politics & job scarcity

Specialties CRNA

Published

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? Or, let's say, if all the schools doubled their entering classes this year, would there still be a shortage i five years? I've not seen any statistics on this. Perhaps those of you in class may have heard something from an instructor?

Secondly, are there any worries that legislation could drastically change/lower pay? This interest to do so rooted in the healthcare mess we are in. I would reference what happened to the home health care nursing as a result of changes in gov. reimbursement that occurred a few years ago, which made HH nursing go from somewhat rewarding in pay to not at all.

Any ideas or insights would be interesting to hear about. THANKS!

No, I am not assuming a supportive start. I grew up in foster homes and orphanages, had my first child at 18. On welfare, my first attempt to go to college was thwarted by a system which decreased my ability to buy food, in exchange for the student loans I received.

Second attempt, a school director who did everything within her power to facilitate my graduation, including financial help (and one clinical day babysitting for me). A daycare center that was subsidized, friends who were there when I needed them, and a lot of hard work. Without those support systems I would be a welfare mother rather than a nurse anesthesia student. So when I look at others I truly believe that there by the grace of god....and community go I.

Specializes in Nurse Anesthetist.

I've gotta vote with Kevin on this one, guys.

Although I do not have the time right now (I'm supposed to be going to a cardiac lecture), I have to say, there has to be a better way. GIVING things a way is not it. People need to decide what is important. Do they want healthcare or do they want to spend $$$ going out everynight and smoking cigs at $6.00 a pack. Multiply that out, couple packs a day, they can buy their own insurance.

As for employers paying for health insurance. Forget it. Some employees and their work is not worth more than min wage. (in California, close to $9.00/hr) Then you want the emplyer to pay even more?

Kinda silly, better re-think it.

More later.

Thanks to those who spoke up supporting my position. I have a few responses. First kevin, you ask what would I do if subsidized medicine came about and reduced my compensation? Well as you have pointed out in the past so effectivly, There are risks. What about if I go blind the day I graduate. BTW, my school is closing 1/2 way thru. Big risk there. The ASA could convice lawmakers that we are no longer neccessary. Risk surrounds us. I still believe that anesthesia providers would be neccessary, and if the trade-off is less wages for a healthcare system that is available to all. GOOD. BTW guys, i didn't say what form this care had to be in, socailized medicine is only one model. What about vouchers such as the republicans want to use in the school system. A few less bombers a little healthcare, a few less tax breaks for the wealthy and the Enrons, a little healthcare, you get the idea.

I am still waiting for the first person to rebut that that the guy i described a few posts back is exercising his choice. Tell me his options, someone please let me in? Also, having healthy members of society helps us all, ER costs go down, EMS costs fall. Parents and granparents are around to raise kids. Despite your "pull yourselves up by the bootstrap" preaching. Having healthcare available is the right thing to do. I think this all smacks of whistling past the graveyard. It ain't happening to me, I'll just look the other way and maybe I won't see the horror that exists in the underserved inner cities. Just put this hat on for a moment. I'm a 19 year old black male with a poor education because the schools suck, the teachers are doing riot control instead of math. I didn't do my homework cuz my dad is not around and my mother is a crack ho. I have no skills and the Mcdonalds, burger kings, Supermarkets have moved out to the burbs. Literally I live and try to work in a bombed out area and it has been that way since the 1960s. Now I'd like a job, and would be willing to ride the public transportation but I DON"T HAVE THE MONEY. Not only that, the busses are not on time if they come at all and i can't really read the schedual. Job searching by bus, now there's an option that is sure to be productive. OK, I stop at every place I can get to and guess what I find? Few if any jobs, most taken by other teens and those minimum wage jobs don't come w/health insurance. I'm back to square one.

BTW Quigly, are you implying that those who can't afford health insurance are all smoking the money away. Ridiculous. What about me, I could afford insurance but it is not available to me as an individual because i have diabetes! Can't get it at ANY price. Just one example. You should be ashamed at that notion.

London88, I firmly believe that having healthier people in our society raises us all. We would be a better class of humans if we were less willing to leave others behind. And yes, healthy people can take care of themselves better, their children better, educate better. Yes that is what I'm saying.

Those of you who say "I don't mean to sound cold and harsh, but you are not prying another dollar from my tight wallet" You are being cold and harsh in your words, actions and intentions.

I just want to leave you with one thought. The fact that you are sitting warm and dry, looking at a computer screen and can access the internet... already puts us among the elite class. There are others out there.

THE GOVERNMENT providing services. Conservatives believe in helping people but they believe that it is the PRIVATE SECTOR which is most efficient in accomplishing this task. We can have a debate as to which perspective is correct, but keep in mind that we are debating the APPROACH and not the goal. As a conservative it is my most ardent desire that EVERY person have the best quality of life possible (including healthcare). However, I believe that the best way to accomplish this goal is free market capitialism, and the technological advances which it facilitates.

Now, I understand that you believe my view is deeply flawed. Fine, you may be right. HOWEVER, it doesn't follow that you are in some way more caring or otherwise enlightened. No matter which approach is taken to the issue one must first acknowledge one simple truth. There isn't any such thing as a free lunch! The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics dictate that EVERYTHING has an energy, (which we account for in dollars with regard to healthcare) cost. The only question then is what approach is most efficient and beneficial in determining how that cost is paid and resources distributed. Socialism, is one approach that has certain advantages and also dis-advantages. The same is true for the free market (or more accurately quasi- socialistic approach that is in place today within the United States). So, please confine your arguments to the relative benefits of your approach and leave the moral superiority out of the equation, it's simply intellectually dishonest.

Roland, I didn't say socialized medicine was the answer, Read my last post again. I am not claiming higher morals here, but helping people would probably be nobler than not. I think that being willing to spend some more money on healthcare and being willing to sacrifice my money and effort does imply a more caring position than "I believe that the best way to accomplish this goal is free market capitialism, and the technological advances which it facilitates."

Tell me Roland how is that free market capitalism and technology going to save the life of the indigent? Your statements are lip service to the problem, your eloquent language doesn't hold the first answer.

I am still waiting for someone to describe to me realistic options for the poor who don't have health insurance. That guy on the street corner is still there and that young black man can't get his HTN treated.

The private sector stepping up is deafening me with silence.

Amen Roland because I am picking up the same moral superior vibes that you are talking about. Because I disagree with social medicine and free hand outs does not mean I do not care. That system simply does not work. I left England because I resented that system. I worked for the eqiuvalent of the IRS, as well the Income Support ( welfare) systems. We all knew of the inspectors who for a pay off would allow the big corporations to swindle their taxes. I watched Mr Blogs bring in his third wife from a country where polygamy is acceptable, and guess who had to pay to provide her with income support. YOURS TRULY. There is no large middle class sector over there like you have in the US. You have the poor and the rich. The government fosters a system where it is literally impossible to get ahead. I knew there had to be a better way, which is why I came to the US. There is nothing that anybody can tell me to convince that the grass is greener over there than it is over here. I could go on and on but I will leave the platform for another.

Minimum wage in California is $6.75 and that's as close to $9.00 as it is to $4.50. If any of you think you can live on minimum wage and afford health coverage, I'd be interested to hear exactly how you think it's possible, especially in a state like California. Without your employer obtaining the ins. at lower cost, than an individual can, and then paying a portion of the premium it is really unrealistic to think that people making minimum wage can afford ins on their own.

I've said it before, but let me repeat myself if I haven't made it clear. I'm not for giving health care away to people who aren't willing to work. I am for making sure that anyone, who works fulltime, has access to health care, and I'm also for covering children who's parents meet low income reqs. In California there is a program called Healthy Families, that for a max of $3.00 per month per child provides health care ins to children via a list of HMO's that the parents can select from.

For those of you that would like to class people out of health coverage (and I mean anyone that thinks working people, who can't afford health coverage, aren't worth it.), I'd ask, at what point due you think workers deserve to have their health care paid for. Within the scope of working people, tell me who's worth it, who isn't, and where you draw the line.

And Roland, in regard to letting the market contol access to health care, you correctly stated medicare, medicaid, and federally mandated er and trauma care (that's unfunded) already limit the free market. And even if we had a true free market, did anyone pay attention to what the free market did to the electricity consumers in California. With all the corporate scandals of late, putting our faith in the culture of greed isn't something I'm prepared to do. There are certain public services (like electricity and water) that are necessities, and I don't think free markets operate as they should in relation to these services.

I'm not for socialized medicine. I just think that children and working adults should have access to the same HMOs we all do.

Also, for any of you that have ever worked in the financial side of the house, or who have friends that are health care CEOs or CFOs, it would be interesting to know exactly how much it costs them to treat (in trauma, er, and icu) all these uninsured people, and whether or not they think the system needs to be changed.

I didn't see anyone claiming moral superiority. Perhaps some are a little defensive.

Dishonest, the only thing that's dishonest is saying, "let the free market solve the problem" and claming to care about the people the free market is leaving out in the cold.

And no Canada and the UK don't have the answer, but can't we at least agree something needs to be done other than accepting the status quo or adopting the UK style.

a

Well lets make it a nickel..

I'm all for a hand up not a hand out.

to the ability of the patient to pay. I worked for ONE of them right here in Indiana, Saint Francis Hospital. Now, they will attempt to COLLECT for those services later, but what's wrong with that? Also, as someone who is currently POOR, and without health insurence I can assure you that there is SOME safety net in place. My son receives coverage under a state/federal program because of our current income as full time students. Now it's true that I'm not covered (in some states like Minnesota I probably would qualify for Medicaid), but I do have access to SOME medical care (ie Saint Francis Hospital or Wishard). State and federal governments spend BILLIONS on Medicaid services to the underprivledged. In most states Medicaid, and educational entitlements make up better than HALF of the state budget allocations. The average middle class American citizen ALREADY pays over 50% of their wages in taxes (when you consider state, federal, excise, sales, gasoline, property, and license fees, not to mention those taxes reflected in higher PRICES of consumer goods). How much is enough? If you want to argue for socialism fine, but at least be honest in admitting that is the system you are advocating.

I would far prefer our current system which at least offers THE OPPORTUNITY for me to significantly better my future and that of my family, rather than one which in essence "condemed" me to a lower level working class forever. One of the prices of freedom is the acceptence that some people will do better than others. In order to have the chance to succeed, you must be willing to live with the fact that you may instead fail.

wntrmte,

Is your school really closing half way through? Where will the students that currently attend finish their education? That is scary.

+ Add a Comment