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.
I have to disagree. My take home pay is the same percentage in California as it was in Ontario. The exchange rate is really a moot point. You don't benefit or suffer from it unless you make money in one country and spend it in the other.
or by opening parallel for-profit facilities that will only make the shortage worse.
again, i'm really not disagreeing with you. but, having lived and used healthcare in both systems (although not in canada) i will tell you that it is my preference to be able to have the potentially useless mri when i want it. not in 4 months. i'll pay for it, and i'm fine with that. i do think it takes a bit of decision making away from the individual by not even having the option to purchase your own healthcare. i guess that's just good old fashioned american values for you.:rotfl: i adapted quickly.
but honestly, i see and respect your position, and again, i want to say, we have a lot to learn from your system.
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). Hundreds of thousands of people whose jobs exist to support our frenetic, disconnected system would be unemployed. To absorb them into a one payor system would more than erode the 20% benefit mentioned in a prior post. So, as messed-up as our model is, I think advocating for a one-payor system is a waste of time, effort and money and that's a shame.
It's not gonna happen folks..
Many nurses, teacher, police, and firefighters in California know that it is possible for the people to win.
Many of us have begun both a clean money campaign and strive for universal access to health care.
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?
~faith,
Timothy.
Teaching salaries are determined by the state, not the feds.
In terms of nationalized salaries... Fed salaries are pretty good. My husband is a Fed and is compensated very well. Teachers are part of state, county and local salary structures, which are known to be pretty poor.
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 have cared for many. One was one of our own nursing assistants laid off for excessive absences due to cancer.
She went through her savings. Her husband had to sell the house to pay Cobra. After they were broke she qualified for a MediCal (Medicaid) nursing home.
Another man rented out his house to pay COBRA. He lived in a van while on outpatient chemotherapy. He got a disability check. He actually recovered and the store where he used to work took him back. The former home owner now lives in his van.
A healthy young construction worker was victim of a hit and run found on the sidewalk. He lost a leg after many surgeries. He lives on an SSI check. He chose extra pay over health benefits because he was healthy.
Spacenurse, what I said was "So, as messed-up as our model is, I think advocating for a one-payor system is a waste of time, effort and money and that's a shame."
What I meant, and I can understand the misinterpretation, was that all the money, time and effort in California or wherever will NEVER be enough to compete with the Fortune 50, and that is a shame. The fact is that even with people's best intentions, this does not, by any stretch of the imagination, compare to the recent fight with Arnold.
The Healthcare Enterprise in this country has many layers and in each layer there are special interests. It will take many years to untangle. It's not as simple as a state saying, "We will establish campaign finance laws that will create elections that are free of 'dirty money' and that will fix the problem."
MAybe what you folks are doing is a good start. I don't know...
Spacenurse, what I said was "So, as messed-up as our model is, I think advocating for a one-payor system is a waste of time, effort and money and that's a shame."
What I meant, and I can understand the misinterpretation, was that all the money, time and effort in California or wherever will NEVER be enough to compete with the Fortune 50, and that is a shame. The fact is that even with people's best intentions, this does not, by any stretch of the imagination, compare to the recent fight with Arnold.
The Healthcare Enterprise in this country has many layers and in each layer there are special interests. It will take many years to untangle. It's not as simple as a state saying, "We will establish campaign finance laws that will create elections that are free of 'dirty money' and that will fix the problem."
MAybe what you folks are doing is a good start. I don't know...
I certainly don't know for sure. I hope it is a good start.
If we succeed it will put the useless health insurance industry out of business.
...Earlier this month, the Kentucky House Health and Welfare Committee voted to urge Congress to pass a bill, introduced by Democratic Rep. John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, that would expand Medicare to cover all Americans.
The bill would create a "single-payer" health-care system, publicly financed and privately delivered. All Americans would have access regardless of employment, income or health. Each year, the program would set reimbursement rates for health-care providers and negotiate the cost of prescription drugs....
In terms of nationalized salaries... Fed salaries are pretty good. My husband is a Fed and is compensated very well. Teachers are part of state, county and local salary structures, which are known to be pretty poor.
But you live in the D.C. Corridor. Do you know how Uncle Sam can afford to pay such decent salaries in D.C.? From everywhere else.
If healthcare were nationalized, those extra 3 million or so salaries and countless and growing services, in the face of an already huge deficit, would require cutting alot of corners. I wouldn't hold to the thought that the Feds could afford, over the long term, to be generous when they take on 1/7th of the economy, the very segment that grows at a rate more than twice of inflation due to burgeoning technology.
I'm just not optimistic enough to believe that my salary isn't one of those cut corners. And I haven't even discussed the corners cut in my healthcare. . .
I don't know why people think advocating for universal care is the same as advocating nationalizing health care as a whole. Those aren't the same things. Really, it would seem more like nationalizing the insurance industry to me.
Aren't you the one who continually bashes President Bush and Republicans?
I don't personally attack people on this board. I do have problems with democrats as well as republicans (the ones on the hill) with bush...but I'm pretty sure bush isn't a member of this board.
You can disagree with someone with out insulting them.
.thumb.gif.09f7460d3e1ff8d6732564d77b5465cb.gif){kind=avatar}
fergus51
6,620 Posts
I have to disagree. My take home pay is the same percentage in California as it was in Ontario. The exchange rate is really a moot point. You don't benefit or suffer from it unless you make money in one country and spend it in the other.