Obamacare

[Topher53]

How exactly does it affect nurses? I've heard there are shortages of nurses all across the country, particularly the West coast. And was wondering if those shortages are due to the recent news about Obamacare.

Nurses are having a hard time finding work after graduating- a scary thought for anyone looking into nursing. There's obviously more than one underlying cause, but can anyone please shed some light on the situation?

Thanks!

[lumbarpain, ADN, RN]

I personally dont have a great feeling about the new Healthcare. No one seemed to KNOW what was really going on with this hugh packet of papers. If there are more people that will rush to healthcare facilities in the future due to this, what kind of scenario do we face as healthcare professionals? I hear less and less people are becoming doctors also. If the previously sick and injured werent cared for properly before then they will blast through the medical doors with a vengeness to have those problems taken care of. I may be jumping the gun here but I dont think America has the capacity of nurses, docs, EMTS, paramedics to handle this incredible load.

[tewdles, RN]

I personally dont have a great feeling about the new Healthcare. No one seemed to KNOW what was really going on with this hugh packet of papers. If there are more people that will rush to healthcare facilities in the future due to this, what kind of scenario do we face as healthcare professionals? I hear less and less people are becoming doctors also. If the previously sick and injured werent cared for properly before then they will blast through the medical doors with a vengeness to have those problems taken care of. I may be jumping the gun here but I dont think America has the capacity of nurses, docs, EMTS, paramedics to handle this incredible load.

Don't you think it is kind of sad that people have this image of vast numbers of citizens flocking into MD offices and hospitals all over the country once they have access to health coverage.

...vast numbers of American's without access to health coverage...sigh

[somenurse]

Don't you think it is kind of sad that people have this image of vast numbers of citizens flocking into MD offices and hospitals all over the country once they have access to health coverage.

...vast numbers of American's without access to health coverage...sigh

nOW, Tewdles, usually i much admire how your brain works,

but, on this, come on,

think about it,

instead of creating the possibility of increased need for healthcare jobs,

wouldn't it be better to just keep all those who need healthcare coverage out of the system?

so what if many studies say the number of deaths

due to lack of ability to pay for our ever increasing healthcare/lack of insurance,

in the USA

is 45,000 or more? each and every year!!

Just let 'em walk it off, don't rock the boat here...cuz the census in so many of our 'for profit' hospitals is.......oh wait, yeah, it is often down, isn't it?

and many of those in the beds, there on emergencies,

have zero coverage, which usually ends up meaning

the hospital will eat that cost, (less ca$h for the hospitals to pay nurses with..)

or the other patient will end up being charged MORE for his healthcare, to help spread around the financial loss.

[tewdles, RN]

nOW, Tewdles, usually i much admire how your brain works,

but, on this, come on,

think about it,

instead of creating the possibility of increased need for healthcare jobs,

wouldn't it be better to just keep all those who need healthcare coverage out of the system?

so what if many studies say the number of deaths

due to lack of ability to pay for our ever increasing healthcare/lack of insurance,

in the USA

is 45,000 or more? each and every year!!

Just let 'em walk it off, don't rock the boat here...cuz the census in so many of our 'for profit' hospitals is.......oh wait, yeah, it is often down, isn't it?

and many of those in the beds, there on emergencies,

have zero coverage, which usually ends up meaning

the hospital will eat that cost, (less ca$h for the hospitals to pay nurses with..)

or the other patient will end up being charged MORE for his healthcare, to help spread around the financial loss.

Upon rereading my post I realize that my point was implied but not clear.

I love your sarcasm, I try to use it occasionally...usually with bad results. LOL

We absolutely need to have universal health care coverage in this country, IMHO.

I am more sad about the number of people who have inadequate health insurance and therefore inadequate health care. My prayer is that ACA will have more benefit than not.

It does seem that many hospitals are experiencing financial challenges and many are far from full of patients. The hay days of the '70s and '80s for the hospitals are long gone. Shoot, some nonprofit hospitals engaged in all sort of real estate acquisition and construction projects because they were making so much money they had to do something with it.

Things are different now. Hospitals MUST adjust. They cannot afford millionaire CEOs anymore...but they CAN afford adequate nurses.

There has been so much fear spread about the ACA and there are so many people who have VERY strong feelings about it that there will be reactions as well as responses to the changes. I am sorry that my peers are worried about their jobs as ACA unfolds.

I hope that nurses stand strong on the abundant evidence demonstrating that cuts in costs must not negatively impact nurse/patient interaction time or patient outcomes WILL be affected.

[somenurse]

Tewdles, i DID fully grasp your point, i immediately understood your point.

my reply was not clear, sorry.

speaking of unclear posts by me,

i made a mistake here, in reply #22, too

//"by having our rates, our costs for each item, jacked up,

and what is covered, and our deductibles, reduced, a bit more and more year by year by year,

to help cover those patients who have no insurance."//

i MEANT to say this:

//"by having our rates, our costs for each item, jacked up,

and what is covered, reduced, and our deductibles, increased, a bit more and more year by year by year,

to help cover those patients who have no insurance."//

[SC_RNDude]

nOW, Tewdles, usually i much admire how your brain works,

but, on this, come on,

think about it,

instead of creating the possibility of increased need for healthcare jobs,

wouldn't it be better to just keep all those who need healthcare coverage out of the system?

so what if many studies say the number of deaths

due to lack of ability to pay for our ever increasing healthcare/lack of insurance,

in the USA

is 45,000 or more? each and every year!!

Just let 'em walk it off, don't rock the boat here...cuz the census in so many of our 'for profit' hospitals is.......oh wait, yeah, it is often down, isn't it?

and many of those in the beds, there on emergencies,

have zero coverage, which usually ends up meaning

the hospital will eat that cost, (less ca$h for the hospitals to pay nurses with..)

or the other patient will end up being charged MORE for his healthcare, to help spread around the financial loss.

Many studies? I know of one that says 45,000 and another that says it's about half that. And then there is this one that says that those two are flawed and that lack of insurance doesn't cause ANY additional death.

"Richard Kronick, chief of the Division of Health Care Services at the Department of Family and Preventative Medicine at the University of California at San Diego examined the IOM’s findings in a paper published in April 2009.

Kronick, a senior health care policy adviser in President Bill Clinton’s administration, found that after adjusting for demographic and health factors - such as whether uninsured respondents were smokers and how they rated their own health - the uninsured were at no greater risk of dying earlier than people who had employer-sponsored group insurance.

Kronick pointed out in his paper that even he considers findings "counterintuitive." He suggested that uninsured people are being caught in the social safety net of public hospitals and community clinics before they they die prematurely.

PolitiFact, in an August, 2009 story, spoke to a range of experts from the left-leaning Brookings Institute to the conservative Heritage Foundation, who said they found Kronick’s results credible."

PolitiFact | Do people without health insurance die sooner?

[SC_RNDude]

Upon rereading my post I realize that my point was implied but not clear.

I love your sarcasm, I try to use it occasionally...usually with bad results. LOL

We absolutely need to have universal health care coverage in this country, IMHO.

I am more sad about the number of people who have inadequate health insurance and therefore inadequate health care. My prayer is that ACA will have more benefit than not.

It does seem that many hospitals are experiencing financial challenges and many are far from full of patients. The hay days of the '70s and '80s for the hospitals are long gone. Shoot, some nonprofit hospitals engaged in all sort of real estate acquisition and construction projects because they were making so much money they had to do something with it.

Things are different now. Hospitals MUST adjust. They cannot afford millionaire CEOs anymore...but they CAN afford adequate nurses.

There has been so much fear spread about the ACA and there are so many people who have VERY strong feelings about it that there will be reactions as well as responses to the changes. I am sorry that my peers are worried about their jobs as ACA unfolds.

I hope that nurses stand strong on the abundant evidence demonstrating that cuts in costs must not negatively impact nurse/patient interaction time or patient outcomes WILL be affected.

There is no relationship between what a CEO makes and what a nurse makes.

A board pays a CEO what they think the value of the CEO is to their company. Nurses are paid what a employer thinks it is worth to attract and retain good nurses. If the CEO's salary is cut in half, the nurses (and every other employee) is still going to make what the employer has determined they are worth.

Hospitals don't have an abudance of millionaire CEO's anyway. In California, about 25% make over ONE million a year. And personally, I want my employer to be able to compete with other top companies for good leadership. So if that takes a million or more, so be it. It's not my money.

I don't understand....you are "sorry" we are worried about our jobs? Does that mean you are sorry because we are worrying over nothing, or that we have reason to worry?

[somenurse]

Many studies? I know of one that says 45,000 and another that says it's about half that. And then there is this one that says that those two are flawed and that lack of insurance doesn't cause ANY additional death.

"Richard Kronick, chief of the Division of Health Care Services at the Department of Family and Preventative Medicine at the University of California at San Diego examined the IOM’s findings in a paper published in April 2009.

Kronick, a senior health care policy adviser in President Bill Clinton’s administration, found that after adjusting for demographic and health factors - such as whether uninsured respondents were smokers and how they rated their own health - the uninsured were at no greater risk of dying earlier than people who had employer-sponsored group insurance.

Kronick pointed out in his paper that even he considers findings "counterintuitive." He suggested that uninsured people are being caught in the social safety net of public hospitals and community clinics before they they die prematurely.

PolitiFact, in an August, 2009 story, spoke to a range of experts from the left-leaning Brookings Institute to the conservative Heritage Foundation, who said they found Kronick’s results credible."

PolitiFact | Do people without health insurance die sooner?

It is debatable if Politifact is widely accepted by all as reliable:rolleyes: or unbiased in it's reports:

Rachel Maddow Explodes: 'PolitiFact, You're Fired!' (VIDEO)

I think i'll trust Harvard over Sean Gorman's report.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage | Harvard Gazette

It's hard to imagine a NURSE who doesn't recognize the value of preventative care, of ongoing medical supervision of various health conditions, of access to even the educational bennies one gets from being able to afford seeing a doctor or follow up care, or being able to afford/stay on their meds,

as being able to prolong a person's health or lifespan, or even prevent the person's death,

yet,

there you are, SCrndude!!

but, i agree, if we take out those actually at risk, groups who are known to be in higher risk group,

and then count only those who are pretty healthy without insurance,

and only count THEM, it might be true, that having insurance doesn't make as dramatic difference in the death rate, if instead of looking at the actual real life population,

and instead

look only at the healthiest among the population.

but, it doesn't seem accurate to exclude those whose "lifestyle" contributes to their health problems, from the death count. I think not counting poorly controlled diabetics, smokers, obese people, cardiac patients who aren't eating 'right', and other "lifestyle" groups they want to exclude, etc,

and THEN pointing---look,

of the healthiest of those without insurance, they fared similarly to the entire group of ppl WITH insurance,

seems like flawed logic, imo. It's not the reality, it's creating a number they want to look at.

[Overland1, RN]

Why the semantics lesson? You realize that Obama himself expressed approval of the term, "Obamacare" during the presidential debates. He stated that he likes it because it shows that he cares!

Now that so many are opposed to it (especially those outside the Nursing profession), "ObamaCare" and its derivatives are looking more like pejorative terms. Those who do not like this will be offended. What was popular yesterday i8s not necessarily popular today, but, given yet another new name, may regain its popularity with some folks. This is but a small part of how politics functions.

[SC_RNDude]

It is debatable if Politifact is widely accepted by all as reliable:rolleyes: or unbiased in it's reports:

Rachel Maddow Explodes: 'PolitiFact, You're Fired!' (VIDEO)

I think i'll trust Harvard over Sean Gorman's report.

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage | Harvard Gazette

It's hard to imagine a NURSE who doesn't recognize the value of preventative care, of ongoing medical supervision of various health conditions, of access to even the educational bennies one gets from being able to afford seeing a doctor or follow up care, or being able to afford/stay on their meds,

as being able to prolong a person's health or lifespan, or even prevent the person's death,

yet,

there you are, SCrndude!!

but, i agree, if we take out those actually at risk, groups who are known to be in higher risk group,

and then count only those who are pretty healthy without insurance,

and only count THEM, it might be true, that having insurance doesn't make as dramatic difference in the death rate, if instead of looking at the actual real life population,

and instead

look only at the healthiest among the population.

but, it doesn't seem accurate to exclude those whose "lifestyle" contributes to their health problems, from the death count. I think not counting poorly controlled diabetics, smokers, obese people, cardiac patients who aren't eating 'right', and other "lifestyle" groups they want to exclude, etc,

and THEN pointing---look,

of the healthiest of those without insurance, they fared similarly to the entire group of ppl WITH insurance,

seems like flawed logic, imo. It's not the reality, it's creating a number they want to look at.

It wasn't a Politifact study. You can find a similar report in Huff Post on the same study if that makes you feel better. Here is a link to the actual paper, which was written by a former Clinton admin senior healthcare advisor.

Health Insurance Coverage and Mortality Revisited - Kronick - 2009 - Health Services Research - Wiley Online Library

If you read the paper you will see that your analysis of the study wasn't quite right either.

BTW, interestingly, the Harvard Study was backed by a "physicians for universal healthcare" group.

Anyway, I wasn't arguing that one study was better then the other. My point is that your claim that universal healthcare would decrease mortality is far from being a proven conclusion.

I am the nurse who doesn't believe in the value of preventive care (and everything else you mentioned)??? Since I have a differing opinion then you on what is the best way to provide the best healthcare for the most people, then I must not be intelligent or compassionate enough to understand the importance of all of what you mentioned. Pretty closed-minded of you don't you think?

Using your logic, from my perspective you would be the one who doesn't believe in the value of those things. I won't say that though, because I don't believe it to be true.

[somenurse]

//"m the nurse who doesn't believe in the value of preventive care (and everything else you mentioned)??? Since I have a differing opinion then you on what is the best way to provide the best healthcare for the most people, then I must not be intelligent or compassionate enough to understand the importance of all of what you mentioned. Pretty closed-minded of you don't you think?"//

oh wow, i remember you now!!

Nowhere did i say you were not compassionate, not intelligent, etc etc,

i said--------i am just surprised to find a nurse who doubts that healthcare improves health, or prolongs life. That is your position on this thread, is that healthcare doesn't prevent death, right? Or, that healthcare doesn't prevent death in very many people in a nation of 300 million?

either way---------

I still find it an odd position for a NURSE to have.

that's all i said. Now, if you wanna, you can take that and run with it, you can try going strawman, but, i can't defend what i never said.

and if you found my incredulousness to find a nurse who disputes that healthcare reduces the death rate,

if that felt as a personal attack,( my being surprised), i am sorry. Didn't mean to make you upset-ish.

[SC_RNDude]

//"m the nurse who doesn't believe in the value of preventive care (and everything else you mentioned)??? Since I have a differing opinion then you on what is the best way to provide the best healthcare for the most people, then I must not be intelligent or compassionate enough to understand the importance of all of what you mentioned. Pretty closed-minded of you don't you think?"//

oh wow, i remember you now!!

Nowhere did i say you were not compassionate, not intelligent, etc etc,

i said--------i am just surprised to find a nurse who doubts that healthcare improves health, or prolongs life. That is your position on this thread, is that healthcare doesn't prevent death, right? Or, that healthcare doesn't prevent death in very many people in a nation of 300 million?

either way---------

I still find it an odd position for a NURSE to have.

that's all i said. Now, if you wanna, you can take that and run with it, you can try going strawman, but, i can't defend what i never said.

and if you found my incredulousness to find a nurse who disputes that healthcare reduces the death rate,

if that felt as a personal attack,( my being surprised), i am sorry. Didn't mean to make you upset-ish.

I never said that healthcare doesn't prevent death.

You stated:

"so what if many studies say the number of deaths

due to lack of ability to pay for our ever increasing healthcare/lack of insurance,

in the USA

is 45,000 or more? each and every year!!"

What I did say is that there are not "many studies" that say that. There is one, and a few others that come up with far fewer numbers. All I did was simply show you that there are also those who find major flaws with those studies.

You also said:

"It's hard to imagine a NURSE who doesn't recognize the value of preventative care, of ongoing medical supervision of various health conditions, of access to even the educational bennies one gets from being able to afford seeing a doctor or follow up care, or being able to afford/stay on their meds,

as being able to prolong a person's health or lifespan, or even prevent the person's death,

yet,

there you are, SCrndude!!"

Since you incorrectly stated what my position is, please allow me to clarify it. It's pretty simple. My position is that health insurance does not equal healthcare. I do not believe Obamacare or a Universal Healthcare coverge system is a effective or sustainable way to provide those things you mentioned.

As a side note, unless you would do them when speaking to me in person, I could do without the dumb little eye-roll and laughing on the floor smiley faces. It is insulting and disrespectful.