How Will Universal Health Care Change Nursing? - page 17

How will universal health care change the Nursing profession? Will we finally get ratios? Will our pay go up, or down? What about benefits? Will the quality of care improve, slide, or stay the... Read More

  1. by   Sade
    (10th Amendment) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    And again..... Talking about brainwashed.....
  2. by   CanuckStudent
    Quote from Sade
    America, as originally intended to be, consisted of a bunch of independent and self sufficient states. These states had total sovereignty over their laws, religions, culture, and way of life, unless otherwise specified within the Constitution. For example, New York didn't really care much if Massachusetts had a State established Christian Puritan religion because it was a sovereign state, independent from New York. Who was New York to tell Massachusetts how to run their state? The states were joined together as a country for purposes of protecting the liberties and sovereignty that each enjoyed collectively within their states. This sovereignty has incrementally through the years eroded to the point where today states think they are now cities and the country now thinks it's a state. Many Americans abhor the idea of government funded health care because it flies in the face of Constitutional principles.
    Are you worried about states losing their personal independence? In Canada, each province individually controls their healthcare budget. This was already mentioned on this thread. So that isn't necessarily a concern.

    I don't want people to lose sight of the big picture. American currency has "In God We Trust" written on it and Presidents are always stating "God Bless America", but the fact is, I believe the US constitution states that church and state must be separate!!!! Yet we don't hear many people protesting because of that. Using religion to bond the masses is a good technique.

    Is that what you refer to when you mention "brainwashing"? Do you mean that Americans don't know what is true when it comes to their government, and therefore can't trust them to run healthcare? Perhaps this is valid, I don't know.

    Regardless, tax payer funded healthcare as you can see does not *have* to affect the constitution, and what we all need to be focusing on is how to help those who are suffering because they can't get care. That is the main issue.

    No one should lose their home because of having to decide between a mortgage and cancer treatment. IMHO.

    I'm curious to see what will happen in the coming months in regards to this issue...

    Edit: I have to admit that as a Canadian, I know nothing about the US laws or 'constitution'. Zero. And nobody should expect me to. But I still think that a valid option can be found that makes everyone happy.
  3. by   Sade
    States are NOT prohibited from establishing a religion, only the Federal Government is. There is NO Federal Constitution prohibition of states establishing a religion as long as the state established religion does not obstruct or restrict the rights of its citizens to practice alternative religions.
  4. by   Fiona59
    Could we bring this back to how NURSES would fare under the programme?

    Not spout political theory until the cows fall asleep?

    Oh, and when my son broke his arm, he was in and out of the ER in under three hours.
  5. by   Sade
    Once again... I've never read in our Constitution where it gives our federal government authority over the states on this subject or many, many, many, other subjects.

    If individuals are ignorant of our American Constitution then their opinions have no authority and their responses are worthless.

    The idea that New York, for example, has a Constitutional right to limit or affect in any way Massachusetts laws, religions, culture, health care, and way of life, unless otherwise specified within the Constitution, should be fiercely opposed and tirelessly exposed on the basis of Constitutional illegitimacy.
  6. by   jdub3
    Quote from Sade
    I've never read in our Constitution where it gives our federal government authority over the states on this subject or many, many, many, other subjects. Talking about brainwashed......
    Thats pretty much it bottom line. When did we forget the values our country was founded on. Lots of us are missing the real story, Socialism does not belong in America. If you want to be capped off and overworked then yes, go ahead and support this crap that has been laid out by our CNC.
  7. by   kinesjl
    Quote from CanuckStudent
    Are you worried about states losing their personal independence? In Canada, each province individually controls their healthcare budget.

    In many ways Canadian health care is less centralized and regulated then the current U.S. system despite Universal coverage.Furthermore, all current U.S. health care reform proposals would only increase this level of centralization, along with all of the problems that come with such a system, which I have already delineated quite thoroughly in several previous posts.
  8. by   kinesjl
    Quote from Fiona59
    Could we bring this back to how NURSES would fare under the programme?
    That part is rather simple, significant cuts in pay and ample increase in workload.
  9. by   dtp232323
    No, no complaints at all about the staff. Fortunately, I have insurance and chose to go to a more familiar setting to take care of the problem. I thought the risk of staph was decreased with more available soap for all. Yes, it was a very rural area. Like I said, I am no expert.
  10. by   ghillbert
    Quote from dtp232323
    I am no expert on the Canadian system, but I did spend 10 hours in an ER chatting with nurses, receptionist and aides. They had one doctor who drove 45 KM (about 100 miles) from his home to reach the hospital and they were happy to have the one. The equipment (computers included) appeared to be over 20 years old. There was no soap in the room or restrooms. It seems there was only one size gloves available. The admitting lady told me they were very close to having to close their doors due to lack of funding. The nurse seemed embarssed after scotch taping my arm ID band to hold in it place. I shouldn't have told her ours (in the states) had to be cut off with scissors. I asked what locals did when they were ill. They said the GP's accepted a certain number of patients and other people did without. This is not what I would like to become accustomed to.
    I fell down 20 stairs, fractured a bone in my elbow (I had no idea if there were internal injuries) and chose to fly back to the state to use more modern facilities with soap, better lighting and probably a more rested staff. I also did not want to bring staph with me from Canada. I was so happy to go to my local ER and wait 2 hours. At least I knew there would be a CT, MRI, or ultrasound available if needed.
    We do need to fix our system. I don't think government control is the way to do so.
    FYI 45km=28.9 miles, not 100 miles.
  11. by   TinkRN8
    Quote from CanuckStudent
    Are you worried about states losing their personal independence? In Canada, each province individually controls their healthcare budget. This was already mentioned on this thread. So that isn't necessarily a concern.

    I don't want people to lose sight of the big picture. American currency has "In God We Trust" written on it and Presidents are always stating "God Bless America", but the fact is, I believe the US constitution states that church and state must be separate!!!! Yet we don't hear many people protesting because of that. Using religion to bond the masses is a good technique.

    Is that what you refer to when you mention "brainwashing"? Do you mean that Americans don't know what is true when it comes to their government, and therefore can't trust them to run healthcare? Perhaps this is valid, I don't know.

    Regardless, tax payer funded healthcare as you can see does not *have* to affect the constitution, and what we all need to be focusing on is how to help those who are suffering because they can't get care. That is the main issue.

    No one should lose their home because of having to decide between a mortgage and cancer treatment. IMHO.

    I'm curious to see what will happen in the coming months in regards to this issue...

    Edit: I have to admit that as a Canadian, I know nothing about the US laws or 'constitution'. Zero. And nobody should expect me to. But I still think that a valid option can be found that makes everyone happy.
    Sorry, I just had to comment on the "separation of church and state" comment, as this is a real pet peeve of mine. I understand you are Canadian and admittedly are not a scholar of the US Constitution. Just some education for you and those in the US who seem to throw this around incessently...again, sorry, but this is a huge pet peeve of mine. The US Constitution does NOT state anywhere anything about "separation of Church and State". It does give us freedom of religion, to practice whatever religion we choose without interference or persecution from the government. This stems from the fact that England is a church/state run entity...the King/Queen was not only the head of government, but the Church as well. Depending on which point in history you are looking at, or which monarch, Catholics or Protestants were severely persecuted by the other.

    The term "separation of church and state" came from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to one of the Baptist congregations in 1802, clarifying and explaining how the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment work together. Establishment meaning that Congress will make no law regarding religion, and Free Exercise meaning that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

    This has nothing to do with the healthcare issue, but just had to comment.

    In regards to government run healthcare, our constitution was founded on principles of freedom from government, as that is what our Founding Fathers were running away from....England. States' rights always supercede Federal rights...at least, that is how it is supposed to be. Unfortunately, we are in a time where the Federal Government is making a historical, unprecedented push to take over every aspect of our lives here in the US. For me, and many others, that makes us VERY uncomfortable. The US was founded on principles of autonomy, and the more government interference there is the less autonomy we have.

    Personally, I don't want a government entity telling me who, what, when, why and where I can obtain healthcare. That should be a personal decision and no interference from the "government". The issue in the US, I think, is not necessarily the quality of care, but the quantity of those who have access. Healthcare costs in the US are outrageous fueld by drug companies and litigation. If Congress really wants to reform healthcare, they need to look at what is making our current system unaffordable or inaccessible to some and address those issues. For example, I am on a group plan through my work. A group plan allows ALL employees to opt into the program, regardless of pre-existing conditions. However, If I were to have to obtain private insurance on my own I would not be eligible due to pre-existing conditions, or have those conditions excluded. That is absurd, as that is why I need health insurance in the first place (I am asthmatic and have endo and fibroids). Also, I do not purchase one of my asthma meds because I simply can't afford it...even with insurance paying part of the cost. It is just too expensive. These are the issues that need to be addressed if true healthcare reform can occur in the US (drug costs, tort reform, etc). The WHY of why healthcare costs are so high are not really being address, the government just wants to come in and take over. I am sure that has nothing to do with the drug lobby and the fact that lawyers run Congress and the Senate. Just saying.

    If you want an idea of what a government run system would look like research the VA and Indian Healthcare System.

    Not to mention the fact that the US government has absolutely NO WAY of paying for any of their proposed plan. We don't have the money. So, where do you think that money is going to come from? Cutting medicare and medicaid benefits? Aren't those the very people the government is supposed to be helping? I hope that Obama wants to do the right thing and not just push through legislation to say he did something. The consequences of that are dire and this country just can't sustain that kind of measure.
  12. by   talaxandra
    Quote from kinesjl
    That part is rather simple, significant cuts in pay and ample increase in workload.
    Quote from jdub3
    Universal Health Care will equal less jobs and lower pay. Patient care will ultimately end up suffering whether it be to an underpaid physician or an angry underpaid overworked employees.
    I have read some horror stories on this board from US nurses about workloads that would not be tolerated here. As I have said over and over and over again, while some wages may decrease, without exorbitant insurance policies and with lower health care costs you'll have more money to spend. Disagree with my position by all means but show some evidence rather than just stating an unsupported 'fact'.
  13. by   talaxandra
    Quote from jdub3
    scenerio: patient goes to the dr. for minor problems a few times in a row, maybe not sick at all. they end up getting denied healthcare b/c they seem to be crazy by the provider, or worse jail, psych facility.
    what now? no citizen is denied health care in a uhc country. why on earth would a patient presenting repeatedly be jailed? we have very strict guidelines for psych admissions, and that scenario doesn't come close.

    Quote from jdub3
    intergrated patient record data base scenerio: background checks have reveiled that you were prescribed xanax back in 95 and you were seeing a psychiatrist. can you tell me a little about what was going on in your life then and why it won't affect your job.
    employers don't have access to medical records here. i can't speak for other uhc countries but we also don't have an integrated data base. in any case neither seeing a psychiatrist or other mental health professional nor being prescribed an anxiolytic would be grounds for denying employment.

    romania is not even an oecd-30 country, let alone an oecd-10 country, which are the uhc systems we've been comparing. any doctor or nurse receiveing extra money for providing care would lose their registration here, and nusing is most certainly considered a profession, both here and in the european countries my colleagues have worked in. that includes: england, scotland, wales, the isle of man, ireland, spain, germany, france, switzerland and the netherlands

    we don't always agree but
    Quote from canuckstudent
    you're comparing romania to 1st world national healthcare? wow. i hope you realize how ridiculous this sounds. it's not your fault, i'm just shocked. sounds like typical american brainwashing to me....
    :yeahthat::yeahthat::yeahthat:

close