politics & job scarcity - page 6
Okay, I've got two issues I'm wondering about--- Five years from now, does anyone have any insight/information to support the notion that there could actually be a glut of CRNA's on the market? ... Read More
Nov 13, '02most preventive "benefits" come more from life style changes rather than from routine primary care useage. I could go to the doctor every day for free and it wouldn't do half as much for my health as losing fifty pounds. Unless, the doctor volunteered to give me gastric bypass surgery there is little he could do to ameliorate my major health issue of obesity.
Nov 13, '02Lifestyle changes are fine but how about treating HTN, IDDM, cancer screening, just to name a few.
Jul 21, '05i ahve a nephew who is 23 years old and has been diabetic since he was 15, he has diabetic neuropathy in his feet and it hurts him to stand for a long time, his eyesight is poor, he is in and out of the hospital for dka, he has no insurance and when he gets a job he cant keep it for long because he is hospitalized or cant perform the duties because of the neuropathy. Our social security will not approve him and they wont give him medicaid , does anybody have any suggestions for him, he is running out of insulin and has no way of getting anymore.
Jul 21, '05not that anyone really cares - but i tend to agree w/ Kevin and Tenesma -
First of all - we must be realistic - socialized healthcare will NEVER come about in the US - there is more money made than we can even fathom by the powers that be by our current system. right or wrong - that is how it is and it will not change - the majority of those in the US who vote would never allow it. Secondly, you might consider being careful of what you wish for - yes Canada and others have socialized medicine - but you may wait a year to have a surgery that you could have done yesterday in the US.... just food for thought. I actually know some Canadian RN's who shared actual stories of this with me.
Last but not least - the US does have a system in place - it definately needs revamped - but to weed out those who abuse it. If the abuses of the system were to end - there would be plenty for those in need. I will not go into the stats because I frankly do not have time, but have done the research for school - you would be amazed at the BILLIONS and BILLIONS of US dollars wasted on those who choose to take it (are not truly in need) and those who are not truly citizens and don't even contribute to the system - only take from it. BILLIONS AND BILLIONS.... Texas alone it was like 33 BILLION. The money is there - it is just misused out of the "goodness" of our hearts - or perhaps out of our own inability to rationally look at the facts and make a change.
have a good one.
Jul 21, '05I would like to say that I agree with Kevin 100%. Also, I would like to address two topics that have been mentioned here:
First, I think that end-of-life decisions should be made by the patient or whoever has power of attorney for healthcare. We will start down a very slippery slope if we let ethics committees and government regulations decide who lives or dies. As healthcare providers, our primary concern is to provide care to our patients. If we are suddenly under pressure to deny care in order to save money, we will lose the trust of our patients and their families. How would you feel if you were sick in the hospital and had to worry about some "concerned" doctor "accidently" giving you an overdose because he didn't think you'd make it? How would you feel if you were not ready to give up the fight, but the government deemed you a "lost cause" and sent you to hospice anyways? We must first and foremost have it our goal to be an advocate for the patient. If he or she decides that hospice is the right choice for them, then by all means offer them that option.
Second, not all those who are poor and downtrodden are there because they "never had a chance". My father was a good example: he chose to drink and drive and became paralyzed as a consequence. I felt bad for him, of course, but I also knew that his choice had landed him in that situation. There are many other people who are in similar situations because they made poor choices, and we as a society are not responsible for that. Same goes for teenage parents; there is a decision that happened along the way to make this possible. That being said, there is a necessity for government programs to provide healthcare for those (elderly, disabled, children, those in poverty) who cannot obtain it themselves. I do not think that it is the role of the government to provide healthcare coverage to everyone, because in my opinion this will cause more harm than good. Do we really want to be put on a 2 year waiting list for surgery the way they are in Canada? I believe that there is a legal battle going on there right now, because people are not allowed to purchase health insurance for services already covered under the national plan.
One of the fundamental rights set forth in United States Declaration of Independence is LIBERTY, and I believe that a national healthcare system would seriously infringe upon this right.
Jul 21, '05Here's the whole article if you're interested:
Northern Exposure: A court ruling could unravel Canada's health-care system.
By Grace-Marie Turner
The supreme court of Canada struck down a Quebec law on Thursday that had banned private health insurance for services covered under medicare, Canada's socialized health-care program.
"This is indeed a historic ruling that could substantially change the very foundations of medicare as we know it," Canadian Medical Association president Dr. Albert Schumacher said after the ruling. The ruling means that Quebec residents can pay privately for medical services, even if the services also are available in the provincial health care system.
"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," the court said in its ruling.
A courageous Canadian doctor, Jacques Chaoulli, challenged the constitutionality of the Canadian ban on private payment. He argued that long waiting times for surgery contradict the country's constitutional guarantees of "life, liberty, and the security of the person."
He was joined in the case by his patient, Montreal businessman George Zeliotis, who waited a year for hip-replacement surgery. Zeliotis, 73, tried to skip the public queue to pay privately for the surgery but learned that was against the law. He argued that the wait was unreasonable, endangered his life, and infringed on his constitutional rights. The court agreed.
The case involved the Quebec Hospital Insurance Act and technically only applies to that province-but it will surely shake up all the other provinces, where private insurance is also banned. The court split 3-3 over whether the ban on private insurance violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Canadian equivalent of our Bill of Rights). Clearly this was a difficult decision since the court delayed a year in issuing its verdict.
The United States has been a safety valve for Canadians unwilling or unable to tolerate the long waits for medical care in their country. Now, the Canadian government must face the music about the long waiting lines, lack of diagnostic equipment, and restrictions on access to the latest therapies, including new medicines.
According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corp., in an almost laughable defense, "Lawyers for the federal government argued the court should not interfere with the health-care system, considered 'one of Canada's finest achievements and a powerful symbol of the national identity.'" Dr. Chaoulli had persevered in spite of two lower court-rulings against him that had ruled that the limitation on individual rights was justifiable in order to prevent the emergence of a two-tier healthcare system.
Supporters of the prohibition against private contracting in Medicare in the United States should take note because our own law has the same effect, making it almost impossible for Medicare recipients to pay privately for services covered by the program.