SilentMind

Your information is incomplete. You can say the other hospitals donate 3x more to the community. But that means absolutely nothing unless you can relate that to the resources each hospital has available.

So...honestly, your claim is faulty at best. That's like comparing the charitable donations of bill gates and an average working stiff.

Did you also do a comparison to see what the net incomes were for all three hospitals?

Less community oriented then other hospitals is still infinitely more community oriented then no hospital at all.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/64034 "The new health care overhaul law - that promised increased access and efficiency in health care - will prevent doctor-owned hospitals from adding more rooms and more beds. These hospitals are advertised as less bureaucratic and more focused on doctor-patient decision making. However, larger corporate hospitals say doctor-owned facilities discriminate in favor of high-income patients and refer business to themselves. The new rules single out physician-owned hospitals, making new physician-owned projects ineligible to receive payments for Medicare and Medicaid patients. Existing doctor-owned hospitals will be grandfathered in to get government funds for patients but must seek permission from the Department of Health and Human Services to expand. The get the department's permission, a doctor-owned hospital must be in a county where population growth is 150 percent of the population growth of the state in the last five years; impatient admissions must be equal to all hospitals located in the county; the bed occupancy rate must not be greater than the state average, and it must be located in a state where hospital bed capacity is less than the national average. These rules are under Title VI, Section 6001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The provision is titled "Physician Ownership and Other Transparency - Limitations on Medicare Exceptions to the Prohibition on Certain Physician Referral for Hospitals." More than 60 doctor-owned hospitals across the country that were in the development stage will be canceled, said Molly Sandvig, executive director of Physician Hospitals of America (PHA). "That's a lot of access to communities that will be denied," Sandvig told CNSNews.com. "The existing hospitals are greatly affected. They can't grow. They can't add beds. They can't add rooms. Basically, it stifles their ability to change and meet market needs. This is really an unfortunate thing as well, because we are talking about some of the best hospitals in the country." The organization says physician-owned hospitals have higher patient satisfaction, greater control over medical decisions for patients and doctor, better quality care and lower costs. Further, physician-owned hospitals have an average 4-1 patient-to-nurse ratio, compared to the national average of 8-1 for general hospitals. Further, these 260 doctor-owned hospitals in 38 states provide 55,000 jobs, $2.4 billion in payroll and pay $509 million in federal taxes, according to the PHA. In one ironic aspect, President Barack Obama's two largest legislative achievements clashed. The Hammond Community Hospital in North Hammond, Ind., got $7 million in bond money from the federal stimulus act in 2009. It will likely be scrapped because of the new rules on physician-owned hospitals, according to the Post-Tribune newspaper in Merrillville, Ind. These hospitals have long been a target of the American Hospital Association, which represents corporate-owned hospitals as well as non-profit hospitals. An AHA study from 2008 says that physician-owned hospitals "lessen patient access to emergency and trauma case;" "damage the financial health of full-service hospitals and lead to cutbacks in service;" "are not more efficient than full service community hospitals;" "use physician-owners to steer patients;" "cherry pick the most profitable patients;" and "provide limited or no emergency services." Meanwhile, one AHA fact sheet asserts that physician-owned orthopedic and surgical hospitals costs are 20 percent to 30 percent higher than average hospitals. Further, these hospitals just lead to higher profits for doctors, the AHA asserts. "We don't cherry pick patients, period, end of story. We take patients based on their need for care, not on their ability to pay," Sandvig said. "It [the health care reform] puts control outside the hand of physicians and patients and into bureaucrats' hands really. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is one of many organizations suing to have the law declared unconstitutional on the grounds that the federal government cannot compel someone to buy a product. While the provision on physician hospitals is not part of the lawsuit, it will affect it, Dr. said Jane Orient, AAPS executive director. "If the law is declared unconstitutional, then the prohibition is part of the bill," Orient told CNSNews.com. "There are vested interests in getting rid of physician-owned hospitals because they do a better job and are more affordable." The provision in the legislation and efforts opposing these hospitals can be simply explained from Sandvig's view. "It's anti-competitive. I think it's pretty clear," Sandvig said. "We're a model that makes sense that's affecting innovation. We're trying to do something better than it has been done. Anytime you do that, there's going to be a clash between the existing and the new. Unfortunately, it's a real David and Goliath battle."" You asked for it, you got it.

Easy? Keeping costs down? Reign in malpractice lawsuits. Premiums/coverage/preexisting conditions/etc....Take the government out of it once and for all. Turn insurance over to the free market, not to the government or any chosen corporations. The reason health care is screwed is because politicians make sweetheart deals with insurance companies. A couple CEO's get together and buy off a politician, in return...they get a gold stamp to monopolize business in that state. Win/win, unless you happen to be the consumer and/or the taxpayer. This health care reform bit is nothing more then another sweet deal for insurance companies. Originally, the legislation was designed to force insurance companies to do away with preexisting condition denials. And in return, to make up for all that loss of income, they would make it so everyone including low cost young people would be forced to purchase insurance to pick up the tab. Now, the preexisting restraints have been watered down to nothing and insurance companies end up with a massive influx of people that are legally required to purchase their product.

Pathetic really, the sentiments of this country. Noone actually cares what the effects on this country are. Noone thinks that far ahead. Health care reform is a lot like Obama, really. Noone actually supports him. They're just tired of the opposite. Liberals can't be orificed to think about why things are broken. They just want the easy solution that presents itself. The health care reform doesn't bother to address the problems with health care accessibility and costs. It just offers an alternative with all the same problems.

Not entirely sure. I'm 95% it won't matter. I'm ashamed to admit...i've taken anatomy more then my fair share. No teacher has ever taught from the book. At most, they'll just add a reference to a chart or figure in the book. As long as it covers the same material, you should be fine. If you're concerned about the discrepancies, i have a book you're welcome to use for the semester.

It's the same thing governments did by restricting access to people with H1N1 symptoms. It's just a precautionary measure in the interest of public safety. It doesn't guarantee anything, but it offers some protection, and there's nothing more you can do.

Well, considering there are only two groups of people. The known positive, and everyone. I think everyone would be a little extreme...

That's kind of the point. There are a dozen threads about individual cases used to prove how horrible the health care system is. I was trying to show how silly that is. This article is tragic, but it's an isolated incident with a sample of one. It's as poor a reflection on the NHS system as the "health care horror story" threads are of American health care. P.S. I've never in my life feared that healthcare might bankrupt me. It wouldn't even make the top 5 list of things out of my control that are most likely to screw over my finances.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1235921/Midwives-meltdown-A-NHS-worker-reveals-understaffed-maternity-wards-sinking-chaos.html Despite the hype, the end product is always the same. In the end, every government program runs into the brick wall of the budget crisis.

I've never much cared for your opinion. But this is the truth. To the OP, don't feel too guilty about not having the slightest clue what this health care reform is actually about. The majority of the people voting on it don't know anything more about it then you do.

I'm pretty sure the public option was already shot down in the senate. Ideally, a public option competing with private companies to keep costs down would be a great benefit to the consumer. That isn't the case. The public option isn't just an insurance company that takes profit out of the equation to compete with for profit insurance companies. But through government subsidies, it actually runs on negative profit (which isn't an issue when the taxpayers are fronting) which makes it absolutely impossible for private companies to compete. Eventually, there is only the public option which is as much "socialized medicine" as anything. They don't need to control the hospitals or the clinics, when they're the only one paying, they're the only ones calling the shots. They get to decide exactly what they feel like paying for each service, which services they'd like to cover and should be offered, and ultimately...even with subsidies, financial strains will force even a non profit to trim the fat. Which can only come from the bottom line. But, I'm not trumping competition in the least. It's actually the basis of the free market capitalist system. Without competition, corporations are free to financially rape the people at will. But with so much money to be made in this industry, why is it that other corporations haven't stepped in and kept these in check? The promise of huge bonuses should be attracting the best and the brightest of the buisness world. Except that you know, it doesn't. Because there are already laws on the books preventing competition. Only certain companies are allowed to sell insurance in each state. And they're not able to go next door and set up shop at will. The state governments are already bought off by the insurance companies to ensure that they stay nice and comfortable. The current shortcomings in the private insurance sector are not, as many would like to claim, the failures of capitalism. In fact, it's just the opposite. Legal protections for certain companies to protect them against free market forces = bad news for the consumers. This needs to change. In pushing for a public option, it's like drinking to kill a hangover. Government is the reason competition is stifled, and you expect them to come in and provide that competition either 1) Fairly 2) Efficiently or 3) Ethically. As a student working part time, I can afford to see a doctor when I need to. I've been paying for health insurance for years, and I took my first checkup this year since 06. My current finances are starting to slip, and honestly...I'm not sure that continuing to shell out $100 a month is really in my best interests for a service I don't need. Whats matters to me, is not letting the federal government come in and tell me where I need to be spending my money. Furthermore, assuming that coverage alone is equal to being able to see a doctor is a common misconception. We already have a public option designed for the aging population, and a great deal of those on medicare have trouble finding doctors that are willing to jump through all the government hoops to earn half of what they make on other patients. Here's some additional reading on the subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html The fact is, the insurance industry is dumping more money into killing healthcare reform than anyone- and that should say something. The only reason any corporation spends money is because they think it'll make them money in the long run- and thus far the private health insurance industry has been making their money by screwing over their customers. Protecting their profits should not be the concern of OUR representatives. The concern of OUR representatives, and I say this very tenatively, is to be the peoples voice in government. Mostly, they do whatever they can get away with in their own interests and throwing money to pet projects for their buddies corporations. But in theory, they're supposed to be our voice. And the last poll I saw was 51%-41% against the bill. People don't want to have to shoulder enormous costs to enact a change that's really pretty hit or miss at this point. People that support this bill seem blindly idealistic, supporting change in general, rather then anything specific about this particular plan. The costs are astronomical, even by democratic projections, and there's absolutely nothing to hint that it will be any more successful then our current system. This is one of the many problems that just cant be fixed by throwing money at it.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091201/D9CAD2M00.html Actually, the CBO's findings were that it would reduce premiums for those working at large companies by 0-3% employees of small companies will see between a 1% increase and a 2% decrease...essentially unchanged for both groups. Non group/individuals can expect a 10% to 13% increase. Which they're going to call a reduction because of government subsidies.

If you choose not to transfer any credits, I don't think they'll be any the wiser. You'll start fresh and it won't be an issue. They won't make an exception by any means. Either they look at the total GPA, or they look at the pre-req GPA. They cant just ignore certain classes. At the worst, you could always retake the math class. But if you're starting from scratch, it won't be an issue.

Every school as different admission criteria. Most schools go off a point system. This can be a combination of test scores, gpa, previous medical experience, etc....GPA is usually the biggest factor. There are some schools that look at your overall GPA, while many more only consider your GPA in the prerequisites for that program. Do some research.

Employers, at least in right to work states, have the right to set whatever conditions they want. If a doctor wants to live the good life and only hire big breasted nurses barely out of their teens, that's his perogative. Not saying it's the choice i'd make, but I respect their right. As a guy, I'm used to getting trumped out by women. It sucks on a personal level, but I wouldn't change it. Freedom is more important then me feeling hurt abut it.

Don't feel bad. Noone is that focused on 19. It's the kind of thing that only comes with age. College is wasted on the young. But in any case, nursing school is so far beyond stressful, it's depressing. It starts with prereqs. You have to kill yourself to memorize every nook and cranny to keep your GPA as high as humanly possible to be considered for a seat. Statistically speaking at least, there's a good chance you won't make it. (I think my professor mentioned A+P I nationwide had something like a 50% dropout rate) If you make it through with a GPA that would make einstein feel inadequate, then you enter the program itself. Which I haven't gotten to yet. But from what I hear, the trials go so far beyond academic obstacles. You give up your life, devote yourself to your work. You have to deal with things that may even be beyond your control. Some people aren't cut out for it no matter how much they want to, or how much effort they devote to it. And god forbid you get a teacher that sets out to thin the herd, or has a specific grudge against you. If you make it through the two years, then you get a short break to break loose and celebrate all your successes, before redevoting your life to studying for the boards. Which may very well require multiple attempts, despite your obsession with the material. If you've finally earned licensure, well bravo. Proving yourself like that is something that changes who you are for the rest of your life. There are no mountains you can't climb. But, in order for you to actually climb said mountains, you're going to have to find them first. You've done everything right this far, suffered, sacrificed, persevered. What might distinguish you as a god amongst men normally, is really only the bare minimum for consideration in potential employment. Everyone else you're competing against has all the credrentials you do, and it could take months and in some cases a year up to find employment.

i wouldn't go that far. i merely said i was interested in it. my fascination with the subject is fueled in large by the part that i've never actually had to witness the act firsthand. it may very well not be something i'm able to handle. but i'm okay with that. i know there's always going to be issues with certain patients that are problematic. i guess i just found it disheartening that these were actual nurses with the same mindset. also, whats the red green show? i don't think i've ever heard of it.

it's not even about bashing and controlling, it's the fact that this shadow is hanging over all of us, all the time. and if you do something even the slightest bit out of the ordinary, at the drop of the hat you're an abuser. when i first considered nursing as a career, i actually wanted to do either prenatal care or l+d. i know, not exactly a males traditional role in nursing. but to me the birthing process is just fascinating...it's the single most incredible thing we're capable of physically as humans. and not to mention being able to play a more active part in the birth of my own children someday. i've pretty much given up on that already. there's just too much potential to be perceived as inappropriate. even in regular care, i've seen threads in the mens forum mentioning how you should always have someone else in the room when you're providing care on a female patient, just to cover yourself. it just bothers me that women think that we're all possessed by the seed of evil, and the best of us will keep ourselves restrained, but that all of us are capable. it's just disspiriting. things like this are seriously making me reconsider my future.

I doubt it's the former. They already offered her the job, and they wouldn't use an excuse that could be as remedied as easily as switching to contacts.

They give awards for good grades?

You didn't come across like that, and I'm sorry if you misconstrued my reply as critical. I understand that you're just looking for a solution to the problem. I would strongly advise against trying to wing it without them, as that would not only put your patients in danger, but also make you look incompetent and sabotage any chances you have of a future with this facility. If after you explain it to them, and I honestly don't think it would be a problem, they refuse to bend on the subject, then you probably do have a case for discrimination. Personally, I don't know. Chances are neither does anyone else on here. If it came to that point you'd have to consult legal services.

Your boyfriend is really a secondary issue here. While important, there's no sense in going through the trouble to even try resolving it if this may be something you want no part in personally. Although, I can understand it's a lot more difficult to make these kind of life altering decisions without the full support of those you're used to leaning on. I honestly don't know a whole lot about shadowing, although i've heard it mentioned here on the forums. It's definitely worth looking into. As far as translating, I'm not entirely sure that would give you a feel of what to expect in a nursing profession. Finding out just what nursing entails would probably be a good project to take up for your own benefit. Sadly, I'm still a pre-nursing student so I can't offer a lot of insight there. I've seen a few threads around somewhere that asks nurses to describe a typical day. Don't be afraid to talk to nursing students further along in the program, or even actual working nurses in your area. No, I'm not mexican, and while I personally wouldn't be bothered by it, I can understand where he's coming from. It may not be nearly as big of a deal as you're fearing once you actually get your feet wet and start doing things.