Health Care pay decrease with new health care plan?

3boysmom3 · Jul 6, 2009

I don't know what to expect. If those who have private insurance already are allowed to keep it, that's good; if it amounts to those who were previously uninsured having insurance, that should mean that total income of hospitals will improve. Although I'm sure the govt. pay rate will not be very high, it will at least be something, in place of all the bad debt hospitals routinely write off. Then again, if everyone is forced to take the government-issue insurance, then it means that hospitals wouldn't get paid much for their services by anyone. I imagine health care would suffer tremendously; i.e. people being discharged much too soon due to coverage limits (as if they're not already, right?) and so forth.

As for salaries, I imagine it will be a while before we can tell. It just depends on so many things. My guess would be that before chopping salaries, most institutions might just do what many already do- work with as few staff as possible and suspend hiring. Again, patient care suffers.

Personally, this period is definately a wait-and-see time for me and my family. We're not making any large purchases or buying anything on credit; we paid off our one credit card debt several years ago; and are prepared to be able to get by if one or both of us were to lose a job or have a decrease in pay. Even so, just the expenses of having and maintaining a home take a lot of money; plus gas, groceries, utilities, etc., etc.

As for your student loans, I wouldn't panic; I really think it will be a while before the squeeze makes it down the line to individual nurses.

But as Dennis Miller always says, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong!

Moogie · Jul 6, 2009

I think it's way too early to say.

robred · Jul 6, 2009

Just curious...you'll have nearly $100k in student loans when you graduate with a BSN?

Are you attending a private school? Do you need to borrow for everything? Are you using an scholarships or grants?

I expect compensation to probably hold steady for awhile after the implementation of reform. Ultimately, if it is a single-payer system, i.e. akin to Medicare, I would expect salaries to decrease.

Txstarr972 · Jul 6, 2009

I also heard something about Obama wanting to implement student loan forgiveness for anyone graduating into a healthcare field. **crosses fingers**

chrisciwi · Jul 6, 2009

Just curious...you'll have nearly $100k in student loans when you graduate with a BSN?
Are you attending a private school? Do you need to borrow for everything? Are you using an scholarships or grants?
I expect compensation to probably hold steady for awhile after the implementation of reform. Ultimately, if it is a single-payer system, i.e. akin to Medicare, I would expect salaries to decrease.

Private school, 1/2 scholarship, 1/4 room and board scholarship, 35,000 in parents plus loan, 34,500 in federal loans, 6,000 in nursing loans. (for BSN)

travel50 · Jul 6, 2009

I'm with 3boysmom3, if I don't have the money to buy it outright, then I do without (Except for my house).That has been my motto for many, many years. I was raising 6 kids, and I could not afford to put myself at financial risk. Now even though I am okay financially, I need to leave myself open to be able to help my kids if they get in trouble. They adopted my habit of not buying on credit, but if they lost their jobs they might need help. So I still don't spend much.

I don't know what the new health care plan will do to our pay. But something needs to be done. As it is, so many of my nurses and aides at work do not have any insurance and they are unable to go to the doctor or pay for meds.

As for the student loans...there are many reasons when they will allow you to defer payments...loss of job, illness, going back to school, etc. As long as they know you are trying, they will work with you. I certainly wouldn't panic. It'll all work out somehow.

chrisciwi · Jul 6, 2009

I'm with 3boysmom3, if I don't have the money to buy it outright, then I do without (Except for my house).That has been my motto for many, many years. I was raising 6 kids, and I could not afford to put myself at financial risk. Now even though I am okay financially, I need to leave myself open to be able to help my kids if they get in trouble. They adopted my habit of not buying on credit, but if they lost their jobs they might need help. So I still don't spend much.
I don't know what the new health care plan will do to our pay. But something needs to be done. As it is, so many of my nurses and aides at work do not have any insurance and they are unable to go to the doctor or pay for meds.
As for the student loans...there are many reasons when they will allow you to defer payments...loss of job, illness, going back to school, etc. As long as they know you are trying, they will work with you. I certainly wouldn't panic. It'll all work out somehow.

I know they will defer payments, but making the monthly payment is the issue, having a lower than expected salary isn't a good reason the not make the monthly payments:bugeyes:

Crash_Cart · Jul 6, 2009

They don't need to decrease salaries, they need to eliminate the wasteful spending. Hmmm. A sort of governmental BM process involving health care spending if you will.

For example, there's absolutely no reason docs need 2 or 3 chest x-rays in the span of a month for any patient or every time they happen to visit another facility etc. So, what's wrong with transferring the "recent" x-rays instead? I know.. they can't make money if they don't take extra x-rays...huh? Well that's precisely the sort nonsense that's going to come to screeching halt under any newly proposed "public funded" health care plan.

...Ever shake your head wondering why they are ordering an MRI for a patient that actually needs a colonoscopy done instead? Besides, they can't do a biopsy with an MRI so what's the point?? :icon_roll Well, I know the point.. I suppose the solution here is to just go ahead and lets do both tests instead huh?! ...lol ...You all know exactly where I am coming from here. :coollook: It's just a big waste of money on completely unnecessary diagnostic testing sometimes costing $1000's of dollars each incident at the end of the day. But at the end of the actual day... we can add up 100's of thousands of "extra" dollars needlessly wasted and taxpayers will definitely not be footing this sort of hospital bill under a public funded plan.

Some people (especially practitioners) are calling this new proposed heath care phenomenon "working with less," but I prefer to call it the actual direction we need to be going with future health care spending. Let's face it, a liter of NS doesn't cost $300 so why exactly should taxpayers assume the overly inflated costs? Well, the simple answer is - No, they won't nor should they in the first place for that matter. These and similar costs need to come back to earth where they belong. Meet Joe Taxpayer, Joe will be here monitoring these costs from now on in this public funded health care system. Unlike private corporations, Joe doesn't need to sit in the board room of the hospital or health insurance corporation to make any necessary adjustments or changes to how the corporation is spending his money. Joe likes to be kept abreast of recent changes in policy. He is probably going to have a vote on the matter.

That's the issue.. Wasteful spending, erroneous billing practices and more public accountability occurring in the health care industry. It's not really about lowering wages for health care workers. In fact, "wages" account for such a small percentage in the bigger picture and inflated costs of things, it's a non issue by comparison.

So yes, they will most likely make attempts to "reduce" facility operating costs while controlling over inflation and there will be health care spending accountability involved. It will be monitored closely by the public eye. After all, it's public money being spent to operate the facility. However, this is actually a good thing that will not only save money in general, but it also serves to actually increase the customer base at the same time! :)

I agree with some suggesting the need to address the nurse shortage issue. However, a nursing shortage is actually a good thing in terms of maintaining higher wages anyways. No worries in that particular area in my opinion. I suspect we will continue to experience a nursing shortage for some time in any newly implemented public health care system, primarily due to an increase in utilization by the public. I am suspecting they already know this will most likely occur. Nursing education programs and funding will most likely need to be addressed as a key integral part of any proposed public health care reform plan in the future.

Your turn. :twocents:

My Best.

chrisciwi · Jul 6, 2009

They don't need to decrease salaries, they need to eliminate the wasteful spending. Hmmm. A sort of governmental BM process involving health care spending if you will.
For example, there's absolutely no reason docs need 2 or 3 chest x-rays in the span of a month for any patient or every time they happen to visit another facility etc. So, what's wrong with transferring the "recent" x-rays instead? I know.. they can't make money if they don't take extra x-rays...huh? Well that's precisely the sort nonsense that's going to come to screeching halt under any newly proposed "public funded" health care plan.
...Ever shake your head wondering why they are ordering an MRI for a patient that actually needs a colonoscopy done instead? Besides, they can't do a biopsy with an MRI so what's the point?? :icon_roll Well, I know the point.. I suppose the solution here is to just go ahead and lets do both tests instead huh?! ...lol ...You all know exactly where I am coming from here. It's just a big waste of money on completely unnecessary diagnostic testing sometimes costing $1000's of dollars each incident at the end of the day. But at the end of the actual day... we can add up 100's of thousands of "extra" dollars needlessly wasted and taxpayers will definitely not be footing this sort of hospital bill under a public funded plan.
Some people (especially practitioners) are calling this new proposed heath care phenomenon "working with less," but I prefer to call it the actual direction we need to be going with future health care spending. Let's face it, a liter of NS doesn't cost $300 so why exactly should taxpayers assume the overly inflated costs? Well, the simple answer is - No, they won't nor should they in the first place for that matter. These and similar costs need to come back to earth where they belong. Meet Joe Taxpayer, Joe will be here monitoring these costs from now on.
That's the issue.. Wasteful spending and erroneous billing practices occurring in health care. It's not about lowering wages for health care workers. In fact, "wages" account for such a small percentage in the bigger picture and inflated costs of things, it's a non issue by comparison.
So yes, they will most likely make attempts to "reduce" facility operating costs while controlling over inflation and there will be health care spending accountability involved. It will be monitored closely by the public eye. After all, it's public money being spent to operate the facility. However, this is actually a good thing that will not only save money in general, but it also serves to actually increase the customer base at the same time! :)
I agree with some suggesting the need to address the nurse shortage issue. However, a nursing shortage is actually a good thing in terms of maintaining higher wages anyways. No worries in that particular area in my opinion. I suspect we will continue to experience a nursing shortage for some time in any newly implemented public health care system, primarily due to an increase in utilization by the public. I am suspecting they already know this will most likely occur. Nursing education programs will most likely need to be included and addressed as a key integral part of any future proposed public health care reform plan.
Your turn.
My Best.

Interesting point. i agree wasteful spending needs to be gone. But this new plan should put the care givers out in the cold, because that will drive people and doctors away from hospitals and stuff, and into private practice

Crash_Cart · Jul 6, 2009

Interesting point. i agree wasteful spending needs to be gone. But this new plan should put the care givers out in the cold, because that will drive people and doctors away from hospitals and stuff, and into private practice

It seems private practice is not where the "moneys at" in this particular scenario, ...on the contrary. In reality, private practices will have an especially tough time remaining competitive against the monolithic and nationally funded health care facilities. Keep in mind, "private practice" in this respect is very similar to operating a small family owned hardware store operating next door to large national hardware store chain in comparison. How long can the small hardware store remain competitive when the operational costs are lower, purchasing power is greater and when the majority of all the customers are making major purchasing decisions at the hardware store chain?

I suspect, the majority of customers in this case will also be spending their health care dollars (probably through a form of taxation) and use public funded facilities and not at private practices.

To put this potential customer base in perspective, this currently equates to approx. 87 million potential customers who are currently uninsured in the country. These people are "waiting" to become "public health care customers" also a 75 % majority of the remaining "private health care" customers who are currently paying very high premiums at private insurance companies are also waiting and are planning to "switch" to the public funded health care system in the future.

Not sure exactly what percentage of the population that leaves in terms of customers who are willing to pay more money to use the services of private practices, but I suspect it's a very small percentage of the actual population.

Not sure if that leaves caregivers in the cold exactly, but it does seem it will be providing them with many more "paying customers" than we currently have at the moment. We will definitely not have to "close" any hospitals anytime in the immediate future as currently being demonstrated under our current private heath care system.

If anything, it seems like an anticipated increase in customers will provide many more opportunities for care givers, including the expansion of the nurse practitioner role and noted improvements in staffing levels in the hospital setting.

Remember, hospitals will no longer be a "for profit" venture, so cutting staffing levels to save money and to increase profits does not serve any actual profitable purpose because these are government operated institutions providing the public with a required public service.

Therefore, staffing ratios are more likely to become nationally standardized with respect to served populations, demographics and/or other considerations very similar to how any other public services are functionally operated in the community to serve the publics interest from a city hall and voting taxpayer perspective.

vivacious1healer · Jul 6, 2009

As I stated in another post:

Rid of CEOs receiving 7 figure salaries.....

Rid of managers/directors from receiving 6 figure salaries.....

Rid of VP of nursing receiving $500,000 yearly salary........

Seriously, what do these people in these positions possibly do to earn that kind of cash?

They don't save lives!