The system has drawn lines to prevent over-utilization of assistance programs, and they're very severe. Incomes for those who get food stamps or medicaid/medical, have to be below $14,000/year. Applicants' bank accounts are checked, documentation of all income is required, and the amount determined according to how many people live in the home of those who apply; and whether those cohabiting can contribute to the income, etc.
There is a move in some states, to have recipients work at some level, but with the jobless rate what it is, that can't take work from those seeking employment. The "Workforce" facilities (used to be called "unemployment") have lists of those people on unemployment, for prospective employers. I do recall contacting some of them who were certified NAs, and they never returned my calls, so I reported them to the counselors there. There is a requirement for those getting unemployment payments, to actively seek work.
When disability is the reason for not working there are various agencies tracking and keeping watch over thoswe receiving payments on that program, as well as workers' compensation. My sister (who isn't a nurse) was an investigator in Canada with Equifax, who looked into those people suspected of abusing the system. She said that she found more people who were justified in taking assistance there....... and she had some stories to tell about those who weren't. I think nurses do that here, and that qualification may not be necessary.
Yeah i am aware of what the guidelines for receiving assistance are. But you and I both know there are many...ok the vast majority that make more money than that by doing things that are out of the legal limit. And these people dont have checking accounts for that reason. Everything is cash so it shows no records. AND on top of that we dont have enough people going around checking up on these leeches. Lastly, there should be random drug screenings for these people. Because if I have to pass one to be a nurse and pay for their crap, they should have to pass one to sit on their lazy asses and take my money.
Those requirements for looking for work from unemployment is just a forifice. All you have to do is say you looked, not even provide proof that you are doing so. Its a sham in all honesty. And there is plenty of work for these people to do. They can clean the sides of the roads and free ways. They can landscape around buildings and parks. They can do all the crap work. The best part is they wouldnt want to do it so maybe they would get off their asses and go find a job they would be ok with doing.
lamazeteacher, i apologize if i offended you. i’m not saying the quality of care is less in canada, in fact i believe it is ranked higher in that respect. my point was that it takes longer and costs more. and that is my major concern, because i cannot afford it. i am part of the working poor, and i do not believe in getting something for free, when i didn’t earn it. i realize there are exceptions to the rule, and i am compassionate when it comes to those who can’t make it on their own, but have made an honest effort.
i don’t believe that anyone should be turned away from receiving services, but the problem comes when people abuse the system. it is a complex issue, and i see both sides of it, but overall i am not in favor of the new healthcare bill. it's not propaganda, just one opinion.
"those requirements for looking for work from unemployment is just a farce. all you have to do is say you looked," (which is why, when i needed to hire nas, and none responded to my messages left on their answering machines, i reported them to the unemployment insurance officials. i was told the benefit they were receiving, would be stopped). "not even provide proof that you are doing so. its a sham in all honesty." not when employers take the time to notify officials! "and there is plenty of work for these people to do. they can clean the sides of the roads and freeways. "they can landscape around buildings and parks. they can do all the crap work. "there is a state program in force for that work, using low security prisoners; and employees of companies whose names are posted along freeways as maintaining that segment of them."the best part is they wouldnt want to do it, so maybe they would get off their asses and go find a job they would be ok with doing."
".............there should be random drug screenings for these people. because if i have to pass one to be a nurse and pay for their crap, they should have to pass one to sit on their lazy asses and take my money."
i think you're missing the point of drug screening for nurses. you hold the lives of patients in your hands, which being on drugs could compromise. performing drug screening on people whose situation is that they are unemployed and there is no history of abuse of drugs/alcohol is inappropriate and cost prohibitive.
quotes from 68 drop's post #252
there is obviously bitter resentment going on, that the post demonstrates.
"i do not believe in getting something for free, when i didn’t earn it. i realize there are exceptions to the rule, and i am compassionate when it comes to those who can’t make it on their own, but have made an honest effort.
i don’t believe that anyone should be turned away from receiving services, but the problem comes when people abuse the system. it is a complex issue, and i see both sides of it, but overall i am not in favor of the new healthcare bill. it's not propaganda"...quote from lauren's post # 253
no specifics are mentioned indicating reasons for lack of approval, other than getting something for free (which is erroneous) is contrary to poster's policies.
to me, that means that you have bought arguments made by others, who also give no pertinent crticisms of the reform of health care and insurance act.
It was a hurry up job, for Obama's political status. Such a shame, a stronger bill could have formed if they would have taken more time.
It was a shame that there was so much foolish opposition, just for the sake of opposition, during the immense effort to bring the Reform of Health Care and Insurance Act into being. What could be done, was done; and now there are curbs on the insurance companies, that have made them take their sleezy tactics to the Veterans' Administration.
Now tens of thousands of veterans coming back terribly injured from action in Iraq and Afghanistan. ABC news radio today reported that returning wounded are being made to sign waivers that state they had pre existing mental disorders before shipping overseas. That prevents them from attaining medical care for the long term results of their injuries; and their prospects of getting employment with accompanying insurance coverage are greatly limited! Many physicians in the military have been signing statements declaring obviously stable returning soldiers, as unfit, and having histories of mental illness. Among the tens of thousands for whom that is a reality, there have been many soldiers with shrapnel remaining in their bodies. NOW THAT'S A SHAME!!!!
If any of you out there know anyone who is or wants to be in the military, tell them to get as many letters as possible from teachers, their doctors, etc. stating that they have never had or been treated for any mental disorder (if that's true), beforehand. They should have them kept securely, stateside in case they're needed in the future to counter such heinous accusations.
I think it is generally agreed upon by healthcare workers changes need to be made not a total overhaul, fix what is broken, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water. I believe that several healthcare disciplines should have a voice in this matter not just a bunch of AMA MD's wearing lab coats for photo ops
When the full law comes into affect, then maybe patients like the woman who had to leave my hospital med-surg floor two days into her hospital stay--two days after the insurance company cancelled her health insurance for a pre-exisiting condition (obesity) without telling her (she found out on the third morning of her stay)--will be able to get the complete care that she needs.
And maybe the patients who are "self pay" won't have to worry about sudden illness (or suddenly diagnosed illness), and have to worry about the Business Office and physicians (worried about their ability to pay) shunting them out.
"Yes and no, LOL. I am all for Healthcare reform and think it is very necessary, so in that respect yes, I think it is a step in the right direction. "
I agree it is a step in the right direction. However, I'm not sure it needed bipartisan support. We shouldn't forget that both Social Security and Medicare(relevant to us) were both partisan bills. Social security was passed with 60 Dem votes/16 Repub votes and Medicare passed with 57 Dem/13 Repub in the Senate. Both those bills were hardly bipartisan. Also, things are much more polarized today than in the past. Anywho, my 2 cents are it didn't go far enough but that at least its some sort of start.
I am for healthcare reform, but there are a lot of issues I have with this bill. However, what bill was perfect when it passed? There are always amendments. Of course, the government seems to be side tracked with illegal immigrants and BP.
I cannot afford health insurance. My husband's employer does not offer it. We are both students. We go to a 2 year school so insurance is also not offered there.
I have a bleeding disorder. While this does not impact my daily life, if I should get into an accident, it could be serious. We make too much to qualify for state programs, but we can't afford regular care. My medication is $26,000 per dose. That's as much as our income. Needless to say, I don't take medication.
I hope that reform will allow people like us who are working to better our future a chance at regular health care and that I won't be denied because of my pre-existing condition.
The poster who needs medication that costs $26,000/dose to treat a bleeding disorder, needs to contact the Dept. of HHS regarding that outrageous price. I can't imagine that anyone in the general population could afford that, especially if it must be administered daily or more often. No law that affects everyone, could anticipate that such a travesty could occur, dangling a treatment/solution for the illness/problem someone suffers, and making it unavailable.
That is similar to thinking that a heretofor unanticipated oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, could be resolved by anyone (the President) with no experience in that industry. What additional regret and concern he might have expresed regarding the predicament, wouldn't have seemed sufficient to anyone who opposed his election - all those "sour grapes"/"NO" types.
CNN is eliciting public response to a question posed negatively: Do you think the President could have done more about the oil spill? That posing the question, begs angry responses. Typical media hype!
Specializes in Labor/Delivery, Pediatrics, Peds ER.
It's not easy to get on Canada's health care program. You do have to live and work there at least 6 months, to receive that benefit.
So, if I'm reading correctly, you, personally, could not go back to Canada and get ANY health care because you cannot work? Or, if they would make an exception based on your age and condition, you would have to wait 6 months before receiving any treatment?
I have friends in Canada who've waited excessive time periods for their treatment and/or been denied certain treatments based on age and other factors. One of my friends has gallstones needing surgery as well as surgery for another problem. At first they said they wanted to do the surgery for the stones right away. This was in February, but when they determined he needed surgery for the other problem as well, they said they wanted to do both surgeries at the same time. In April, they postponed them until he could see yet another doctor - that appointment isn't until July some time.
I lived in Buffalo where student nurses "moonlighted" driving Canadians across the border for health care. Most of the patients were heart patients on months-long waiting lists or who were denied the surgery they needed.
68drop
53 Posts
Yeah i am aware of what the guidelines for receiving assistance are. But you and I both know there are many...ok the vast majority that make more money than that by doing things that are out of the legal limit. And these people dont have checking accounts for that reason. Everything is cash so it shows no records. AND on top of that we dont have enough people going around checking up on these leeches. Lastly, there should be random drug screenings for these people. Because if I have to pass one to be a nurse and pay for their crap, they should have to pass one to sit on their lazy asses and take my money.
Those requirements for looking for work from unemployment is just a forifice. All you have to do is say you looked, not even provide proof that you are doing so. Its a sham in all honesty. And there is plenty of work for these people to do. They can clean the sides of the roads and free ways. They can landscape around buildings and parks. They can do all the crap work. The best part is they wouldnt want to do it so maybe they would get off their asses and go find a job they would be ok with doing.