will universal healthcare ( in the usa) cut RN pay?

typoagain · Sep 13, 2008

guy's there are several simple facts that a lot of people tend to overlook.

fact: the us has one of the best, (if not the best) healthcare system in the world. do you really think that letting the government control the purse strings will make it any better? if so, show me any private business that has been nationalized and improved by our government!

very little of what our government manages is run well at all, especially at a national level.

fact: the government insurance programs that exist today are a bureaucratic mess! and talk about abuse! oh, we all hear the stories about providers over billing, but what about the abuse by patients? tell me, is your er a clinic or an emergency room? as healthcare providers we all have to deal with the person who spent $500+ on an er visit rather than taking their child to the doctor during the day because they did not want to miss a couple of hours of work.

fact: the government already controls insurance reimbursement rates-just ask anyone who deals with billing. what medicare pays is what all the rest try to pay. and they are always have the lowest reimbursement rates there are.

fact: right now rn's make more money than the average person in the us. we work in a high-pressure job and take on a ton or personal responsibility and liability. not to mention nursing school. do you want the average guy on the street to dictate what you make? no, they will not cut our pay. they will just see to it that we don't ever get any raises.

fact: about the only government nursing jobs that pay decent in this country are floor nurses. the government has competition on hiring and keeping them. this competition is the private hospitals. if you take the competition away, then just what do you expect to happen to wages.

advocateforsafety · Sep 13, 2008

guy's there are several simple facts that a lot of people tend to overlook.
fact: the us has one of the best, (if not the best) healthcare system in the world. do you really think that letting the government control the purse strings will make it any better? if so, show me any private business that has been nationalized and improved by our government!
very little of what our government manages is run well at all, especially at a national level.
fact: the government insurance programs that exist today are a bureaucratic mess! and talk about abuse! oh, we all hear the stories about providers over billing, but what about the abuse by patients? tell me, is your er a clinic or an emergency room? as healthcare providers we all have to deal with the person who spent $500+ on an er visit rather than taking their child to the doctor during the day because they did not want to miss a couple of hours of work.
fact: the government already controls insurance reimbursement rates-just ask anyone who deals with billing. what medicare pays is what all the rest try to pay. and they are always have the lowest reimbursement rates there are.
fact: right now rn's make more money than the average person in the us. we work in a high-pressure job and take on a ton or personal responsibility and liability. not to mention nursing school. do you want the average guy on the street to dictate what you make? no, they will not cut our pay. they will just see to it that we don't ever get any raises.
fact: about the only government nursing jobs that pay decent in this country are floor nurses. the government has competition on hiring and keeping them. this competition is the private hospitals. if you take the competition away, then just what do you expect to happen to wages.

you seem to like using the word fact, well how about you let us know your references? i have read many studies that suggest much to the opposite of what you have said.

i hope you will read the entire article below, yes i know that the facts are from very dubious organizations like the world health organization and not fox news but they will have to do. pay special attention to the facts as they suggest something different than what you posted as fact.

myth 1: the us healthcare system is the best in the world

this idea has been called the alpha myth because it is fundamentally the root of all other myths.[1] it is the straightforward belief that americans have access to the highest quality healthcare available in the world. a different way to present this myth is to state that citizens in other countries experience long waits for healthcare, that they must rely on generalists, and that they suffer worse outcomes as a result.

this belief is widespread and well-entrenched in the american mindset. so it is perhaps surprising that in a 10-nation 1990 survey on the level of satisfaction with the national healthcare system, the united states ranked 10th.[2] these results were then reproduced a decade later.[3] although americans believe the us system is the best, clearly they are not as satisfied with the healthcare they receive as are citizens of other countries.

in fact, this disparity between perception and reality has been captured in several studies. in the year 2000, the world health organization (who) dedicated its annual world health report to a comparison of healthcare across the globe.[4] in this exhaustive analysis, american superiority was not borne out: the united states ranked 32nd for infant survival, 24th for life expectancy, and 54th for fairness. the fairness ranking was derived from a comparison of the individual financial contribution required with the quality of healthcare received. the current us system is known as a regressive system; that is, the poor pay relatively more for healthcare. in fact, the poorest fifth of americans spend 18% of their income on healthcare, whereas the richest fifth of americans spend about 3%.[5] in this type of regressive system, it is clear why about 50% of personal bankruptcies in the united states are related to medical bills.[6] tragically, 75% of individuals declaring medical bankruptcy had medical insurance at the onset of their illness.[6] overall, the who ranked the united states 37th in the world.

similar results were found by the commonwealth fund in a recently released scorecard on the performance of the us health system.[7] outcomes in the united states were compared against those achieved by top countries or the top 10% of us states, hospitals, or other providers. the scorecard evaluated multiple indicators of health outcomes, including mortality, life expectancy, and the prevalence of health conditions that limit the capacity of adults to work or children to learn. the average ratio score for the united states was a 69 out of a possible 100.[7] the united states ranked 15th out of 19 countries with respect to preventable deaths before the age of 75, with a death rate more than 40% higher than the benchmark countries of france, japan, and spain. the united states ranked last in infant mortality out of 23 industrialized countries, with rates more than double the benchmark countries of iceland, japan, and finland. the united states tied for last on healthy life expectancy at age 60.[7]

despite these mediocre results in objective parameters of health outcomes, the united states spends far more than any other country for its healthcare. in 2000 the united states spent 13% of its gross domestic product on national health expenditures.[8] the next highest spending countries were germany at 10.6% and france at 9.5%. in a graph of life expectancy versus health spending per capita, the united states falls far off the curve, both spending more and gaining less than other countries.[4] another example of this contradiction is seen in the outcome of patients on hemodialysis. although there are more hemodialysis centers per capita in the united states,[9] when end-stage renal disease patients were matched for severity of disease in canada and the united states, patients in the united states were less likely to receive a kidney transplant and also had a higher mortality rate while on hemodialysis.[10]

you can find the entire article on medscape. it will require that you register and log in to read.

in this article

- [color=#006699]abstract and introduction

- myth 1: the us healthcare system is the best in the world

- [color=#006699]myth 2: there will always be a certain segment of the population that remains uninsured

- [color=#006699]myth 3: the uninsured have equal access to medical care through the emergency room

- [color=#006699]myth 4: a free market is the best way to get the highest quality health insurance for the lowest cost

- [color=#006699]myth 5: we just cannot afford to cover everyone

- [color=#006699]conclusion

as for the wages of nurses neither you, nor i have any data to suggest that wages will go down. do you think so many people ( non nurses) work for the government because the wages and benefits suck or what?

cwazycwissyRN, RN · Sep 13, 2008

you seem to like using the word fact, well how about you let us know your references? i have read many studies that suggest much to the opposite of what you have said.
i hope you will read the entire article below, yes i know that the facts are from very dubious organizations like the world health organization and not fox news but they will have to do. pay special attention to the facts as they suggest something different than what you posted as fact.
myth 1: the us healthcare system is the best in the world
this idea has been called the alpha myth because it is fundamentally the root of all other myths.[1] it is the straightforward belief that americans have access to the highest quality healthcare available in the world. a different way to present this myth is to state that citizens in other countries experience long waits for healthcare, that they must rely on generalists, and that they suffer worse outcomes as a result.
this belief is widespread and well-entrenched in the american mindset. so it is perhaps surprising that in a 10-nation 1990 survey on the level of satisfaction with the national healthcare system, the united states ranked 10th.[2] these results were then reproduced a decade later.[3] although americans believe the us system is the best, clearly they are not as satisfied with the healthcare they receive as are citizens of other countries.
in fact, this disparity between perception and reality has been captured in several studies. in the year 2000, the world health organization (who) dedicated its annual world health report to a comparison of healthcare across the globe.[4] in this exhaustive analysis, american superiority was not borne out: the united states ranked 32nd for infant survival, 24th for life expectancy, and 54th for fairness. the fairness ranking was derived from a comparison of the individual financial contribution required with the quality of healthcare received. the current us system is known as a regressive system; that is, the poor pay relatively more for healthcare. in fact, the poorest fifth of americans spend 18% of their income on healthcare, whereas the richest fifth of americans spend about 3%.[5] in this type of regressive system, it is clear why about 50% of personal bankruptcies in the united states are related to medical bills.[6] tragically, 75% of individuals declaring medical bankruptcy had medical insurance at the onset of their illness.[6] overall, the who ranked the united states 37th in the world.
similar results were found by the commonwealth fund in a recently released scorecard on the performance of the us health system.[7] outcomes in the united states were compared against those achieved by top countries or the top 10% of us states, hospitals, or other providers. the scorecard evaluated multiple indicators of health outcomes, including mortality, life expectancy, and the prevalence of health conditions that limit the capacity of adults to work or children to learn. the average ratio score for the united states was a 69 out of a possible 100.[7] the united states ranked 15th out of 19 countries with respect to preventable deaths before the age of 75, with a death rate more than 40% higher than the benchmark countries of france, japan, and spain. the united states ranked last in infant mortality out of 23 industrialized countries, with rates more than double the benchmark countries of iceland, japan, and finland. the united states tied for last on healthy life expectancy at age 60.[7]
despite these mediocre results in objective parameters of health outcomes, the united states spends far more than any other country for its healthcare. in 2000 the united states spent 13% of its gross domestic product on national health expenditures.[8] the next highest spending countries were germany at 10.6% and france at 9.5%. in a graph of life expectancy versus health spending per capita, the united states falls far off the curve, both spending more and gaining less than other countries.[4] another example of this contradiction is seen in the outcome of patients on hemodialysis. although there are more hemodialysis centers per capita in the united states,[9] when end-stage renal disease patients were matched for severity of disease in canada and the united states, patients in the united states were less likely to receive a kidney transplant and also had a higher mortality rate while on hemodialysis.[10]
you can find the entire article on medscape. it will require that you register and log in to read.
in this article
- [color=#006699]abstract and introduction
- myth 1: the us healthcare system is the best in the world
- [color=#006699]myth 2: there will always be a certain segment of the population that remains uninsured
- [color=#006699]myth 3: the uninsured have equal access to medical care through the emergency room
- [color=#006699]myth 4: a free market is the best way to get the highest quality health insurance for the lowest cost
- [color=#006699]myth 5: we just cannot afford to cover everyone
- [color=#006699]conclusion
as for the wages of nurses neither you, nor i have any data to suggest that wages will go down. do you think so many people ( non nurses) work for the government because the wages and benefits suck or what?

what is missing in this facts sheet that you presented:: life expectancy in america is very low in comparison, due to the facts of our life styles. we do not take care of our bodies and practise prevenative/wellness the way many countries do. we wait for a disease process to occur, then expect our healthcare providers to cure us. there is alot of improvements that need to be made in our system, no doubt. with this i surely feel everyone is in agreement with.

i do not believe the question of our wages can be answered. the type of system they place, will provide that answer. i would have to question how many of us will have our jobs. to me that is the big question. will the government take over every hospital and healthcare agency out there? will they say we do not need this place here, when there is that place over there, and close down facilities? is this the reason canadian nurses are looking for jobs in america? how many institutions are going to fold under government rule? i do not know alot of facts on this topic. that is why i just read the nearly 500 posts here. these are some of the questions that came to mind as i read them. i am relieved to hear people say that the military hospitals and government run facilites are much improved now. that is the first time i have heard anything but negative condentations of such things. maybe our current government has been doing something right.

the government running our healthcare, our loans, our education and so much more, sounds like a government that is running it's people. the top 5% of our people expected to pay for all of it seems very unrealistic. that means they are not only paying for the poor and under priveleged. that means they will be paying for you, me, and the majority of the posters on here too. i find it hard to understand sometimes why we are willing to invest in a car/house and maintain it, but we are not will to invest in our own health and maintain it. were is our responsibility/accountability to ourselves?

in summary, we may be paid more..or less...

we may have more opportunity to work....or less

i will continue searcing for these answers before i vote for anything. our downfall is shown in this thread. we are not democrats or republicans....we are americans. together we stand.....divided we will surely fall.

TexasCowgirl24 · Sep 13, 2008

I believe Biden has MORE foreign policy experience than McCain so what's your argument again???
Getting shot down in Vietnam and then ratting out your buddies doesn't count either...

I cannot believe you said that. You get torchered for 5 1/2 years and I am sure you would sign anything just to get the beatings to stop. And as for experience, that's what ADVISORS are for.

rntraveler · Sep 13, 2008

TYPOAGAIN's FACTS are NOT facts! On anybody's list,we have a very poor infant death rate and are below standards in many other countries. Even Cuba,which is a very poor country does better with it's citizens due to availability of health care,even though they have no money. It's believed they do so well because there are many doctors so illnesses are caught early. It's called preventive medicine. As for nursing pay,there are many other professions that pay better than nursing with the same amount of education and you don't have to empty emesis basins or bedpans and you are not responsible for anyone's life. These jobs are in the computer world. I have always enjoyed nusring,but many times I have felt that if I had gone to plumbing school I would have been ahead financially. Both Canada and the UK have very good health care systems and their medical schols are releasing new treatments all the time.

kmoonshine, RN · Sep 13, 2008

There are many countries that seem to be running things just fine - free schools, free colleges, free healthcare...the list goes on and on. So why can't we get our act together? It may not be perfect, but no one can honestly state that US public schools excell in math and reading skills.

I do believe that the US has one of the best healthcare systems, but only for ACUTE illnesses. Sure, we'll crack your chest in the ED and shuffle you off to emergency surgery to repair that tear in your aorta, and it sure is nice to have a cardiothoracic surgeon at bedside. You'll be 1:1 with an experienced CVICU nurse and have RT's, pharmacists, residents, attendings, etc all working on your case. We'll shock you, breathe for you, and medicate you with 14 drips, including epi, levophed, PRBC's etc. Lets throw in ECMO just for fun. Then when you're discharged, you'll have a nice $500,000.00+ bill in your mailbox.

However, the US SUCKS at providing preventative healthcare and managing chronic conditions. And this is evidenced by our rates of heart disease, HTN, diabetes, and infant mortality rates.

Trauma_Team_1 · Sep 13, 2008

wow TONS of input here thanks again guys for all the information i never ever expected my thread to generate this much of a dialog. The info has been very helpful. Feel free to continue with this if you would like to :)

allnurses Guide · Sep 13, 2008

Single payer Healthcare

1. Everybody in, nobody out. Universal means access to healthcare for everyone, period.

2. Portability. Even if you are unemployed, or lose or change your job, your health coverage

goes with you.

3. Uniform benefits. One level of comprehensive care no matter what size your wallet.

4. Prevention. By removing financial roadblocks, a single payer system encourages preventive

care that lowers an individual's ultimate cost and pain and suffering when problems are

neglected, and societal cost in the over utilization of emergency rooms or the spread of

communicable diseases.

5. Choice of physician. Most private plans restrict what doctors, other caregivers, or hospital

you can use. Under a single payer system, patients have a choice, and the provider is assured

a fair reimbursement.

6. Ending insurance industry interference with care. Caregivers and patients regain the

autonomy to make decisions on what's best for a patient's health, not what's dictated by the

billing department or the bean counters. No denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions

or cancellation of policies for "unreported" minor health problems.

7. Reducing administrative waste. One third of every health care dollar in California goes

for paperwork, such as denying care, and profits, compared to about 3% under Medicare,

a single-payer, universal system.

8. Cost savings. A single payer system would produce the savings needed to cover everyone,

largely by using existing resources without the waste.

9. Common sense budgeting. The public system sets fair reimbursements applied equally

to all providers while assuring all comprehensive and appropriate health care is delivered,

and uses its clout to negotiate volume discounts for prescription drugs and medical equipment.

10. Public oversight. The public sets the policies and administers the system, not high priced

CEOs meeting in secret and making decisions based on what inflates their compensation

packages or stock wealth or company profits.

http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/legislation/hr-676-conyers/united-states-national-health-insurance-act

Corvus · Sep 13, 2008

Please remember that UHC isn't necessarily government-run care. In the US, it likely won't involve the government taking over hospitals. Americans won't stand for that. More likely single-payer insurance plans or even mandating that private insurers provide adequate coverage for necessary services, and do not discriminate on basis of pre-existing conditions.

cwazycwissyRN, where have you heard that Canadian nurses are looking for US jobs? Are you thinking about the layoffs during the mid-90's?

These days, the pay is pretty good, and it's nice to stay close to family. There are certain opportunities in the US that involve big sign-on bonuses, but I'd say that most of us are pretty wary of US recruiters. In any case, it's nearly impossible to get a TN visa.

Any nurses in the UK/Europe/Australia want to fill in some salary numbers?

Corvus · Sep 13, 2008

Here is the post:

Single payer Healthcare
1. Everybody in, nobody out. Universal means access to healthcare for everyone, period.
2. Portability. Even if you are unemployed, or lose or change your job, your health coverage
goes with you.
3. Uniform benefits. One level of comprehensive care no matter what size your wallet.
4. Prevention. By removing financial roadblocks, a single payer system encourages preventive
care that lowers an individual's ultimate cost and pain and suffering when problems are
neglected, and societal cost in the over utilization of emergency rooms or the spread of
communicable diseases.
5. Choice of physician. Most private plans restrict what doctors, other caregivers, or hospital
you can use. Under a single payer system, patients have a choice, and the provider is assured
a fair reimbursement.
6. Ending insurance industry interference with care. Caregivers and patients regain the
autonomy to make decisions on what's best for a patient's health, not what's dictated by the
billing department or the bean counters. No denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions
or cancellation of policies for "unreported" minor health problems.
7. Reducing administrative waste. One third of every health care dollar in California goes
for paperwork, such as denying care, and profits, compared to about 3% under Medicare,
a single-payer, universal system.
8. Cost savings. A single payer system would produce the savings needed to cover everyone,
largely by using existing resources without the waste.
9. Common sense budgeting. The public system sets fair reimbursements applied equally
to all providers while assuring all comprehensive and appropriate health care is delivered,
and uses its clout to negotiate volume discounts for prescription drugs and medical equipment.
10. Public oversight. The public sets the policies and administers the system, not high priced
CEOs meeting in secret and making decisions based on what inflates their compensation
packages or stock wealth or company profits.
http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/legislation/hr-676-conyers/united-states-national-health-insurance-act

cwazycwissyRN, RN · Sep 13, 2008

The plan you posted is a different plan I have been reading in another thread. I am trying to sort all of this out. I am finding it very confusing. I read about the canadian nurses in this thread. Sorry, I do not have the time to review so many to show you where, there are so many posts here. I really do have an open mind to finding a positive solution to the current health care issues. I just do not want to jump in or out because of the party that is trying to initiate it. Maybe the answers are staring me in the face...but I still do not seem to be able to sort this out.

allnurses Guide · Sep 14, 2008

It is a complicated topic. There are many proposals.

The plans differ in each country.

In the UK it is socialized medicine with government run facilities and such.

About the NHS:

http://www.nhs.uk/aboutnhs/Pages/About.aspx