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?

Specializes in CVICU/SICU.
Sorry not buying it, I have been in the medical field for 40 years

Doesn't really matter if you buy it now, doesn't it? Because our political views don't match yours we are somehow less of a nurse? One would think that in four decades you would have noticed that everyone doesn't agree on everything, and the nurses come in all shapes and sizes, and some of us don't feel the same way you do about some things.

Specializes in Psych , Peds ,Nicu.

Nurses are reflective of the community they come from , as is evidenced by the responses to threads upon this forum , In expressing our opinions we can expect responses from nurses with the opposite view . It has been a good reflection upon all contributors to this thread , that they have been able to express their views which are poles apart in some cases , without degenerating into a slanging match . Thankyou

You better check your facts about social security, it is first of all solvent right now until at least 2035, figures are correct and if congress would stop borrowing money from the trust fund it would have never been in the trouble is supposedly is in right now. You watch Fox News too much.

You really shouldn't personally attack someone's intelligence when you display a fundamental misunderstanding of the how social security works, as above.

First off, there is no Social Security "trust fund" as normal people understand the term. The money that gets taken out of your paycheck every two weeks is not held in trust for when you retire - the government immediately spends it to pay out current benefits. The mythical "surplus" people used to talk about never really existed either - in those years that SS took in more than it paid out, the "surplus" money went to the Treasury to be immediately spent by the government, and in exchange the Social Security administration got IOU's (not even real marketable bonds), which they are supposed to redeem when current benefit payments exceed revenues. Incidentally, this is NOW...

According to the Congressional Budget Office, SS is already running a shortfall where it is paying out more than it pays in, to the tune of $45 billion right now. In order to cover this, they have to redeem the Treasury's IOUs, which, in turn, has to BORROW MONEY to turn those worthless IOUs into real money to pay out.

In short, social security is a literal Ponzi scheme that is already bankrupt - they government has to borrow money to pay out current benefits. There is NO surplus, and any reference to SS being solvent through 2037 or whatever refers solely to the supposed value of the worthless Treasury IOUs. There is no trust fund, there is no surplus, and SS is already bankrupt.

You mention a desire to see Congress "stop borrowing money from the trust fund". While it's true that they are in fact borrowing like mad, it's not from Social Security, because as I said, SS has no money. But, I agree with you - Congress must stop spending money it doesn't have (i.e., borrowing). Incidentally, do you know why the cost of everything (food, gas, oil, etc) has jumped so much lately? It's directly because of this borrowing, and the insane antics of the Federal Reserve - they are crushing the value of our currency by purchasing Treasury debt. Our own Federal Reserve now holds more US Treasury debt than any other entity, including China. This is INFLATION - our dollars are worth less and less in purchasing power as a direct result of our government's out of control spending and Fed's monetary devaluation.

You want our government to stop the borrowing? So do I. Well, in a couple of weeks Congress will have an opportunity to put a stop to it - we are once again about to hit the debt ceiling (the maximum amount of debt the government is allowed to carry). If they simply vote to not raise the ceiling again, they won't be able to borrow any more money. Problem solved. Of course, this would also mean that they would have to instantly slash the budget by 40%, since they are currently borrowing $0.40 of every dollar they spend.

trust fund faqs | social security.gov

far from being "worthless ious," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the u. s. government. the government has always repaid social security, with interest. the special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as u.s. savings bonds or other financial instruments of the federal government.

many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. these options are being considered now, over 25 years in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. it is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity.

do the social security trust funds earn interest? | social security.gov

a: yes they do. by law, the assets of the social security program must be invested in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest. the trust funds hold a mix of short-term and long-term government bonds. the trust funds can hold both regular treasury securities and "special obligation" securities issued only to federal trust funds. in practice, most of the securities in the social security trust funds are of the "special obligation" type. (see additional explanation from ssa's office of the actuary.)

the trust funds have earned interest in every year since the program began. more detailed information on the trust fund investments can be found in the annual report of the social security trustees and on the actuary's webpages concerning the investment transactions and investment holdings of the trust funds.

about the social security trust fund | paul krugman - ny times

rick perry says social security is a ponzi scheme - false | politifact.com

I heard a congressman (or senator) had come up with an idea that would allow people not to have to buy insurance, but would force them to agree, in exchange, to accept complete and full financial liability, regardless of how much it is, and said debt would, like student loans, follow the person and remain even after bankruptcy. I liked that idea........personal accountability for actions and INactions.

Edit-this was supposed to be in reply to a post much earlier in the thread in regards to those who choose not to purchase insurance while they are healthy.......not sure why it ended up at the very end, miles away from its intended location:-O

trust fund faqs | social security.gov

far from being "worthless ious," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the u. s. government. the government has always repaid social security, with interest. the special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as u.s. savings bonds or other financial instruments of the federal government.

i'm sorry, this is pure government rubbish spin. the "special-issue securities" are in fact worthless ious - they have no marketable value other than as ious to the treasury. their value is completely dependent upon the treasury being able to issue more real debt - bonds which someone else is willing to buy - to cover them when the ssa turns in its ious to cover current benefits. the same can be said for the interest - ss only collects interest on these worthless ious so long as the treasury can borrow more money to pay it. there is no "investment", there are no marketable assets. the government is playing accounting games and lying about it via deceptive misinformation such what you linked in an effort to support a bankrupt ponzi.

and yes, social security is a ponzi scheme, plain and simple. here is the definition of a ponzi: "any scam that pays early investors returns from the investments of later investors". this is exactly what social security does. the money your parents or grandparents paid in years ago is gone, spent by the government long ago. their current benefits are being paid by us, right now. this is the very essence of a ponzi scheme.

the polifact link you quoted in an attempt to dispel the notion of ss as a ponzi is complete rubbish, and there is no escaping the simple facts that the money is gone, there are no "investments", and the "trust fund" is in fact debt. no amount of political spindoctoring will alter these simple mathematical truths.

you also also completely ignored my other extremely important points - the government currently has to borrow $0.40 of every dollar it spends, and the runaway inflation we are seeing right now every time we go to the grocery store or gas station is the direct cause of this deficit spending and the federal reserve's insane currency debasement to support that deficit spending. how long do you think this is sustainable?

Specializes in med surg home care PEDS.

My final words, yes lets go back to before the New Deal and let old people just climb up on a mountain sing their death song and die, let me ask you something after the PONZI SCHEME that is wall street decimated every ones 401k, and since very few private enterprises have pensions, alot of old people in this country don;t have anything but SS so they should all just die right, problem solved.

Ok on to those bad uninsured people well they could join the old people and just die, yup that solves everything,

The information on my original post is from the "official" Social Security website and Politifact.com and it isn't spin. The trust fund surplus increased in the years after Pres. Reagan and Congress changed payroll taxes on baby boomers to fund their retirement.

The deficit problem would be solved by stopping all wars and ending the massive tax cuts on those making $250,000 or more. Again, just like the '80s, they want the middle class to pay instead of the Wall Street millionaires and billionaires who gambled away the money.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Five Social Security Non-Myths | The Century Foundation

1. Social Security didn't create the deficit.

2. Social Security benefits are earned; reducing them amounts to confiscation.

3. Social Security is funded until 2037.

4. The trust fund is invested in bonds, the most secure investment in the world. To suggest that the trust fund wouldn't pay is blatant fear-mongering.

5. Social Security is an easy fix.

Nothing is easy in Washington, but relative to a multitude of other public policy challenges, preventing a shortfall in Social Security after 2037 is a relatively manageable task. The projected 75-year gap between promised benefits and resources committed to the program is 0.7 percent of gdp. By way of comparison, rescinding the Bush tax cuts on only taxpayers earning over $200,000 (single) and $250,000 (married) would generate the same 0.7 percent, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Another way to fill the gap entirely would be to remove the $106,800 cap on each worker's earnings that is subject to the payroll tax.

Retirement & Social Security What You Need to Know | Our Fiscal Security

Specializes in PICU, NICU, L&D, Public Health, Hospice.

Really, you can't argue with people who believe that we (as humans) should get ONLY what we deserve and that there is no obligation on the part of the government to provide for the citizenry anything related to health or wealth or security. Determining who deserves what can be very tricky business and will likely require a huge department of it's own in each governmental jurisdiction.

We can always go back to the system that relies exclusively on the charitable donations of well meaning individuals for care of the indigent and ill. We can return to the time when only those who could afford it achieved an education beyond grade school, and when college (for any but the upper/wealthy classes) was largely an unattainable dream. We certainly can return to the days (very quickly) when groups of employees have no ability to collectively bargain with the businesses that employ them. These are some of the things that are being actively pursued by some of our politicians...and they DO NOT represent progress.

Yes, we can all acknowledge that our country is in debt and MUST change our budget, borrowing, spending practices. Where we largely differ is how and where we make these changes...I will remain steadfastly an advocate for the helpless, the hopeless, and the hopeful.

If our country (IMHO) is to remain "great" we must continue to provide for our citizens in "great" ways. We cannot allow those with the greatest advantages and opportunities to narrow the opportunities of those less fortunate...in the name of creating wealth.

I would suggest that before we remove the US governmental support for our indigent citizens we should consider removing the US governmental support for foreign nations. That before we tell teachers and janitors and police and fire workers (etc) that they cannot collectively bargain with their employers, we tell our senators and congressmen, and governors that they will now be paid at the rate of those individuals. So, for instance, that governor will now make the $70k/yr that the teacher makes (tenured) and can pay for some of his/her office supplies out of his/her own pocket. They must ask for a raise rather than simply deciding that they deserve one and arranging it themselves. Maybe they can only take the "fact finding" trip to (wherever) if they can afford to pay for it themselves. And, seriously, if our politicians believe that the working class cannot/should not bargain for their retirement benefits then I want the tax payors to have COMPLETE control and oversight of the benefit/retirement packages for those public "servants" (the politicians). When they are more concerned about the effects of a tax increase on those making >250k/year than they are about the the effects of eliminating collective bargaining for a union worker I am CERTAIN that they are out of touch with the masses.

It is time we end the days of the political elite in this country. Term limits and benefit cuts are looking more and more appropriate for our "leadership".

There are many of you who will disagree vehemently with my post...fine...this is the country that celebrates diversity of opinion...it is mostly MSNBC and FOX that seem to promote the notion that everyone should think in the same way.

The information on my original post is from the "official" Social Security website and Politifact.com and it isn't spin. The trust fund surplus increased in the years after Pres. Reagan and Congress changed payroll taxes on baby boomers to fund their retirement.

That may be, but again, no amount of spin alters the simple truth of the mess we face with Social Security. You keep dodging the truth: do you understand that the "social security trust fund" is in fact DEBT? That it has no actual worth unless the Treasury is able to sell more debt (at interest cost to the country) in order to redeem the "special issue bonds" (which are in truth nothing but IOUs between two branches of government) held by the SSA? Do you understand that the money everyone pays in to the system is immediately spent by the government, not held in trust? Do you understand that the $2.6 trillion held in the SS "trust fund" will in fact have to be converted to real debt, or covered through future tax increases? The SSA does NOT have $2.6t in actual money or assets sitting in an account - all they have is a claim against the Treasury which will somehow have to come up with the money (sell bonds, raise taxes) to cover it. Thus, the SS "trust fund" is a lie; it's an accounting trick, and nothing more.

The deficit problem would be solved by stopping all wars and ending the massive tax cuts on those making $250,000 or more.
Have you looked at the math of this? This claim that simply stopping the wars and raising taxes on high income earners would solve the deficit problem is fantasy nonsense. Here are the numbers:

First, military spending: In 2010, the Defense budget amounted to $689 billion, or 20% of the budget. Of that, according to the Center for Defense Information, the combined total for the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in 2010 was $171 billion. We don't yet know the cost of Obama's new war in Libya, but let's be generous and bump up the war costs to $200 billion/year.

Second, according to Obama's own budget proposal claims, increasing taxes on high earners would recover a total of $636 billion over ten years, which would be $64 billion per year off the deficit. Now, you can't pretend that this projection is not politically biased and thus overly optimistic, but again I'll use it for the sake of argument to illustrate how the math of your claim simply doesn't work.

So, under the implausible best-case scenario, ending the wars and raising taxes would reduce the annual deficit by $264 billion/yr ($200b from defense + $64b from tax hikes).

Do you realize that the federal government is currently running an annualized deficit of $1.65 TRILLION? (source). Doing what you say - end the wars and raising taxes - will still leave an annual deficit of $1.4 trillion! This would be only a 16% cut in the deficit - it would not "solve our deficit problem" at all.

We really need to stop blaming all of our woes on the evil rich people who make more money than we do (last time I checked, these were the people who offer us jobs and sign our paychecks. I've never gotten a job offer or a paycheck from someone who makes less than me). These horrible tax cuts for the wealthy are insignificant - as I showed above, from Obama's own budget figures, the paltry $64b/year that would be recovered by raising these taxes is less than 4% of our government's $1.65 trillion dollar deficit.

I'm completely supportive of getting the hell out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, but it is mathematically impossible to stop the deficit spending without massive cuts to the social entitlement programs, which account for 60% of federal spending.

We'll have to agree to disagree.
Sure, we can do that, but that's kind of like disagreeing about the sum of 2+2, since I'm merely discussing mathematical reality here.

social security board of trustees report 2010 | social security.gov

the financial outlook for social security is little changed from last year. the short term outlook is worsened by a deeper recession than was projected last year, but the overall 75-year outlook is nevertheless somewhat improved primarily because a provision of the aca is expected to cause a higher share of labor compensation to be paid in the form of wages that are subject to the social security payroll tax than would occur in the absence of the legislation. the disability insurance (di) trust fund, however, is now projected to become exhausted in 2018, two years earlier than in last year's report. thus, changes to improve the financial status of the di program are needed soon.

social security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983. the projected deficit of $41 billion this year (excluding interest income) is attributable to the recession and to an expected $25 billion downward adjustment to 2010 income that corrects for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. this deficit is expected to shrink substantially for 2011 and to return to small surpluses for years 2012-2014 due to the improving economy. after 2014 deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the baby boom generation's retirement causes the number of beneficiaries to grow substantially more rapidly than the number of covered workers. the annual deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets in amounts less than interest earnings through 2024, and then by redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084. the projected exhaustion date for the combined oasi and di trust funds is unchanged from last year's report.

the myth of the social security system's financial shortfall | la times

this year's report, which came out thursday, is no exception. within minutes of its release, some analysts were claiming that it projected a "shortfall" for social security this year of $41 billion.

before we get to the bogus math behind that statement-which doesn't actually appear in the report-let's look at the encouraging findings by the agency's trustees, who include the secretaries of labor, the treasury, and health and human services.

the trustees indicated that the program has made it through the worst economic downturn in its life span essentially unscathed. in fact, by at least one measure it's fiscally stronger than a year ago: its projected actuarial deficit over the next 75 years (a measurement required by law) is smaller now than a year ago.

the old age and disability trust funds, which hold the system's surplus, grew in 2009 by $122 billion, to $2.5 trillion. the program paid out $675 billion to 53 million beneficiaries-men, women and children-with administrative costs of 0.9% of expenditures. this year and next, the program's costs will exceed its take from the payroll tax and income tax on benefits. that's an artifact of the recession, and it's expected to reverse from 2012 through 2014. the difference is covered by the program's other income source-interest on the treasury bonds in the social security trust fund.

that brings us back to this supposed $41-billion "shortfall," which exists only if you decide not to count interest due of about $118 billion.

hands off social security | sen. bernie sanders (i-vt)

first, let's be clear: despite all the right-wing rhetoric, social security is not going bankrupt. that's a lie! the truth is that the social security trust fund has run surpluses for the last quarter century. today's $2.5 trillion cushion is projected to grow to $4 trillion in 2023. the non-partisan congressional budget office, experts in this area, say social security will be able to pay every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary until 2039. got that?

in the midst of all of the destructive rhetoric and ideas out there with regard to social security, there is one proposal which is simple, sensible and would keep social security strong and solvent in a fair and just way. under the law today, the social security payroll tax is levied only on earnings up to $106,800 a year. applying the social security payroll tax on those with the most income, say over $250,000 a year, would correct this inequity. according to cbo, applying the tax to all income would provide all the revenue that social security needs for the foreseeable future - for our kids and grandchildren and great grandchildren.

----------

facts are facts. read the links, especially the social security board of trustees 2010 report.

pixel.gif

mediajunkie, was there a point to that massive cut & paste from the social security soothsayers?

if you are trying to challenge the simple math of my prior post, can you do so directly?

a couple questions about your cut&paste info:

1) this would have us believe that the social security shortfall is no big deal because of the interest that will be paid on their treasury ious. question: where will the money to pay that interest come from?

2) you highlighted a couple passages which referenced "redeeming trust fund assets". question: can you describe exactly what these "assets" are, and where the money to redeem them will come from?

folks, we really need to stop believing the political propaganda like that posted above which uses outright deception to have us believe everything is a-ok with social security. people in this board's audience ought be capable of critical thinking: let's use some of that now. the article posted above by mediajunkie gives up the truth when it mentions "redeeming trust fund assets".

if this were a real trust fund, "redemption" would not be necessary, because the money would already be there. it isn't. the government already spent it, and the social security "trust fund" is nothing but a pile of ious saying that the treasury owes ss $2.5 trillion. well, the treasury doesn't have $2.5 trillion sitting around to give ss when they have to redeem their ious. remember, our government is currently in debt to the tune of $14 trillion - thus that means they don't have $2.5 trillion sitting around to give to ss. there is no getting around this simple truth - the money isn't there, and there is no trust fund. the social security trust fund is in fact, debt. let's all just accept this simple fact of life and move on.

let me put out a simple analogy which will make this easier to understand: let's say you have a grandchild, and from birth you set up a trust fund into which you contribute $5000/yr until she's 18, at which point she can use it for college. let's ignore interest, for the sake of simplicity (if we count interest, it gets uglier, not better!). so, for 18 years you sock away $5k in her name, and on her 18th birthday, she's got $90k available. now, that is a real trust fund - the money is there; all she has to do is go get it, at no additional cost to you. this is what normal people like you and i think of when we hear "trust fund".

but, that is not what our government has done with social security! here's exactly what they did, applied to our analogy: let's say that instead of actually putting away that $5k year, you instead write out an iou on a piece of paper, saying that you owe the girl that money on her 18th birthday. you don't actually save the $5k a year, you spend it on whatever you think is important at the time. so, on her 18th birthday, what do you have to give your granddaughter? nothing! you have a box full of paper ious and now you need to come up with the money when she tries to redeem them to pay for her tuition. how are you going to do that? by borrowing money (increasing the deficit), increasing your income (raise taxes), or by taking the money away from a different part of your budget (cutting from something else).

now, the government has a fourth option to try to cover those ious that a person would not: they can just print more money via the federal reserve, thereby monitizing the debt, which causes inflation and is why we are all seeing higher prices in energy, fuel, and food (and soon, clothing). this is not a solution, and it hurts everybody except the banker thieves at the top who are profiting off this.

if we're ever going to fix the problems with our economy, we first have to come to terms with these very simple mathematical realities, and chief among them is that there is no social security "trust fund". so long as we continue to believe the political deception and fantasies propagated by those in power from both parties, we have no chance of ever fixing anything.

+ Add a Comment