Cheney would "probably be dead by now" if not for his federally funded health care

lindarn · Dec 20, 2007

To compare human health to running a car is a great example of a culture that values the price of oil above the price of health care. It should be a constitutional right for all to have equal access to health care. The two great institutions of education and health carry societal responsibility and it is immoral to profiteer from either. One of the prices paid by democracy is that the importance of the individual outweighs common good. As with many other advanced societies, healthcare should be a public expense footed by public taxes and administered by a legislated government not one that is available to those that can afford to line the coffers of private health insurance companies. How much human pain and suffering could have been addressed with the billions of dollars that have been poured into Iraq only to cause devastation to people that are somehow a different species and not subject to the same feelings of pain, suffering and grief that we feel.

Isn't the reason for public schools, that every citizen is entitled to, an should receive, an education, and it is the "public good" to have an educated citizen, and that benefits EVERYONE, not just the educated individual.

Everyone pays for our public schools. It doesn't matter if you have no kids, never had kids, have kids who are grown, you still pay taxes that support our public schools. If publicly funded schools are not considered a socialist plot, than neither is government provided medical care, or a single payer government health care system. We have a "single payer" education system, while it has its faults, it does work, and we are not any worse off for having it than if we had all private schools, that 40% of the public could not afford.

Lindarn, RN ,BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

CO2emission · Dec 20, 2007

An excellent comment, if I understand it, about the right to a publicly funded and standardised system for schools. My comment really referred to healthcare but I would like to add in regard to education that it goes beyond the schooling of children. Public funding of education at all levels including the education available to nurses and other vocations is an investment in society at large. In Australia, there is no such thing as free tertiary education. Most courses incur a huge personal debt if you can't pay up front, which for many, takes years to pay the government back. While there are benefits at a personal level, the skills and knowledge earned benefit both the private and public sectors.

Is nursing training in the US publicly funded? One of the reasons we are experiencing a massive shortage of nurses is because recruitment is low in the tertiary sector. This of course reduces our capacity to provide optimal healthcare. Cheers;)

lindarn · Dec 21, 2007

An excellent comment, if I understand it, about the right to a publicly funded and standardised system for schools. My comment really referred to healthcare but I would like to add in regard to education that it goes beyond the schooling of children. Public funding of education at all levels including the education available to nurses and other vocations is an investment in society at large. In Australia, there is no such thing as free tertiary education. Most courses incur a huge personal debt if you can't pay up front, which for many, takes years to pay the government back. While there are benefits at a personal level, the skills and knowledge earned benefit both the private and public sectors.
Is nursing training in the US publicly funded? One of the reasons we are experiencing a massive shortage of nurses is because recruitment is low in the tertiary sector. This of course reduces our capacity to provide optimal healthcare. Cheers;)

I beg to differ with you. There is not "massive nursing shortage". There are 500,000 nurses in this country who are not working as nurses. For all of the emphasis on "recruitment of new nurses", these very nurses are leaving nursing in droves. The average length of time a new grad stays at bedside nursing is THREE YEARS. and they are gone. Recruitment is not low, in fact it has been on double speed in the last decade as the exodus of experienced nurses ran from the bedside.

Pay nurses to stay at the bedside, improve working conditions, and benefits, and there will be a glut of nurses like there is of teachers.

Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN

Spokane, Washington

Shaggyb2000 · Dec 21, 2007

Isn't the reason for public schools, that every citizen is entitled to, an should receive, an education, and it is the "public good" to have an educated citizen, and that benefits EVERYONE, not just the educated individual.
Everyone pays for our public schools. It doesn't matter if you have no kids, never had kids, have kids who are grown, you still pay taxes that support our public schools. If publicly funded schools are not considered a socialist plot, than neither is government provided medical care, or a single payer government health care system. We have a "single payer" education system, while it has its faults, it does work, and we are not any worse off for having it than if we had all private schools, that 40% of the public could not afford.
Lindarn, RN ,BSN, CCRN
Spokane, Washington

I highly agree that public schools are socialist plots. If you want healthcare on the level of public schooling system then prepare to have a lot more deaths. We are in the lowest rankings for math and sciences, kids drop out constantly and there are plenty of children left behind. The public school system is also one of the highest funded priorities in government yet consistently has the lowest ratings.

CO2emission · Dec 21, 2007

i beg to differ with you. there is not "massive nursing shortage". there are 500,000 nurses in this country who are not working as nurses. for all of the emphasis on "recruitment of new nurses", these very nurses are leaving nursing in droves. the average length of time a new grad stays at bedside nursing is three years. and they are gone. recruitment is not low, in fact it has been on double speed in the last decade as the exodus of experienced nurses ran from the bedside.
pay nurses to stay at the bedside, improve working conditions, and benefits, and there will be a glut of nurses like there is of teachers.
lindarn, rn, bsn, ccrn
spokane, washington

oh dear! if i could ask you to observe my country of origin and reread my posting perhaps you might politely answer my question. even if the country of origin was an oversight the question would be a cue that i know very little about nursing education in the us. but i am taking time to find out because i am interested in other nursing contexts. one thing i can assure you is that i know quite a lot about australian nursing and would like to reaffirm that there is a massive nursing shortage (the average age of rn's is 45 and for most, their education was publicly funded) and.... guess what? we also have a shortage of teachers but the highest academic achievers usually come from public schools where socialist plots are not fueled by paranoid neocons.

fyi... our healthcare system is publicly funded, available to all and people don't die in emergency departments or on the street because they don't have health insurance.

co2emission, rn,bn,cns,med,gcpicu,gcicu,gcpsych,mcn,macccn

australia

LydiaNN · Dec 21, 2007

I highly agree that public schools are socialist plots. If you want healthcare on the level of public schooling system then prepare to have a lot more deaths. We are in the lowest rankings for math and sciences, kids drop out constantly and there are plenty of children left behind. The public school system is also one of the highest funded priorities in government yet consistently has the lowest ratings.

The reply you're quoting didn't say that public schools are socialist plots, so I'm not sure with whom you're agreeing, but that theory has a huge hole in it. Yes, American children place lower in math and science scores than anyone would like, but the schools attended by children in the countries with which they are being compared are also publicly funded for the most part. There aren't many developed countries that don't mandate public education.

BBFRN, BSN, PhD · Dec 21, 2007

The reply you're quoting didn't say that public schools are socialist plots, so I'm not sure with whom you're agreeing, but that theory has a huge hole in it. Yes, American children place lower in math and science scores than anyone would like, but the schools attended by children in the countries with which they are being compared are also publicly funded for the most part. There aren't many developed countries that don't mandate public education.

Yep- Finland has the highest scores worldwide, and their education system is publicly funded even through college.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Dec 21, 2007

Our schools also educate EVERYONE. We don't track lower achievers to trade schools in 9th grade because as a country we value opportunity and the chance for a "late bloomer" effect.

School performance varies by states in the US. School performance varies by availability of pre-k education and other family supports. The upper midwest states have very high graduation rates AND score well on standardized testing as compared to the rest of the world. States in the deep south tend to have lower test scores AND lower graduation rates. The poorer results are directly tied to inadequate public investment in these states. Public investments in education and public health pays off.

The "socialist" countries (eg Norway, Sweden Finland etc) have much lower rates of child poverty than the US. It is more accurate to describe them as social democracies. This is primarily d/t family supports and public investment in young children. Poverty strongly correlates with poor health and low educational achievement. Addressing poverty improves both health and school performance.

CRNA2007 · Dec 22, 2007

nuff said

he didn't think

pickledpepperRN · Dec 22, 2007

Out of context quotes not even including the rest of the sentence are confusing.

CRNA2007 · Dec 23, 2007

What If What if What If.... If is for children. The FACT is that Tim is doing just fine because of private insurance not because of some government mandated waiting list for care or to be seen or beauracratic bungling that forces him to get less than adequate care for his child.

I am sure Timothy has contingency plans in place for his daughter's coverage, so please don't think I am attacking him, but if this pre-term birth were visited on a "regular" person who is depending on employer-based insurance, their options are then limited, especially if the baby develops chronic complications. There may be a lifetime cap, no? What about if the company folds? Can the employee even contemplate switching to another employer? As far as I can see, that person is now obligated to continue with that original insurance policy, at whatever price, as long as there may be any lingering need for coverage, unless they have the means to pay cash for all care. What if the employee is hurt/dies/goes to prison?? The possibilities are too many to plan for, as a "regular" person!!

LydiaNN · Dec 23, 2007

"If is for children"??? Then dealing with the myriad twists and turns that life takes must be for children too. In reality, "if" is a fact of life that affects adults much more than it affects children, because we're the ones that must figure out how to move forward when life hits one of its inevitable bumps in the road. For everyone but you, apparently.