Purely hypothetical... IF Hillary Clinton gets elected and IF she pushes through her socialized medicine plan then what would happen to the payscale for U.S. nurses? Would it drop $10 an hour per nurse?
I know these are big IF's and I am not here to argue if her plan could ever work but I am just trying to plan ahead in case it DOES happen.
Also I cant seem to find anything to tell me how much nurses make in the socialized medicine countries like canada or united kingdom. Does anyone know how much these nurses make on average?
i don't believe i'd be on disability today it i had access to the care i needed in the first place. and, thanks to my ever increasing medical issues and expenditures, i've had to battle with homelessness for over 3 years now because i am bankrupt so badly i may never be able to recover. (i don't stop trying to recover, however). in short, i think i may die because of healthcare, and join the other 18,000 that die each year because if lack of care.
this bolded quote is incredibly important.
as a fulltime single father, i wasn't able to give my kids insurance for several months due to open enrollment schedules at work. because their mom and i broke it off without being married, i didn't qualify for any "change of life" exceptions that would have allowed earlier coverage for the kids. i had to wait almost 10 months.
during that time, thank god, they were able to visit the phoenix indian medical center because they are 1/4 navajo and qualify for free care.
it was highly undesirable, but there were times when i had to shop for free clinics where an np was giving care and often my kids were misdiagnosed as nobody had any access to xrays, etc. when my son had a terrible cough that persisted for months, it took almost 4 months and 6 different "free clinics" before he was properly diagnosed and given the right treatment to treat the cough.
the high cost of healthcare is also due to the fact that we do not nip healthcare in the bud for the youngins.
i didn't visit a dentist for years due to never having dental insurance. now that i _do_ have dental insurance, i max out the $1500 limit every year as $1500 only buys a crown and a couple cavities. i've had to shell out over $6,000 to pay for the lack of care during my teenage years.
if we refuse to cover kids for the simple stuff when they're small, it will multiply into much severe chronic conditions as we get older.
in my case, it was several hundred dollars more per month to add on my kids. and i didn't qualify for state plans like ahcccs because i made more than $15/hr.
but when it costs $10/hr in gas and daycare just to get to work... i did in fact net less than $15/hr.
you can mandate healthcare all you want - i didn't not want to get coverage, i just simply couldn't afford it.
and to touch on hillary's bedpartner bigpharma... it's unusual the diagnosis or checkup is the root of high costs.
it's the hundreds to thousands in medication costs that come following the doc visit that break most banks.
why are some medications that haven't changed formulas since the 40's and 50's still running several hundred per month?
while it's looking like a democrat will be elected, i still really liked dr. paul's approach.
you cut spending so the government has more, you allow competition so there's less government-sponsored high prices for the "middleman" between the doctor and the patient, and you allow the individual to keep more of their money to help afford healthcare in cases where they are able to afford it.
for example, if the government realized that almost 30% of my income goes to daycare and gas, i could qualify for state healthcare plans.
or if you allowed "necessary to work" costs to be tax-free via things like flexible savings accounts with higher limits (daycare has a limit of $5,000/yr and medical limit of $2,000/yr), people will be willing and able to afford much more.
unfortunately, after uncle sam gets done digging in my pockets to pay for the war on drugs and the war on terror, i'm left with a very small amount to care for myself and my family.
and i'm an able bodied middle class american. why should i be punished for being able to work :angryfire
wow! I don't know why the fear of so called socialized health care - and by the way, health care in Canada is not socialized.As to wages, as an expereinced nurs in Alberta, as has been pointed out previously, I get $45/hour - minus shift differential. How many of you can say that in the US with your non-socialized health care? Granted, our wages are the highest in the country, but with teh dollars on par, it is a reasonable income.So, tell me, why would a universal health care system cause your salary to decrease?
wow! I don't know why the fear of so called socialized health care - and by the way, health care in Canada is not socialized.As to wages, as an expereinced nurs in Alberta, as has been pointed out previously, I get $45/hour - minus shift differential. How many of you can say that in the US with your non-socialized health care? Granted, our wages are the highest in the country, but with teh dollars on par, it is a reasonable income.So, tell me, why would a universal health care system cause your salary to decrease?
Primarily population. As someone earlier said, you have millions that are uninsured and that have been untreated for a very long time. What used to be coughs and sniffles are now hefty and expensive problems.
Additionally, our government receives HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS in lobbying monies from pharmaceutical companies to keep the prices of things artificially high and to keep the profit from healthcare out of the doctor/nurse hands and in the middleman's hands.
If someone truly cut through the middleman profits, I imagine we could provide care. However the very people proposing that everyone gets coverage are some of the biggest culprits of bedding special interests.
And unfortunately "special" interests do not mean our interests. We actually pay taxes. =/
Another big difference is that many provinces in the cold frozen north realize that crime is lowered when you take the drug dealer out of the equation and decriminalize certain substances by letting licensed shops dispense it instead.
Where in the US, we've spent this much:
$500,000,000,000.00++++ (that we've been able to actually track)
To keep kids from smoking pot.
That's a lot of money that could be going to healthcare or education instead.
Basically, in many aspects there are many European countries and Canadian provinces that are much more intelligent than we are.
In America though, if you pretend to be dumb and vote for the right things, politicians can make a whoooole lotta money.
You'd faint if I listed the cost for our war on Terror =/
ahh, I see, so the fear that nurses salaries will drop if universal health care is established in the US is based on no solid facts confirming that but rather on fear and the promotion of that fear by those parties to stand to profit from non-universal health care. Makes perfect sense.
What I don't get is why so many nurses continue to perpetuate this propaganda despite there being hundreds of articles and reports to show that universal health care actually benefits the patients (remember them?)
ahh, i see, so the fear that nurses salaries will drop if universal health care is established in the us is based on no solid facts confirming that but rather on fear and the promotion of that fear by those parties to stand to profit from non-universal health care. makes perfect sense.
what i don't get is why so many nurses continue to perpetuate this propaganda despite there being hundreds of articles and reports to show that universal health care actually benefits the patients (remember them?)
almost.
where the fear comes in is that the parties/candidates that already benefit the most from being in bed with pharmaceutical companies, are the ones pushing universal healthcare.
that's why we question their motives.
say person a receives much of their financial support from oil companies.
now, say person a says that we should all be using more oil because it's cheaper than corn-based ethanol. they want to help provide oil to everyone.
wouldn't you question their motives?
given the above example, we'd suggest that while they're right.. that oil is cheaper than corn-based ethanol. it may not be in the future. and corn-based ethanol is only the tip of the iceberg (hemp is much more efficient for ethanol production, algae is also an alternative being researched, etc..).
so when a candidate who has previously been tied to large corporations, especially large pharmaceutical corporations and the lobbies that spend tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars pushing their agendas, wants to push healthcare plans.
it's definitely correct to question their motives.
listen to hillary clinton in the first few seconds of this video:
"hillary, will you continue to take money from lobbyists?"
"yes, i will because you know a lot of those lobbyists whether you like it or not represent real americans."
you see, i'm not necessarily against all lobbyists, but the lobbyists that hillary has proven to work with in the past include some very nasty people. people who i don't think support me, as a "real american".
"clinton, the democratic front-runner, has received the most contributions from pharmaceutical makers, commercial banks, wall street investment houses and the real estate sector, according to the center for responsive politics."
so yes, it's natural and i feel completely acceptable to be concerned and question any plans for universal health care from folks who accept money from the people who arguably force healthcare costs to be as expensive as they already are.
Hmmm, I see your point. Suspicious indeed. I suppose it would be too naive to suppose that they actually have a level of concern for the 45 million peole without any health care?
No, no, I suspect a hidden agenda as well. They are after all, politicians. Perhaps the US's ship sailed on this many years ago when the AMA first blocked it along with all the rest of the communist fever. Too bad; people will just have to die.
hmmm, i see your point. suspicious indeed. i suppose it would be too naive to suppose that they actually have a level of concern for the 45 million peole without any health care?
no, no, i suspect a hidden agenda as well. they are after all, politicians. perhaps the us's ship sailed on this many years ago when the ama first blocked it along with all the rest of the communist fever. too bad; people will just have to die.
honestly i wish this was the case. but corruption has been tied to politics for over a century.. i suppose i'm naive if i see that changing
if hillary had a voting record like ron paul, i'd trust her a lot more.
but she voted for the things she is against and wants to change now. she voted for the war in iraq when we still didn't have proof, now she's against it, etc.
at this point, i'd settle for someone who at least could make up their mind on issues. at least then i could be less suspicious. i can't believe what you say now if you didn't feel the same way 8 years ago. you need to vote on what is _right_ and not _popular_.
But maybe that willingness to change is an indication of an ability to be flexible and LEARN instead of just wishywashy! Perhaps some of those that change their stance on issues change because they find out more information than they has initially and have discovered that they were perhaps incorrect (though never wrong) in their original stance.
I think I would prefer a politican who was willing to change than one who stuck with his/her views even when proven wrong.
The original poster had a valid question and yet i see alot of cynical remarks on here. the same question has crossed my mind as well. I don't think she meant the $10 per hour literally but basically wondering if salaries would go down if socialized medicine became a reality. I'll be honest, if salaries went down significantly i would pursue another career. It's great in theory to want to do things out of love or a passion, but at the end of the day, we do have bills to pay. I don't think that is a reflection of a person being a good or a bad nurse.
In my humble opinion, i think salaries would go down slightly and alot of the overtime would get cut. there would be no more competition between hospitals and salaries would be regulated by the industry. I hope that doesn't happen because I am a career changer, and also have felt the effects of the mortgage/real estate bust and people that used to make 6 figures now can't even put food on the table. Job security is important.
the original poster had a valid question and yet i see alot of cynical remarks on here. the same question has crossed my mind as well. i don't think she meant the $10 per hour literally but basically wondering if salaries would go down if socialized medicine became a reality. i'll be honest, if salaries went down significantly i would pursue another career. it's great in theory to want to do things out of love or a passion, but at the end of the day, we do have bills to pay. i don't think that is a reflection of a person being a good or a bad nurse.
in my humble opinion, i think salaries would go down slightly and alot of the overtime would get cut. there would be no more competition between hospitals and salaries would be regulated by the industry. i hope that doesn't happen because i am a career changer, and also have felt the effects of the mortgage/real estate bust and people that used to make 6 figures now can't even put food on the table. job security is important.
i think this would probably be the most likely of outcomes.
the changes would be subtle. we would hear it costs too much for us to be getting time and a half, etc. so we'd get less overtime and whatnot. after all, everyone would complain about pay cuts. but nobody would say nurses deserve higher-than-normal-pay for overtime and that could be squashed pretty easily. remember, without competition, everyone except the patient and the nurse/doctor benefits.
lpns and cnas would be given more responsibilities to allow rns to stick to 40 hours max per week. basically putting us on a salary, etc.
when the government controls healthcare, there is no more competition. who else will offer nurses a higher wage or better job? where else will you go if not for the private sector?
and for heathiam, trust me, i feel the same way.
but i'd bet my first born that i'll turn 50 before that happens and i'm rather fond of my first born
"the Government does NOT control Nurses play in the UK ... you want a raise greater than 2.6 %
the 2.5 % cost of living rise this year is for those employed by the NHS ...
it also doesn't take account of incremental pogression for many people ( given there are 7 increments in bands 2 -4 and 9 increments in bands 5-7 and 6 increments in each of the band 8 subbands and band 9)
neither does it account for the paymeny towards professional registration fees for those in bands 5 -8A
- go and work for a private sector provider rather than a NHS Trust ... "
Ziggy the amount I make in the UK is lower than I made in the US. The Bonus and housing allowance compensates me..plus I get to see Europe. I am a nurse practioner in the US which is equivalent to 6 years at the University. The UK (NMC) does not have a nurse positon equivalent. As far as paying for nursing fees, every hospital I worked at in the US paid for education, registration fees etc.
Oh by the way, I looked into buying the house I lease, 3 tiny bedrooms no closets of course, no electrical outlets in the one bathroom of course, 2 hours north of London $650,000. Housing is outrageous.
Not to go off topic here but you should really reconsider buying real estate right now, whether in the US or UK. Both are in the middle of a bubble and prices are expected to drop. I work as a housing counselor right now and I do hear UK has very similar issues to the US housing crisis. Just make sure you do your homework. You might be able to get a better deal if you wait.
ok,still wondering why you think the salary would drop should universal health care ever become a reality. remember, I am working in a god-forsaken wasteland where the government DOES control the health care, after a fashion, and we have the highest wages in the country. Just signed a new contract providing a 5 % increase for each of the next three years as well as increased shift diff and a market bonus of $750 bi annually AND 2% addition if you have greater than 20 years experience.......so how is it that government run health care decreases the wages?
The reason we get the highest wages in the country is because in order to keep nurses in the province and maintain the status of being top o' the heap they must offer high wages. So why wouldn't that work in the US?
GilbertDaddy
223 Posts
this bolded quote is incredibly important.
as a fulltime single father, i wasn't able to give my kids insurance for several months due to open enrollment schedules at work. because their mom and i broke it off without being married, i didn't qualify for any "change of life" exceptions that would have allowed earlier coverage for the kids. i had to wait almost 10 months.
during that time, thank god, they were able to visit the phoenix indian medical center because they are 1/4 navajo and qualify for free care.
it was highly undesirable, but there were times when i had to shop for free clinics where an np was giving care and often my kids were misdiagnosed as nobody had any access to xrays, etc. when my son had a terrible cough that persisted for months, it took almost 4 months and 6 different "free clinics" before he was properly diagnosed and given the right treatment to treat the cough.
the high cost of healthcare is also due to the fact that we do not nip healthcare in the bud for the youngins.
i didn't visit a dentist for years due to never having dental insurance. now that i _do_ have dental insurance, i max out the $1500 limit every year as $1500 only buys a crown and a couple cavities. i've had to shell out over $6,000 to pay for the lack of care during my teenage years.
if we refuse to cover kids for the simple stuff when they're small, it will multiply into much severe chronic conditions as we get older.
in my case, it was several hundred dollars more per month to add on my kids. and i didn't qualify for state plans like ahcccs because i made more than $15/hr.
but when it costs $10/hr in gas and daycare just to get to work... i did in fact net less than $15/hr.
you can mandate healthcare all you want - i didn't not want to get coverage, i just simply couldn't afford it.
and to touch on hillary's bedpartner bigpharma... it's unusual the diagnosis or checkup is the root of high costs.
it's the hundreds to thousands in medication costs that come following the doc visit that break most banks.
why are some medications that haven't changed formulas since the 40's and 50's still running several hundred per month?
while it's looking like a democrat will be elected, i still really liked dr. paul's approach.
you cut spending so the government has more, you allow competition so there's less government-sponsored high prices for the "middleman" between the doctor and the patient, and you allow the individual to keep more of their money to help afford healthcare in cases where they are able to afford it.
for example, if the government realized that almost 30% of my income goes to daycare and gas, i could qualify for state healthcare plans.
or if you allowed "necessary to work" costs to be tax-free via things like flexible savings accounts with higher limits (daycare has a limit of $5,000/yr and medical limit of $2,000/yr), people will be willing and able to afford much more.
unfortunately, after uncle sam gets done digging in my pockets to pay for the war on drugs and the war on terror, i'm left with a very small amount to care for myself and my family.
and i'm an able bodied middle class american. why should i be punished for being able to work :angryfire