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??

[Saúde]

Hello. In my opinion the reason why Americans have such a strong distaste for Federal Government funded health care is not because they are greedy or selfish. It's difficult for me to see the logic in blaming insurance companies and physicians just because they make more money than you. Heck, business is business. The bottom line and profitability is what counts in business.

No, the real reason why Americans have such a strong distaste for government funded health care is because it flies in the face of our countries roots and foundations.

Beings many of you are from different countries I know you may find this extremely boring. But in my opinion it's vitally important to understand since most of the threads either overtly or inadvertently express America as the focus of this thread.

America, as originally intended to be, consisted of a bunch of independent and self sufficient states. These states had total sovereignty over their laws, religions, culture, and way of life, unless otherwise specified within the Constitution. For example, New York didn't really care much if Massachusetts had a State established Christian Puritan religion because it was a sovereign state, independent from New York. Who was New York to tell Massachusetts how to run their state? The states were joined together as a country for purposes of protecting the liberties and sovereignty that each enjoyed collectively within their states. This sovereignty has incrementally through the years eroded to the point where today states think they are now cities and the country now thinks it's a state. Many Americans abhor the idea of government funded health care because it flies in the face of the roots and foundations of our country. Whether your talking about business, health care, religion, family, culture, or laws, many Americans still believe in our roots and foundations. This is also the reason why many Americans are so distrusting of and disgusted with our government. Because there is such a sharp contrasts between our roots and foundations and the contradiction we currently see from our governmental systems. Our Federal and State Constitutions were never intended to entwine, but to be separate. I hope this gives some a new perspective to the reasons why many vigorously oppose Federal Government funded health care. Take care.

[dlatimer]

This is from an article by Micheal Kristof, NYT.

Diane Tucker, 59, is an American lawyer who moved to Vancouver, Canada, in 2006. Like everyone else there, she now pays the equivalent of just $49 a month for health care.

Then one day two years ago, Ms. Tucker was working on her office computer when she noticed that she was having trouble typing with her right hand.

"I realized my hand was numb, so I tried to stand up to shake it out," she remembered. "But I had trouble standing."

A colleague called 911, and an ambulance rushed her to the nearest hospital.

"An emergency room doctor met me at the door, and they took me straight upstairs to the CT scan," she recalled. A neurologist explained that she had suffered a stroke.

Ms. Tucker spent a week at the hospital. "The doctors were great, although there were also a couple of jerks," she said. "The nursing staff was wonderful."

Still, there were two patients to a room, and conditions weren't as opulent as at some American hospitals. "The food was horrible," she said.

Then again, the price was right. "They never spoke to me about money," she said. "Not when I checked in, and not when I left."

Scaremongers emphasize the waits for specialists in Canada, and there's some truth to the stories. After the stroke, Ms. Tucker needed to make a routine appointment with a neurologist and an ophthalmologist to see if she should drive again. Initially, those appointments would have meant a two- or three-month wait, although in the end she managed to arrange them more quickly.

Ms. Tucker underwent three months of rehabilitation, including physical therapy several times a week. Again there was no charge, no co-payment.

Then, last year, Ms. Tucker fainted while on a visit to San Francisco, and an ambulance rushed her to the nearest hospital. But this was in the United States, so the person meeting her at the emergency room door wasn't a doctor.

"The first person I saw was a lady with a computer," she said, "asking me how I intended to pay the bill." Ms. Tucker did, in fact, have insurance, but she was told she would have to pay herself and seek reimbursement.

Nothing was seriously wrong, and the hospital discharged her after five hours. The bill came to $8,789.29.

Ms. Tucker has since lost her job in the recession, but she says she's stuck in Canada-because if she goes back to the United States, she will pay a fortune for private health insurance because of her history of a stroke. "I'm trying to find another job here," she said. "I want to stay here because of medical insurance."

Another advantage of the Canadian system, she says, is that it emphasizes preventive care. When a friend was diagnosed as being pre-diabetic, he was put in a free two-year program emphasizing an improved diet and lifestyle-and he emerged as no longer being prone to diabetes.

If Ms. Tucker's story surprises you, you should know that Mr. Scott's public relations initiative against health reform is led by the same firm that orchestrated the "Swift boat campaign" against Senator John Kerry in 2004. These commercials are just as false, for President Obama is not proposing government-run health care-just a public insurance element in the mix.

No doubt there are some genuine horror stories in Canada, as there are here in the United States.

But the bottom line is that America's health care system spends nearly twice as much per person as Canada's (building the wealth of hospital tycoons like Mr. Scott). Yet our infant mortality rate is 40 percent higher than Canada's, and American mothers are 57 percent more likely to die in childbirth than Canadian ones.

[elkpark]

I hope this gives some a new perspective to the reasons why many vigorously oppose Federal Government funded health care. Take care.

"Many" may be opposed, but certainly not a majority -- below are just a few citations (many, many more are available with a simple Google search) showing recent polls that indicate that a hearty majority of US citizens support a single-payor government system. For the first time in the decades of US debate on this topic, even a majority of US physicians support a single-payor system.

http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Poll-Excludes-Single-Payer-by-Jerry-Policoff-090312-353.html

http://blog.sustainablemiddleclass.com/?p=1105

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_doctors_revolt

[Saúde]

"Many" may be opposed, but certainly not a majority -- below are just a few citations (many, many more are available with a simple Google search) showing recent polls that indicate that a hearty majority of US citizens support a single-payor government system. For the first time in the decades of US debate on this topic, even a majority of US physicians support a single-payor system.

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.

[lamazeteacher]

"it's always amazing to me how many of you distrust your government. i'm not saying it's without cause - i don't know enough about how things work there. it's just such a strong contract with australian attitudes toward our elected officials, which is more benign." quote from

gee, i wonder why there's a tendency to distrust american politicians......

if you had any doubts that there are problems in the ethics of our elected representatives, especially about biased health care decisions, look below at this news flash.

this explains it pretty well, i think!

[color=#4485be]

[color=#4485be]

key health care senators have industry ties

by larry margasak and sharon theimer, associated press writers larry margasak and sharon theimer, associated press writers 2 hrs 56 mins ago

washington - influential senators working to overhaul the nation's health care system have investments and family ties with some of the biggest names in the industry. the wife of sen. chris dodd, the lawmaker in charge of writing the senate's bill, sits on the boards of four health care companies.

members of both parties have industry connections, including democrats jay rockefeller and tom harkin, in addition to dodd, and republicans tom coburn, judd gregg, john kyl and orrin hatch, financial reports showed friday. .

jackie clegg dodd, wife of the connecticut democrat, is on the boards of javelin pharmaceuticals inc., cardiome pharma corp., brookdale senior living and pear tree pharmaceuticals.

dodd is filling in for ailing sen. edward kennedy, d-mass., chairman of the health, education, labor and pensions committee, which will soon start work on a health care bill.

other publicly available documents show mrs. dodd last year was one of the most highly compensated non-employee members of the javelin pharmaceuticals inc. board, on which she has served since 2004. she earned $32,000 in fees and $109,587 in stock option awards last year, according to the company's sec filings.

mrs. dodd earned $79,063 in fees from cardiome in its last fiscal year, while brookdale senior living gave her $122,231 in stock awards in 2008, their sec filings show. she earned no income from her post as a director for pear tree pharmaceuticals but holds up to $15,000 in stock in pear tree, which describes itself as a development-stage pharmaceutical company focused on the needs of aging women.

the annual financial disclosure reports for members of congress are less precise. they only require that assets and liabilities be listed in ranges of values.

dodd sought a 90-day extension to file his report covering last year, giving him until mid-august to submit his report, but released his report friday to the associated press.

bryan deangelis, dodd's spokesman, said, "jackie clegg dodd's career is her own; absolutely independent of senator dodd, as it was when they married 10 years ago. the senator has worked to reform our health care system for decades, and nothing about his wife's career is relevant at all to his leadership of that effort." if anyone believes that, there's a bridge in alaska you might want to buy......

deangelis said that mrs. dodd has hired a personal ethics lawyer to avoid any conflicts of interest and is not a lobbyist.

other reports showed:

* rockefeller, d-w.va., reported $15,001 to $50,000 in capital gains for his wife from the sale of a stake in athenahealth inc., a business services company that helps medical providers with billing and clinical operations.

rockefeller is honorary chairman of the alliance for health reform, a washington nonprofit whose board includes representatives from the unitedhealth group health insurance company; afl-cio labor union; the aarp, which sells health insurance; st. john health, a nonprofit health system that includes seven hospitals and 125 medical facilities in southeast michigan; cigna corp., an employer-sponsored benefits company; and the united hospital fund of new york.

* coburn, r-okla., is a practicing physician. he reported slight business income, $268, from the muskogee allergy clinic last year; $3,000 to $45,000 in stock in affymetrix inc., a biotechnology company and pioneer in genetic analysis; $1,000 to $15,000 in stock in pfizer inc., a pharmaceutical company; and a $1,000 to $15,000 interest in thomas a. coburn, md, inc.

under senate ethics rules, coburn can't accept money from his patients. he doesn't need to!

* gregg, r-n.h., disclosed $250,001 to $500,000 in drug maker bristol-myers squibb co. stock and $1,000 to $15,000 each in stock in pharmaceutical companies merck & co. and pfizer, the johnson & johnson health care products company and agilent technologies, which is involved in the biomedical industry.

* kyl, r-ariz., the senate minority whip, reported $15,001 to $50,000 in stock in amgen inc., which develops medical therapeutics. kyl's retirement account held stakes in several health care businesses, including the wyeth, bristol-myers squibb, glaxosmithkline, pfizer and astrazeneca pharmaceutical companies; medical provider tenet healthcare corp.; cvs caremark prescription and health services company; genentech, a biotherapeutics manufacturer; and insurer metlife inc. there's the connection between health insurance and pharmaceutical companies!

* harkin, d-iowa, has a joint ownership stake in health-related stocks. harkin and his wife, ruth raduenz, own shares of drug makers amgen and genentech, inc., each stake valued at $1,001 to $15,000; their largest health care holding, johnson & johnson, was valued at $50,001 to $100,000.

* hatch, r-utah, a member of the finance and health committees, reported owning between $1,001 and $15,000 worth of stock in drug maker pfizer inc. he spoke to two pharmaceutical industry conferences last year. sponsors of the conferences donated $3,500 to charities instead of speaking fees, as required by senate rules.

like millions of americans, several senators took a financial hit in 2008. a sampling:

_sen. dick durbin, d-ill., lost some $100,000 in equity in his home in springfield and $35,000 in his chicago condominium. durbin, who released his tax returns, reported losing $32,259 in various investments last year, including more than $10,400 in berkshire hathaway and $5,535 in fidelity stock.

_kennedy in 2007 had four trusts each valued between $5,000,001-$25 million. in 2008, only one trust was still in that category while the rest had slipped in value to $1,000,001-$5 million.

_hatch's investments suffered from the banking crisis. in 2007, he reported assets of between $2,002 and $30,000 in countrywide credit industries inc. stock. his 2008 financial disclosure lists the value at less than $1,000.

one of dodd's investments showed a vast improvement.

a new appraisal more than doubled the value of his vacation cottage in ireland, which has been subject of a senate ethics complaint filed by a conservative group questioning if the undervalued property was really a gift.

the property is valued at 470,000 euros, or about $660,000, on dodd's disclosure report.

the previous year's report valued the seaside home, located in county galway, at between $100,001 and $250,000. deangelis, the spokesman, said dodd and his wife decided to have the property appraised because they felt it was time to update the information.

copyright © 2009 yahoo! inc. all rights reserved.

no wonder barack obama's having to change the changes he sought to make to revise our health care system!

[lamazeteacher]

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.

- which is anecdotal and therefore not reflective of the "real world".

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.

physicians and nurses are very concerned about their earning levels, if government took over from insurance companies, their massive resources (which in the transition could be taken by their executives). to me, that indicates where their goals are - in their wallets. never mind the ability to prevent, treat, and heal disease! i find that priority as stunning as the stated goals of hospitals where i worked when i came to the usa from canada in the early '60s. looking at the extremely expensive cars in the doctors' parking lots was a revelation.

stanford medical center, in ca was the first place i worked, and i was incredulous to see that "research" took priority over any other goal. i worked in what was then called "the premature research center". couldn't wait to get out of there! the next large hospital where i worked a few years later, ucla, had "education" (not for patients) as their first goal. only private hospitals gave "patient care" as their priority, yet by that time jaded communities knew that was a synonym for profit (especially when they claim heartily to be non profit). all one had to do was estimate the price tag of executives' furniture to know what was important.......that is certainly evident in the three high rise blue cross buildings in richmond, va!

i certainly don't envy their luxuries, as i've had the financial trappings of wealth (through marriage, not my nurses' earnings). my neighborhood while i was married contained many doctors' homes and the conversations with them, sickened me. i felt like a misfit among the materialistic banter, which of course was repeated by our children, many of whom were the targets of drug dealers. it wasn't a picnic, believe me. there is less happiness (really!)

among the wealthy, than the less wealthy people who laugh rather than cry!

what is it here, that has left the heart/caring out of medical and nursing care?

[Vito Andolini]

One thing to consider is that the UK and Canada is not the USA. You are comparing apples to oranges. In the USA our taxes would fly through the roof unless we stopped spending massive amounts of money in other areas. (Which I favor) Health care in the USA costs more because we provide more. Medicines in the USA cost more because we invent them. One thing I never hear people talking about is COMPETITION!! It seems people have an attitude that says, well our health care system is not working now so lets give up and try socialism. THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE TAKEN THE CUSTOMER (THE PATIENT) OUT OF THE PAYMENT FOR HEALTH CARE PICTURE AND REPLACED THEM WITH A THIRD PARTY THAT DOES NOT HOLD THE SELLER ACCOUNTABLE FOR PRICES THEY CHARGE. End of story! USA should be providing it's citizens with one thing and that is the freedom to provide for themselves. WE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO HEALTH CARE WHEN IT'S GIVEN ON THE BACKS OF OTHERS! In as little as 100 years we have all forgotten that. Shameful!

The hemophiliac mentioned earlier - how is he, a young man not yet established in a high-paying job, supposed to fend for himself when his parents' coverage of him ends soon? Does he give up his right to live when he reaches 25? What if he never does find a good-paying job with good group coverage?

I used to admire the wild and woolly west, the pioneer spirit, the self-reliance of Americans. Then my eyes were opened to land grants. Some got them and some did not. I learned about the true reasons behind so many of our wars - $. And learned how innocent men were slaughtered, families devasated. I could go on and on about Enron, Watergate, Tamany Hall, many other barbarities of the rich and powerful against the poor and weak. Theer's a time to admire self-reliance and a time to realize that, no matter how self-reliant one is, one is up against dark forced of evil who are intent upon him failing when his money ran out.

We have to level the playing fie;ld and get health care to all who need and want it.

[lamazeteacher]

We elect our officials and therefore (if the electing system is not fraudulent) we get what we deserve. We are all responsible for our own society.

The same as in Iran, eh?

[MaritesaRN]

The hemophiliac mentioned earlier - how is he, a young man not yet established in a high-paying job, supposed to fend for himself when his parents' coverage of him ends soon? Does he give up his right to live when he reaches 25? What if he never does find a good-paying job with good group coverage?

I used to admire the wild and woolly west, the pioneer spirit, the self-reliance of Americans. Then my eyes were opened to land grants. Some got them and some did not. I learned about the true reasons behind so many of our wars - $. And learned how innocent men were slaughtered, families devasated. I could go on and on about Enron, Watergate, Tamany Hall, many other barbarities of the rich and powerful against the poor and weak. Theer's a time to admire self-reliance and a time to realize that, no matter how self-reliant one is, one is up against dark forced of evil who are intent upon him failing when his money ran out.

We have to level the playing fie;ld and get health care to all who need and want it.

Apples and oranges indeed.

• The new health care plan is not SOCIALISM. With a competing government for health care, the private insurance company can not dictate their price anymore, since there is now a competetion ....if the government health is cheaper, then the private insurance company will have to compete and go low w/ their pricing. I can understand the fear of the "gov't management " just by looking back into the past...... but some of the branches of the government are under a microscope, and looked at very closely, to eliminate waste and dysfunctions. Our health insurance is built under a profiteering bunch of organizations that spends money to lobby for their own interest of more profit, and nothing is enough and the greed can not be satisfied. all you have to do is to look at our woes in the fiinancial sector ----- they will bankrupt the cash cow ( tax payers) until dry. So the Obama administration is trying to fix some of this . Let us not argue , let us support him and the present administration. My own eyes and ears tell me that they are doing and walking the talk. so let us do our share by listening closely and not be intimidated by our own fears. Of course it may not be a perfect plan , but the current one is not working...so what would you do? Unless you are one of those rich families who can pay the astrocious medical bills.
  

[MaritesaRN]

The hemophiliac mentioned earlier - how is he, a young man not yet established in a high-paying job, supposed to fend for himself when his parents' coverage of him ends soon? Does he give up his right to live when he reaches 25? What if he never does find a good-paying job with good group coverage?

I used to admire the wild and woolly west, the pioneer spirit, the self-reliance of Americans. Then my eyes were opened to land grants. Some got them and some did not. I learned about the true reasons behind so many of our wars - $. And learned how innocent men were slaughtered, families devasated. I could go on and on about Enron, Watergate, Tamany Hall, many other barbarities of the rich and powerful against the poor and weak. Theer's a time to admire self-reliance and a time to realize that, no matter how self-reliant one is, one is up against dark forced of evil who are intent upon him failing when his money ran out.

We have to level the playing fie;ld and get health care to all who need and want it.

:yeah:Yes, I could not agree more. A lot of nations such as Canada, UK, France, and even Cubans have cheaper meds. Holland have a thing w/ their seniors , that they do not have to worry about being homeless or hungry. They put in money when they were working , and when they retire they know that money is there for them.

So what is our problem? Why are we so scared of this? We need to be scared that if this current health care we have persists, there will be more people that will not have any care becaseu they can not afford it , therefore they go to the emergency room, more costly etc. So what is the fear?

We need the proposed current program for health care now......or this will be another AIG !!!!

[Saúde]

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

[MaritesaRN]

I think they mean that as a citizen of a country, your government should be able to provide health care for you , whether you have money to pay or not. It should be a privilege , a right or a benefit?