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.
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.
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.
Whether or not the programs you name have been "unsuccessful" is entirely a matter of opinion (or political agenda ...). There are plenty of knowledgeable people who argue that the Cash for Clunkers and stimulus program have been v. successful at accomplishing what they were intended to accomplish.
Specializes in psychiatric, UR analyst, fraud, DME,MedB.
i think it will help to get the answer straight from the presidents mouth. i am quoting from the whitehouse.gov.......... but better yet go there and listen to the presidents video as to what the health care reform means ..........this way you bypass hearsays and get the real issues.
"
[color=#333333]democrats and republicans agree -- the health care status quo isn't working for the american people.
[color=#333333]health insurance is growing more and more expensive by the day. too many of us can't afford it -- not middle class families, not businesses, not the federal government. insurance companies have too much control over health care decisions that should be left between a patient and their doctor. they freely ration care based on who's sick and who's healthy; who can pay and who can't.
[color=#333333]on both sides of the aisle, we all agree that if we do nothing, the problem will just get worse. now, after a long and wrenching debate, it's time to make a decision. yesterday, president obama called on the united states congress to cast a final up or down vote on health insurance reform in the coming weeks and pledged to fight for it every day until that happens.
[color=#333333]watch what the president said yesterday and learn more about what's at stake:
[color=#333333]the president's final plan for health insurance reform puts control of health care where it belongs -- in the hands of american families and small businesses, not health insurance companies or government.
[color=#333333]his proposal takes the best republican and democratic ideas and changes three main things about the current health care system:
it ends the worst insurance company practices and outlaws discrimination against americans with pre-existing conditions.
it reduces costs for people with insurance and makes coverage more affordable for people without it today.
it sets up a new competitive insurance marketplace where small business owners and families can shop for the insurance plan that works best for them, giving them the same buying power and insurance choices as all members of congress.
[color=#333333]we've debated the issue of health insurance reform thoroughly, not just over the past year, but over decades. it's time to make a decision about how to finally reform health care so that it works for america's families and businesses -- not just for insurance companies.
Whether or not the programs you name have been "unsuccessful" is entirely a matter of opinion (or political agenda ...). There are plenty of knowledgeable people who argue that the Cash for Clunkers and stimulus program have been v. successful at accomplishing what they were intended to accomplish.
I say potatoe you say potato but the fact is US citizens are increasingly not supporting universal health.
I apologize if I make statments that have been covered before. I am fairly new to this site and I have not had the time to read this entire thread. However, I have detected a certain pattern in this thread. Basically, if you are against universal health care then you cold hearted and mean. If you are for it then you are a parasite to society. Either way you are a minion of a certain party and stupid for buying into it. That is unfortunate because both sides have good points. In general the debate is the US needs to move away from theatrics on both sides and focus on what can feasibly be done.
Personally, I believe that all people should have access to health care. However, I think they should pay more for it. If there was more cost to the patient then that person may behave in a manner more consistent with good health. For example, my DH jsut had a sleep study for apnea. Now he has to have another one to be fitted for a CPAP. He was also told to lose 30-40 lbs to take some pressure off his neck while sleeping. We have great (expsensive but employer sponsered) coverage so we paid nothing. Not even a copay. Maybe he would have thought to lose the weight to see if that helped before the sleep study if he had to pay something for it.
I feel people would be more parsimonious overall if there was a higher cost to them. I think it has been proven that when something is provided for "free" people use more of it. They only moderate usage when they can see the cost directly. This is why governments take taxes from your pay the way they do. If you never see it you don't really think about it. It is also why places like discount stores display prices so predominately.
I concede that accidents and illness happen regardless of a person behavior but I don't think this is what drives up costs.
I am opposed to taxing the rich because they won't miss it. If all the true poor people of the world - those living in 3rd world poverty - decided to take money from a lower to middle class family in a developed country there would be hell to pay. Wealth is relative but for most people here on AN there are many below you on the economic ladder. To them someone supporting a family of 4 on $25,000 is insanely rich. Also, the rich already account for an astonishing portion of government revenue. I recently saw IRS tables that showed the top 10% of wage earners pay about 30% of taxes. The top 25% pay almost half of all taxes. I may not have those numbers exact but I was stunned at the percentage the top tier pays.
There is no way a single bill will fix the problems. I do see potential for a large and complex bill like this one to do more damage than good. How many people do you know have read it? How do we know what is really in it? It is much like the stimulous bill. I don't think anyone, even the politicians, really know. I think I would much rather take smaller approach that could be tweaked as we go. As it stands, this bill will take a nation of lawyers to implement.
The US was founded on the principle of small government. Many see this as an expansion of govenrment and cannot accept the infringement on what they consider personal freedom. I fall into this category. I am in support of health care access for all but I do not believe the federal government if the vehicle to deliver it. Congress has already proven they can't be trusted with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Post Service or the military. Massachusetts has proven that government controll will not controll costs or keep taxes down. Everyone will pay.
I believe that in the best interest of our nation everyone should move a bit more toward the center and find a way to provide health care without expanding our governement.
Specializes in psychiatric, UR analyst, fraud, DME,MedB.
True ...we need to start somewhere ..but how? the government is the strongest entity , and the only one powerful and rich enough that can fight the influential private insurance, and special interest groups! Who else is going to brave the attempt? As you can see the government is still trying to move the health reform because of all sorts of tricks and delay tactics from the opposing corporate and possibly special interests groups. Like I said before and I will repeat this again .......... the government along w/ all of us will be bankrupt in the very near future and especially in the health area because those that have not any insurance or could not afford any insurance will go and use Medicaid and this will be bankrupt so fast if this is the only way the underprivileged as well as the very poor can get a health insurance.
i will take a chance in the government refining it later on , but the private health insurance that we have now is not sustainable! If we can not understand this , then we must take our head out of the sand or you know what and start being a part of the change. I have an insurance now from my employer , and I can not even afford the 20% ---and they were all from diagnostic tests (since I am healthy) but need to do baseline test because I am 63.I never have to pay anything except the office visits and discounted pharmacy. you would think I will have a lot of "savings" because I have been healthy!!! So I assumed there must be a lot of employer sharing going on and we have to pay more to help our employer afford the health benefit.
(Dear Lord , how many times does this need to be discussed to get the picture for some people? )
I say potatoe you say potato but the fact is US citizens are increasingly not supporting universal health.
The "fact" is?? Do you have sources for that? I agree that support for the current Senate bill has dropped, but that doesn't translate into the public not supporting "universal health." It can be argued that support is dropping because, for many people, the proposal that the Senate and Obama support doesn't go far enough (that's certainly why I would say I oppose it if a pollster asked me). The final plan that has emerged from the Congress and appears poised to pass is little more than tweaking around the edges of our current system, and spending taxpayer money to provide profits to the private-for-profit insurance companies (which I vigorously oppose). There have been many polls that show that a majority of the American public supports a single-payer plan, or at least a "public option" within whatever reform model is implemented (including a large majority of US physicians):
I live in one of the most liberal states in the USA, MA. We have universal health care. Senator Scott Brown who was predicted to loose by a 10 or more percentage points 2 weeks before the election. He campaigned on health care, how he would not be the 60th vote. I have never seen an election that became so electric. Remember this was Senator Kennedy's seat, President Obama came to campaign for Coakley. Yet Senator Brown won which shocked everyone. Remember MA is often referred to the "People's Republic" due to the fact we are very socialistic.
I also note the polls I listed are current and not from one political leaning.
Once again I say Potatoe you say Potato, it is now in the hands of the politicians. I am now believing that Ms. Clinton was visionary in 1990s when she had closed door meetings, It seems like she had the right idea, behind closed doors formulate a plan then introduce it to America, now I wish she wasn't derailed.
I live in one of the most liberal states in the USA, MA. We have universal health care. Senator Scott Brown who was predicted to loose by a 10 or more percentage points 2 weeks before the election. He campaigned on health care, how he would not be the 60th vote. I have never seen an election that became so electric. Remember this was Senator Kennedy's seat, President Obama came to campaign for Coakley. Yet Senator Brown won which shocked everyone. Remember MA is often referred to the "People's Republic" due to the fact we are very socialistic.
I also note the polls I listed are current and not from one political leaning.
Once again I say Potatoe you say Potato, it is now in the hands of the politicians. I am now believing that Ms. Clinton was visionary in 1990s when she had closed door meetings, It seems like she had the right idea, behind closed doors formulate a plan then introduce it to America, now I wish she wasn't derailed.
The summary of polls you posted may indeed be more recent and the site is non-partisan, but the data there supports what I said above -- if you look at the table of what questions were asked in those polls (right beneath the chart of results), the questions all ask whether respondents support or oppose the plan presented by Obama and the Congress, not whether or not they support the idea of universal coverage, or a single payer system, or a public option, or anything like that. The questions ask v. specifically about the Obama/Congressional proposal, and there's no breakdown of whether the "oppose" respondents oppose it because they are opposed in general to the idea of universal coverage, or whether they oppose the Obama/Congressional plan because it doesn't do enough. The only reason there aren't more recent polls showing majority support for a single-payer system (or, at least, a "public option") is because single-payer was never seriously discussed and the "public option" appeared to have died last fall, so the pollsters don't even bother to ask about them any more. That doesn't mean the public's opinion has changed, just that they're not being asked the question.
Well, a lot of people here who don't know any better actually believe the inane anti-reform propoganda that has been going on for a long time here (shoot, Medicare was portrayed by some as a communist/socialist plot that was going to destroy the country when it was proposed ...)
What do you say, "goodness no, that would cost too much money, we just put them on a waiting list and they die by the time they get the transplant / dialysis"
(Oh and just in case, that was sarcasm before anyone decides that's what really happens over here)
What do you say, "goodness no, that would cost too much money, we just put them on a waiting list and they die by the time they get the transplant / dialysis"
(Oh and just in case, that was sarcasm before anyone decides that's what really happens over here)
However, unless those in other countries think all is well in the USA, with patients receiving appropriate, timely care, we all know that their diseases advance and become untreatable when they have no insurance or money to treat them earlier. Compliance in getting their medications is impossible for most, because doctors havn't become versed in their costs, prescribing very expensive drugs for those who can least afford them. the prices of them actually fluctuate daily, according to the manufactirers' standing on the stock market!
I found all that out when I was uninsured, unemployed and scratching out money by selling my antique furniture, jewelery, having garage sales, when my exhusband withdrew the spousal support awarded me by the Judge. My meds cost $1,500 /month and impoverished me!
Insurance companies here charge employers a ransom in extra premiums for coverage for employees who are over 55 years of age! That motivates employers to fire older employees (for no cause, as they acquired "at will" employment laws, to avoid blame/lawsuits for unjust firings); and hire young people whose expertise isn't that of capable older nurses.
There are an unbelievable number of suicides amomg those in "enforced" and even anticipated retirement. No relevant studies other than statistical facts have been done, as that doesn't seem as great a problem as the increased adolescent male suicides today. President Obama is holding on to his belief that mental health care needs to be covered equally as physical health care. Teenagers are more difficult to get to therapy, but oldsters might be more willing...... Occasionally s/s of depression mimic those of senility and Alzheimer's disease.
I've seen patients with wounds that are worse than any I ever saw decades ago, when working in Home Health.
Most don't get that way overnight, but when untreated, become home for every infective organism there is....
When Home Health comes in to tend those wounds, teach their care to family members as well as patients, better results occur than when patients are hospitalized. Amputations can be avoided, yet many occur among diabetics in particular, who didn't receive adequate education early enough in their disease process, due to inadequate or no insurance coverage, since DM is labelled a "preexisting condition" by insurance companies that guard their excessive wealth more than they see necessary to protect their members' lives.
Like any other consumer product, here in the most wealthy country (other than Arab oil rich countries), health care is seen as an unaffordable luxury, by most workers; and certainly by unemployed people. That has been going on since the '60s, with costs increasing more incrementally with the greed of health care providers (MDs and hospital administrators, pathology labs, etc.), pharmaceutical companies, and especially insurance companies.
WE NEED HEALTH CARE REFORM IMMEDIATELY! PLEASE BACK THAT BY INFORMING YOUR REPRESENTATIVES IN GOVERNMENT ABOUT YOUR SUPPORT OF THAT!!!! THE TIME AND NEED ARE NOW!!! THE BILL CAN BE IMPROVED AS IT GOES ALONG, AND PROBLEMS DEVELOP (AS THEY ALWAYS DO)......
)
:lol2: 
elkpark
14,633 Posts
Whether or not the programs you name have been "unsuccessful" is entirely a matter of opinion (or political agenda ...). There are plenty of knowledgeable people who argue that the Cash for Clunkers and stimulus program have been v. successful at accomplishing what they were intended to accomplish.