Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
).
that just goes without saying...
I'd caution you to evaluate what is done in other countries & use that as a basis for evaluating the proposals on the table now or in the future when discussing healthcare in this country. The access of healthcare, need for the professionals, expectations of the population are all different.
One thing we know for sure - the dynamics of cost/reimbursement/accessibility, etc...will have to change to have our system continue. We can't continue the way it is now.
But, its important to evaluate each proposal on all the factors which are involved - not just our reimbursement (salary). Why??? Because at some point in time you or someone you know (your parent, SO, child...) will need to utilize the healthcare system. Currently, if your baby is born pre-term, in the US it has a pretty good chance of survival because we have such a sophisticated healthcare system. Some countries have a cut-off at which they won't do certain procedures - say before 30 weeks or after 90....but if its your mom or your baby - thats tough to take.
Now....ethics come into play. Philosophically, should we be doing all we can to sustain life in a pt who has multiple disease states and is 90 years old....or who was born at 28 weeks and has a high risk of neonatal morbidities with resultant lifetime residual effects or performing a liver transplant in a pt who's liver failed from ETOH, but has been sober for 30 years? I don't pretend to have the answer to this - nor is there one "right" answer. Everyone has an opinion - thats the beauty of our system, but its also the problem with our system.
We've also had the benefit of living with the effects of dramatic improvements in healthcare for more than 50 years. Other countries haven't necessarily had these improvements, so don't have to "take them back" from folks....rather they limit who gets them in the first place.
We can look to Canada who has a single payor system. To get an MRI for a non-emergent condition can take a long time (at least that is what my Canadian friends tell me - Reqiem can elaborate more). But, diagnostic radiology centers along the US/Canadian border are booming because those who have money will cross the border to get their MRI done here.
So...you have a reimbursement system which is inextricably tied with access - we have that now, but the reimbursement system is the insurance industry. If you have the means to buy good health insurance, you can obtain any healthcare you want.
But....our salaries are not necessarily tied to reimbursement - at least not like they were decades ago when we were a more fee for service industry. We currently are paid based on the how much our positions are "needed". There are some who say some of this "need" can be done away with or replaced. They might be justified to a certain extent. Zpak can attest to pharmacists who either can't or won't do what they are trained to do to become more effecient or econmically sound.
This is an entirely different argument than those factors which influence physicians who are indeed paid on fee for service - kind of. They are paid based on a ICD-9 code - a diagnosis code. Medicare sets that & is reducing it more & more, so they are impacted tremendously. Dentistry is not affected by Medicare at all, so does not have these issues, yet is part of health care & some say not closely tied enough to medical care (look into recent evidence linking heart disease with peridontal disease).
Like I said - a very, very complex issue. Hiliary Clinton is a tremendously smart woman (so is Barak Obama & some of the Republican candidates....Bush - not so much...) & health care is something she's very well-versed in, I'd have a hard time believing she might have said people wouldn't have to pay anything, because someone always pays something......it may be in a premium, a copay or taxes. She's never hidden that fact - even when she first talked about it 12 years ago.
I don't have any answers & I really don't think the politicians have them either. But, we will need to change & change will take time to refine. Sometimes the change will hurt one part of the system - right now physicians are suffering & it affect access (ex - in my part of the country you can't get a pediatrician unless you have a referral from an OB without waiting for months). Some pharmacies are suffering as well - Montana is having an awful time with Part D.
So...keep an open mind. Read all you can & try not to be swayed by which political party is backing one or the other. Look at each proposal based on its merits - not just to you personally as a provider, but to you as a consumer or from your parent's perspective, your child's perspective, your neighbor who was laid off......
Just my thoughts.....sorry, Caverject - long rant.....(you shouldn't be on here reading this anyway!!!
).
yeah, just ask the governor of New Jersey! 
