Wisconsin has gutted Medicaid, no mandated ratios!

Nurses Activism

Published

So with all the craziness befuddling many Wisconsinites lately a new tightly kept secret was finally brought to light. Governor Scott Walker has not only gutted Badgercare (Wisconsin's Medicaid) which many farmers rely on as well as low income and buy ins by people who have two part time jobs for instance, Seniorcare which is an RX drug program for low income Seniors (which had a $20mil surplus), cut the end-stage chronic renal program, and Familycare which helps to pay for long term care for disabled and poor elderly individuals. Also, there is absolutely no nurse to patient mandated ratio in Wisconsin (let alone hourly mandates).

Many of our hospitals that give care to Medicaid patients are already overburdened as we have had hospitals close, not to mention the many who have lost insurance only going in when they catastrophically need emergency care. This is going to shift the costs to hospitals who will then do two things, raise rates on cash paying patients, and cut staff to the smallest possible amount even if that means 12 patients to a nurse, as I see it anyway.

Most hospital systems are non-profit but having worked for one that is supposedly religious in nature, I can assure you it is a farce in some cases as I worked on the "for-profit" side. It is hard enough as a new RN to find a job but with hospitals tightening their belts not only do I fear it hard to find a job (even at a nursing home), I fear the patient safety aspect of this.

It has been well documented that not only hourly mandates over 12 hours but high nurse to patient ratios can be directly tied to medical error and patient mortality. Is it going to even be safe to practice nursing in my state?

I love my state so dearly and if what I fear happens, I fear our world-class award winning health care system will look like one of a third-world country, little supplies, rationing care, deciding monetarily if a life is worth saving because "we cannot afford it".

What are your thoughts?

Also, Az, meant to address your comments on deficits earlier.

Deficits in themselves are not inherently bad if they are made productively. Investing in R&D efforts in Northern California that produce the Arpanet and microchips and ultimately create an entire industry (or four or five) is good. In that case you get the investment back and premium returns on that investment in the form of economic growth and increased tax revenue. Or as India demonstrates, making big ticket investments in high-tech education for the masses that allow you to capture 50-70% of the lucrative computer info systems industry works out very well.

Similarly if tax cut savings truly ARE used to invest in capital for job creation (not needed in a recession as there is an excess) and to build factories they CAN be productive. But not if they're "invested" in junk bonds, silver plays, and swampy real estate ventures in Louisiana. Nor in yachts and villas in the Swiss Alps.

Capital can also be raised by pooling from the many and not just the rich, and furthermore the many can not manipulate markets as easily.

These are the fatal flaw sin the arguments of Heritage/Cato, and other thinktanks on the right that argue for failed supply-side policies and insist that the larger and bigger should be taxed less than the rest of us. In the real world it doesn't work. Period.

The problem with the deficits of the 2000's is they were squandered. They'll never be an ROI . Nonetheless the recipients of the windfall made out nicely and our great grandkids kids will still be paying interest on it to the heirs of those tax-free, USA government insured t-bills of the donors.

Specializes in PACU, ED.

GWinRN, I understand about investment and it seems every year the President presents reasons why his budget deficit is okay.

I just look at President Obama's 2012 budget and see that 6.31% of it is for interest payments. That is money to service our national debt. It's more than we spend on Veterans benefits (3.26%), earned income and child tax credits (1.87%), or our military personnel (4.16%). It's nearly as much as the 7.28% for Medicaid.

More deficits will continue to grow the debt which means the portion of our budget required to service the debt will continue to grow. I'd rather see that money spent for the benefit of US citizens than sent to overseas bondholders. That's just my opinion.

GWinRN, I understand about investment and it seems every year the President presents reasons why his budget deficit is okay.

I just look at President Obama's 2012 budget and see that 6.31% of it is for interest payments. That is money to service our national debt. It's more than we spend on Veterans benefits (3.26%), earned income and child tax credits (1.87%), or our military personnel (4.16%). It's nearly as much as the 7.28% for Medicaid.

More deficits will continue to grow the debt which means the portion of our budget required to service the debt will continue to grow. I'd rather see that money spent for the benefit of US citizens than sent to overseas bondholders. That's just my opinion.

You're preaching to the choir. And actually the total outlay for debt interest is higher; about 12.8 cents of every tax dollar by the latest data I could find. Yes, it's bad. IMHO, we've done very stupid things as a nation for a long time and it's really unfortunate people let it go on for so long. It may take 75 years to recover even if we did everything right starting now. Which would not include something as simple as just laying off 2/3 of the federal workforce and slashing what's left for the INS, DOE, meat and nuclear and port inspections, highways and bridges, et al.and telling the recipients of SS they are S.O.L. We're spending peanuts now on most of those items anyway, and further cuts would not only jeapordize the nations safety would simply throw us into a deeper downward spiral recession (by near all economist projections) and ultimately reduce federal tax revenue the more so, increase unemployment, et al. How much revenue are the states and feds losing every time an engineering job is offshored and s/he ends up working at Starbucks? And in the meantime the states have to pay out 9 months of unemployment benefits. By the time the guy has shown up in the ED room without health insurance he has and has probably burned thorugh his retirement savings. if you have any easy answers please share!

+ Add a Comment