KayMichelle

I am trying the LVN to BS RN program with Indiana State University/College Network. I have prerequisites to 'challenge', like Anatomy/Physiology and the others that I didn't complete when in college like World Religions and Algebra. After completing the challenges, then I can move on the the University level RN program, which is done through Sonoma State University. I hope it works! If I can stay focused, it should take about a year and a half to complete the entire thing. Peace! Oh yeah, it costs $128 per month, which I expect to be picked up by my work. Oh and one more thing: I have found the anatomy class to be nearly exactly the same material as my school books from LVN vocational school. A blessing for sure!

I thought someone mentioned a fail rate. What is the fail rate? Does anyone know?

What helped me was little things I remembered from lectures, like Ace inhibitors s/e is a cough. And we did jeopardy often, and the little details from that helped too. When I came home and looked up some of the questions, I couldn't find it in the practice books, I had to go back and look them up in my Med/Surg book. Saunders and Kaplan were worthless! I have also heard that either you do completely terrible or did well. I don't think I did 'terrible'... so I hope I am OK. We did the "predictor" and I did well on that. But, only prayer helps in the long run! Thanks! Kay

I took the test today, and this is exactly how I thought the questions went: I kept thinking, "What?!" Who cares what the color of the tie is!!! My stopped at 85. And I wonder if mathmatically it is possible for me to have failed. I know that I got at least 1/2 of them right That is 30 because there are 25 that don't count. If that is so, then if the test goes to 205, then I would have failed with a potential 85% score. That is a B grade. It makes no sense. By the way, today, I had no math questions at all, which are my strong point. It was mostly priority in an emergency, meds I've never heard of, and some mental health, some pregnancy and GU. I had to know several lab normal ranges. I suppose I passed, but it was a nutty test. We'll see! None of the study questions in my Saunders or Kaplan book did me any good!

Yes, this discussion is truly going no where. There are two completely different issues getting confused here. The topic is "universal health care" but people keep referring to 'denying care' The question is whether or not it should be publicly funded care. It's not much of a valuable discussion.

Goodness no, I thought we were talking about whether or not to promote universal health care! As far as the "demand" goes, I was speaking in the context of the rape of virgins in Africa, and yes, I think NGOs surely should demand certain risky practices stop. I promise that if I go to Africa, I will! In any case, a crack addict in the ER (like the sister I mentioned) isn't going to be concerned about how the healthcare is going to be paid, is he/she? I would like to have an opinion on universal healthcare, I really don't, which is why I am discussing it here. We are kind of getting off on a tangent talking about noncompliant patients, aren't we? I already graduated, but I'm older, I'm talking more as a taxpayer than anything else. Honestly, I can't think of anything a government does right so I hate to put our healthcare industry into their hands.

should the cost for the care for these things come out of the pockets of those who have no choice? backed up by the power of the police state? police state......:uhoh21: these issues are true conundrums. they need to be discussed without such emotionalism.i think i may have detected a bit of emotion in the police state comment. ------------------------- methinks you missed your government classes in college. in political theory, "police state" just means that you can get thrown in jail if you don't pay the taxes government sets up. i think you are confusing it with conspiracy theories. it is the concept of "the social contract" which is the basis of sociology. the contract is that we give our freedom to a government in exchange for social order. for instance: "...in his essay no treason, argues that a supposed social contract (of the rousseauean sort) cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation, because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract..." this is the essence of the questioning the fairness of socialism. can you force anyone to pay taxes for something they do not believe in? is that tyranny? according to aristotle, rousseau, locke, hume, among others other, especially our founding fathers, absolutely yes.

I agree that there should be SOME things that are slowly added to a list of care that is basically socialized. There are some deeply divided issues that cannot be resolved, as I mentioned earlier, so we should just start with the primary care, preventative care things. Our problems are nothing like the mess in some countries. Some type of tort reform/insurance reform would be a great idea too. That would ease the burden on the hospital staff. It would also help to make the industry more competitive financially as well, I think socialized medicine will wreak havoc on our paychecks, if it comes to pass!

Wow. Again, I thought we were discussing the merits of univeral health care. I didn't think we were discussing the option of denying anyone medical care. That doesn't actually exist here in the United States. You can go to any emergency care unit at the hospital and it is illegal for them to turn you away. Then, you can just ignore the bill. You can give them a false name and never see a bill. It could happen, however, if we had universal healthcare. That is why many are against it. It would "universalize" the system, so that your particular problem could be scrutinized with a history. Denial could happen pretty easily. Healthcare reform is probably a better idea. That way, we can continue with no one being denied care. You see, it is possible that no one would know that Mary had COPD because she smoked for 50 years if that info wasn't centralized by a huge bureaucracy. I don't think you gave a good example, however, because there isn't much that can treat her breathing problem very well with so much damage. Also, if you already have gangrene, insulin isn't going to help very much. You know, no matter how good a nurse you are, you are not God, and people do get chronic diseases. Many times, these people are overmedicated in nursing homes, no matter what you do - those with COPD live dismal lives - many on tracheostomies with ventilators. You should try not to personalize these discussions. We as nurses, need to have a solid viewpoint on these issues that pertain to our profession, we need to discuss them. We might be the ones pushing for a policy that might actually harm our patients in the long run. When you call people names and say how disgusted you are with them for their opinions, it doesn't exactly foster open discussion. It makes people not want to discuss anything at all. I have mixed feelings about universal health care. Yes, I feel sorry for those who are noncompliant, but I've had noncompliant patients myself, and think there should be some kind of predetermined sanctioning against it. It is frustrating for everyone. I don't "got mine". I haven't had health insurance in many, many years. When I did have it, I paid $350 per month with a $3,000 deductible, of which I never once hit the top. I have a schmuck of a little sister who goes to the emergency room for every possible problem, which is quite often since she is a hypochondriac, and she has never paid a dime. I know there could be terrible consequences for an open system, at a time when inflation is rampant, prices for gasoline, housing, food is going up at racing levels. I don't think we can afford that as a people.

Zippy, in post #208 is who called these patients "victims". My goodness! How we have become emotional over this issue! I thought this was an academic/intellectual debate about universal heathcare. First of all, I didn't mean at all to point anything out to you personally. I didn't insult you at all. I'm sure you're a perfectly wonderful person. DMII is only one of many, many sticking points in the overall debate of universal heath care. It is simply one of those watershed items, which are many. Universal healthcare is usually rejected because of these issues. Let's discuss another watershed issue.... how about AIDS? The drugs needed are very, very expensive cocktails taken by the patients. You know, many in Africa are very upset that the rest of the world won't pay for these hugely expensive drugs. I saw a movie in school not too long ago about AIDS, which showed how, in Africa, men think that if they have sex with a very young virgin, it will cure their affliction. Nothing the NGOs say will change their minds. They just keep spreading this horrible disease. Are we to avoid "judging" these men? Or are we to be true to our profession by promoting good health decisions? Do we enable this risky behavior? Or do we stand firm and persist in demanding that it stop? Back in the '80s, the healthcare professionals tried to shut down the bathhouses in L.A. They were called judgmental, bigoted. After many, many unnecessary deaths, they finallly closed. It was a good movie, it gave much to think about in our tolerant society. Or how about another issue... drug addiction and costs to rehabilitate drug addicts. Or another... STDs... Gastric band surgery.... or another... abortions... or another, after effects of attempted suicide... or what about high risk athletics? steroid abuse therapy? reckless driving? lung cancer caused by smoking? What about illegal aliens that bring into this country hepatitis and TB? Should the cost for the care for these things come out of the pockets of those who have no choice? Backed up by the power of the police state? These issues are true conundrums. They need to be discussed without such emotionalism. By US, the healthcare professionals, in a mature way, without name calling, without calling someone's opinion "disturbing" and such. That is nonsense. If we cannot openly discuss healthcare issues, who can? When you descend to name calling, we will never have healthcare reform, or even a shadow of it. Discussing thorny issues doesn't make someone a 'bad' nurse. No one is judging you personally. Forums are for discussing issues, not judging anything. There are many syndromes that will be made worse by making healthcare "free". The state should not become an enabler. If someone is noncompliant in their therapy, how can you justify forcing another citizen to pay for it? I think a monetary fine at least should be levied for noncompliance if we had universal healthcare. Other wise, it is like someone refusing to work, but still getting a paycheck. It could be a true nightmare.

How absurd, of course I don't think these people "don't deserve healthcare". I just don't think that the government should use their police powers to force Peter to pay for Paul's bad choices. You are jumping from conclusion to conclusion. No one has ever advocated that we "DENY" anyone healthcare. Just that we don't become enablers by financing the fix to bad choices. The type of healthcare that should be "free" (or rather on the public dole) should be only those that are not precipiated by poor choices.

Diabetes Mellitus II patients are not victims. They could have it under control with diet and exercise at an early stage. If someone refuses to comply with diet and exercise regime, then they will get worse, but they are not a victim of anything except their chosen lifestyle. Here in the states, children are constantly beaten over the head with "Red Ribbon" value do not abuse drugs, alcohol or smoke. It is not as if we do not press the message. Read the post from ksilty. People who are treating those with these lifestyle choice diseases know that it is refusal to value treatment that makes many of the 'victims' worse. I have to pay for all my medical care, because I have always been on an 80/20 plan with a high deductible. All my tests have been paid out of pocket. But due to the fact that my family is 'low risk' in lifestyle, we do not have a great deal of problems. I would actually be for universal healthcare if it only provided those services that are the ones that are not self-induced, due to neglectful health personal choices. Tort reform is essential. Here is an article written by the Ohio Healthcare providers' Association: http://www.ohanet.org/media/fact_sheets/med_mal.pdf Because of these problem in Nevada, it is difficult to find an OB/GYN.

Unfortunately, when we realistically look at the situation, it is drugs, alcohol, unrestrained sexual habits, and cigarette usage that causes 70% of the healthcare problems today. Why should the 30% healthy, those who choose to live a life of clean and healthy lifestyle, pay the tab for those who choose to have a risky lifestyle? We can claim to be getting more and more sophisticated as our society changes but be realistic: the song remains the same. Good health comes from a stable, careful lifestyle. That is the answer to good healthcare, not dependence upon pharmaceuticals. It is getting worse, not better.

There is no such thing as "free". Unless of course, you are a volunteer nurse, drugs cost nothing, and there is no need for research and development. This is the big problem with universal healthcare. It is not "universal". As you say, cancer drugs aren't available to "everyone", so who decides who gets them? The Queen? The Archbishop? Just curious. In America, we really don't accept that kind of authoritarian system. That is why we fought the Revolutionary War, you see! Another statement that is an oxymoron: "Everyone has a right to good quality free health care..." But, realistically, care that has made you wait is not quality at all. It is neither free, fair or of high quality. The true answer is tort reform.

The example of how universal healthcare would be beneficial is unsound. The poster used the example of diabetes, stating that if a person had healthcare he/she would use it before becoming very sick (ie getting renal failure, amputations, etc.) and this would save the system a great deal of money. Now, I think we all know from personal experience that these folks who do not treat their DMII fail to do so because of lack of discipline, and refusal to accept lifestyle changes, not because they do not have health insurance. Please, let's not use emotional arguments. Let's live in the real world. These issues are very important to us, especially the quality of care issues, the shortage issues, the salary issues.