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??

[MaritesaRN]

Thank you Lamaze !!!! Hit it right on target!!!!! Tony .....you sound like you worked for those almighty expensive insurance , and a toy dog for the republicans! What do you think we are doing now??? We are already paying taxes, but God knows where it is going. President Obama is not a "socialist" ( this has to be a gimmick for the opposing parties and greedy self interests entities) .

Wake up!!! Do you know how many people are not getting any medical care because they can not afford it? Old people , young children ( yes there is medicaid for this , but why should the government be burdened alone w/ this and private insurance companies only share the profit???? )

Everyone should share the profit as well as losses......only then can we have a balance. If I have to make a choice of socialism to get healthcare for all, and regulate the greedy corporates ( have you not heard of Enron , AIG to mention a few of the greeds, that put us where we are now economically?????

Please people, lsiten and be aware what is really going on . There is a big fight going on now, more than ever because the greedy ones are protecting their ever non stop flow of money................at the expense of the American people. We need to get back on track and take care of health reform as a priority, then getting more regs out there to prevent more of the greed that we all saw a few years back and put us in a sorry economic state right now.

[Ginger's Mom, MSN, RN]

Thank you Lamaze !!!! Hit it right on target!!!!! Tony .....you sound like you worked for those almighty expensive insurance , and a toy dog for the republicans! What do you think we are doing now??? We are already paying taxes, but God knows where it is going. President Obama is not a "socialist" ( this has to be a gimmick for the opposing parties and greedy self interests entities) .

Wake up!!! Do you know how many people are not getting any medical care because they can not afford it? Old people , young children ( yes there is medicaid for this , but why should the government be burdened alone w/ this and private insurance companies only share the profit???? )

Everyone should share the profit as well as losses......only then can we have a balance. If I have to make a choice of socialism to get healthcare for all, and regulate the greedy corporates ( have you not heard of Enron , AIG to mention a few of the greeds, that put us where we are now economically?????

Please people, lsiten and be aware what is really going on . There is a big fight going on now, more than ever because the greedy ones are protecting their ever non stop flow of money................at the expense of the American people. We need to get back on track and take care of health reform as a priority, then getting more regs out there to prevent more of the greed that we all saw a few years back and put us in a sorry economic state right now.

My concern is that the government is trying to control healthcare. Have your tried to communicate with Medicare or Medicaid agencies? My experience both professionally and personally is that they are harder than any insurance company and do not bend,

Should insurance companies make massive profits and deny care- of course not.

Should reform happen - absolutely!

Should people share in the profits- there should not been any profits, people should only get paid a reasonable wage.

Should the Federal Government control health care 100% - no way.

[talaxandra]

Nursetony, I doubt anyone (or at least anyone posting here) believes that universal health care is free. It obviously needs to be funded somehow, and you're quite right that the method is through taxation. In Australia the taxation for public health care is explicit: a 1% levy based on taxable income, with an additional 1.5% for those earning over AUD$50,000 who don't have private health insurance.

I choose not to have private health insurance because I support the public system and am happy to contribute more to it. Should I change my mind and take out health insurance later I'll have to pay higher premiums: 2% more for each year I don't join over the age of 30 (ie if I join age 35 I pay 10% more than someone joining at age 29, if I join at age 45 I incur a 30% penalty). At no stage, provided I earn over the safety net, is my health care 'free' but my cost is the same regardless of my health care needs.

I may pay more in tax than the average US nurse, but I don't have to pay anything like the figures I see here for health insurance. Even with my age-related penalty, I can get premium cover (including obstetric sevices, IVF, dialysis, joint replacement surgery, plastic and reconstructive surgery and a 0-$250 excess) for $2,430 per year; less the 30% government rebate that's $1,701. (www.iselect.com.au). I think I'm better off, and with salary packaging (available to public health employees) I only pay around 17% tax although I earn in the second highest tax bracket.

Food for thought for all thread readers:

Only US members use the term "socialized medicine" - everywhere else (ie the countries that have it) uses "universal health care." On another thread a member said that it's a synonym, not an ideology. I disagree.

The use of words to carry a whole lot of baggage that flies under the radar only works if the people using them don't have their attention drawn to it or think about it. The US is the only Western country that doesn't have a universal health care system; it does have a strong health care special interest lobby, a very strong anti-communist history, and a uniting ideology of independence and minimalist government involvement.

The word 'socialized' imbeds the idea that universal health care is linked to socialist ideals, and therefore hooks into fears and concerns linked to the these last two elements, and is fed by the first.

It may be framed as a synonym, but how often is used exclusively in discussions about universal health care and/or health care reform? How often do people use the two interchangably? How often do you say 'universal health care' instead of 'socialized medicine'? Just something to think about.

[MaritesaRN]

You sure hit it right on target. I have a theory as to who started the "socialist" terminology. Of course the opposing parties and entities are using all kinds of tactics to prevent health reform. The government part of the health reform is truly to help promote a Universal health , but the greed and the excessive capitalist is fighting this. I can not beleive that some people still do not see this.

[lamazeteacher]

my concern is that the government is trying to control healthcare. have your tried to communicate with medicare or medicaid agencies? my experience both professionally and personally is that they are harder than any insurance company and do not bend,

the government will not have programs such as medicaid, medical, or medicare, once the reform of health care bill passes! so everyone will rely on the agency they decide to have. employed persons will have the same choices, with lower premiums, so employers may take care of that (their choice, which will be made based on their ability to retain workers). it could be that lower premiums will yield fewer office personnel with less education, to deal with individual needs. that could be a stumbling block, unless frequent complaints about service motivate employers to look for other insurance coverage. that means that competition will ensure service.

medicare and medicaid answer to the department of human and health servies; and we need to be squeaky wheels when inadequate service occurs. there's a sense of defeatism now, which comes in handy for those who oppose the reform of health care, yet they are invariably the people who set up the bureauocracy in the first place. remember that those agencies are in place to serve the public, according to set rules. know those rules!

when (note that i didn't write "if") the rules are applied unjustly, you need to see the supervisor of the employee who did that, and if success is bnot met there, make an appointment to see your government representatives.

should insurance companies make massive profits and deny care- of course not. the reform of health care includes diminishment of profits for those companies, who will have to find their fortunes elsewhere.

should reform happen - absolutely! ditto!!

should people share in the profits- there should not been any profits, people should only get paid a reasonable wage. the way things are set up now, most hospitals proclaim that they are "nonprofit", and when (not if) there is excessive income, it is divvied up by administrators, for themselves, which makes it look like there isn't a profit, on the books. audit, please!!

should the federal government control health care 100% - no way.

the federal and state governments "control" what money they are budgeted to spend. the department of health and human services is a resource that applies standards and ethics to the provision of health care, and it is headed by highly educated and experienced personnel who were appointed by the president. their local hirees are selected according to their education, experience and reliability, too. doctors who will be hired to provide health care, must practice according to their profession's standards and ethics; and will be paid less than they compensated themselves formerly, which will help them stay focused on patient care, rather than on the money they receive, as they do now.

since workloads need to be balanced, if they tick patients off, with subsequent requests to see other doctors, they won't be well regarded team members, and could be seen as "dead wood", so good patient doctor communication will be encouraged...... having balanced workloads means that they'll no longer work as if time dictates replies to questions, and they'll want to keep their patients, a skill that isn't in evidence now.

the emphasis other countries with universal healthcare have, is on getting as much "bang" from the bucks directed to them from taxation (most of which will come from the very well heeled rich). no better care will be obtained in cities, than in rural areas, the opposite of conditions now. all hospitals won't be given rarely used equipment, which will be a great money saver. centralized labs will test specimens, and today's technology will allow speedy communication of results directly to doctors' computers, wherein all charts will exst. saving paper has many attributes. "virual" meetings will save time and money, to accomplish consultation and committee work.

today's mealtime meetings cost much more, and often include more socialization than business.

the opposers of universal care use scare tactics to camouflage the advantages of it, and keep the status quo

wherein turf wars are all too frequent, money grubbing (greed) too much as the forefront, and patients at the mercy of extremely high costs of care. since most people have no idea how much money is made by the economic high flyers, they haven't heard what the extra 5% tax will bring. it is an amazing amount of money that will bring everyone excellent care and moire than sufficient resources to accomplish that.

right now it's the rich moguls who glean the highest wealth, who dictate health care. which do you want?

[Ginger's Mom, MSN, RN]

Food for thought for all thread readers:

Only US members use the term "socialized medicine" - everywhere else (ie the countries that have it) uses "universal health care." On another thread a member said that it's a synonym, not an ideology. I disagree.

The use of words to carry a whole lot of baggage that flies under the radar only works if the people using them don't have their attention drawn to it or think about it. The US is the only Western country that doesn't have a universal health care system; it does have a strong health care special interest lobby, a very strong anti-communist history, and a uniting ideology of independence and minimalist government involvement.

The word 'socialized' imbeds the idea that universal health care is linked to socialist ideals, and therefore hooks into fears and concerns linked to the these last two elements, and is fed by the first.

It may be framed as a synonym, but how often is used exclusively in discussions about universal health care and/or health care reform? How often do people use the two interchangably? How often do you say 'universal health care' instead of 'socialized medicine'? Just something to think about.

I live in a state where Universal Health Care is the law. I am happy with the current system although we are Number One in health care costs. I would not oppose a "Universal Health Care System" if it was based on my home state.

[lamazeteacher]

I live in a state where Universal Health Care is the law. I am happy with the current system although we are Number One in health care costs. I would not oppose a "Universal Health Care System" if it was based on my home state.

That's because, in your zeal to have your medical bills covered, you chose an expensive plan that covers medical costs at the level they are now, for the most part. Once the reform bill is through, there will be considerably lower amounts paid those whose monumental greed will go down in history as the greatest malalignment of goals, ever accepted by society.

Your state even elected someone who opposes your best interests, to take Ted Kennedy's seat in the Senate! Epic "I've got mine, Jack" thinking - or was it knee jerk "Look what I've got!"?

[nursetony9]

Do you think I don't realize that current issues people are facing regarding their healthcare. I do...I'm a nurse. First of all President Obama taught Marxism at Harvard and he believed in "Karl Marx." All signs point to him being a Socialist. Second, this is America. Do you not know where you live? It is Unconstitutional for the government to require people to buy federally qualified healthcare. I believe HEAVILY in the founations of this country. Lastly, I am NOT comfortable with the fact, that the government is IN CHARGE of my healthcare. The fact that the Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and the United States Postal Service are all failing. Clearly, if they cannot effectively run these Systems, what makes you think they can manage the Healthcare of over 200 million people?

If you are so Gung Ho over socialism....move to France.

There is nothing you can do about GREED. It is in peoples nature to be greedy. Maybe not everyones nature, but as long as there are Human beings alive on this planet...that'll never change.

[talaxandra]

Do you think I don't realize that current issues people are facing regarding their healthcare. I do...I'm a nurse. First of all President Obama taught Marxism at Harvard and he believed in "Karl Marx." All signs point to him being a Socialist. Second, this is America. Do you not know where you live? It is Unconstitutional for the government to require people to buy federally qualified healthcare. I believe HEAVILY in the founations of this country. Lastly, I am NOT comfortable with the fact, that the government is IN CHARGE of my healthcare. The fact that the Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and the United States Postal Service are all failing. Clearly, if they cannot effectively run these Systems, what makes you think they can manage the Healthcare of over 200 million people?

If you are so Gung Ho over socialism....move to France.

There is nothing you can do about GREED. It is in peoples nature to be greedy. Maybe not everyones nature, but as long as there are Human beings alive on this planet...that'll never change.

I'm not sure who the "you" being addressed here is, so I'm going to respond as though this post is directed at me. I found this a quite disjointed post, with a number of unsupported statements that didn't seem to link together, so...

I don't know anything about Obama's academic history, but I do know that lecturers have only some say in the curriculum content of their courses. For example, I taught the ethics of Paul Singer at the University of Melbourne; I appreciate his arguments and agree with some of his positions, but I'm not a vegetarian, I don't have hardline beliefs about allocation of health care resources, and I don't advocate euthanasia. I taught it because it was part of the curriculum, and because his place in contemporary health ethics is central - without addressing his contribution students would have an incomplete and inaccurate picture of current debates in the field.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'believed in "Karl Marx"' or where this comes from (source?) - I believe that Karl Marx (his name, so there's no need to wrap quotation marks around it) existed, so to that degree I believe in Karl Marx, but I know nothing about Marxian theory. Is this one of the "all signs" that point to him being a socialist? Because so far the evidence you've cited is flimsier than Senator McCarthy's 'evidence' that prominent Americans were communists.

Like many members of AN, I'm not American, so I don't need to move to France (which has socialist political parties, but has also seen some of the strongest far-right growth in Europe over the last decade). I don't know enough about the US constitution to have any kind of in-depth discussion about legal restrictions, so I can't have a discussion about that, but there aren't any amendments I could see forbidding federally funded health care.

In Australia we have a large number of state- and federal-government funded services, from public education to public housing, urban fire brigades, the police services, the postal service, public libraries, two broadcasters (the ABC and, partially, the multicultural broadcaster SBS), and even lifeguards on Bondi. None of them are falling apart or failing, though there's always debate about how well they perform and how strongly they're funded. This is because the people have a say in how their money's used. Private organisations are only accountable to their shareholders, which is why private insurance agencies are able to deny services to their customers - their loyalty and accountability isn't to the group they serve but to the people who profit. If one's only choice is one of a similar group of profit-driven organisations, they have little incentive to change their practices.

Finally, I'm not sure how the section on greed fits in. Who is it who's greedy? How is that relevant to the discussion about health care?

[Ginger's Mom, MSN, RN]

http://www.teapartypatriots.org/

There is a movement in the US called the Teaparty. This organization believes, Mr Obama's agenda is income redistribution.

Under Mr Obama, there have been several unsuccessful federal programs, one being Cash for Clunkers, the H1N1 flu vaccine, and the Federal Stimulus Program. This leaving some Americans concerned about how the government would manage a large health program. Unfortunately in the US you can't remove politics from healthcare.

[MaritesaRN]

It is unfortunate that Pres. Obama came into the office w/ excessive deficits already, that the previous ( Bush) administration left . So he is stuck w/ all this ongoing stimuli to keep the economy in some movement in a forward motion.

I can not help but think as to where the economy is right now .........if there were no stimuli for the banks and the auto company? Maybe these big corporates should fall flat on their face ????? but what is the domino effect, if the whitehouse did not do this? I am sure a big disaster, otherwise they will not do it.

and now for the health reform...........this needs to be done now or we are going to see hx repeat itself through the insurance and excessive health premiums.....not to mention a majority of the people will be utilizing Medicaid to the hilt because this is the only way a majority can get some form of health care and eventually this can bankrupt Medicaid as well. Private insurance should work w/ the public option and help distribute the loss and the profit as evenly as it can . Otherwise, the way things are right now is this; the government alone shoulders the Medicaid, and the private insurance only handles the profit. what is wrong w/ this picture????

The only way we can bring the private insurance down to it's knees is through a public option !!!! The bi partisan system , obviously is not working , and they can not make up their minds or the other party using a delay tactics, and they hopefully wish it will go away again. and for the meantime we have countless Americans not getting the care they need to have because they can not afford healthcare!

So you would think that we ALL should start thinking of Universal and start acting towards it, but I am still confused why some do not see this?

[MaritesaRN]

Kudos for you ladies ! Thank you Talaxandra for a well delivered explanation to a lot of things. It is sad that just because some branches of our government is inefficient, people are afraid of the term "government run health care", and I am sure that this unfortunate fact is being used by the opposition to further derail the health reform.

I am sure that this area will definitely need to be modified and revised to accomodate the changes if governrment needs to be efficient.............but I will take this chances than be at the mercy of extremely high premiums by insurance companies. I have an HMO and I still have to pay a certain amount for inpatient bed.........this used to be 100% payable if you go into their network of providers and facilities.........now you have to pay? I guess this is part of sharing the fees from your employer. Now you have heard one of the insurance companies that wants to hike their premiums, right? Well, this is just the beginning. Tony , you need to read more and pay attention more, bury the tactic of using socialism to mess up people's head. Maybe it will help if you read more on this subjects and the countries, and hopefully , you will be educated on matters such as this. do not look at the label , see the contents and ingredients . !

there are always the pros and the cons ---only then can you make a better opinion.