Universal Health Care... what would this mean...

[nurseyNJNYC]

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:

[jjjoy, LPN]

PS-We Americans have an aversion to both taxes and lack of freedom to choose our own destinies, in case the 1700's have slipped your mind.:usarm: Vet, wife, and MOM

Just wanted to point out that it was "no taxation without representation", not "no taxation, period!"

[BlueRidgeHomeRN]

just wanted to point out that it was "no taxation without representation", not "no taxation, period!"

please review original statement:typing--there is nothing about "no taxes", merely a national adversion to them....

i was making a point to our esteemed british colleage, not teaching american history 101.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

See PNHP (pnhp.org) for a discussion about funding streams. Taxes would REPLACE insurance premiums. That with a reduction of administrative costs would lead to decreased costs for EVERYONE.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

not as much as in countries w/ UHC where my taxes would go through the roof.

People from the UK and Canada have both posted information to the contrary. Their tax rates are not that much different from ours.

[Simplepleasures]

and contributory negligence is bad in some way?

quote]

not at all, and perhaps not having lived in the us you completely miss the point being directed primarily at my fellow countrymen.

unfortunately, the u.s. populace tends to be extremely lititagous. burglers sue and win for damages from an injury during a home invasion, parents sue physicans and hospitals for newborns with congential defects..i'm sure this trend is common knowledge internationally.

many americans have abdicated personal responsibility, and would be horrified to learn that there are parts of the world where one's own actions or lack thereof have impact on outcomes. lack of or wait for availabilty of our current high-tech interventions would not be widely acceptable to american health care consumers, who are apt to sue a hospital if their breakfast is cold (yes, exageration for point.)

and, to bring it all back to topic, the discussion is how universal health care would impact the usa, and whether or not european models are appropriate for comparison. the point is and remains that european models are not appropriate for comparison due to the points already listed.

ps-we americans have an aversion to both taxes and lack of freedom to choose our own destinies, in case the 1700's have slipped your mind.:usarm: vet, wife, and mom

as an american, i respectfully disagree with this poster. americans do not all believe as this poster does. we are a varied people with many different opinions and are not all cut out of the conservative cookie dough. it is a conservative mantra that americans have rejected personal responsibility, again a generalization. as far as lawsuits go, don't the british, germans,australians and canadians also have lawyers and lawsuits? i wonder what the brits and aussies posting here have to say about this, curious.

[BlueRidgeHomeRN]

it is a conservative mantra that americans have rejected personal responsibility, again a generalization. .

i respectfully disagree, in regard to frivolous lawsuits being a factor in the practice of medicine in america. i find it difficult to believe that anyone would rule that factor out of current practice in the us.

and of course not all americans feel the same about anything, or this board and all civilized discourse would be redundant.

finally, this post was a response to an earlier post regarding the "beauty and purity" of uhc in europe, (which i have lived in and beg to differ with) as a model for american health care..

[can we also avoid the overworked vilifying cliches such as "conservative cookie cutter" and "mantra"? look up the formal error of logic named "argumentum ad hominum']:deadhorse

[Simplepleasures]

[can we also avoid the overworked vilifying cliches such as "conservative cookie cutter" and "mantra"? look up the formal error of logic named "argumentum ad hominum']:deadhorse

we do have freedom of speech, last i heard.we are not in a formal debate setting here, i dont think there are rules that we must abide by except for those set out by allnurses. you based your argument against americans accepting uhc on your opinion of american behavior. i simply want to emphasize the fact that there are many americans who do not agree with your perception and characterization.

[graysonret]

FYI...for those supporting UHC....

http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php

(not a sermon, just a thought)

[Jolie, BSN]

The American gov't isn't uniquely incompetent -- other governments are just as incompetent. QUOTE]

My coffee almost hit my computer screen when I read that statement! So true!

[fizz2Nurse]

People from the UK and Canada have both posted information to the contrary. Their tax rates are not that much different from ours.

But they are NOT comparing fairly and equally. Canadian Tax rates start at a MUCH lower dollar figure. For example Canadians move into a higher tax bracket at around 25000/year income, then again over 38000/year. American don't start to pay the higher rate until they are over 72500 for AGI.

Plus when I hear the "same" tax arguement. I just laugh. Canadians do not have nearly the same tax deductions. Mortgage interest - NOPE, travel for business - in USA it's a deduction in Canada it's a taxable benefit.

When people here post arguments of lower administrative cost they must me dreaming. Goverment run is not cheaper administration, do you really think running the Pentagon or Homeland security is cheap overhead?

These administrative cost surveys are bogus since they continue to cite the American business overhead costs and continue to ignore the government entities in other countries.

Inject some reason here. You can't get something for nothing or it's worth exactly what you paid.

When you reduce the cost of healtcare to the end user you must reduce the cost of delivery & ways to do that include:

1) rationing - every socialized system uses rationing of healthcare, where on the wait list will you land?

2) reduced pay and benefits to HC workers - Canadian Nurses do not have the same standard of living as their US counterparts and when the government decides - they can't strike either - there is also no competition between employers - it's all the goverment as employer

As for MD's - yeah i want to invest years of my life to be an MD only to have some bureaucrat tell me how much I can make - may as well choose a different profession. Ask Canadians how hard it is to find a primary care doc and get an appt and then months or years later actually get any treatment.

3) reduced innovation and access to the latest treatment for patients - face it. Innovation is driven by opportunity for profit and competitive edge, often paid for by Americans and adopted by other countries later.

only the Swiss & USA allow the drug companies to pander all their new meds and make real payback profit - later, sometimes 10 years later do countries like Canada allow a drug to the market after the free enterprise countries have paid for the cost of development.

Are you going to risk all your money just to have someone else decide if you can make a profit? That would be like going to work today and after you've invested your expertise, your cost to commute, your efforts and expenses to go to work and at the end of the day I come along and say "well it wasn't worth that much to me" here I'll reimburse you your expenses and give you $10.

Why do people continue this foolishness about how much they're going to get for free or next to nothing? It's not expected anywhere else. Remember the cost has to be borne by someone.

Further, study the numbers of "uninsured". The survey is a snapshot of an instant in time. If you quit a job and didn't use Cobra and went without for a month (say January) in the ininsured that month - you were counted.

Two, look how many household over $50K or $75K don't have insurance. Ae You saying they can't afford it? Because it's going to be really fair taking taxes out of some guy's check who makes $35000 to pay for losers that make $75k and drive a lexus and don't want to pay.

And the comparisons of European HC to US never account for a difference so different it should be obvious. Geography!

Delivery of HC to a huge mass of population in a country the size of Montana (Germany) is different than in a country the size of USA.

Further - USA i the melting pot, most European countries are very carefully regulated on immigration. It's easier to determine particular expectations in one cultures vs the vast differences across a nation like the USA.

No the HC here is not the end all and be all and it needs fixing. But wholesale adoption of these socialized systems is a recipie for failure and mediocrity.

[BlueRidgeHomeRN]

we do have freedom of speech, last i heard.we are not in a formal debate setting here, i dont think there are rules that we must abide by except for those set out by allnurses. .

i was politely suggesting that your arguments would be better enhanced by facts supporting them then by name-calling of those who disagree with you.

btw-not a consevative, try libertarian.

[ZippyGBR, BSN, RN]

But they are NOT comparing fairly and equally. Canadian Tax rates start at a MUCH lower dollar figure. For example Canadians move into a higher tax bracket at around 25000/year income, then again over 38000/year. American don't start to pay the higher rate until they are over 72500 for AGI.

hence the graph i posed linked from the wikipedia entry aobut income tax in the UK

Plus when I hear the "same" tax arguement. I just laugh. Canadians do not have nearly the same tax deductions. Mortgage interest - NOPE, travel for business - in USA it's a deduction in Canada it's a taxable benefit.

why should mortgage interest be tax deductable?

travel expenses can be offset against tax in the uk - assuming they aren't paid directly as travel expenses

no doubt peopel would point out that UK residents with employer provided vehicles are taxed on those - to counter that it's personal use ( and fuel for personal use) that is taxed rather than the employer provided vehicle

When people here post arguments of lower administrative cost they must me dreaming. Goverment run is not cheaper administration, do you really think running the Pentagon or Homeland security is cheap overhead?

These administrative cost surveys are bogus since they continue to cite the American business overhead costs and continue to ignore the government entities in other countries.

how much healthcare money inthe US is wasted on finding out what you need to bill for ?

why do you think so many hospitals i nthe US use pyxis type machines for drugs and /or supplies ... billing and billing alone

Inject some reason here. You can't get something for nothing or it's worth exactly what you paid.

When you reduce the cost of healtcare to the end user you must reduce the cost of delivery & ways to do that include:

1) rationing - every socialized system uses rationing of healthcare, where on the wait list will you land?

take you turn among people of equally clinician determined priority... in the NHS this is moving towards a maximum of 18 weeks from referral to treatment completion (unless it;s long term treatment when the treatment will have begun by the 18 week point ... unless of course it;ssuspected cancer when it's less than 2 weeks to be seen

2) reduced pay and benefits to HC workers - Canadian Nurses do not have the same standard of living as their US counterparts and when the government decides - they can't strike either - there is also no competition between employers - it's all the goverment as employer

i can't speak for canada but in the case of the UK

yes we can strike but choose not to ...

there is competition between employers as there are NHS employers, private sector employers and private sector cNHS contractors , plus industry and the military competing for nurses

As for MD's - yeah i want to invest years of my life to be an MD only to have some bureaucrat tell me how much I can make - may as well choose a different profession. Ask Canadians how hard it is to find a primary care doc and get an appt and then months or years later actually get any treatment.

again i can't speak for Canada but other than a few isolated areas there is no significant issues with access to primary care in the NHS .. the opening later in the evenings thing is a smoke and mirrors trick

3) reduced innovation and access to the latest treatment for patients - face it. Innovation is driven by opportunity for profit and competitive edge, often paid for by Americans and adopted by other countries later.

only the Swiss & USA allow the drug companies to pander all their new meds and make real payback profit - later, sometimes 10 years later do countries like Canada allow a drug to the market after the free enterprise countries have paid for the cost of development.

LOL

odd then that there's plenty of drug research in the Uk and plenty of drug trials ongoing, the main difference is that a drug has to be proven to be dbeneficial over and above the current treatment and/or provide a cost saving for it to be passed by NICE ...

what is hte point of startign everyone on unobtainoprazole when plain old lansoprazole will do the job for 70% of them ... and omperprazole or esomperazole sort 15 % ofthe rest ...

Are you going to risk all your money just to have someone else decide if you can make a profit? That would be like going to work today and after you've invested your expertise, your cost to commute, your efforts and expenses to go to work and at the end of the day I come along and say "well it wasn't worth that much to me" here I'll reimburse you your expenses and give you $10.

drug companies have been doing this for years anyway ... sometimes they fall lucky and a side effect of their ineffective for what it was designed for drug is a money spinner ( e.g. the failed anti anginal Sildenafil )

Why do people continue this foolishness about how much they're going to get for free or next to nothing? It's not expected anywhere else. Remember the cost has to be borne by someone.

Further, study the numbers of "uninsured". The survey is a snapshot of an instant in time. If you quit a job and didn't use Cobra and went without for a month (say January) in the ininsured that month - you were counted.

and your point ... uninsured is uninsured and as we all know insurers like to find ways of not paying ...

And the comparisons of European HC to US never account for a difference so different it should be obvious. Geography!

Delivery of HC to a huge mass of population in a country the size of Montana (Germany) is different than in a country the size of USA.

Further - USA i the melting pot, most European countries are very carefully regulated on immigration. It's easier to determine particular expectations in one cultures vs the vast differences across a nation like the USA.

hence the reference to Canadaian and australian experience

and as for the cultural stuff utter hogwash...

as for immigration - utter hogwash as well