leshi

We need a solution that will give the poor the access to healthcare they need but at the same time not screw rich people just for being rich. That kind of society limits incentive because it's like if you exceed a certain income bracket, the government automatically starts taking a third of your income. It's really tempting to say "They have more money than anyone even NEEDS so it doesn't matter how much they're taxed!" and try to play Robin Hood, but while the government may have a social obligation to help people to a minimum quality of life, drawing a line to set a maximum quality of life isn't ethical. We can say that nobody really needs a 24 room mansion, but a lot of middle class families can technically GET BY with just one car instead of three. The government (even state) needs to clean up its act and reevaluate its priorities so that we can give people healthcare coverage without raising the tax rate. Corporate welfare is a giant waste of money. It's ridiculous for companies to buy jets and fill their offices with designer furniture and then go to the government wanting money. Bailouts are in the tune of BILLIONS of dollars. I say let corporations live and die with the market - it may create a less stable economy, but will save money. I stand by the fact that state-based socialist healthcare is best because it has a good chance of eliminating problems with queuing and bottleneck effect.

Cellphone girl: She should have turned her phone on silent when he mentioned it, but I think it would have been more disruptive if she made a big deal of her cellphone ringing. Sometimes I forget to turn my sound off - nobody really calls me but I get text messages - and if it beeps, I ignore it and turn it off while the professor is not talking to the class (finding a paper or going to someone's seat for a question). I find it more disruptive when people react or apologise, the class tends to look at them, the professor responds, etc. But she should have turned it off when he mentioned it. Late girl: Things happen and people will be late periodically, but it's their loss. They shouldn't ask the rest of the class to accommodate them though.

My pediatric clinical instructor told me I should reconsider - which is fairly understandable because I DID NOT enjoy pediatric at all and it probably showed. I don't have the personality to be a pediatric nurse (I'm fairly reserved, straight-forward, and not overtly perky), but that doesn't mean I'm totally unfit for nursing obviously because in med-surg, an area I enjoyed, my instructor told me I had a promising future. If you enjoy it, then nobody can say you shouldn't do it or you're not cut out for it. You will find your niche - not everyone can do everything, but when you find what you're meant for, you will understand it and do well.

I have an instructor that reads nearly word-for-word off her typed outlines. She even reads the lesson goals such as "By the end of the lesson, you will be able to..." It's really boring. When I ask her a question, she normally doesn't even respond to what I asked. For example, I asked her "Are veins harder to find in obese children?" which is a yes or no question and she replies with, "There are many different factors that determine if veins are easy to find or not" which I can see where she got this but it didn't answer my question at all. She's a really good clinical instructor, but it's hard to get anything out of her lectures because she really doesn't make it easy to listen to. Everyone learns differently, but I learn better from professors who are more casual and use humor and stories to teach the lesson...not professors who ritualistically read off an outline.

I've wondered how universal healthcare will affect nursing, but in Norway my friend there said that after their 40% tax rate (partially due to universal healthcare), RNs make 30k a year which is in the neighborhood of half what they make already. What worries me most is the queue - people are seen based on the order the government puts them in based on their illness. The UK has problems with this - people sometimes waiting and waiting to be seen - and the US has 3 times the population of the UK. The healthcare system is bad as it is, but the advantage the US has over other countries is that we have states that are more self-regulatory than the provinces of other countries. If we use any sort of socialist healthcare, it would be more efficient at the state level. Some states already have it and we forget about the self-regulation that they have. With individual state-run socialist healthcare, there is less of a queue. "Crowd control" is easier the less people you have to manage - 12m (population of PA for example) is easier to manage than 300m (pop. of the entire US). With the higher population, the statistical occurance of people with the same ailment increases; also theoretically, within the state that decreases, possibly eliminating the bottleneck that may occur with nationwide socialist healthcare. Point: ask your STATE REPRESENTATIVES for socialist healthcare, not the president.

ASLKDJADAHJGDOLBHAD!!!!!!!!!! I am totally in shock.

My school has orientation the 28th, which is when I schedule my classes and buy uniforms. So far, I've been mentally prepping myself for it and talking to people who are in it. One person, so far, said she loves it; two others say it's extremely stressful, and one said she cried her first day of clinicals. I should start watching Scrubs or something that makes hospitals look fun...but then again, I don't want to have a rude awakening.