Saúde

Sorry, didn't mean to misinform anyone. In terms of "basically the same", both produce a shock that briefly stops all electrical activity of the heart and then allows the normal heart rhythm to return.

They are basically the same. Most notable difference is that one delivers a charge through manual delivery and the other delivers the charge through mechanical delivery. Both need some sort of electrical activity from the heart in order to shock the heart. Without electrical activity, there is nothing to shock.

Most pediatric home health is one-on-one, is very low stress, and the pay, depending on your location, is comparable to hospital pay.

Put all your nursing books away! I repeat, put all your nursing books away! Get the online LIVE version of Kaplin. Not sure how much it will cost you but it's got to be cheaper than taking the NCLEX over multiple times. Sit down for 2 months and go over every inch of it and I guarantee you that you will pass. Don't bother memorizing anything. Concentrate on learning strategies on how to recognize correct answers vs. incorrect answers. The Kaplin Live version was part of our nursing program and I passed in 75 questions. After studying Kaplin for a couple of months the NCLEX will seem like a joke, at least it seemed awful easy to me. Good luck and just remember that failing the NCLEX has nothing to do with measuring how good of a nurse you'll be or measuring your potential. It's just a crappy test to measure your reasoning skills. Just get the Kaplin and get'r done!

Once again... I've never read in our Constitution where it gives our federal government authority over the states on this subject or many, many, many, other subjects. If individuals are ignorant of our American Constitution then their opinions have no authority and their responses are worthless. The idea that New York, for example, has a Constitutional right to limit or affect in any way Massachusetts laws, religions, culture, health care, and way of life, unless otherwise specified within the Constitution, should be fiercely opposed and tirelessly exposed on the basis of Constitutional illegitimacy.

States are NOT prohibited from establishing a religion, only the Federal Government is. There is NO Federal Constitution prohibition of states establishing a religion as long as the state established religion does not obstruct or restrict the rights of its citizens to practice alternative religions.

(10th Amendment) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And again..... Talking about brainwashed.....

America, as originally intended to be, consisted of a bunch of independent and self sufficient states. These states had total sovereignty over their laws, religions, culture, and way of life, unless otherwise specified within the Constitution. For example, New York didn't really care much if Massachusetts had a State established Christian Puritan religion because it was a sovereign state, independent from New York. Who was New York to tell Massachusetts how to run their state? The states were joined together as a country for purposes of protecting the liberties and sovereignty that each enjoyed collectively within their states. This sovereignty has incrementally through the years eroded to the point where today states think they are now cities and the country now thinks it's a state. Many Americans abhor the idea of government funded health care because it flies in the face of Constitutional principles.

I've never read in our Constitution where it gives our federal government authority over the states on this subject or many, many, many, other subjects. Talking about brainwashed......

It's so popular these days to analogously paint profitable entities as Satan. :smackingf The logic behind non-for-profit hospitals is to provide charity. In studies, for-profit hospitals provide just as much charity work as non-for-profit hospitals. When you factor in the tax revenue generated/not generated, for-profit hospitals do much more for communities than non-for-profit hospitals. Many restaurants, grocery stores, etc... intentionally locate near hospitals. Are they evil also? NO.

Canada's health care system is based on 3 principles: universality, comprehensiveness and equity. But is a patient in Canada a person or a number? The prioritization and waiting lines leads me to think the latter. If Canada's government truly believes in these 3 core principles then why does it refuse to reimburse it's citizen's when they opt for medical care outside it's borders? The answer to this, once again, leads me to the latter.

I'm not sure if you can support your overt or inadvertent claim that I support America's current health care system. So your response has no worth. But, to respond to you within the diameters of your question I'd have to say, depending on the severity of the ailment, that both health care systems would fail the patient. I'm curious. Can anyone who works here in America give real life experiences, not stories you've read on the internet, of patients you have personally cared for who have not received care for a major ailments because they didn't have insurance? Personally, I never have. The only patient I've ever taken care of who was refused treatment was a ICU Mexican illegal who was denied dialysis.

"First and foremost, excessive waiting for care is associated with negative health consequences, both physical and psychological, in addition to increased social and economic costs. If Canadians do not have timely access to the health services they require, confidence in our health system will continue to erode. This is a key concern as evidenced by public opinion polls." (Quote: Canadian Nurses Association) I've been told by many on this website (who claim to be Canadian) that the problem with long, excessive waits in treatments do not exist and that it's all propaganda by the AMA, cohorts, liars, etc...

I'm not sure if labeling me as a "right winger" or affiliating me with men who have voted repeatedly to fund YOUR failed government programs is fair to me. IMO - It shows your ignorance and lack of understanding of the issue because the last time I checked Republicans offered very few solutions and Democrats, well what can I say, their idea of a remedy is to pump steroids into our current failed health care programs. It time for change, that I can agree with you on...

Quote from the Canadian Nurses Association. "The federal government’s financial contribution to the health system must increase in exchange for assurances that pan-Canadian objectives regarding reduced waiting times and a broadening of the continuum of care will be met." So is there a problem with excessive waiting times for treatments or not??? All I here from those on this website is that it's propaganda, cohorts, or lies. Either the CNA is lying or those on this website are lying. Which is it??? It's quite hilarious when they use words like, "federal government's financial contribution". Translation - more and more and more taxes from the PEOPLE... One thing we can be certain of about Canada's health care system is that it's always going to be hungry and will need to be fed more and more on a regular basis to survive or it'll soon look similar to Brazil's health care system. Take care.