Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have over 388,529 members! Join today to network with other nurses, laugh, share, and much more.
| No. 30 | 
Sep 11, 2009, 09:08 AM
 Re: Do you want to have to win a lottery to see the doctor?
It's worse than that...it's physics.
 | | Advertisement Sponsored Links | | | | No. 31 |
Sep 11, 2009, 03:29 PM
Re: Do you want to have to win a lottery to see the doctor?
Yep Black Hole .
The present healthcare financing system is collapsing on itself , if it wasn't there would be no drive to reform . We in combination with our employers are pouring ever increasing amounts into healthcare premiums , at some point they will become too great for us to bear . Then what ?
| | No. 32 |
Sep 11, 2009, 06:33 PM
Re: Do you want to have to win a lottery to see the doctor? Originally Posted by CRNA2007  Cool, then it will be just like England.
That sounds like something a red would say.
Don't make me report you to HUAC, comrade.
| | No. 33 |
Sep 12, 2009, 01:12 AM
Updated
Sep 12, 2009 at 01:20 AM by ozoneranger
Re: Do you want to have to win a lottery to see the doctor? Originally Posted by herring_RN It's worse than that...it's physics. No, it's worse than physics, it's money.
Restructuring: A View from the Bedside Over the last decade we heard much about the need for deficit reduction as major cuts were made to social services (Peterson and Lupton 1996). The variety of organizational changes that resulted within the healthcare system are commonly referred to as "restructuring." Beds and even entire hospitals were closed and patient care services reduced. Nursing positions, as large budget items, became cost-cutting priorities. As a result, hospitals' shares of total expenditures are starting to slip, yet overall, healthcare costs continue to rise. Drug costs and physicians' services seem largely responsible for the increase (Canadian Institute for Health Information 2000). For the nurses still in the system, workloads increased dramatically. Another major outcome was an expanding "casualization" of labour, as caring work is now performed increasingly by part-time staff: a flexible "skill mix" of nurses and lesser-skilled/unskilled workers (Huston 1996; Prescott 1993). Unskilled labor to save money in socialized Canada.
Why do you think so many nurses moved to the US from Canada in the 1990's?
I can tell you in one word:
UNEMPLOYED http://www.longwoods.com/product.php?productid=17025 | | No. 34 |
Sep 12, 2009, 11:01 AM
Re: Do you want to have to win a lottery to see the doctor? We did get one Canadian RN as a travel nurse at my hospital in the ninties. She was a fine nurse and friend who went back to Toronto after six months. This was just a year after 30% of our RNs were laid off when they forced so called "Patient Focused Care" on us. We had to take a class where we were told that RNs were too educated to do the everyday messy nursing work, We would be the supervisors while LVNs and nursing assistants did the hands on care. Just who did they think nurses had been focusing on for that past 150 years? And we were called "troublemaker" when we actually focused on what was best for our patients.
...Thousands of health care professionals have been laid off. At Kaiser Permanente facilities in Northern California, for example, 1,600 RNs were laid off from 1994 through 1996. A 1997 survey by the California Board of Registered Nursing showed 5% of respondents had left nursing because of downsizing. Patients and communities were stripped of care statewide. Services were reduced, patients began to experience longer waits for care and, according to numerous studies, there is a rise in medical errors often attributable to chronic short-staffing, fatigued health professionals or other poor conditions. Growing numbers of RNs decided that they were no longer willing to work in conditions that they believe threatened their patients, their licensure and their physical and emotional well-being. A 1999 study by the consulting firm of William M. Mercer cited a 17% RN turnover nationwide, with 43% of nurses, naming workload and staffing as the reasons.... http://articles.latimes.com/2000/dec/26/local/me-4748 | | No. 35 |
Sep 12, 2009, 01:07 PM
Re: Do you want to have to win a lottery to see the doctor?
Good, then you are prepared for the cuts that will come with government run care. The purpose of government run care is to:
1. Reduce costs
2. Expand the rolls of insured persons.
And you thought you were stretched a far as you could go.
Because 'nursing' is viewed as one of the top 3 major expenses, and the 'expanded rolls of insured, means-- many, many many, more patients in the doctors office, clinics, outpatient facilities & hospitals, one of the solutions is to replace RN's with 'a flexible "skill mix" of nurses and lesser-skilled/unskilled workers.' Abstract:
This qualitative study reports on the perspectives of hospital staff nurses regarding the recent restructuring of Canadian healthcare. They were the group on the front lines bearing the brunt of the changes. Yet, mostly they had not been consulted, as the decisions were made elsewhere. Twenty staff nurses working in a variety of Toronto hospitals were interviewed and described the impacts on themselves and their patients. While restructuring focused on deficit reduction and increased efficiency, the factors affecting quality of patient care and work life of nurses were neglected. The major strategies employed - increased workloads, casualization and deskilling - changed nurses' work at the bedside. Stable teams disappeared as nurses were hired into casualized positions. Care was reduced to specific tasks and routinized, to be carried out by a "skill-mix" of workers. The nurses' relationships with patients, the "heart and soul of nursing," became largely limited to managing care for a number of patients over one shift. Lack of time and continuity with their patients left nurses dissatisfied. The voices of bedside nurses and their suggestions for change add some novel perspectives to the restructuring discourse. "Each time a new task is given away to another worker some of my colleagues say, 'Well, what is there for us to do now?' I can see our roles vanishing, they could be vanishing." http://www.longwoods.com/product.php?productid=17025 | | No. 36 |
Sep 12, 2009, 02:00 PM
Re: Do you want to have to win a lottery to see the doctor?
The lottery system has already been used in the rationing of care in Oregon.
The Oregon Health Plan was conceived and realized by emergency room doctor John Kitzhaber, then a state senator,[1] and Dr. Ralph Crawshaw, a Portland activist.[2] It was intended to make health care more available to the working poor, while rationing benefits.[1] At the time, Oregon was considered a national leader in health care reform.[3] The law passed in Oregon was not initially compatible with federal law, so a waiver was needed. President Bill Clinton approved the plan on March 20, 1993, though he required a revision to the plan due to a concern about whether disabled people would have equal access.[4] At the time, Medicaid covered 240,000 Oregonians.[4]
In 1994, the plan's first year of operation, nearly 120,000 new members signed up, and bad debts at Portland hospitals dropped 16%.[1]
The plan's costs increased from $1.33 billion in 1993-1995 to $2.36 billion in 1999-2001.[1] Significant cuts were made to the Oregon Health Plan's budget in 2003.[5] New enrollment in the program were closed from mid-2004[6] until early 2008, when a lottery-based system was introduced. Tens of thousands of Oregonians signed up, competing for 3,000 new spots in the plan.[7][8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Health_Plan | | No. 37 |
Sep 12, 2009, 08:10 PM
Re: Do you want to have to win a lottery to see the doctor? Originally Posted by ozoneranger Good, then you are prepared for the cuts that will come with government run care. The purpose of government run care is to:
1. Reduce costs
2. Expand the rolls of insured persons.
And you thought you were stretched a far as you could go.
Because 'nursing' is viewed as one of the top 3 major expenses, and the 'expanded rolls of insured, means-- many, many many, more patients in the doctors office, clinics, outpatient facilities & hospitals, one of the solutions is to replace RN's with 'a flexible "skill mix" of nurses and lesser-skilled/unskilled workers.' Abstract: This qualitative study reports on the perspectives of hospital staff nurses regarding the recent restructuring of Canadian healthcare. They were the group on the front lines bearing the brunt of the changes. Yet, mostly they had not been consulted, as the decisions were made elsewhere. Twenty staff nurses working in a variety of Toronto hospitals were interviewed and described the impacts on themselves and their patients. While restructuring focused on deficit reduction and increased efficiency, the factors affecting quality of patient care and work life of nurses were neglected. The major strategies employed - increased workloads, casualization and deskilling - changed nurses' work at the bedside. Stable teams disappeared as nurses were hired into casualized positions. Care was reduced to specific tasks and routinized, to be carried out by a "skill-mix" of workers. The nurses' relationships with patients, the "heart and soul of nursing," became largely limited to managing care for a number of patients over one shift. Lack of time and continuity with their patients left nurses dissatisfied. The voices of bedside nurses and their suggestions for change add some novel perspectives to the restructuring discourse. "Each time a new task is given away to another worker some of my colleagues say, 'Well, what is there for us to do now?' I can see our roles vanishing, they could be vanishing." http://www.longwoods.com/product.php?productid=17025
This happened in both Canada and the United States in the 1990's.
We need to work to get National RN ratios passed to prevent hospitals cutting staff and harming patients. http://www.calnurses.org/nursing-pra.../pdf/s1031.pdf
The ratios for long term care facilities.
| | No. 38 |
Sep 12, 2009, 08:55 PM
Re: Do you want to have to win a lottery to see the doctor?
The government is only looking to do 2 things.
1. cut costs
2. insure more people
Nurses are in the top 3 costs, government will change the rules to reduce costs as they see fit.
Otherwise, the numbers just won't run.
Be prepared to lose your job & see taxes skyrocket, that's the only way to sustain HR3200.
If you're ok with that, well good for you.
|
| 396 members
3,479 guests 3,875
| 1 | | | 12 | | | 2 | | | 9 | | | 17 | | | 11 | | | 16 | | | 16 | | | 37 | | | 14 | | | 20 | | | 23 | | | 19 | | | 24 | | | 10 | |
|
Nursing News