Jump to content


Critical Care
  • Joined:
  • Last Visited:
  • 3,322


  • 0


  • 18,312


  • 0


  • 0


44 male, wonderfully married, 3 boys and a girl

ZASHAGALKA's Latest Activity


    Fired from first job

    It's not your job on a resume or in an interview to represent yourself badly. You can tell the story from your point of view without it being a lie. For example, I have no clue why you would be terminated based on what you said. There's more to that story -- the stated reason sounds like a pretext. Nevertheless, don't put it in the resume and when asked say that the employment wasn't a good fit. If pressed, say that YOU feel like they weren't giving you an adequate orientation. 1. That sounds to me like a true representation of your post. 2. If the place is local to where you're applying, most hospital administrators consider their programs to be superior to their competitors. You saying that you weren't being properly oriented probably fits into the pre-established mindset of how HR thinks of their competitor anyway... You can be vague without being dishonest. It's not your job to represent yourself in a bad light. Put those two things together and you can navigate an interview. ~faith, Timothy.
  2. A free market will rise to meet demand. There are billions of cell phones on the market and in use - right now. Nobody had to ration them, and the competition to put them in YOUR hands have made them cheap: cheaper than that black rotary-dial phone was 30 yrs ago. Here's a four-part plan to make health care affordable. The number one aspect of any such plan is that it must be primary-payor: the user must retain control of the dollars in order to maintain cost-conscience choice. 1. End employer tax breaks for coverage. Employer provided coverage would fall to nothing inside of 3 yrs. Good. You shouldn't be forced to keep a job to keep insurance. 2. Give citizens a 2-fold tax break. A. - a $5,000/person Health Savings Account (HSA) tax deduction that allows a pool of money to grow tax free for use in health care. Similar to the cafeteria/flex plans many employers use now, but able to "rollover" year to year. When the average person is healthy - in their 20's, this account will build as it's not used much so that, when you're 50-ish, and more prone to chronic problems, you have a relatively big account to pay for care. B. - Make a catastrophic plan tax deductible as well. 3. Catastrophic Insurance. - Covers only big expenses. Your car insurance doesn't pay for gas and tune-ups, and neither should health INSURANCE. Today's Health Insurance isn't insurance at all; it's pre-paid health care. Make it Insurance: 5k/yr deductible (conveniently the size of your HSA) - when your HSA is depleted, catastrophic coverage kicks in. But. Not before. 4. Gov't pro-rated coverage for anybody in the gap - make it a % of income so that, at about 50k for a family of four, it becomes cheaper to get your own, using the methods above. That gov't asst would extend to the chronically ill. For example: It's cheaper for society to ensure that a diabetic has access to the right primary care than it is to treat them for non-compliance. ~~~ Right now, Geico, State Farm, Farmer's, All State - they all market heavily to YOU for their business. Why is that? They must compete TO you for YOUR dollars. Why doesn't Blue Cross have a gecko hawking health care to you? You don't count; your employer provides your insurance and YOU have no say. THAT could change. Give people control over their own dollars and watch health care change. With most routine care being paid "out of pocket", there will be competition for those dollars. "Come to OUR ER, and any CT scans will be free!" LOL. There are better methods than gov't run care. There are even better methods to universality than gov't run care. Gov't run care isn't about being fair - or universal. It's about lobbyists having more of a say in what kind of care you get than YOU do. Money is power and gov't restricted care is about a few in gov't having access to the power that is 1/7th of the economy. AND. NOT. YOU. ~faith, Timothy.
  3. What happened to the "view count" on the thread titles to see how many people have viewed a thread? ~faith, Timothy.
  4. 1. I think you will see 'pay as you go' (no insurance) clinics in Walmarts, etc., be a standard of care within 10 yrs. It's already starting. Just as $4 generic prescriptions didn't need a huge gov't bureaucracy to become a standard with lots of big-name pharmacies. The free market does the best job of mitigating price while expanding quality and cutting edge. 2. Who wants things to remain the same? I advocate for the government to become LESS intrusive in health care. Gov't restricted health care advocates for MORE restrictive gov't interference. I don't know anybody that wants more of the same. 3. What I specifically advocate is that the gov't end tax breaks for businesses to provide for health care and instead provide those breaks directly to consumers. That would break the back of gov't supported (with lobbiest infested rules for care) tax breaks to businesses and put health care back in the hands of individuals. Combine that with health savings accounts and catastrophic insurance, and you would have a model that would control pricing and bring health care to the masses. I don't depend on my employer for my car insurance, and I shouldn't need to for my health care. Nobody should be forced to keep a job in order to keep health insurance. THEN, after the gov't gets out of the business of interfering with care, THEN, the gov't could set up a catch all plan to insure that everybody is covered. 4. Universal health care isn't about universal coverage, at all. There are far cheaper -and less intrusive - ways to accomplish that. It's about controlling YOUR health care. It's about the money - why let YOU decide how to spend YOUR money best, when some bureaucrat in Washington knows YOUR health needs better than you do - and has the actuarial tables to prove it! 5. The only reason why a CT scan costs a thousand dollars is because, get this - YOU DON'T ACTUALLY PAY FOR IT. Remove the middle man and it would be far less. In order to have a market for a product, that market MUST be created at a price that will sustain it. Nobody advocates leaving things status quo. I advocate a better system that keeps Washington out of your lives and provides par excellent care to everybody - with no rationing lines. Gov't restricted health care advocates want a fair share in a dismal gov't outcome for all. ~~~~ I advocate that we all have the ability/opportunity to have blackberry cell phones. Gov't restricted advocates argue that, out of fairness to everybody, we must all have black box rotary-dial phones. Would you want to bring back Ma Bell and that black rotary-dial box phone for all? For goodness' sakes, then, WHY ON EARTH would you want to do the same to health care? If you advocate trusting the gov't with your care, then, having put your faith in a bureaucracy for such a personal and important aspect of your life, you cannot then complain that such a bureaucracy ACTS like a - BUREAUCRACY. ~faith, Timothy.

    Texas girl gets heart transplant, sister waits

    [YOUTUBE] [/YOUTUBE] ~faith, Timothy.
  6. http://www.childrens.com/PatientsFamilies/News/texas-girl-gets-heart-transplant-sister-waits.cfm (Shayde and Emily Smith) "Less than one-in-a-million children are diagnosed with restrictive cardiomyopathy. For two in the same family to be struck with it is rare; for sisters to have it is almost unheard of. When Emily and Shayde Smith's parents were told last March that their daughters share the disease, shock doesn't accurately describe the feelings that followed." Emily Smith went home from the hospital this past Wed, 1/29, s/p Heart Transplant Surgery. ~faith, Timothy.
  7. I've worked for a VA Admin Hospital. I know you work there, now. Nevertheless. Ask a wide range of vets (not just your patients) what they think about the VA. You won't get an overwhelmingly enthusiastic answer. . . Thankfully, most of them have a CHOICE. A gov't mandated option is anti-choice. It's not about providing a better product at a superior price. Its about ensuring that Big Health, Inc., does NOT NEED your choice in selling it's product. (These businesses will not go away; they'll just take over - via superior lobbying.) Except now, you no longer have a choice. Halliburton, in charge of YOUR health care. Take it, or leave it. Gov't rationed health care is about those that would be in charge of the rationing. It has little to do and simply isn't in the best interests of - those that will be rationed from care as a result. (That would be you.) Not everybody is convinced that the VA is the model of care you suggest. I KNOW. I KNOW. President Bush's Administration vastly improved the care over what it was when I worked there, under Clinton. Still. (and WHAT IS THIS with you gaining on me in post counts? I take a little vacation from the computer . . . sheesh!) ~faith, Timothy.
  8. The system is much more equitable NOW when 86% of people have access to some form of insured care (with slightly more when you factor in that some have access to free or reduced cost clinics) and 100% of people have access to emergency care - than it will be when access to both routine AND emergency care is swamped. Imagine what it could be if the gov't got out of the way? I'll tell you what it would be: the absolute best mix of quality for price. Instead, the solution for gov't interference in your health care is - drumroll - MORE gov't interference in your health care. Amazing. So, because a black rotary dial phone from MA Bell is preferable to the risk of the market place, we should all trade in our cell phones and go back to the days of gov't domination over telecommunications. After all, EVERYBODY had a phone back then. If you stayed up really really late, the long distance rates would even go down . . . I don't doubt that the gov't could provide care for all. What I'm SAYING is that that care is a black rotary phone when you could have had a (non-gov't provided) blackberry cell phone. FOR THE SAME PRICE OR CHEAPER. As it stands, ERs are swamped NOW because of EMTALA and the concept that "it's free". Except. Nothing is free. The trade-off is long waits to see an ER doctor. Now. Take THAT concept, and double the number using the system (because, it's FREE!) and then apply it to EVERY aspect of health care. Add to that the fact that the gov't can't pay for the Medicare it is providing NOW - and so, add to that 20-30% routine cuts in funding. (Then add in even more draconian taxation to pay for it all.) THAT is what you will get. 100% of the people not getting access to adequate health care instead of 14% today. At least it will be "fair". A "fair" share in abysmal health care for ALL! Congress cannot repeal the laws of economics. Even if they want to do so. Even if they REALLY REALLY want to do so. Supply must balance demand. When demand is infinite, then supply MUST be infinite (an impossibility), or, rationed. I don't trust the fools in Washington to ration my ability to attain health care better than my ability to provide it for myself, if Washington were to leave me alone. Call me cynical, but faith is Washington is a form of derangement. But, to your main point: He who controls the purse strings, controls and owns the thing. There is no difference. What if we have the slaves do the work, and we'll just be the masters? ~faith, Timothy.
  9. Gov't rationed care is a horrible idea. These guys tanked the economy, social security is on the brink of failure and is only dwarfed by the coming financial wipeout of Medicare. And, we want to trust these people with MORE control over our lives? I think they've proven themselves to be stunning failures without giving them more to ruin. And don't even compare the gov't with Big Health, Inc. They are one and the same. Big Health, Inc. acts the way it does because its lobbiests ensure gov't protection for what they do. Did YOU pick your health care company? Or, did your employer, at the end of a gov't tax break? Hmmmmmmmm. I don't trust a politician more than I can throw them. They are all bought and paid for and I don't have the price for admission. They will make decisions, not in MY best interest, but in the best interest of the highest bidder/donor. A fair share in a dismal, gov't rationed outcome isn't very fair. It's all very nice until it's YOUR family member that dies on the wrong end of a waiting list. Can't be helped, it's not personal, you know. It's just actuarial. That said, Hutchison is leaving the Senate to run for Gov of Texas. AT least, that's what is widely predicted. I'm still mad at her for voting for the Sell-Out. Maybe she'll think twice about voting for the 850BN Great Rip-off. (I heard a rumor that rocker Ted Nugent might run for her seat.) ~faith, Timothy.
  10. Take this how you like and apply it to whom you'd like: there's a loophole you can drive a Presidency through. . . The problem with this line of thought (re: gov't generally) is that, even IF (big if) morons aren't designing it, or bringing it on-line, or working out the bugs, or running it, there is no guarantee that the very next user or manager might or might not be that moron. And. There is a high probability that somewhere down the line, any gov't system WILL be run by said moron. ~faith, Timothy.
  11. And I have an inkling that you are right, but only if that is combined with also denying access of those records to the government. Period. Which means a totally private enterprise with a firewall between it and the government. Your premise, that the info cannot be used against someone, absolutely depends on the government not having access to it. ~faith, Timothy.
  12. So what happens when I, as a patient, refuse to divulge my "pass key" and demand that you treat me, as a person, independent of some suspect gov't record? What happens when this large database is corrupted with incomplete and flat out wrong data (as happens with say, credit bureaus, all the time) and a significant percentage of patients elect to refuse access as an easier option to battling the bureaucracy to fix those records? What happens when those refusals reach say, 20% of the population. Do you refuse care to 20% of the population because they don't want you to look at some factually or politically corrupt EHR? What happens when a patient isn't in a position to speak for themselves? Can they carry a card (similar to JW's no blood products card) that says - NO ACCESS TO HEALTH RECORDS ALLOWED? Or, do we let families over-ride the will of the patient? What if family members refuse to grant access to EHR for family members for nefarious reasons? How do hospitals now hooked on some gov't database store local records of those patients that refuse access to the gov't system? No. In order to do this, it must be mandatory - no 'patient pass keys'. And THAT is an intrusion on the privacy rights of citizens that would make the PATRIOT ACT seem positively Polly-Anna by comparison. Read your Constitution. The government is not empowered with such a right. I have no problem with electronic records. 90% of my charting is on the computer. I have a problem with a central clearinghouse for said records kept and maintained by the government. A big can of worms this would be. You cannot both protect privacy and make something universally available. Stanley, you ought to know that. You suggest that the military provides this kind of security all the time. Yes, but the military actually has a hold over its employees that the civilian world doesn't share - and never could. ~faith, Timothy.
  13. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the gov't to design an efficient system. . . Maybe efficient enough for THIER purposes, but I doubt those are the same purposes as the end user. ~faith, Timothy.
  14. The government has no business being able to access my health record. When you give the government absolute power to do for you, you also give it absolute power to do TO you. I'll pass. ~faith, Timothy.

    Becoming an RN just for the paycheck

    I'm in it for the money. All true professionals are. That says NOTHING about my ability to care, or not to care. As should be. That isn't a consideration at the bargaining table - at least not one that would ever work to your advantage. So long as you give yourself reasons not to consider the bottom line, you give your employers reasons not to maximize that bottom line. I'm in it for the money. I'm not an angel and refuse to pretend to be one. Besides, I'm worth every penny. I'm in it for the money, and I want and deserve more. Much more. ~faith, Timothy.