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.

The HMO Act of 1973 required most all businesses to offer their employees HMO coverages, and allowed businesses, BUT NOT INDIVIDUALS, to deduct the cost of health insurance premiums from their taxes each year. Why not allow individuals the same deductions??? Our Government never blames itself for the problems created by their bad laws. Instead, they tell us more Government, in the form of universal coverage, is the answer. How can anyone with 1/2 a brain say more Government is the the logical answer when our Government is already involved in 2/3 of all health care spending, through Medicare, Medicaid, HMO, and other programs. If you look back in history there was a time when the American health care system was the envy of the entire world. America had the best doctors, the best hospitals, patients received the best care, the care was affordable, and thousands of private charities provided health care services for the poor.Most Americans paid cash for basic services, and had insurance only for major illnesses and accidents. This meant both doctors and patients had an incentive to keep costs to a minimum because the patient was directly responsible for payment, rather than an HMO or government program. The REMEDY to fixing our health care mess IS NOT socialized medical care and more government involvement. But rather a system that encourages everyone (doctors, hospitals, patients, and drug companies) to keep costs down. As long as somebody else is paying the bill, the bill will be too high.

The increases we see today in our health care system IS NOT the result of a free market. It's the result of FAILED government policies that have DESTROYED our health care market. ANYONE DISAGREE??? And your remedy to this is more and more government... That's a true definition of INSANITY!

UK, France , Holland??? Please... these are among some of the most expensive countries to live in BECAUSE OF THEIR SOCIALIST IDEALS.

For those who think government intervention of any sorts is going to help control health care costs please do some historical research about how we got into this mess in the first place. There is an obvious historical correlation between government involvement in trying to socialize and control the health care market and the increases we see in health care costs today. The high costs of health care we see today is not a result of a free market, but a result of a free market morphing into a controlled market. Take care.

From a recent article I read concerning Obama's health care plan, "Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the administration are expressing frank worries about stronger-than-expected opposition from moderate Democrats and worse-than-expected estimates for how much the plan would cost." It's apparent that moderate Democrats are starting to get a little worried about the upcoming elections. Could it be that they are starting to listen to their constituents and deciding it's not profitable for their long term viability to push government funded health care? Apparently these so-called majorities, that many on this website speak of, who want a government funded health care system do not vote. Otherwise I can guarantee you that these moderate Democrats would not be running from Obama and his proposed reforms. Take care.

For those people on this website who are saying HR676 IS NOT a socialized or a federally government funded health care system, you are either overtly or inadvertently LYING LYING LYING!!! HR676 is an EXPANSION of our current Medicare program to everyone.

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. In a Zogby poll for the Council for Affordable Health Insurance it found an overwhelming majority of Americans support the Health Care Choice Act, which would allow interstate commerce of health insurance policies. 72% support, 15% oppose, 13% were not sure. Even larger majorities of Latinos (86%) and African-Americans (85%) support the bill. IMO - Americans don't necessarily want socialized health care. They just want affordable health care. If the entire country had access to interstate shopping for health insurance policies, in which they could customize to fit the particular needs of their own family without government regulations, costs would come down, and more people would be able to afford health insurance. And all without enormous tax increases and a big government takeover of our health care system. The increase of insured individuals would have a direct impact on the amount of charity work hospitals could provide. From a recent article I read concerning Obama's health care plan, "Democrats on Capitol Hill and in the administration are expressing frank worries about stronger-than-expected opposition from moderate Democrats and worse-than-expected estimates for how much the plan would cost." It's apparent that moderate Democrats are starting to get a little worried about the upcoming elections. Could it be that they are starting to listen to their constituents and deciding it's not profitable for their long term viability to push government funded health care? Apparently these so-called majorities, that many on this website speak of, who want a government funded health care system do not vote. Otherwise I can guarantee you that these moderate Democrats would not be running from Obama and his proposed reforms. Take care.

HMO's have considerable government regulation and oversight. Here's a real life example. I am a 39 year old mother, that is disabled and in a wheelchair for life. My doctor has told me that I need a medically necessary surgery, and that I will die an early death without it. The catch is, my HMO will not pay for this surgery. I have been through three appeals already, and I went through a State Board of Appeals last Monday. I lost again. The reason I lost is: the state claims they cannot make the HMO pay for my surgery because there is no law saying that the insurance must pay for a medically necessary surgery. The logic behind HMO's is the control of health care costs. There is an obvious historical correlation between government involvement in trying to control health care costs, which started in the 1970's, and the increases we see in health care costs today. The high costs of health care we see today is not a result of a free market, but a result of a free market morphing into a controlled market. Take care.

Currently, it is illegal for individuals to cross State lines to purchase health insurance. A market study by eHealth Insurance found that prices vary drastically from State to State. For example, in their study they found the 10 top cities for affordable health insurance all had policies with premiums under $60/month. In contrast, for the exact same policy in New York City the premium was $334/month. The study found that there is a direct correlation between the amount of regulation the State Governments place on the insurance companies and the costs of the premiums. For example, in New York City their State Government forces Insurance Companies to sell policies at the same price to everyone, regardless of age or health for the sake of universal access. This results in increased premiums for everyone. Younger people tend to drop or not get the policies because it's unfair to them. A market study by the AMA surveyed 294 Metropolitan Cities and found that in 95% of the cities 1 insurance company provided coverage for 30% of the population. In 50% of the cities 1 insurance company provided coverage for 50% of the population. IMO - We have a monopolized managed care system with little or no competition, entwined with hyperregulation by State Governments, entwined with our Federal Government making laws cripling competition by not allowing interstate commerce of insurance policies....... and we wonder why the average salary earning individual can't afford health insurance anymore??? Take care.

Why is it inconceivable for a average salary earning individual to pay for their own medical expenses? I hear a lot of people talking about solutions to our current healthcare mess. But I rarely hear people talking specifics on how the healthcare mess started in the first place. Does anyone have expertise on how and when this mess first started? IMO - HMO's and managed care systems are the culprits of the escalating costs of medical care. Both these systems take the responsibility of paying out of the hands of the person receiving the care. This is very important to understand because it removes the market incentive and results in incremental and artificial rises in healthcare costs. I think there is an obvious correlation between the government and corporations paying for medical bills and the rise we've seen in medical costs. IMO - The current proposals to remedy our healthcare mess are not much different than the remedies that caused the mess in the first place. The only difference is that the current proposed rememdies are on steroids and are gift wrapped in beautiful colors. I was curious what folks thought of the idea of changing our tax codes to allow individuals to deduct ALL healthcare costs from their taxes, just as employers can? Take care.