I am wondering if there are any nurses out there who either work in a country with socialized medicine or nurses here in the US who are savy in the area of socialized medicine. I have to wonder just exactly how I personally would be effected if Obama got through a plan for socialized medicine. Personally yes I realize I would have the coverage to see my doc, get my scripts, etc. But how would it effect me as a nurse? All of us nurses? How do nurses get paid? Would they all work for the government then? Would that make out pay better, worse or would we see little change?
I got thinking about this after I watched the movie SICKO over the weekend. Not sure if anyone has seen it.....take a couple hours and watch it. Its very interesting. Makes me want to move to France!!! LOL
Anyways after watching it I started wondering what kind of pay the nurses get in this kind of system compared with how we do things now.
I was hoping there would be some people who are more knowledgeable about this stuff then me.
Those aren't really statistics, just someone posting their opinion. The problem here goes beyond even that. If people feel that they are entitled to police and fire protection (which they are, as in any civilized half-way decent society) then I have literally yet to hear one reason why this is not logically extended to health care.
Imagine how absurd this is. If a guy comes to steal your TV and kill you, society will help you. But if pancreatic cancer comes to steal your health and kill you....sucks to be you pal??
My analogy was worded wrong per a typo, but the point is clear. Just because you have freedom of speech does not mean anyone is listening. The next few years will determine what America and American's are really all about and the world is waiting. I am sorry to hear that people are still feigning ignorance to what is happening. I thought Americans were clear that change was needed, but I did not realize it was all just superficial.
The condition that the world is in now is a direct result of the corruption and greed in the entire world. I would believe that the economic situation would be enough proof, but I guess some people can live without serious interaction with either reality or a sense of compassion for those who are systematically being deprived of having their basic needs met.
I am sorry, but the USA is not looked upon as a foundation for democracy or human rights by much of the world. The election of Obama has given the world hope that US can come right; I am an exiled American who maintains that hope. I just know that if the rot that has gown in the US is not cut out and quickly, the country is doomed. To many people (I would guess the vast mahority), one very strong syptom of this infection is the lack of a healthcare system; others are the alarming number of homeless, the extreme poverty of many Americans and the high tolerance many American people have for the way "others" are treating their own citizens.
Very off topic and I apologize, but I just can't even comprehend some of these attitudes. Cold to the core.
Specializes in Psychiatric, Case Manager, Geriatrics.
I believe the US should implement socialized medicine as soon as possible for the health and well being of all US citizens. I have noticed that the old defense that in Canada people have to wait too long to see physicians is used far too often. I always have to wait up to 3 month or longer to see a physician or a dentist. The HMO's deny any and all treatment they think they can get away with. People are crossing into Mexico to buy their medications because the co-pays with insurance is outrageous and without insurance the medication is out-of sight. Also US citizens are going to Mexico, Cental America and India for medical and dental that they cannot afford here in the US. WOW!! Please let us join the rest of the civilized coutries and start doing the right thing for Americans.
I also watched that documentary SICKO and it was a huge eye opener for me and i immediately said i am moving to Canada. The health system in America looks messed up to the extent that money has taken over the health of human beings. Healthcare has become very expensive including but not limited to medications, high premiums and huge hospital bills. Eventhough we pay all these high premiums, most of the time we still need to fight with the insurance companies to get our bills straight or to have certain conditions covered. Countries with socialized systems do not pay any premiums, medications are 4times cheaper than what they cost in USA, no long waits and healthcare is administered irrespective of preexisting condition which is a huge thing in the state.
Another thing that I found interesting is the government being able to provide good healthcare for inmates in Guantanamo bay but there are people who have served this country including volunteers of the 9/11 attack who were not able to get treatment in the united states and had to go for consultation in a foreign country.
I think everyone should have the right to a fair treatment because there is nothing as important as one's health.
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
Those aren't really statistics, just someone posting their opinion. The problem here goes beyond even that. If people feel that they are entitled to police and fire protection (which they are, as in any civilized half-way decent society) then I have literally yet to hear one reason why this is not logically extended to health care.
Imagine how absurd this is. If a guy comes to steal your TV and kill you, society will help you. But if pancreatic cancer comes to steal your health and kill you....sucks to be you pal??
"Firefighters tend to be far fitter and healthier than civilians-especially if they work full time at the job. But 70% of firefighters are volunteers."
The numbers on police are variable and generally vary from two to five people employed privately to protect people and property for every one publically-funded police officer, so I like to lean conservative when discussing this issue and say 2:1 to be MORE FAIR.
Everyone has an equal right to get a speeding ticket. Sometimes, a cop will issue a warning to someone for going 55 in a 35, and the next day someone ELSE will get a ticket for going 55 in the same 35 zone. It seems that the equal right to get a ticket doesn't mean equal treatment by the system.
Next, some people by virtue of geography have upwards of four or five different kinds of protection for person and property, ranging from gated-community security, to the city, county, and state police.
Someone in the same state living 30 miles away may only have state police protection and they might have to wait an hour.
So in the end, I suppose it's honest to say that everyone "entitled" to police protection, but the reality is that not everyone gets the SAME kind of protection...or consideration (see the speeding ticket analogy). How this meshes with the ideology and connection that folks are trying to make is a mystery that I'd like to see made clear.
Fire service? Analogy won't work, and our healthcare system will collapse. 70% of the providers will have to be volunteers, and on the days when there aren't enough staff, there will be 'brownouts' on some days for certain facilities where they just shut down when there doesn't happen to be either the money or staff to operate the facility that day. This is what happens in the fire service...I worked at the fire dept. for five years, or you could just google "fire station brownout" if you think I am just expressing an opinion.
And if your TV is stolen, the police will come, but it doesn't mean they will get it back for you. They won't replace it, and they won't fix anything that the burglars broke in the act. And when the police are done doing nothing for you, you still pay the bill for their salary, and you can't even sue them for malpractice.
Then the following week they'll give you a ticket for going 55 in a 35, right after letting some hottie in a cute skirt get away with the same thing.
Sorry it has taken me a few days to reply. Nursing school ahoy!
Thank you for the reliable sources. I truly did not know how much of the fire department were volunteers.
However, I have to ask...so what? In areas where there are not enough volunteers to meet demand, what happens? Do houses burn down, or is more money brought in to solve the problem? (note, I am sure there are examples where this exact thing happened but that does not mean it is indicative of the way it normally works)
If houses were burning down left and right in all cities across every state, wouldn't you think there would be call to change that situation? Well, houses ARE burning down, except again it comes in the form of cancer, car accidents, and a thousand other conditions over which people have no control.
So in the end, I suppose it's honest to say that everyone "entitled" to police protection, but the reality is that not everyone gets the SAME kind of protection...or consideration (see the speeding ticket analogy). How this meshes with the ideology and connection that folks are trying to make is a mystery that I'd like to see made clear.
But there is always a common denominator. You can always dial 911 to get real help, pretty quickly. There is no such equivalent for health care. You could argue that just going to the ER once it gets life-threatening is equivalent, but again, we are discussing real, viable solutions. I am sure you are already aware how much wasted money is spent paying for those individuals at the ER who would have just gone to the doctor to get 20 dollar antibiotics, and a 90 dollar doctor visit were that option available to them. Surely you see how insane this is?
You seem to be one of the few intellectually honest people who seems hesitant to support UHC or is outright against it, so I'm very grateful for this opportunity to ask you a few questions, if you don't mind.
You must be aware that literally every other first world, industrialized country has some form of universal coverage. Ranging from Britain's NHS, to Sweden's interesting 'forced private coverage yet we regulate the hell out of it to keep costs down' system. You must also be aware that we lag so severely behind those same many countries with a public system in terms of just about every available metric (this information is freely available from many sources). What are your thoughts on that?
We are the only country who has decided to take this route, and I'm curious to hear your interpretation of the results thus far.
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
In areas with limited and/or declining volunteers, there is no expansion of paid fire services UNLESS there is a subsequent increase of population. Even then, it is still rare.
Of course you can dial 911 "quickly," but that doesn't mean you will always get help quickly, or as quickly as someone else, or that you will get the same "service" at 3am as you would at 3pm. I worked in public safety for 13 years, and the reality is that not everyone has the same access to public safety. I've already explained this, and don't feeling like repeating myself.
I've also said what kind of UHC system I would support; Singapore. Went over like poop on the sidewalk.
And the 'widely available and often quoted' benchmarks do not influence my position. Too many of the benchmarks have nothing to do with healthcare, some are not equally measured, important social elements are left out (i.e. illegal immigration), and the data is subject to the ideology of the country that reports it.
Of course you can dial 911 "quickly," but that doesn't mean you will always get help quickly, or as quickly as someone else, or that you will get the same "service" at 3am as you would at 3pm. I worked in public safety for 13 years, and the reality is that not everyone has the same access to public safety.
Right, but again there is literally no way around that. I'm not suggesting that there is an unlimited amount of funds for this stuff.
I've also said what kind of UHC system I would support; Singapore. Went over like poop on the sidewalk.
I'll address this later.
And the 'widely available and often quoted' benchmarks do not influence my position. Too many of the benchmarks have nothing to do with healthcare, some are not equally measured, important social elements are left out (i.e. illegal immigration), and the data is subject to the ideology of the country that reports it.
I agree, you are completely right. However, what makes you think that the United States doesn't do the exact same thing? I'm assuming you're not suggesting that we are exempt from the same scrutiny here? At the end of the day, I'd suggest that life expectancy is a fair, loose, but fair, benchmark that gives you an idea of the health of a nation. After all, there's only one way to measure that!
Regarding Singapore, I agree that it's actually not a bad system. From what I've seen it reminds me somewhat of what Sweden does. Here's some points I found....
"The private healthcare system competes with the public healthcare, which helps contain prices in both directions. Private medical insurance is also available."
Oops, no such competition here! If you get stuck with crappy insurance from your employer, well...you have no choice in the matter. You can sure quit and take a different job, but be reasonable. No one else in the world suffers that kind of choice, why are we so far at the bottom of that barrel? And have you ever once priced out an individual plan and looked at their 'coverage'? I pay 700 dollars for 3 months of coverage through a group plan with the NSNA. Do you honestly believe that is reasonable, for how terrible the coverage actually is? And that's a GROUP plan!
Private healthcare providers are required to publish price lists to encourage comparison shopping.
Sounds like gov't intervention to me!
The government pays for "basic healthcare services... subject to tight expenditure control." Bottom line: The government pays 80% of "basic public healthcare services."
You'd be ok with this?
Government plays a big role with contagious disease, and adds some paternalism on top: "Preventing diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tobacco-related illnesses by ensuring good health conditions takes a high priority."
More gov't in health care! Makes sense, doesn't it?
The government provides optional low-cost catatrophic health insurance, plus a safety net "subject to stringent means-testing."
Sounds good to me!
You made a few points earlier regarding leaders coming here and using our health care system. Most people do not need advanced level health care. Most people just need good preventative care, and the body will often take care of itself. Even many cancer treatments, and dialysis etc do not need cutting edge therapy.
And if/when the US goes to a public option, where will all these amazing specialists go? Where else left in the world will they have?
And incidentally, I'm not one of the ones who supports UHC and fights against tort reform. You and I will not find a single thing with which to disagree, there.
Specializes in Flight Nurse, Pedi CICU, IR, Adult CTICU.
right, but again there is literally no way around that. i'm not suggesting that there is an unlimited amount of funds for this stuff.
i agree, you are completely right. however, what makes you think that the united states doesn't do the exact same thing?
maybe they do, but i'm not following you; i don't think the rankings are valid, so why would i defend how the us presents their data?
i'm assuming you're not suggesting that we are exempt from the same scrutiny here? at the end of the day, i'd suggest that life expectancy is a fair, loose, but fair, benchmark that gives you an idea of the health of a nation. after all, there's only one way to measure that!
the point is that this scrutiny is lacking, no matter who it is applied to; i'm not sure how my observation is somehow translated into a defense of us reporting. and life expectancy is one of the most terrible benchmarks because there are too many non-healthcare related issues impacting life expectancy.
regarding singapore, i agree that it's actually not a bad system. from what i've seen it reminds me somewhat of what sweden does. here's some points i found....
oops, no such competition here! if you get stuck with crappy insurance from your employer, well...you have no choice in the matter.
look, if you are going to criticize the us system based on a comparison of the singapore system, then i expect you to stand with me in promoting the singapore model as the uhc system we should implement here. so far, no one else seems to like the singapore model, so it makes no sense to criticize the us based on the functions of the singapore system.
you can sure quit and take a different job, but be reasonable. no one else in the world suffers that kind of choice, why are we so far at the bottom of that barrel? and have you ever once priced out an individual plan and looked at their 'coverage'? i pay 700 dollars for 3 months of coverage through a group plan with the nsna. do you honestly believe that is reasonable, for how terrible the coverage actually is? and that's a group plan!
it might be, i don't know. it's cheaper than a car payment+car insurance+car maintenance. what you can't guarantee is that your coverage will be better under a gov't plan. sorry, but i don't know what barrel you are talking about...are you still referring to our "world ranking" which is as flawed as the un itself?
more gov't in health care! makes sense, doesn't it?
sounds good to me!
you made a few points earlier regarding leaders coming here and using our health care system. most people do not need advanced level health care. most people just need good preventative care, and the body will often take care of itself. even cancer treatments, and dialysis etc do not need cutting edge therapy.
interesting you'd say that; the us leads the world in lower cancer mortality rates.
and if/when the us goes to a public option, where will all these amazing specialists go? where else left in the world will they have?
they are a finite source. they will eventually dry up and go away, and we will find ourselves in the same position as canada...wondering where to find some doctors to come work in our system as attrition sends them on their way and the upcoming generations refuse to spend their lives to work for a comparative pittance. one of my best friends just turned 40. in two months he graduates from his last surgical fellowship...he has spent the last 15 years and sacrificed much of his life to become what he is now...one of the best of the best...and he wouldn't have done it if he was going to end up making the same wages as french or canadian physicians. he's not materialistic, but he definitely understands the value of his skill and the philosophy of return on investment.
I find it interesting you should say that, because you very shortly after said this:
Interesting you'd say that; the US leads the world in lower cancer mortality rates.
What's going on there? You trust cancer mortality rates as measured by the US but not other benchmarks measured by other countries? Help me understand here.
And life expectancy is one of the most terrible benchmarks because there are too many non-healthcare related issues impacting life expectancy.
Such as? Are you saying that healthcare is not intrinsically tied to a great deal of those other factors?
Look, if you are going to criticize the US system based on a comparison of the Singapore system, then I expect you to stand with me in promoting the Singapore model as the UHC system we should implement here. So far, no one else seems to like the Singapore model, so it makes no sense to criticize the US based on the functions of the Singapore system.
Hey I said I liked it. It's already a vast improvement over what we are doing here. Wouldn't you agree?
are you still referring to our "world ranking" which is as flawed as the UN itself?
Can I ask where you are getting that information?
They are a finite source. They will eventually dry up and go away, and we will find ourselves in the same position as Canada...wondering where to find some doctors to come work in our system as attrition sends them on their way and the upcoming generations refuse to spend their lives to work for a comparative pittance. One of my best friends just turned 40. In two months he graduates from his last surgical fellowship...he has spent the last 15 years and sacrificed much of his life to become what he is now...one of the best of the best...and he wouldn't have done it if he was going to end up making the same wages as French or Canadian physicians. He's not materialistic, but he definitely understands the value of his skill and the philosophy of return on investment.
Shrug. People who really want to be doctors will be doctors. Same with nurses, policemen, pilots etc. Sure, some won't choose a career path because it won't pay what they want, but I believe that it's a drop in the bucket. It's pretty silly to expect that someone would want to be a doctor, but after doing all the research say "gosh, you know without that extra 20k a year it just isn't worth it." I'm not sure someone like that would have been a doctor anyway. After all, it's hard to make a lot of money in this country unless you run your own business, and most people are not cut out for that (based on how many small business fail or stagnate)
Koyaanisqatsi-RN
218 Posts
Those aren't really statistics, just someone posting their opinion. The problem here goes beyond even that. If people feel that they are entitled to police and fire protection (which they are, as in any civilized half-way decent society) then I have literally yet to hear one reason why this is not logically extended to health care.
Imagine how absurd this is. If a guy comes to steal your TV and kill you, society will help you. But if pancreatic cancer comes to steal your health and kill you....sucks to be you pal??