Socialized medicine and nurses pay...

RNin10 · Mar 2, 2009

Using my knowledge of socialized anything, I would guess that nurses pay would probably not be affected a whole lot. Doctors would be taking the loss. The whole theory of socialization is that everyone is on a more equal level. Those who make lots of money have to give that up, those who make very little will acquire what the wealthy give up. Everyone is equal then because the very rich are no longer very rich, the very poor are no longer very poor and we all have health care. In the situation you are asking about, the reason I say the doctors would be the ones to take a loss is because the government will regulate how much they can charge, and therefore how much they profit/earn. Nurses do not typically charge the way doctors do, someone else determines what they will be paid. Does that make sense?

ANnot4me · Mar 2, 2009

The term 'socialized medicine" is one that is used to frighten people into submitting to capitalized medicine and turns a humanitarian issue into a political issue. I am American and live in NZ. We have a public healthcare system as do Canada, the UK, Australia and most other developed countries. Different countries have different implementations and variations. I would say that the pay of nurses would be mostly unaffected. I do, however, agree that doctors will have their pay more normalized in the public sector. Personally I find capitalistic healthcare, without a public system, immoral. It is one of the reasons I left America.

Pediatric Critical Care Columnist · Mar 3, 2009

I live in Canada, and have for all but three years of my life. While our health care system isn't perfect, it doesn't discriminate on the basis of ability to pay. Everyone has the same rights and responsibilities regarding health care from coast to coast.

I have been a nurse for nearly 15 years. My hourly rate of pay is $40.43, with an evening premium of $2.50, a night premium of $4.25 and a weekend premium of $2.75 per hour. (So if I work Saturday night I will be paid $47.43 an hour.) I get 4 personal days, 11 statutory holidays, 20 vacation days, 3 professional development days per year and I earn sick time at the rate of 1.25 days per month. If I have to work on a statutory holiday I'm paid time and a half. Overtime is double time. My extended health benefits, dental and vision care, disability and life insurance, pension and RRSP contributions are paid 75% by the employer. Incidentally, I DO NOT work for the government. I work for the health region in which my hospital is located. The government provides the money and the legal oversight, the region provides the health care. Physicians are paid according to a fee-for-service model (which is not adequate and is subject to reform) and are not told by the government what they can do for their patients or what they can't. Hospitalists are paid a salary by the health region and believe me, they are not hurting. Access to services can be delayed due to a number of factors that are not important to this discussion, but are also not limited to the Canadain system.

There are so many misconceptions and outright lies about what socialized health care is and isn't, most promulgated by people who don't understand it and don't want to. Thank you OP for wanting to know.

allnurses Guide · Mar 3, 2009

Australia has a mixed public/private healthcare system. I've posted at length about it before, but basically you work for the health system, be it public or private. Pays are about the same as the US in $. ie. if I earned $30 AUD in Oz, I'd earn $30 USD in the US. So it's a little less, but the cost of living etc are too. You'd have more money in your pocket by paying a whole hell of a lot less for healthcare, though you'd pay more tax.. so it all evens out.

dnp2004 · Mar 3, 2009

Virtually all industrialized countries have public health care. I suppose that is what some spin in to "socialized medicine" in the United States. Yet of those opposed to it, when asked over 98% cannot make a comparison with the systems used in other countries. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, France, Germany, Switerland, Taiwan, Japan, etc. all have unique versions of Public Healthcare systems. Here are some points:

The U.S. currently provides public health care to the military, senior citizens, public aid rece[ and government employees. I wonder if those opposed to public health care would try to rescind coverage to the above? If not, why can't everyone else have public health care too?

The cost of administration would actually be lower with public healthcare vs. the current system. The U.S. system is about the least cost effective system in the industrial world. The administration cost going through the for-profit insurance companies can be as high as 30%. Medicare has an administration cost of below 3% on payouts.
For profit insurance companies are in direct conflict with themselves. It is in their best interest to deny claims from their customers because less payout is better for the shareholders. When top management is paid in shares some have received $45,000,000.00 or more in annual compensation.
Since Wall Street has a "quarterly results" mentality the denial of claims is seen as better for the bottom line. Even though many years down the line it could be much more expensive. Besides the patient maybe with another carrier at that point.

The increase in taxes would most likely be smaller than current insurance bills. You would be in a much bigger pool as well.

Gender, age & medical history could not be used to discriminate against you. The term "pre-existing condition" would be a thing of the past.
Medicine would be much cheaper because nationwide public health systems can negotiate very low rates with pharma.
Perhaps we could get to the point where medical professionals could be Nationally licensed. A nurse in Connecticut should be able to move to California and work without hassle. A doctor in Arizona should be able to work in Arkansas. In some states a nurse can insert a foley catheter. In other states only a doctor can insert a foley. I don't know of any other industrialized country who has a system as complex as the U.S. 50 states equals 50 systems, plus territories and possessions! Besides the U.S. has national licensing in many other fields. Flight crews, truckers, shipping personnel, the communications industry have all had Federal licensing for years. Why can't health care professionals?
Finally, the United States has public services such as defense, police, fire, aviation control (FAA), Coast Guard, schools, libraries etc. If these services can be public, why can't health care?

That is enough for now.

Chico David, BSN, RN · Mar 3, 2009

The one thing I would add to the excellent comments posted so far is that President Obama - contrary to the Republican scare mongering - has not proposed anything romotely like a "socialized" system. I happen to think this is unfortunate. Like most of the posters above, I know enough about how other countries' systems work to know that they are far more efficient and equal than ours and achieve similar or better results for far less money.

What the president - and pretty much every other major player in the Democratic side of the debate - is proposing is something much less desirable: using a combination of the existing government programs, existing employer based care, increased subsidies for the uninsured, possibly some increase in regulation of insurance companies, possibly a mandate to buy insurance, possibly the ability for the uninsured to buy into a new or existing public program. The details are still hazy, but it's nothing like the British, French, Canadian or other systems. It will get more people covered, but preserve most of the problems with our current system. My belief is that the leading Democrats are smart enough to know a real single-payer, European style system is better, but don't want the fight with the big insurers to make it happen, so they'll cobble together something much less.

Magsulfate, BSN, RN · Mar 3, 2009

Okay. I'm moving to Canada now.

Pediatric Critical Care Columnist · Mar 3, 2009

Okay. I'm moving to Canada now.

That would be an interesting turn-around. Hundreds of Canadian nurses went to Texas 15 years ago.

Koyaanisqatsi-RN · Mar 4, 2009

Okay. I'm moving to Canada now.

We laugh, but I fully intend to get the hell out of here once I graduate.

Between reading the threads here, and talking to most people, I've resigned myself to the fact that most people don't know a damn thing about what national healthcare is, and are positive that it will decrease quality of care. This is despite the fact that every single other industrialized nation pulls this very damn thing off just fine.

It's also depressing for me to realize that the main reason most people oppose national healthcare is because people get offended at the very idea that they might be helping to pay for another person's health and best interest. The fact that this terrible, sub-human sentiment often comes from nurses just breaks my heart further.

dnp2004 · Mar 4, 2009

We laugh, but I fully intend to get the hell out of here once I graduate.
Between reading the threads here, and talking to most people, I've resigned myself to the fact that most people don't know a damn thing about what national healthcare is, and are positive that it will decrease quality of care. This is despite the fact that every single other industrialized nation pulls this very damn thing off just fine.
It's also depressing for me to realize that the main reason most people oppose national healthcare is because people get offended at the very idea that they might be helping to pay for another person's health and best interest. The fact that this terrible, sub-human sentiment often comes from nurses just breaks my heart further.

It saddens me too. It seems that every time I mention national healthcare in the U.S. I am labeled a socialist and hear wild tales of super high taxes. Most of the people against national healthcare systems have never lived with one. Another funny thing I find is that when I ask people about NHC they oppose it and think all of the countries are the same! Go figure!

Pierrette · Mar 4, 2009

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123413701032661445.html

"The experiences of these Canadians -- along with the untold stories of the 750,794 citizens waiting a median of 17.3 weeks from mandatory general-practitioner referrals to treatment in 2008 -- show how miserable things can get when government is put in charge of managing health insurance."

"Canada's system comes at the cost of pain and suffering for patients who find themselves stuck on waiting lists with nowhere to go."

We're going to get universal health care. Then all of our troubles will melt like lemon drops.