I work at a union hospital, I feel that I am paid a fair wage and am happy with my insurance plan and benefits. While I am traditionaly not a pro union person, I do see the need for unions in some situations. My primary gripe with unions is that, in my experience, they promote political issues that I disagree with. One example is the push for an increase in the minimum wage. I don't want to get into a debate about if the minimum wage should or should not be increased, I just want to see if any of you agree or disagree with the opinion I'm about to express.
For the ease of explaining what I'm thinking I'm going to just use arbitrary numbers here. Lets say minimum wage is $5.00/hr and RN pay is $20.00/hr.
The various factors in the economy have determined that an RN makes $20/hr, or that the value of the RN is worth $15 more than than that of an unskilled or minimum wage worker.
I'm thinking that if my union is pushing for the minimum wage to increase to (for example only) $14/hr, then the union should be pushing just as hard for the RN wage to also increase by 50%. If the union does not push for an equal pay increase for the RN's it represents, then isn't it diminishing the value of the RN's education/skills/knowledge. What I'm saying is it seems that to close the gap between an RN's pay and minimum wage, we are effectively earning less or our jobs have been devalued. I'm wondering if this makes sense and if anyone agrees or disagrees and why.
Unlike past politial threads I've commented in, I promise to keep civil. I'm only interested in discussion and getting some of your input.
Dear Lord, just how many years does poor old Barack have to be President before he gets to start taking credit for the fact that HE is the one running things? Yeesh.
Dear Lord, just how many years does poor old Barack have to be President before he gets to start taking credit for the fact that HE is the one running things? Yeesh.
Good deflection. I happen to be VERY disappointed with Obama BUT I do not overlook the fact that Bush got us in this mess. Obama with all his broken promises and shortcomings has done infinitely better than Bush in regards to the economy.
Specializes in burn ICU, SICU, ER, Trauma Rapid Response.
Good deflection. I happen to be VERY disappointed with Obama BUT I do not overlook the fact that Bush got us in this mess. Obama with all his broken promises and shortcomings has done infinitely better than Bush in regards to the economy.
Plus Obama's body count is a tiny fraction of Bush's.
I was going to try to post something constructive, but it didn't come out right and I can't delete this post. So everybody just have a good day or something.
Specializes in Mental Health, Gerontology, Palliative.
Some of the higher earners will pay up to 40%, our top income bracket gets taxed 33%
And while our system is far from perfect. I have the knowledge that should I get sick or injured I wont have to sell a kidney, or take a second mortgage out on the house just to pay the deductible.
They don't actually pay 40-50 of their income for healthcare, and actually pay about half as much as we do per person (or often even less than half).
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Dear Lord, just how many years does poor old Barack have to be President before he gets to start taking credit for the fact that HE is the one running things? Yeesh.
Do we blame FDR for the economic collapse that occurred during the Hoover administration? No, generally we give credit for the market collapse to the policies of Coolidge and Hoover who believed that "the business of America is business". That notion and preference to coddle wealth almost ruined us then and again under GWB.
Plus Obama's body count is a tiny fraction of Bush's.
I was curious about this. You're right about the Iraq American body count, but totally wrong about Afghanistan. That spiked up after Obama was in office.
I personally think that the President is a figure head when it comes to a lot of America's foreign policies. Big financial interests seem to be major players in those decisions.
Some of the higher earners will pay up to 40%, our top income bracket gets taxed 33%
And while our system is far from perfect. I have the knowledge that should I get sick or injured I wont have to sell a kidney, or take a second mortgage out on the house just to pay the deductible.
While you might pay 40% of your income in another country in taxes, only a portion of that is for healthcare. Overall we pay more than twice as much per person for healthcare as those in other industrialized countries.
Healthcare bills are actually the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US and among those who declare bankruptcy due to medical bills more than half actually have insurance, so yes, it's much more likely in the US that you will have to take out a second mortgage to pay medical bills, even if you have insurance.
Here is a fun fact that I learned the hard way. I had some cardiac issues in the past (SVT) and had to wear a cardiac event recorder 3 separate times to get a diagnosis. My insurance only paid for it twice and they sent me a bill for the third one. I forgot to pay it and it went right into collections.
For medical bills, they don't have to send you a final notice or a warning that it will go into collections like they do for credit cards/loans. Upon one nonpayment they can throw it into collections without warning. Isn't that nice?
Some of the higher earners will pay up to 40%, our top income bracket gets taxed 33%
And while our system is far from perfect. I have the knowledge that should I get sick or injured I wont have to sell a kidney, or take a second mortgage out on the house just to pay the deductible.
In taxes, total. That's an exaggeration to say every penny of taxes goes to healthcare. What muno said was correct - other countries (including socialized) do pay significantly less for healthcare per capita than we do, and they have better outcomes.
In taxes, total. That's an exaggeration to say every penny of taxes goes to healthcare. What muno said was correct - other countries (including socialized) do pay significantly less for healthcare per capita than we do, and they have better outcomes.
What do you mean by "better outcomes", can you define these outcomes and compare them apples to apples with the same stats for U.S. healthcare? I always hear how the countries with socialized type healthcare have "better outcomes" but I've never seen an unbiased comparison. Also I would think an accurate comparison would account for the differences in the populations served by the compared health systems. It's really not an accurate statement to make that other countries pay less and have better outcomes. I'm not denying the expense of healthcare in the U.S, I just want to see the hard evidence that, regardless of cost, our outcomes are inferior. Do not bring up statistics that state Americans are more obese and have higher rates of heart disease or whatever, these exist in part due to lifestyle choices not quality of healthcare. I can have the best doctor in the country provide free services and still be the sickest in the bunch simply by not following that dotor's advice. Ok I'm rambling, but I just want to see a true comparison between different systems.
We pay more of our GDP for poorer outcomes, shorter lives, more pain and suffering, long wait times, delayed care and stratified care, etc. The well off get what they need, the poor accept what they can get.
14th in preventable deaths
24th in life expectancy
37th in overall ranking
health expenditures were 17.9% of GDP in 2011, the highest in the world by quite bit when compared with large, industrial, and largely successful countries (as opposed to the Marshall Islands)
This is old news which is/was part of the inspiration to do SOMETHING about our broken health insurance and health delivery system which is more concerned with $$ than with people. The preponderance of evidence suggests that if the USA pursues a single payer system we will save lives at a decreased cost to the system.
It is crazy to me that people are not familiar with this data after all of the heated debate about the ACA and health costs.
Red Kryptonite
2,212 Posts
Dear Lord, just how many years does poor old Barack have to be President before he gets to start taking credit for the fact that HE is the one running things? Yeesh.