It seems to be a great time to be a nurse right now. All of the opportunities presented seem endless!
But why does it seem like employers do not want to offer decent health insurance AND decent pay?
I just left a job that basically had no insurance. There was a $9,000 annual deductible that had to be paid before insurance even kicked in. The monthly premium for a single mom with kids was $200. I stayed at the job for 7 months. Now, I started a new job. I was on orientation yesterday and the monthly premium for a mom with children for Aetna HMO 40 Choice plan is $975 and $105 for dental. Since I will get paid every two weeks, that is $500 every paycheck.
Meanwhile, my sister in IT pays $200 a month for PPO, and that is as a single parent with children.
With all due respect, SBE, that is not my premise. It is your interpretation of my premise.
There have been at least three fallacies in logic by members who disagree with my premise, not to mention words and phrases used that would not be considered appropriate or useful in a polite debate.
Very few members on this website know and/or use the rules of polite societal debate. That's one reason why I will not get into a debate on this website.
I will state my premise, some disagree and use unsavory tacts to lure me into a debate, and I go about my business because I don't have a need to prove myself to anybody.
However, should anyone desire to learn some basic rules of debate, see- and study- the movie "The Great Debaters". The movie is, truly, a masterpiece.
I got your premise. Kids are expensive. I am expecting my first child and if I couldn't afford one, didn't want to pay the exorbitant costs to raise one or the responsibility, I wouldn't have one.
That said, with birth rates at an all-time low, and baby boomers aging, it isn't the kids that are making healthcare expensive: it is corporate greed and lots of utilization of the healthcare system by the older generations.
That said, with birth rates at an all-time low, and baby boomers aging, it isn't the kids that are making healthcare expensive: it is corporate greed and lots of utilization of the healthcare system by the older generations.
Many Medicare recipients wouldn't support universal health care but also never saw a life-extending treatment that they didn't feel entitled to (as long as the taxpayers are footing the bill.)
Specializes in Psych (25 years), Medical (15 years).
58 minutes ago, ThePrincessBride said:
I got your premise. Kids are expensive.
Although I do respect both you and your response TPB, "Kids are expensive" is an erroneous interpretation of my premise and therefore, the statement is incorrect.
The reason why I respect the response is because you restated my premise in your own words which is a good communication technique called "verbal listening". Although incorrect, the response gives a point of reference on which to expand and gain more understanding.
Some regular fallacies in reasoning occur when interpretations are used. The use of documentation- direct quotes- are cited, and then the exact words of the premise are attacked.
This is another reason I avoid debates on this website: A premise is interpreted with phrases like, "so you're saying..." No, that is not what I'm saying. I have stated what I'm saying.
So, if continued debate on my premise is desired, argue direct quotes and not interpretations, because as I previously stated,
19 hours ago, Davey Do said:
I could debate posts that challenge my premises; however, the debate would be boring and predictable.
I had a somewhat similar experience. Had a routine colonoscopy. Went to the hospital and doctor they told me to go to that was in network. Later I got a bill for the anesthesiologist because she was outside the network. I called the insurance up and said what the hell am I supposed to do, interview everyone in the room to make sure they're in my network before they put me under? I refused to pay and the insurance company took it off my bill.
Many Medicare recipients wouldn't support universal health care but also never saw a life-extending treatment that they didn't feel entitled to (as long as the taxpayers are footing the bill.)
Even those who don't feel entitled are encouraged to accept the newest and expensive tests, therapeutics and pharmaceuticals at every provider visit. It's often not the patient requesting the expensive, unlikely to improve quality of life procedures and pills...it's the system.
Even those who don't feel entitled are encouraged to accept the newest and expensive tests, therapeutics and pharmaceuticals at every provider visit. It's often not the patient requesting the expensive, unlikely to improve quality of life procedures and pills...it's the system.
We live in a polite medical environment where costs aren't revealed until much later. Doctors order many tests to prevent being sued and patient don't ask about costs. Even if patients did ask the cost the patients would probably be told they don't know.
We live in a polite medical environment where costs aren't revealed until much later. Doctors order many tests to prevent being sued and patient don't ask about costs. Even if patients did ask the cost the patients would probably be told they don't know.
That's because we want to pretend that patients actually have the ability to shop around for cheap care like they might a new mixer. That's the American capitalist health system business model.
Although I do respect both you and your response TPB, "Kids are expensive" is an erroneous interpretation of my premise and therefore, the statement is incorrect.
The reason why I respect the response is because you restated my premise in your own words which is a good communication technique called "verbal listening". Although incorrect, the response gives a point of reference on which to expand and gain more understanding.
Some regular fallacies in reasoning occur when interpretations are used. The use of documentation- direct quotes- are cited, and then the exact words of the premise are attacked.
This is another reason I avoid debates on this website: A premise is interpreted with phrases like, "so you're saying..." No, that is not what I'm saying. I have stated what I'm saying.
So, if continued debate on my premise is desired, argue direct quotes and not interpretations, because as I previously stated,
and this discussion is predictable and boring.
You said that you see children as more liabilities than assets.
And I replied that yes. Kids are expensive and require a lot of responsibility.
If multiple posters misinterpreted your posts then that is on you...not us.
So if you are willing to clarify, then I am all ears...but these vague responses aren't particularly helping us understand your position.
Specializes in Psych (25 years), Medical (15 years).
21 minutes ago, ThePrincessBride said:
You said that you see children as more liabilities than assets.
And I replied that yes. Kids are expensive and require a lot of responsibility.
If multiple posters misinterpreted your posts then that is on you...not us.
So if you are willing to clarify, then I am all ears...but these vague responses aren't particularly helping us understand your position.
Very good! I did say that, TPB! And, my premise was validated.
In response to the statement, "If multiple posters misinterpreted your posts then that is on you...not us", It has been said, "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king". Henry David Thoreau said, "where there is one, there is a majority of one".
Accusingly pointing a finger and singling out and individual is a putdown. Putdowns are not used because they are meant to evoke an emotional response in a logical process. Putdowns are also a method by which the person, and not the premise is attacked, which is inappropriate in a polite societal debate.
The statement, "If multiple posters misinterpreted your posts then that is on you...not us" is also a show of force, a power play, if you will. This power play infers that the majority has misinterpreted my posts, so I must be the one who is wrong.
Joseph Campbell, noted anthropologist and sociologist, said, "The majority in numbers is always wrong".
Finally, my responses were erroneously labelled as being "vague" when specific evidence with supporting quotes were utilized. There is not a way to be more specific than that.
Once again- although I am now somewhat enjoying this portion of the discussion, thanks to you, ThePrincessBride- it's difficult to (symbolically) play a game when the players don't know the rules.
Very good! I did say that, TPB! And, my premise was validated.
In response to the statement, "If multiple posters misinterpreted your posts then that is on you...not us", It has been said, "In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king". Henry David Thoreau said, "where there is one, there is a majority of one".
Accusingly pointing a finger and singling out and individual is a putdown. Putdowns are not used because they are meant to evoke an emotional response in a logical process. Putdowns are also a method by which the person, and not the premise is attacked, which is inappropriate in a polite societal debate.
The statement, "If multiple posters misinterpreted your posts then that is on you...not us" is also a show of force, a power play, if you will. This power play infers that the majority has misinterpreted my posts, so I must be the one who is wrong.
Joseph Campbell, noted anthropologist and sociologist, said, "The majority in numbers is always wrong".
Finally, my responses were erroneously labelled as being "vague" when specific evidence with supporting quotes were utilized. There is not a way to be more specific than that.
Once again- although I am now somewhat enjoying this portion of the discussion, thanks to you, ThePrincessBride- it's difficult to (symbolically) play a game when the players don't know the rules.
It wasn't meant to be a put down, but if I state something that multiple people misinterpret, then it probably means I didn't make myself clear, not that everyone is too stupid to understand my post (which feels like what you are implying, as those you feel you are somehow above us).
Your whole post comes across as an insult to me and other posters who have all been respectful towards you. If you can't be respectful then there really is no point in this discussion.
Many Medicare recipients wouldn't support universal health care but also never saw a life-extending treatment that they didn't feel entitled to (as long as the taxpayers are footing the bill.)
Kinda painting with a broad brush! Personally I have seen many more people on Medicaid who feel entitled than those on Medicare, (and even when they have not put into the system like those on Medicare). And even if true about Medicare recipients not wanting universal healthcare their reasons are probably the same as others who have concerns. And don’t forget that Medicare recipients have already been taxpayers, and probably still are in most cases. You will more than likely be on Medicare someday too and will probably expect a certain level of care that you have been paying into for a very long time.
ThePrincessBride, MSN, RN, NP
1 Article; 2,594 Posts
I got your premise. Kids are expensive. I am expecting my first child and if I couldn't afford one, didn't want to pay the exorbitant costs to raise one or the responsibility, I wouldn't have one.
That said, with birth rates at an all-time low, and baby boomers aging, it isn't the kids that are making healthcare expensive: it is corporate greed and lots of utilization of the healthcare system by the older generations.