SURVEY: ONE-THIRD TO BUY CHEAPER CANADIAN DRUGS, 100 MILLION FIND INSURANCE COVERAGE CUT OR COSTLIER
Faced with a double-barreled crisis of shrinking health care coverage and fast-rising medical costs, two out of three American adults (67 percent) now think health care coverage should be a "guarantee" as in Canada, Britain and other nations, according to a new Results for America national opinion survey. Three out of four American adults (78 percent) agree that health care is a necessity like water, gas and electricity and should be "regulated by government"...
We have friends in England who think their national health care system and coverage is abysmal. Therefore they carry private insurance to ensure proper and PROMPT care when they need it and not several months down the road. They have nothing for horrible stories to tell about the government-provided system.
Plenty of people here in the US have horrible stories to tell about the abysmal coverage that we receive for our private health care system.
The US is one of the few (if not the only) ‘first world’ countries that does not have national health care. It is also one of the most expensive (in terms of %GNP) health care system in the world. However, among peer nations, it is just about the least effective, if actual results are studied (longevity, infant mortality, consumer satisfaction, etc). Certainly many factors are involved, but our private sector health care system does not fare well in comparison to most nationalized plans by almost any objective measure.
I have always favored some kind of universal coverage, but I wouldn't want the government itself to run it......there is no program on earth that government can't make more complex by adding another form to the required documentation! Instead, I would have national health care overseen by a nonpartisan commission made up of medical professionals and ordinary citizens from all walks of life; by leaving the lawyers and the bureaucrats and the insurance industry out of it, you not only simplify health care, but make it less expensive because you've gotten rid of a lot of the overhead involved in today's system. You're not paying insurance-company CEOs $20 million a year to sit on their butts and make life-or-death decisions for people they've never met based on medical knowledge they don't have. You're not paying bureaucrats to sit around thinking up new forms to harass doctors and nurses with (when will they EVER figure out that documenting something in five places is NOT better than documenting it once?!). And by leaving the ambulance-chasers out of things, you just make the world a better place for the rest of us. :)
Sure it's simple.....that's the beauty of it. Government makes things far more complicated than they have to be, and while I know my ideas for a national health system would need a lot of work (and will likely NEVER become reality because the CEOs and the lawyers and the bureaucrats need to eat, too), it's fun to think about. Something has GOT to be done.....what we have here in this country isn't a health care system, it's a patchwork of different insurances and private/public programs, and it doesn't work for far too many of us. It's not right that people have to choose between food and medicine, or between having their teeth fixed and paying their electric bill. I only hope that this nation's leaders will someday realize that leaving 40+ million Americans without access to health services is not acceptable under any circumstances........but I'm not holding my breath.
I do agree, it's never made any sense to me that we have "for profit" companies involved in our health care. Along with very well paid CEOs. I pay a good portion of my paycheck for health insurance, it may not be a tax....but it might as well be!
I think it's interesting that those of you who oppose universal health care seem to believe that people who don't have insurance are irresponsible bludgers, and/or that universal health care would be rorted by those who don't look after themselves, and/or that illness is something that can be prevented.
The corollary of that last presumption is that anyone who's sick is careless at best. I agree that there should be greater emphasis on preventative medicine. However, even people who are meticulous with their diet, take vitamins and other supplements, take low-dose asprin, exercise regularly, and seek medical attention at the first sign of trouble can get sick. My understanding of the US system of health care is that those who are uninsured (or underinsured) tend to be the disenfranchised and marginalised - the poor, the chronically and/or mentally ill, the undereducated... those who are least able to afford the time and money to be meticulous with the above-listed aspects of preventative health care. Add tot hat a system which allows employers to avoid paying for health insurance if their employees work 38 hours a week instead of 40 and you can have a substantial workforce who hold down more than one part time job without these benefits.
Australia has universal health care (Medicare), but it has been eroded by the current government; they introduced significant rebates to those who pay for private insurance, introduced a penalty for people who begin private insurance after the age of thirty (the older you are the greater the penalty), increased the Medicare tax levy for those who earn more than $50k/year who don't pay for private insurance, and reduced bulk billing centres by freezing the Medicare rebate for GP consultations.
Casualty presentations at my hospital have surged in response to the reduction of bulk billing doctors; if patients have to pay more than they can afford every time they have a symptom they are less likely to seek timely treatment, which is how I have a patient with advanced bowel cancer. He had PR bleeding but couldn't afford to pay the gap between the Medicare rebate and his GP's fees. His admission for bowel resection, ICU, post-op stomal therapy, wound breakdown, peritonitis, PICC line insertion, sepsis, ICU readmission, radiotherapy and rehab cost a lot more than a colonoscopy, biopsy and radiotherapy would have a year ago.
Health insurance companies have policies that provide almost nothing - they exist so that people can avoid paying the $500 surcharge. I don't have private health insurance because I have an ideological opposition to governmental blackmail. This means that I pay the surcharge every year and, if I ever do decide to take out health insurance I will pay at least 10% more than those who met the age deadline.
We have friends in England who think their national health care system and coverage is abysmal. Therefore they carry private insurance to ensure proper and PROMPT care when they need it and not several months down the road. They have nothing for horrible stories to tell about the government-provided system.
So far as I am aware, all private healthcare available in the UK is preventative, or elective. All emergency care is carried out by the National Health Service. There are plenty of horror stories about the private sector too!
Well as a person who has worked all her life since the age of 15, and a person who has managed, ever since graduation from college, to secure a job with health insurance, I shudder to think of socialized medicine. My son has a chronic condition and I would not leave his care to the government. I have a condition myself and will not do that either. My employer offers 3 plans--a PPO, HMO and EPO. I have usually gone with the EPO or PPO because I wanted to be able to see whichever doctor I wanted, whenever I wanted, but heard good things about the HMO...This year I took a leap and chose the HMO. Wow, there are some great docs on it--and guess what? $0.00 comes out of my paycheck each month for it to cover my whole family of 5. Personally I feel that you must count your benefits toward your salary, especially in this case, where I am paying nothing out of my pocket and we are getting great care. I want to have some control over my healthcare, and with government-run insurance we have NONE.
Beachnurse, having lived under both systems, trust me, we don't lose control over our healthcare when the government FUNDS it. Americans refer to "socialized medicine" all the time, but few really know what it means. Canada is usually the example used, and I can tell you the government isn't deciding what doctor I can see or what procedure I can have.
My local General Practitioner (GP) is the gatekeeper to the health services provided to me by my "National Insurance" contributions. his practice/surgery (office) is my first port of call if I have a health problem. As it happens they are a small two-man practice with around 3,000 patients on their list. Some are larger, with a wider range of support services within the building, rather than on a visiting basis like mine has.
My GP deals with day to day problems, and refers on to specialists for more complicated stuff. Should I not agree with his/their decision I am free to seek a second opinion, and if I want to change doctors, I simply go to another practice and register with them. If I lose my job, It makes no difference. As a British citizen, I am entitled to healthcare, free at the point of use, provided on the basis of need, and funded from general taxation. There is no question of maxing out my entitlement if I have a longterm condition, I have no concerns about sticking to a bad job because of the health benefits I will lose, and whatever condition I may have, it's covered. From where I stand, I have great difficulty comprehending why anyone would not embrace such a system.
If you have a serious health problem that requires a specialist or surgery, how long does it take to get that taken care of? I have heard that the waits can be long--sometimes too long. What about cancer treatments and chemotherapy? Are you able to see a specialist right away and get treatment started or do you lose time waiting for an appointment?
Sounds the same as in Canada Don. Americans are generally told that wait times are crazy long but that certainly hasn't been my experience, and if it were causing so many health problems I don't know why Canadians would have a longer lifespan than Americans. I've lived and worked in both countries and don't see a difference in the quality of care.
In Australia there can be a long wait for elective cases (including joint replacement, TURP etc) but all emergency issues are taken care of immediately. This includes oncology therapies.
Let me give you an example, for example :) Last year I looked after an otherwise-well 38 yo male - he'd been feeling a little run down and lethargic, but not unwell enough to see a doctor. He woke up one morning and noticed one elbow was markedly swollen and a little tender, so he headed off to his (non-bulk-billing) GP - out of pocket expense of about $25, who sent him off for blood work (also not bulk billed - ~ $20). His GP gets his results about five hours later, calls him and says "I've got your test results, and there's a problem. Present to [talaxandra's] hospital now - I'm calling them to let them know you're on your way."
He presents to ED, who admit him to my ward - the elbow was incidental (never worked out what it was, resolved without treatment) but he was in end-stage renal failure of unknown aetiology: K+ 6.8, urea in the 40's, creatinine about 0.18. He had a vascath inserted and an hour later was having his first run of dialysis.
Over the next couple of weeks he had counselling by a renal transition nurse, chose PD as his mode of dialysis, had a Tenckhoff inserted, had daily PD training from the PD education nurse for a week, attended group sessions about renal failure and dialysis, saw a dietician and the renal anaemia nurse, and was worked up for the transplant list. While he was on dialysis all his supplies were provided free of charge; two months ago he received a transplant (living donor) and is doing really well.
Total out of pocket expenses - $45 plus a percentage of his meds (that's capped at a certain point, something like $1000/year, and they're heavily subsidised by the state). Odds are that a few years ago, when the government more strongly supported bulk billing, his initial GP visit and his phlebotomy would have been free too.
A family member went for her first ever routine mammogram on achieving 50 yrs, (It's one of our national screening programmes) on the 3rd Jan last year. She was recalled for a second mammogram and biopsy on the 14th. She saw a surgeon on the 21st. He left, so she saw another on the 28th. Her surgery took place on the 14th Feb. (That was a memorable Valentine's day!) 6 weeks later, the chemo started, and with 22 weeks of that over and done, so far she's fine, with regular follow-ups.
I don't know how those times compare. All of this funded from taxation, so the only cost is the prescriptions once you get home. (Hospital ones and the Chemo are covered.)
tntrn, ASN, RN
1,340 Posts
We have friends in England who think their national health care system and coverage is abysmal. Therefore they carry private insurance to ensure proper and PROMPT care when they need it and not several months down the road. They have nothing for horrible stories to tell about the government-provided system.