Do you know why teachers get paid so little? The gov't has a monopoly on their salaries.
I've heard several people talk about nationalizing healthcare. S. Gordon plugs the concept at the end of 'Nursing against the Odds'.
But here's the question. And maybe it's selfish. But when every hospital is run by the gov't, don't you think that they'll also 'nationalize' a salary. Do you think that salary is going to be the highest common denominator? Or the lowest?
When EVERY hospital pays 16.50/hr, what will your choices really be? You think that's unrealistic? What is medicare paying DRs? A ton of money - if they take on a ton of pts and don't give any of them the time of day. But if you want to be ethical - dr's make peanuts under medicare.
"I'm sorry but the deficit you know - the only way you can get a raise to 17/hr is if you agree to take 8 pts each. And you have to sign a contract agreeing to this forever. And btw, you are a critical national resource, so you can't strike."
Oh sure ,there'll be regional 'costs of living' but that'll just make it worse if you don't live in NY or LA. Because where do you think they're gonna make that money back in salary 'averaging'? It means NY/LA gets 20/hr while Ark/OK get 14.
Oh, and just like teachers, you'll have to prove your competency. Some 'crat in D.C. won't let you practice unless you pass his 'stump the chump' test.
I was just throwing it out there for comment.
How will nationalizing healthcare effect nurses? Is it something we should really advocate? Or advocate against?
[i am fortunate that I did not even need to apply for some of my benefits because my husband has full coverage through his employer. I was sick in late Dec/early Jan. Four trips to see my dr at the clinic, lab tests, and prescriptions (zithromax, clarithromycin, levofloxacin). Cost to me was zero. (prescrptions paid through extended health benefits) not a dime out of my pocket. Just went for a complete physical and have to have more lab work, xrays, and ultrasound. Cost to me again, zero.]
Wrong, You paid for that medical care whether you realized it or not. The exchange rate in Canada might be .87 per dollar now but it was not too long ago it was .65 per US dollar. Your wages are not that much better and your tax rates are incredibly high to pay for it all.
And that's a shame, mobilsurgrn, because EVERYONE deserves access to basic health care.]
Everyone does have access to basic health care and access to emergency care. No one is denied any of that regardless of their ability to pay. The only person I have ever heard of losing thei house due to medical bills was a lady that was on medicaid that passed away and the state took the house as payment for her medicaid bills. This reminds me of the urban legends like people having to choose between _____________ (fill in the blank) or medicine. Or the person working 3 minimum wage jobs just to make ends meet. no one knows any of these people only heard of them but they apparently exist in this country in the millions.
I agree that we will not have a universal healthcare system. There are way too many companies that would essentially be obsolesed and who are major political contibutors, year after year. Also, the man who is third or fourth in the succesion line to the president has a Frist somewhere in his name. (His father founded HCA).]
Need to brush up on that history lesson again the Senate majority leader is never in line to succeed the presidency. I'll take the fact that you didn't know basic civics that the rest of your post bemoaning capitilism needs some revisions as well.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, PCVICU and peds oncology.
hold the phones here, folks. while not ignoring that the us system has huge flaws, let's not neglect reality, either:
"canada's provincial leaders pledged c$1 billion (us$640 million) to purchase high-tech equipment starting this year. but any shortening of the typical two-month wait for patients to receive mri tests and cat scans isn't likely soon."
just because i want a fill in the blank scan for my fill in the blank doesn't mean that i really need it, or that it would be the best test to diagnose my problem. and if i have my fill in the blank scan it may not show what i want it to show, or change the course of my treatment. if i need a fill in the blank scan urgently, then i'll get one.
"the fraser institute's fifteenth annual waiting list survey found that canada-wide waiting times for surgical and other therapeutic treatments fell slightly in 2005, making this the first reduction in the total wait for treatment measured in canada since 1993. total waiting time between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, fell from 17.9 weeks in 2004 back to the 17.7 weeks last seen in 2003. this small nationwide improvement in access reflects waiting time decreases in 5 provinces, while concealing increases in waiting time in manitoba, ontario, new brunswick, nova scotia, and newfoundland.
among the provinces, ontario achieved the shortest total wait in 2005, 16.3 weeks, with manitoba (16.6 weeks), and alberta (16.8 weeks) next shortest. saskatchewan, despite a dramatic 7.8 week reduction in the total wait time, exhibited the longest total wait, 25.5 weeks; the next longest waits were found in new brunswick (24.5 weeks) and newfoundland (22.3 weeks).
surgical wait time analyses such as these are pretty meaningless when taken by themselves. what kind of surgery are we talking about? and what is being done for the patient in the interim? is s/he left adrift with no treatment plan while s/he waits? probably not. what causes the waiting lists in the first place? a lack of human resources is my guess, knowing a little something about the state of nursing employment in canada as i do. it's not fixed by throwing money at it. or by opening parallel for-profit facilities that will only make the shortage worse.
[i am fortunate that I did not even need to apply for some of my benefits because my husband has full coverage through his employer. I was sick in late Dec/early Jan. Four trips to see my dr at the clinic, lab tests, and prescriptions (zithromax, clarithromycin, levofloxacin). Cost to me was zero. (prescrptions paid through extended health benefits) not a dime out of my pocket. Just went for a complete physical and have to have more lab work, xrays, and ultrasound. Cost to me again, zero.]
Wrong, You paid for that medical care whether you realized it or not. The exchange rate in Canada might be .87 per dollar now but it was not too long ago it was .65 per US dollar. Your wages are not that much better and your tax rates are incredibly high to pay for it all.
You are absolutely right....I should have clarified that I never paid a dime out of pocket. Health care is not free. My taxes go to support the health care system, therefore I did pay for it. On this forum on more than one occasion on more than 1 thread nurses have stated that various surgeries cost them thousands of dollars out of pocket. A previous poster has explained how health insurance can be as much as a mortgage payment. I have said before and I will repeat it again, our health care system is not perfect. But no one has difficulty accessing health care in this country. In an emergency, diagnostic tests and surgeries are accessed on an emergency basis. If you have a minor bump and want an MRI, you wont have to pay out of pocket, but expect to wait for you test. Its sort of like triage in the ER.
I'm not sure what the value of the Canadian dollar has to do with it. If I made $25 per hour, I would make that no matter if the dollar was at 65 or 85cents US. A litre of milk would still cost me a dollar, whatever the exchange rate. My taxes would still be based on my total income, not on the exchange rate. My lifestyle is comfortable, I pay more in taxes than a lot of people, and do not feel that the tax burden is onerous. Would I like to see fewer taxes? Absolutely. Would I like to see fewer taxes at the expense of our health care system? No bloody way. And I would be willing to pay more in taxes if it meant the continuance of our system.
Need to brush up on that history lesson again the Senate majority leader is never in line to succeed the presidency. I'll take the fact that you didn't know basic civics that the rest of your post bemoaning capitilism needs some revisions as well.
Long and off-topic, but interesting, I think.
This is more than a little harsh. Very few people besides diehard politi-phytes know the difference between the President Pro Tem (PPT) of the Senate (normally the most senior member of the majority party - it's a mostly honorary position) and the Senate Majority Leader (the actual highest leadership position of the Senate).
So yes, Ted Stevens (R-AK) is the PPT of the Senate and HE falls in the line of succession for President instead of Frist (The Majority Leader).
But I bet fewer than 1 in 100 Americans knew that. So, it's out of line to suggest that somebody that can make this reasonable mistake needs a basic civics lessons (I'd say this was an advanced civics lesson).
I consider myself a politico. Although I knew EXACTLY what you were referring to, the PPT is such an obscure position, I had to look up who was actually it.
And there are major flaws w/ our line of Succession, in any case. It has never been used as the VP has ALWAYS succeeded the Pres if He could no longer hold the office. There is ALWAYS a 'designated survivor' in an undisclosed location, somewhere out of D.C.
But, since 9/11, the House and Senate have always had their own 'designated survivor'. So even if something dire happened, and say, The Sec of Def was next in line to the Presidency. He'd hold the office for like 10 minutes, until the House's 'designated survivor' was named, under the rules est in 2001, as Speaker and therefore supercede anyone lower on the list. And if HE didn't/couldn't do it, the Senate's designated survivor would become PPT and HE would supercede anyone lower on the list.
Of course, at that point, once the SecDef (or whoever) was sworn in, boy what a political fight we'd have if some obscure Congressman/woman claimed the title for themselves. And if the castastrophe that spawned this took out the Supreme Cabal too, who'd referee?? In any case, we'd all get a civics lesson in an obscure Gov't document, the Continuity of Operations Plan, specifically, its currently classified 'Enduring Constitutional Government' Provisions.
Where this comes up most often happens tomorrow, The State of the Union speech - where most of our nat'l gov't is in one place. Recent 'Designated Survivors':
# 1990 State of the Union: Edward J. Derwinski, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
# 1993 State of the Union: Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior
# 1995 State of the Union: Federico Pena, Secretary of Transportation
# 1996 State of the Union: Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services
# 1997 State of the Union: Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture
# 1998 State of the Union: William Daley, Secretary of Commerce
# 1999 State of the Union: Andrew Cuomo, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
# 2000 State of the Union: Bill Richardson, Secretary of Energy
# 2001 State of the Union: Anthony Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
# 2002 State of the Union: Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior
# 2003 State of the Union: John Ashcroft, Attorney General
# 2004 State of the Union: Donald Evans, Secretary of Commerce
# 2005 Presidential Inauguration: Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior
# 2005 State of the Union: Donald Evans, Secretary of Commerce
You have to know that Gale Norton, in 2002 and 2005, no matter how macabre, spent the evening wondering, "What if . . ."
From wikipedia: ~~ A “close call” came in 1973 during the Watergate crisis, when House Speaker Carl Albert was first in line during the two months late in the year in which Richard Nixon had no Vice President and was widely expected to resign. Albert was also first in line during the first four months of Gerald Ford's presidency.
Albert questioned whether it was appropriate for him, a Democrat, to assume the nation's highest office when there was a public mandate for the Presidency to be held by the opposing party. Albert decided he had no right to a White House that the American people had entrusted to a Republican. He announced that should he need to assume the presidency, he would do so only in an acting capacity, and would resign immediately after Congress appointed a Republican Vice President. Though the scenario never panned out, Albert established an important precedent. ~~
So, there's your advanced civics lesson. Class dismissed.
Specializes in Specializes in L/D, newborn, GYN, LTC, Dialysis.
Sadly many working adults and children just go without..they make to much for welfare but to little to afford it themselves.
YUP. I know a quite a few of them. Going without ----yet working one (or more) fulltime penny ante jobs. Not right, if you ask me. How far behind can we all be, really? They (our so-called insurers) are coming up with more and more "rules" and "games" we have to play for ever-decreasing coverage.
I think, especially, if you work (or are retired from working) in this country, you ought have basic healthcare (including basic dental) guaranteed. I also do believe healthcare for all citizens should not be a privelege but a basic human right. And I know I will be attacked as naive for saying this. So be it. It's what I believe.
Specializes in Specializes in L/D, newborn, GYN, LTC, Dialysis.
just because i want a fill in the blank scan for my fill in the blank doesn't mean that i really need it, or that it would be the best test to diagnose my problem. and if i have my fill in the blank scan it may not show what i want it to show, or change the course of my treatment. if i need a fill in the blank scan urgently, then i'll get one.
surgical wait time analyses such as these are pretty meaningless when taken by themselves. what kind of surgery are we talking about? and what is being done for the patient in the interim? is s/he left adrift with no treatment plan while s/he waits? probably not. what causes the waiting lists in the first place? a lack of human resources is my guess, knowing a little something about the state of nursing employment in canada as i do. it's not fixed by throwing money at it. or by opening parallel for-profit facilities that will only make the shortage worse.
Specializes in Specializes in L/D, newborn, GYN, LTC, Dialysis.
Long and off-topic, but interesting, I think.
This is more than a little harsh. Very few people besides diehard politi-phytes know the difference between the President Pro Tem (PPT) of the Senate (normally the most senior member of the majority party - it's a mostly honorary position) and the Senate Majority Leader (the actual highest leadership position of the Senate).
.
just quoted in part to save some space. Excellent information, Timothy. Thank you.
Specializes in Specializes in L/D, newborn, GYN, LTC, Dialysis.
I also think we need to come to an agreement what "basic health care" is. Some think we all already have it. I disagree. To me: Waiting in an overcrowded ER to have a preventable (with regular preventive healthcare/checkups that some have NO access to) problem/ medical issue treated is NOT "basic health care". And I somehow think those who are relegated to this bare minimum might agree with me.
VeryPlainJane
237 Posts
Sadly many working adults and children just go without..they make to much for welfare but to little to afford it themselves.