Published
hypothetically, how would universal healthcare affect us as nurses? the demand? our salaries? ive had a taste of the whole universal healthcare thing with the movie Sicko coming out and the upcoming election... but i dont know enough to say anything... any ideas?
:cheers:
I haven't heard about very many Americans going to India for surgery. Try England. Oh, if Americans were going there, you could guarantee that CNN, NBC, MSNBC would be all over that story. This site might help:
If Canada's system is so fantastic, why are they coming here for medical treatment, instead of the other way around? Even if you could afford treatment there, you go to jail along with the doctor for trying to pay for it. You have to wait in line like everyone else. Tax Bill Gates? A young man with a friend who both had an idea and started it in the garage. Years later, it became a billion dollar business. Is that wrong? That is supposed to be the American dream and why this country became so great. Average people with ideas. But, apparently, you think people like that should be punished for their success. Well, if you become a successful nurse, maybe the government will take your suggestion and tax you more than some other nurse, based on your "success". Welcome to socialism and the Soviet system.
Americans don't go to Canada to seek healthcare b/c we can't. Their system is free for their citizens but not for Americans b/c we don't pay taxes there. Last summer I saw (on MSNBC, and NBC nightly news) stories of Americans going to India on surgery Vacations. I do pay more taxes than most nurses (inherited natural gas wells from my grandfather) and I am fine with that. I think that paying more taxes to help with healthcare for those more needy than I would be a great thing b/c it has the potential to make my country a nicer place to live. Of course I don't think that the success of Bill Gates is wrong. I do think that charging hundreds of dollars for a monolpolized operating system is.
Will universal health care affect nursing? I don't know how it will affect US nurses, because universal health care is all we've known here. I can tell you that as an RN only practicing for a year, I make nearly $30/hr, have good extended benefits and dental, and a good pension. I work in a major city on a surgical floor where the ratio is 1 nurse to 4 patients on day shift and 1 nurse to 6/7 patients on nights. Not bad. Now, in no way are our hospitals hotels. Depending on how the hospital chooses to spend the money it receives from the government, you may find some that provide shampoo, shaving cream, toothpaste etc... but then on the flip side had to lay off a number of nurses in the last few years. At the hospital I work at, we don't provide those "luxuries". When patients question me about this.... I simply say that paying for and providing life saving medications, and nursing care are more important and perhaps you can have a family member bring you in your favourite hand lotion. More often than not though, I encourage them to write to the provincial government and minister of health about why they think such luxuries should be included in a health care budget. lol
Your wages and benefits are nearly identical to what MN nurses receive in the twin cities...
If any of you want to know how a Universal health care system would work in the USA. all you need do is look at the socialized health care systems that now exist and how they operate. I speak of the VA health care system and Medicaid.Keep in mind that these systems provide for only a SMALL percentage of the US population. I need say no more.
The VA provides excellent care. I have posted links to an article that describes VA quality vs other major health care providers in the US. The VA wins by comparison.
If Canada's system is so fantastic, why are they coming here for medical treatment, instead of the other way around?
I do know people with dual citizenship who won't give up their right to use the Canadian health system just in case. And we certainly have heard of people buying medicine from Canada.
But, apparently, you think people like that should be punished for their success.
Paying a higher percentage of taxes on a higher income isn't "punishment." It's one way of spreading out the costs involved in keeping a society running smoothly. There are many variations, each with their own pros and cons. I tend to think extremism in any direction tends to lead to undesirable excesses.
Sometimes, the tax consequences do seem to create disincentives to earn more, but such regulations can be tweaked to create more incentives. In that case, you can argue for adjusting tax laws instead of suggesting that those in favor of certain social programs "think people should be punished for their success."
Well, if you become a successful nurse, maybe the government will take your suggestion and tax you more than some other nurse, based on your "success". Welcome to socialism and the Soviet system.
One of the main differences between the national health plans that are out there today and "the Soviet system" is that the citizens do have a say in the path their country has chosen. If enough people change their minds about it, the country will change it's system. It wouldn't happen overnight, but neither would just a few government officials decide unilaterally to continue enforce a system indefinitely that a majority of the people consistently do not want and do not support (through elections and the like).
The California Nurses Association have great ideas.
In Australia we have what you would call a Universal Health Care system. Every citizen of Australia is eligible for free healthcare through hospitals and heavily subsidised healthcare with gp's - which is paid for by means of tax revenue. At present the administration of it is shared by the Federal government and individual states, thus budgets and wages etc can differ from state to state. Whilst its not perfect, it does ensure that everyone regardless of their financial situation has access to high quality healthcare. Health issues are prioritised with the highest priorities being attended to first, and others go on waiting lists.
The beauty of our system I feel is that those who are not prepared to wait can elect to go 'private', which means skip the waiting periods and pay for the treatment themselves or through their insurance.
People who are on any form of government assistance also have what we call healthcare cards which can entitle them to free dental, optical and gp visits amongst other things.
Yes there are many things that could be improved but no-one is ever turned away.
I only post this, to give those in the US an idea of what it could be like. I think the issues of waiting lists, wages and staff shortages are truly universal regardless of the healthcare system that is used.
I believe the fears of having to wait for care and accept sub-standard conditions under UHC is outdated. Consider or speak with people in healthcare in the other countries there is where the real answers lie. Don't be listening to anything sponsored or set up (known or unknown) by insurance co. pharmaceutical co. and the likes and much of what we are fed in way of information if you dig deep is propoganda againts UHC. I think as nurses we owe it to our patient to get the truth out, question and demand specifics from the candidates to encourage some sort of UHC. The only problem is the fear that our government owes to much to the insurance co. and AMA to ever be able to pull it off.
As for our effects again it will differ depending on where salaries are in your area of the country but again if you talk with nurses in Canada or Europe they are not far off and are really please with the lack of struggles to provide for their patients.
Again can we pull it off in this country..... not really sure it is possible
:redbeathe
Because the same tired objections keep coming up......
The graph shows 2 pieces of information per country. National per capita health expenditures are on the vertical axis. The national per capita expenditures could be reduced by 30% with administrative simplification. Individual expenditures are on the horizontal axis. Individual expenditures could also be reduced by 30%.
NrsKaren, the description of "business cost shifting is dead on accurate.
Again the same tired stuff. Individual expenditures, i.e. out of pocket expenses. Even w/ high out of pocket expenses we still come off cheaper b/c we're not paying the outrageous taxes that countries w/ socialized medicine pay.
The reason the same tired objections keep coming up is b/c the same tired flawed reasoning for UHC keeps coming up.
reznurse
28 Posts
I have seen on the news that many Americans are going to India for surgery; it has nothing to do with universal health care in Canada, England and Australia. I worked w/two Brits when I was teaching jr high, and they were appalled by the health care system here. I also have spent time in Canada and the healthcare system there is excellent. Don't buy into corporate slandor when they talk negatively about other healthcare systems around the world. It isn't factual.
Also, I have worked at a VA hospital and the pay is good. It is amazing the number of people they provide care for with the budget they have. I also worked for the US Public Health Service, and again the pay was excellent. I guess when you take away 7 figure CEO salaries, and cut out the needless middlemen (insurance thieves) then you can do more healthcare for less money.
As for how we could pay for universal healthcare, tax Bill Gates.