Content That herring_RN Likes

herring_RN Guide 83,105 Views

Joined Mar 14, '04 - from 'California, USA'. herring_RN is a retired registered nurse. She has '>40 years' year(s) of experience and specializes in 'Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical'. Posts: 17,267 (73% Liked) Likes: 34,760

Sorted By Last Like Given (Max 500)
  • Dec 12

    Quote from TriciaJ
    It works well in Canada, but we only have 1/10th of the US population. We also went from self-pay to single payer; we didn't have the challenge of upending a whole lucrative industry. I can see many challenges to US going single-payer.

    But we do need to do something. The "Affordable" Care Act is anything but for the middle class.
    I agree that it will be difficult to deal with insurance companies. However, the argument about population and scaleability of a healthcare system while a well used talking point makes absolutely no logical sense to me. Canada has 36 million people and the US, 350 million. But we just can't make it work?

  • Dec 12

    Quote from TriciaJ
    One of the reasons the Canadian health care system works (which is really a misnomer; the provinces run their own programs) is that it didn't replace an existing system. There was no system; cash or no care. It's not without problems but it was very nice to get treated when you're sick and no worry about how it's going to be paid for.

    The US "system" is a huge quagmire. Quagmires cost money to maintain. Obamacare did nothing to streamline anything. Prior to Obamacare, I paid out of pocket (about $300/month) for a catastrophic plan. My out of pocket expenses maxed out at $10,000/year. And the plan covered basic preventative at 100%. It was a great plan until Obamacare when it ceased to exist.

    I don't know what the answer is. Federally managed anything is always going to be expensive. CareOregon was a big expensive fiasco. I hope wiser heads eventually prevail.
    The Canadian system was the basically the same as ours until they decided to insure their populace in the 1960s.

    Again let me say that Obamacare is definitely not perfect, but I believe it is a step in the right direction. The cost of care overall has been lower than it would have been if we had continued without Obamacare. We have more people insured with real insurance coverage. Obamacare streamlined a number of regulations that would mean the insurance you pay for will actually cover you and provide care- a big reason why some of these so called "wonderful" health insurance plans went away. You were paying $300/month for a catastrophic coverage plan prior to Obamacare? You were getting robbed.

    Our elected government has been actively attempting to undermine this law instead of improving it since it was created. There are more than a few smart people in the United States. There are many other country systems we could investigate as templates. The "greatest nation on earth" could get this done.

    It's been seven years. We could have better. Just need an elected government and populace that would actually MAGA instead of wearing a stupid hat.

  • Dec 11

    Quote from AutumnApple
    Just a general question for those who are of the point of view that the healthcare system is working in Canada (or anyone else who wishes to respond). Why do you believe it's working?

    I've heard it does require you to go in for routine things, and people in general are more compliant to making their routine visits but I've always been told there is a lot of bad too. It taking forever to get things done that are necessary (cholecystectomy for example) is one big concern. Literally, I hear it's over a year from being told you need it to when it's scheduled. I know of a family whose father was on hospice and his care needs kept getting more and more difficult, yet he never actually got put in a hospice. He did have homecare nurses visit but they could only do so much. Also, it's very budgeted from what I understand. What I mean is: If it's near the end of the fiscal year and the money is all spent, no matter what your needs are, you're going to wait for the next year to start.

    I'm no expert on this stuff, but I've heard more bad than good. I don't know if I'm misinformed or, maybe it's like everything else and its "take the good with the bad."
    A lot of what people "hear" about the Canadian system (or British system, for that matter) is negative propaganda, pure and simple. Many of the stories of "a friend of mine knew someone and this terrible thing happened to them," when you try to track down who the friend was, who the person supposedly in Canada was, and when this actually happened, the entire story falls apart.

    To me, the bottom line is that the US spends significantly more per capita on healthcare than any other industrialized nation on earth, and we have poorer outcomes to show for it. And we are the only industrialized country that doesn't have some centralized mechanism/system for ensuring everyone gets the healthcare they need. No system is perfect, obviously, but all those other countries clearly know something we don't.

  • Dec 11

    Quote from AutumnApple
    Just a general question for those who are of the point of view that the healthcare system is working in Canada (or anyone else who wishes to respond). Why do you believe it's working?

    I'm no expert on this stuff, but I've heard more bad than good. I don't know if I'm misinformed or, maybe it's like everything else and its "take the good with the bad."
    Well fortunately we have Wikipedia to assist with your quest for truth. No hearsay necessary.
    Comparison of the healthcare systems in Canada and the United States - Wikipedia

    Seems to me their whole population is insured and they get way more for their dollar than Americans.

    Taking the good with the bad is what we have to deal with in anything, we're doing that with Obamacare now. No system will ever be perfect. But it's embarrassing to me that the supposed "greatest nation on earth" has 40% of its population without adequate insurance, with 24% of that with "skeletal" health coverage that barely covers anything according to the article.

  • Dec 11

    Quote from Robert.CFRN
    Do you seriously think that putting the government in charge of all health care is going to result in better quality and lower costs?
    Yes. See Canada. See England. See France. See Australia. See Netherlands. See Germany. Et Cetera.

    As stated, the Republican controlled congress (since inception) and the current administration has been undermining the current health care law causing instability and uncertainty in the health care market. This is why premiums, your premiums, have been increasing at an astronomical rate. Once the new tax plan eliminates the individual mandate, see how much they cost then. That is the fault of your elected leaders.

    Regulations are burdensome to whom? I agree, we sometimes have to do seemingly idiotic things at work sometimes. Do you know why? Probably we killed someone. Maybe it's not that government isn't the answer, maybe it's just that our government isn't the answer, as stated that somehow other countries have better outcomes at lower cost than ours does. Although not perfect, I'd argue they're much better.

    Your source is from the Cato Institute. I'm sorry that I have to disregard that as a biased source, considering who they are. The first sentence state they want to do away with licensing of medical professionals (with recognizing other states licenses only as a preliminary step) Yikes.

  • Dec 3

    Quote from OCNRN63
    Try paying for certain chemo out of pocket. I'm on a PARP-inhibitor that costs thousands of dollars a month. That's just for one med. If you can't work, how are you supposed to set money aside for health care, let alone pay for the health care you need?
    It's not just chemo. Most of us would be shocked at the retail prices of caregiver appointments, labs and procedures, drugs, medical supplies and dme. Lantus insulin costs well over $300/10ml vial. Test strips are $1.00 apiece ... $50 per box of 50 strips.

  • Nov 17

    Yes the mass shootings are very upsetting.

    Now, before I get into it I should tell a bit about myself. I do not play political parties, I am neither Elephant or Donkey, but a free-thinking person. I learn about issues and decide based on what I believe is right. I have been wrong in my life, I've made mistakes, and I have learned much. I believe that is part of the purpose of life. I own firearms and I am trained to handle them. I abhor violence, I hate war, but I like shooting targets and what is called plinking. I was in the Navy, and I don't care if a person kneels for the anthem, it's not about me...they are exercising their rights in a peaceful, dignified manner and our forces exist to protect such freedoms. I believe in this country, I believe in dialogue, and I believe the minute we stop talking and start shouting at one another (as we have been collectively doing) then emotion takes the front seat and the conversation will not go anywere; it is over.

    Now the mass shootings and school shootings are terrible and have accelerated since Columbine, but the truth is people are getting shot every single day one or two at a time. In my city I have witnessed kids use their parent-imparted training to scatter and run at the sound of shots. A few weeks ago I was talking to a parent whose child was playing a sport, in a park, and the child was hit by a bullet during a random drive-by. I could go on with many stories, but what I am putting home here is that mass shootings are traumatizing, but are only a glimpse of the the number of deaths by firearm every single day.

    I believe the issue is cultural, with many contributing factors. Our culture seems to value human life and the universality of pain and suffering less each year.

    First, people are frustrated. They work hard and get less and less in return. Inreasingly people are thrown aside from jobs or career paths like they are a disposable item. Most people can handle it, and at least don't move to killing people. Many cannot take it. Some choose destruction.

    Add in a popular culture of violence and graphic images, for instance turn on the TV and go through the programs and say "if this show has violence, gunfire, war, blood and guts, crime..then I won't watch it" and see how many you eliminate. Video exists on genuine news websites of people being shot, LEO body cams of mass shootings are made public, etc.. Also graphic images/ video of real violence and death are available on the internet for anyone to explore. A Rabbit Hole exists on the web into which a person can anonymously fall deeper and deeper. Now lets not even get into video games...just suffice it to say that violence has become part of our culture.

    Now let's add in the absolute ease with which we can buy firearms and have them ready to go. What happens is we get a mixture of opportunity and means, and then a person bends...bendsss...and then a motive occurs and they *SNAP* and do the unthinkable. Oh but just imagine how many more people out there have thought about doing the unthinkable!

    Where I live buying a firearm is much easier than buying a car. No license or registration needed. Buying from a private seller is more on par with buying something off of craiglist. You find a an ad and call someone, meet them, they show you a gun, you show them an ID (no background check), they take your money and off ya go. Want to buy more ammunition? The cheapest place is Wal-Mart, so why not drop in to buy some ammo and and grab some milk while you're at it?

    I support restricted access to firearms, required licensure, registration and tax the heck out of purchases. Ammunition should require firearm licensure, a weapon owned of the ammunition type, and tracking of purchases. If you want a gun bad enough, if you jump through the hoops and pass the exams, if you pay the price...then okay you can have the weapons. Many firearms need to be bought-back, and for a high enough price that it's worth it to the person to turn it over...and then the weapon needs to be destroyed. There are simply too many guns. If a person is caught posessing a weapon without proper licensure, then there need to be repercussions, they should be fined and required to do community service. Now of course this will not have an immediate effect, it would likely take decades before there's noticeable difference. One more thing. Anyone who says they need a firearm to protect themselves from the government is either lying or blissfully unaware of modern weapons' capabilities.

    Violence will always occur, but there is no reason firearms should be less regulated than a controlled substance. And yes I am aware there is an opioid crisis, there has been a drug problem in this country for generations and I have seen it up close. But just imagine if there was no regulation and no restriction on sales of opiates. If buying fentanyl were as easy and cheap as buying a you think this opiate crisis would be worse?

    The gun violence is a symptom of a disease that has progressed for far to long, we cannot do nothing and expect it to go away.

  • Nov 8

    Quote from herring_RN
    Many times a judge in arbitration, court, or the licensing board rule in favor of a nurse who gave notice as soon as he or she became aware of the unsafe assignment.
    Several unions have an "Assignment Despite Objection" "ADO" or "Disclaimer.
    When I worked as a registry nurse I wrote to copies with that language, the name of the manager notifies, and why the assignment was unsafe. I didn't use a patient name, just the name of the unit and the number of patients. Often other nurses also signed it. Sometimes it resulted in additional staff.
    It will state, "As a patient advocate, in accordance withthe Nurse Practice Act, this form confirms my notification to you that, in my professional judgment, today's assignment is unsafe and places my patients at risk.
    As a result, I will under protest carry out the assignment to the best of my ability

    Here are samples:

    Scroll down to read the ADO: The ADO - HoneyBadgerRed

    1199 SEIU UHWE Florida Region a Assignment ... - | SLIDEBLAST.COM


    ADOs are used in Florida:
    Nurses complain about staffing at two hospitals
    THANK YOU FOR this Herring_RN.

    I truly favor nurses who know their rights in the workplace. This story is sad and can be a lesson for us nurses to start knowing your employee rights.

    Also, did the employers ever prepare the nurses with emergency action plan training?

  • Nov 8

    Quote from klone
    It's not. The problem is that many conservative Christians have a VERY broad definition of abortion. They consider methotrexate administration for ectopic pregnancy to be abortion. They also consider giving emergency contraception to be abortion.

    EDs typically do not do abortions. It's a surgical procedure. I suspect that she was told that they administer emergency contraception or methotrexate. In HER conservative Christian mind, that = abortion.
    How sad regarding emergency contraception. I was initially misinformed about how plan B worked and when someone asked for it at the pharmacy there I teched I would politely get someone else to help them. But it only reduces the chance of ovulation and had I known that I would not have refused. I guess if you're against any form of birth control whatsoever you'd still refuse, but it still ducks under the "life begins at conception" bar many conservatives go by.*

    *My views have evolved in the years since then but I was behaving politely and professionally according to my beliefs at the time and it didn't impair my ability to do that job.

  • Nov 6

    There were university-employed cops present who tried to verbally stop the arrest, who backed-down after officer Payne threatened them. Officer Payne complimented them in one of the videos posted online for backing down. One of the changes announced by the hospital after this was "re education" of hospital (university) police, informing them that they had a duty to protect patients and staff, even from rogue outside officers. The hospital staff was concerned enough about the safety of the nurse, that they requested the university cops ride with the nurse (so she didn't get beaten or further abused by this officer) - the officer assigned rode in the *back* of the car, which left the nurse in a dangerous position.

    The university police were not going to do anything at all, until they were publicly exposed. Their initial response was basically "tough noogies". So a financial penalty is quite appropriate.

    The hospital didn't make much of a fuss until they were publicly exposed by the video that nurse wubbels released.. if she hadn't been able to obtain and release the video, this would have absolutely remained buried.. everything happened a month after the false arrest & assault on the nurse, not because of a genuine desire to protect staff, but because the video of what actually happened made the today show & went viral.

    If you carefully watch the longer video, you'll see officer Payne & his supervisor having a discussion & officer Payne saying something to the effect of "camera on or off?" , which is particularly troubling.. if you're doing the right thing, there's no reason ever to turn a camera off. The truth will set you free!

    I personally dont don't think this situation is really "resolved" - the police union released a statement very clearly stating that the public is just too stupid to understand & even video proof of everyone's statements isn't good enough to pass judgement.. the public should presumably just rely on whatever an officer *says* happened, because, thin blue line..

    This information has all been posted & written about publicly, just you had to follow a series of articles to see all of it.

  • Nov 6

    I am pleased for her. Remember me, will ya Nurse Wubbles?

  • Nov 6

    In regards to nurse Wubbles I'm extremely satisfied with the outcome. With that being said, I sincerely hope that this will send a message to all police departments in all states, that we as medical staff do follow our facility rules and regulations and no one has the right to arrest any given medical staff for not following a non-staff member of the facility in questioned for following hospital rules. Lastly, I wish nurse Wubbles the best in all of her future endeavors, Aloha~

  • Nov 6

    Quote from NeoNatMom
    Like it or not, people are legally protected to live according to their beliefs. They should be respected on the same level as healthcare professionals expected to respect the choices legally protected for their patients. No one person is more important than the other. And it does seem like most commentors on here stating the "if she cant do all parts of the job, she should get another job" are not of a faith that clearly prohibits the termination of a life. That being said, we should all respect others stances enough to accept that there are those who will and those who won't be willing to do certain things in their line of work. And that doesn't make them better or worse than the next person.

    I am sorry, but people in this country aren't given carte blanche to live according to their beliefs.

    For instance, many people believe in the practice of female genital mutilation. But if you practice it here, and carry it out as a health care provider, you will arrested, as was an MD in Michigan recently.

    Yes, we can argue if the nurse in question can't carry out her job duties due to religious concerns, perhaps she find another line of work. Nobody is forced to become a nurse, or pharmacist or MD. Those are choices.

    I am sure if she chose to work on the assembly line at Toyota, she would have few to none, ethical decisions to make.

    But again, this case really isn't about a specific nurse and her job duties. This case is really an effort to further support the notion of "Religious Freedom."

    I honestly don't see why people can't understand that. It is so blatantly obvious. This case is about making America more religious, let's face it, Christian, according to conservatives.

    And when Kim Davis, the Rowan County Clerk, refused to sign the marriage licenses of gay couples in Kentucky because it violated her religious faith, the courts sided against her, and now the state must pay court fees and damages to the couple in question. HOORAY!

  • Nov 6

    Quote from NeoNatMom
    No one is obligated to disclose anything related to their faith before being hired on.

    Employers can't ask about anyone's religion, but they can certainly ask whether there is any reason people wouldn't be able to fulfill all the responsibilities of a particular job.

  • Nov 6

    Quote from NeoNatMom
    That being said, we should all respect others stances enough to accept that there are those who will and those who won't be willing to do certain things in their line of work. And that doesn't make them better or worse than the next person.

    No, but it does make them someone who should find a different setting in which to work, one in which activities and procedures that conflict with their religious beliefs are not likely to come up on a regular basis.