford health care. Or do they just look down there noses at them?

My experience living through a life threatening illness, is that I could call my insurance company and ask questions. My dealings with US Government officials have not been that open. You can't even talk directly to a Medicare official. W

ith an insurance company you have the option to choose another, how do you change a government plan? After reading the cancer survival rates in the UK, I am glad I lived in the USA.

My state has done way with pre existing conditions and waiting periods. I would be happy if all states had the same.

[madwife2002, BSN, RN]

So our we to presume that the socialised medicine is the cause of worse cancer survival rates? And that if you have insurance you will survive cancer?

Or could the cause of worse cancer survival rates be due to more crowded city living? Or more people smoke? Or do more people live in an indutrialised area.

Unless you have done the research I find it difficult to believe that you can blame cancer survival rates on socialised medicine-Nor can I believe that because you have insurance you will survive better than somebody who doesnt

You really have to know the british people who inspite of having to pay NO money for healthcare really do not run to the doctors for every ache and pain, nor do they present at hospitals for IV pain treatments every other week. They are a small strong nation who do not moan and complain all the time about their health-and tend to only go to the doctor when their health is so poor that they have no choice. So could the issue be cultural instead of how they recieve their medical care

[dlatimer]

Does everyone agree that something has to change in health care for it to actually help the people?

Maybe this is better explained with a sports analogy. Officials and rules committees are charged to make sure the players and teams play fairly. Isn't that the role of our government in all markets? Is the healthcare industry like the NY Yankees? Just buy all the players and you're sure to win.

[Ginger's Mom, MSN, RN]

So our we to presume that the socialised medicine is the cause of worse cancer survival rates? And that if you have insurance you will survive cancer?

Or could the cause of worse cancer survival rates be due to more crowded city living? Or more people smoke? Or do more people live in an indutrialised area.

Unless you have done the research I find it difficult to believe that you can blame cancer survival rates on socialised medicine-Nor can I believe that because you have insurance you will survive better than somebody who doesnt

You really have to know the british people who inspite of having to pay NO money for healthcare really do not run to the doctors for every ache and pain, nor do they present at hospitals for IV pain treatments every other week. They are a small strong nation who do not moan and complain all the time about their health-and tend to only go to the doctor when their health is so poor that they have no choice. So could the issue be cultural instead of how they recieve their medical care

I am a breast cancer survivor, I have belonged to international breast cancer support groups. My understanding is at the time of my diagnosis, because of my age and family history I would not have had the necessary tests to make my initial diagnosis ( based on evidence based medicine). For 99% of the people this would be correct but for me as an individual it would have meant a delay in treatment. I also would not have been offered the aggressive chemotherapy since it was not the standard in England at the time. If I was in England I would not been offered breast construction at time of initial surgery although not life threatening it has improved my quality of life.

Now, part two, a decade later my GYN tells me that I maybe high risk due to being a BRCA gene carrier. Once again I am told that I am extreme low risk based on my family history. If you are BRCA carrier you have a 80% chance of having ovarian cancer. Once again I am allowed a test that would have been denied in England since of my low risk ( which is evidence based medicine). Well I win the jackpot and and despite my low risk I am a carrier.

For me and my family, my insurance has been life saving. As far as the over all survival rates, I know in the past this has been cited to me when discussing differences in cancer care with my international survivor friends, the UK was superior ( which I thought was due to better screening and early treatment). Now with more chemo available it is my opinion that is why American Women like myself are living. I also have instant access to Breast Cancer Center and was able to self refer).

To summarize , I feel my survival is directly related to my ability to have treatment and testing that was not the norm, my doctor, insurance company and myself where allowed to make choices that were not the norm. As far as cancer survival rates go, I trust organazations since as the Lancet and BMJ to make those decisions. But in reality no one really knows why anyone gets cancer.

[talaxandra]

Congratulations on your good health :) Just a reminder, Britain's not the only country with universal health care.

Australia is about the best place in the world to be diagnosed with cancer, according to new figures which show Australia and the US have the highest 5-year relative survival rates, among the limited number of countries for which these data are available. source (2001)

Australia has been given a glowing report in an international cancer review which shows the nation has one of the best disease survival rates in the world...

The study compares survival rates in 31 countries for the major cancer types, with Australia consistently falling at the top of the league table next to north America and Japan.Prof Giles said good access to drug treatments and well established screening programs from cancer of the breast and cervix had put Australia in the lead.

But slow uptake of the national bowel screening program currently being rolled out was not helping the statistics, he said...

Improvements could also be made to breast screening rates, with only about 50 per cent of women over 50 regularly getting a mammogram. source (2009)

Incidentally, according to another report of the same study, both Australia and Canada scored very well, and US survival rates cary not only by region but ethnicity:

Whites and blacks in the USA saw differences in cancer survival between 7 and 14% - favoring whites. Specifically, white women had a 14% higher survival for breast cancer than black women, and white men had a 7% higher survival for prostate cancer than black men. What are the reasons for these racial disparities? The researchers suggest that white and black people receive diagnoses in different stages of the disease, have unequal access to health care, and are different in complying with treatment. (2009)

[Ginger's Mom, MSN, RN]

I realized Australia has socialized medicine, but for my family it caused permanent damage to a family member, my daughter.

She went on a 6 month student exchange program to Sydney. I has world wide health insurance covered, but ensured that she had enough funds to pay cash for any treatment she could need. I also paid $500 to the Australian government to entitle her to reach health care there.

To make a long story short, she sprained her ankle was refused treatment several times, and she tried to nurse her ankle.

By the time she made it home she had to have an reconstructive surgery and now has permanent nerve damage. At least if this happened in the USA she could sue the hospital who turned a foreign girl away ( Same on the hospital in Melbourne and Sydney). So I am a bit bias when is comes to socialized medicine.

Also according to the Lancet , US has better survival rate than Australia or the UK.

[talaxandra]

I'm sorry this happened to your daughter, and certainly puzzled, as I've treated many overseas patients (both with and without insurance).

Why can't you prosecute the hospital/s? I have indemnity insurance, in the event that I'm sued - it's rare, but certainly possible.

And yes, Australia does rank just below the US in average rates but, as I quoted, an individual's odds vary widely based on which part of the US they live in and their ethnicity, which is less the case in Australia or Canada.

[Ginger's Mom, MSN, RN]

I'm sorry this happened to your daughter, and certainly puzzled, as I've treated many overseas patients (both with and without insurance).

Why can't you prosecute the hospital/s? I have indemnity insurance, in the event that I'm sued - it's rare, but certainly possible.

And yes, Australia does rank just below the US in average rates but, as I quoted, an individual's odds vary widely based on which part of the US they live in and their ethnicity, which is less the case in Australia or Canada.

I would say it was a rare experience, except when my daughter spiked a temperature to 104 in Melbourne, she refused to go to the hospital for any treatment due to the dismal experience she had previously. I was very thankful that the US University intervened and found a private clinic to see her. Too bad I didn't call the University when she sprained her ankle.

It is horrible that minorities have differences in survival and maximal effort needs to be employed, I don't believe that insurance is the sole reason for this though.

As far as pursuing a legal case, the time and effort for little gain is not worth it. My insurance covered the operation, the recovery, the rehab, and equipment and this was with the most basic HMO plan. I have to say my experience with even the most basic plan has been positive.

[lamazeteacher]

i think a single payer system is really the only way to go at this point.

that seems best to me too, but the conservative side of the aisles don't want a "public" system, and their dissent dooms that program.

i don't see any seniors rescinding their medicare benefits for private insurance! but they don't seem to want young people to have decent access to health care.

we seniors have had deductions from our paychecks since day 1 of our employment, with the promise that it would be recouped if we needed that later in life (and death). it's not that we don't want younger working people to have this type of coverage - but, those who block it, have allegiance to current health care insurance companies, many of which exert unfair policies and very high premiums which have slurped over faulty financial boundaries to employees, without adequate explanation.

shouldn't we make sure our young adults and middle adults are able to have access to health care without having their insurance canceled when they get sick and need to use it? after all, they're the ones who are still working. but i think we can forget anything but a gutted public option that nobody who is employed will have access to - unless their employers don't provide insurance. and if your employer provides a crappy policy, well, that is what you have to settle for.

that isn't necessarily so. unions sharpen their teeth on employers that underinsure employees. however the employees have to back the opposition to employers' choice of health care coverage based on the cheapest available. when i found out that my employer offered a policy that capped yearly at $1350./year, for employee paid premium of $325/month, i complained plenty. no one had asked about the cap until i did. no wonder nurses, in a traditional workforce heavy with women who haven't the gumption to challenge their employers, have been treated as voiceless and powerless.

to me, this is not choice. this is only maintaining the status quo ( as if they could, with rising costs) and making sure big insurance and big pharma is in the loop and their place at the feeding trough is maintained (by tossing more good money after bad). i am unimpressed with the so-called reform on the table as it is. we deserve better than the rabbit turds they are attempting to feed us and pass off as raisins.

then shout that so loud and to as many people as you can! however i don't mean namecalling and rude declarations, but steady, repetative statements to our government representatives including stories of poor treatment as a result of current policies. call out those pharmaceutical companies for the crooks they are! their research isn't funded by them, yet they say it is, while spending tax payers' money on it, through grants obtained from lobbying the government and charitable foundations. then they have the chutzpah to overcharge for new drugs, while deducting research costs (already covered), from their taxes. they're as bad as banks for lying and duplicity!

the reform on the table is necessarily watered down as no reform will happen unless the partisan members of the sentae and congress are appeased. write your representatives as soon as possible to indicate that you favor health care reform. getting a toe in the door will make more reforms possible later and eventually we'll get something with which we can all live better, healthier lives. currently the "public option" will be provided only for the uninsured, to molify insurance companies........

[ghillbert, MSN, NP]

I would say it was a rare experience, except when my daughter spiked a temperature to 104 in Melbourne, she refused to go to the hospital for any treatment due to the dismal experience she had previously. I was very thankful that the US University intervened and found a private clinic to see her. Too bad I didn't call the University when she sprained her ankle.

It is horrible that minorities have differences in survival and maximal effort needs to be employed, I don't believe that insurance is the sole reason for this though.

As far as pursuing a legal case, the time and effort for little gain is not worth it. My insurance covered the operation, the recovery, the rehab, and equipment and this was with the most basic HMO plan. I have to say my experience with even the most basic plan has been positive.

Does anyone go to the hospital for a fever?

What exactly happened about the ankle? Why wasn't she seen? It sounds a little off that you're going by "The Lancet" for cancer stats, but using personal experience to make your decision about Australian healthcare.