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?

All of my copy and paste items were based on "facts." There is a trust fund and the funds aren't IOU's aeb the SS Trustee Report on Social Security.gov. Those links clearly state that Social Security doesn't have anything to do with the deficit/debt.

I agreed to disagree and I'm not going to debate phony right-wing talking points about Social Security.

THE END...

all of my copy and paste items were based on "facts." there is a trust fund and the funds aren't iou's aeb the ss trustee report on social security.gov. those links clearly state that social security doesn't have anything to do with the deficit/debt.

i agreed to disagree and i'm not going to debate phony right-wing talking points about social security.

the end...

*sigh*

so, in other words, you don't want to think critically about the points i raised, illustrating that what the government is telling us is a bunch of rubbish? i reject your attempt to characterize the issues i raised as "phony right wing talking points". they are mathematical truth, and the application of honest logic and critical thinking.

if what i have been saying is phony right wing talking points, than it should be easy for you to tell me, in your own words, exactly what i am wrong about. show me where the $2.5 trillion in real money is sitting, waiting to be doled out by social security. show me where i am wrong in what i have been saying here about our deficit crisis.

at this point i don't even understand what it is you are disagreeing about - all you are doing is putting blind faith in the government. why are you so willing to invest so much blind faith in professional politicians?

let's boil this down. you state the following claim as fact: "there is a trust fund and the funds aren't iou's". ok, so then you tell me, in your own words that actually make logical sense, what the trust fund actually is, and where the money to redeem that $2.5 trillion will come from. do you have any comment on the analogy i offered to illustrate what a real trust fund is, vs. what ss is?

look, the official social security government website itself supports what i am saying!

here is a verbatim quote from ssa.gov faq regarding how the "trust funds" are "invested":

by law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the federal government. all securities held by the trust funds are "special issues" of the united states treasury. such securities are available only to the trust funds.

in the past, the trust funds have held marketable treasury securities, which are available to the general public. unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity. investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash.

the truth is right there, although it is masked with a stunning deception that makes it sound like something good to a person who won't ask questions about it actually means. the first paragraph tells you right there that the ss funds are held in the form of "special issue" treasury securities. do you understand what this really means? it means that these "securities" have absolutely no value whatsoever except as a claim against the us treasury - i.e., the treasury owes that money to the ssa when ssa goes to redeem them. it's an iou!

the second paragraph goes on to confirm this, by noting that in the past, ss funds were held as real, marketable bonds that have value and can be sold on the open market, like us savings bonds you may have yourself. this is somewhat better, because under that mechanism at least the debt was already on the books and recognized by the government. now, these special issue securities let the government hide the liabilities of social security as something other than real treasury debt - it doesn't become real debt until ss tries to redeem them.

this second is a beautifully worded paragraph that very easily fools people who won't use any critical thinking to evaluate what is actually being said here. it makes it sound like these special issues are wonderful! "same flexibility as holding cash"! awesome, right? well, no, it isn't! please, just take a moment to think about this critically. if they are saying that these special issues have the same flexibility as cash, that means one thing - it isn't cash, right? because it if was, they'd just call it cash and we'd have a real trust fund. but no, this is something that has to be redeemed for the real cash that will be sent out to people collecting benefits. i'll ask you again: where will the cash to redeem these special issues (if you like that term better than iou) come from?

now, here is the real kicker. scroll down in the ssa.gov website to this q&a:

q. what happens to the taxes that go into the trust funds?

a. tax income is deposited on a daily basis and is invested in "special-issue" securities. the cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund.

got that? the social security tax money - your real cash - goes into the general fund. do you understand what that means? well, since our government is running a huge budget deficit, it can only mean one possible thing - it immediately gets spent!

so there you have it, straight from the ssa.gov website: the money is gone - i'll say it again: the social security trust fund is an instrument of debt from one branch of government to another, an iou, and that is all! this is clearly stated on the ssa.gov website. can you explain to me what part of this you disagree with?

you know, sometimes it is best to just admit that you were wrong, and accept the new knowledge that you gained in the process. i'm not insulting your intelligence here; you would not be the first person to have bought the deception our government has sold us. we have been raised our entire lives to believe a promise that simply isn't true. and this is not "right wing talking points" - both political parties have been guilty of this, and i condemn them both for their respective roles in it.

I don't know if this has been covered, but if somehow the Medicaid/Medicare fraud could be erased by some magic wand, do you think Social Security would be in better shape (for those that say that the program(s) are broke)?

Specializes in Psych , Peds ,Nicu.

While we have gone of at a tangent getting ever deeper into the financing of social security , I would be interested to know what is the alternative being offered , by those opposed to social security and how will we maintain our obligation to those already qualified to recieve social security , during any tansition period ?

Specializes in Psych , Peds ,Nicu.

I think the deafening silence , re. the question I posed in my previous post ( #87 above ) . It is interesting how people can argue against something , that takes part of their income to give them at least a minimum level of security and the ability to look after themselves in retirement , yet cannot offer an alternative .

Specializes in Critical Care,Recovery, ED.

Let's not get overly involved in semantics. From my graduate level finance professor, ALL fixed income securites (bonds, notes, bills, speciand deposit issue, bank deposits et. al.) are IOU's with some form of interest attached.

I think the deafening silence , re. the question I posed in my previous post ( #87 above ) . It is interesting how people can argue against something , that takes part of their income to give them at least a minimum level of security and the ability to look after themselves in retirement , yet cannot offer an alternative .

Sorry, I've been rather busy with work and school, haven't had a chance to revisit this thread in a few days.

Anyway, to be precise, I'm really not "arguing" about anything on this thread so far: all I've been trying to do is to get through to people the facts of what Social Security ACTUALLY IS - an unsustainable, bankrupt Ponzi scheme. So, now that that point has been made, we can talk about alternatives. Right now, I think we'd all be better off with anything that wasn't an unsustainable, bankrupt Ponzi scheme.

We are really talking about about two different things here: (1) a social safety net of last resort, and (2) providing for a comfortable retirement.

I have no problem with #1; I've never suggested letting our elderly go homeless and hungry. But that's not what Social Security is - it is far more than a safety net of last resort.

When the Social Security program was enacted in 1935, the age of eligibility was 65, and the life expectancy was 62 for men and 67 for women. So, right off the bat, you can see that this was really only meant to provide minimal supplemental security near the end of life. Now, the age of eligibility is 62 and life expectancy is 76 for men and 81 for women. How can a system originally designed to cover minimal end-of-life security for 0-2 years now be expected to cover 14-19 years of retirement? It can't!!!

So, if Social Security is supposed to be what it was originally intended to be, we need to raise the minimum retirement age for collecting to 78. Secondarily, if Social Security is supposed to be a safety net of last resort, it needs to be means tested, based on income and assets, so only the truly needy receive it. Under these criteria, probably nobody in this audience reading this thread would ever receive a penny of benefits from Social Security. But hey, that's what a social safety net is supposed to be, right?

Let's be honest - none of us are as noble as we pretend to be in the anonymity of the internet. We've all been paying into this system for years and expect to get something out of it when we retire, right? Is anybody here perfectly OK with just looking at their decades of contributions to SS as pure (forced) charity, to be given to others, with no expectation of ever getting any when your time comes? Well, that's what CHARITY is, and that's what a social safety net is supposed to be.

But that's not really what we're talking about here. Just talk about raising the retirement age to 78 and/or means testing benefits, and you'll see how much people like the idea of government-mandated charity.

No, most people think of Social Security as a legitimate retirement plan that they can count on to at least partially fund a comfortable retirement. Hence, the unsustainable bankrupt Ponzi we have now. What we are really doing is expecting a guarantee that our children and other people's children will at least partially fund our comfortable retirement (because the money we are paying in right now is immediately blown by the government).

I'm sorry, but the only real solution is to make people more responsible for funding their own retirement years. I think it's tremendously selfish and greedy to live high right now, blowing the money I make on huge $50,000 SUVs that get 14mpg, $100/mo cellphone plans, oversized McMansions, and any other frivolous luxury you can think of, but not actually saving anything and then think I can retire at 62 and have my kids and grandkids pay for it.

So, you want an alternative solution? There it is. A means-tested social safety net of last resort. Beyond that, we're responsible for ourselves. A universal retirement plan controlled by the government does not and can not ever work. We've already proven that.

Specializes in Psych , Peds ,Nicu.

dp1200 , you did not offer an alternative , you simply said you believe social security should be cut both in amount and time .

The alternative I'm asking to be defined is how people are to finance their retirement ?

Specializes in Critical Care,Recovery, ED.

Social Security in some minor aspects resembles a Ponzi scheme it is definetly not one. A Ponzi schene requires a continuous stream of new investors, it does not have the ability to tax, thus raise revenue, or the ability to print money as a national gov't can.

A retirement system require personal responsibility but we all know the majority are not perfectly responsible.

Government retirement progams can and do work. They do need to be actuarially sound, (see Ronald Regan) the reserve funds need to be invested in marketable securites and participation needs to be universal.

dp1200 , you did not offer an alternative , you simply said you believe social security should be cut both in amount and time .

that in and of itself is part of the solution (don't forget means testing).

the alternative i'm asking to be defined is how people are to finance their retirement ?
well, i'm still trying to figure out how i'm going to finance my own retirement, or if i'm even going to get to have one, and you want me to solve this for everyone else? sheesh. ;)

seriously though, i'm not sure i understand your question. how are people to finance their retirement? work hard and save. if you want some future years of comfortable retirement, maybe defer some gratification from today. do you really need the new suv every couple of years? do you really need the $100/mo "smart" cell phone? how important is going out to eat and taking those vacations? make a choice: spend what you make now, or save for retirement. that's about it.

however, if you are looking for an alternative retirement solution that involves the federal government, i reject the question as unanswerable. retirement costs money, and there are only two options here: (a)either you work and fund it yourself, or (b) you expect someone else to pay for your retirement. anything involving the government falls under option (b), and as we've already shown on this thread, government-run retirement doesn't work and is entirely unsustainable in the long run.

here's an observation which is not going to make alot of people happy: nobody has a right to retirement. the ability to retire is not a civil right, by any possible construct.

in that vein, here's a real shocker that i bet most people aren't aware of: you have no right to the money you've been paying in to social security!

how can this be? simple. social security was never set up as legal, contractual agreement. in fact, the supreme court ruled way back in 1960 in fleming vs. nestor that congress can change the rules regarding eligibility and benefits however it wants, whenever it wants. they could decide tomorrow to change the rules of eligibility that would deny you any benefits and there is nothing you could do about it. if you were not aware of this, you can read about it right here on the social security administration's website: fleming v. nestor.

i ask you this: would you willingly put your money in any investment or bank that operated under rules like this, where they could merely change the rules one day and, poof!, your money is gone? of course not! so why on earth are we so gullible that we'll give this sort of blind faith to professional politicians in washington?

it blows my mind that people look to social security as some sort of iron-clad guarantee of retirement security when it is nothing of the sort, and we don't even have so much as a legally enforceable contractual agreement!

sorry, but this defense of social security is full of holes big enough to drive a truck through.

social security in some minor aspects resembles a ponzi scheme it is definetly not one. a ponzi schene requires a continuous stream of new investors

what?! it does have a continuous stream of new "investors": every single person that works and has ss taxes withheld! we are all captive "investors" - we don't even have a choice to "invest" or not.

note: i am quoting usage of the word "invest" because social security is most certainly not an investment in anything, other the the government's ability to confiscate the earnings of future generations. there is no "investment". you money is immediately gone, the very second the government withholds it from your paycheck.

your future benefits are entirely dependent on a continuous, ever-increasing stream of money from future "investors" - this is the fundamental defining characteristic of a ponzi scheme.

it does not have the ability to tax, thus raise revenue, or the ability to print money as a national gov't can.
all of these attributes make social security far, far worse than any private-sector ponzi scheme. participation in a private ponzi is voluntary. paying taxes is not. printing money to finance a failed ponzi is obscene and i am utterly appalled that someone would actually suggest this as a redeeming quality - printing money debases our currency and makes everything we buy more expensive - that's what causes inflation. have you bought gasoline or food lately? i already covered this earlier on this thread.

a retirement system require personal responsibility but we all know the majority are not perfectly responsible.
and why are the majority not responsible? because they don't have to be! perpetuating a myth that big brother will always be there encourages irresponsibility! it's a simple fact of economics that when you subsidize something, you get more of it.

government retirement progams can and do work.
how, and where? don't even try to sell me europe as a story of sustainable long term success - keep in mind that the countries of europe, with their current form of socialist welfare-state governments, are much younger than the united states, having been reworked several times by two world wars. and most of them are in far worse shape economically than even we are (although we are catching up fast).

they do need to be actuarially sound, (see ronald regan) the reserve funds need to be invested in marketable securites and participation needs to be universal.
what happened under reagan in the 80's was anything but actuarially sound. all they did here was to play some clever accounting games which enabled them to disguise the real amount of debt our government was racking up. they increased the withholding tax, immediately spent all the money from the increased tax revenue, and gave the social security administration a pile of ious in exchange, all the while selling the american people the outright lie that we had a wonderful "budget surplus" going. no, we did not. we were piling up debt and hiding it off the budget in these social security "special issue securities". in the private sector, what the governent did here would have been considered malfeasance and probably criminal felony. it is outrageous book-cooking.

i already covered this on this thread - this is the essence of the "special issue" bonds that the ssa holds as its horribly misnamed "trust fund". these special issue bonds do not show up as part of the national debt because they are not marketable securities in any way, shape, or form. they have no value to anyone other than as a claim against the treasury - they're ious. but in reality, they are debt because as soon as the ssa goes to redeem them with the treasury, the treasury needs to borrow more money to cover the iou. i've said this countless times on this thread and i'll say it again - the money is gone. it's not "invested" in anything. the $2.5 trillion in "special issue bonds" held by the ssa is in fact, $2.5 trillion in additional debt that our future generations are going to have to figure out how to pay. are we clear on this?

Specializes in Psych , Peds ,Nicu.
that in and of itself is part of the solution (don't forget means testing).

well, i'm still trying to figure out how i'm going to finance my own retirement, or if i'm even going to get to have one, and you want me to solve this for everyone else? sheesh. ;) so am i

seriously though, i'm not sure i understand your question. how are people to finance their retirement? work hard and save. if you want some future years of comfortable retirement, maybe defer some gratification from today. do you really need the new suv every couple of years? do you really need the $100/mo "smart" cell phone? how important is going out to eat and taking those vacations? make a choice: spend what you make now, or save for retirement. that's about it.doing that already

however, if you are looking for an alternative retirement solution that involves the federal government, i reject the question as unanswerable. retirement costs money, and there are only two options here: (a)either you work and fund it yourself, or (b) you expect someone else to pay for your retirement. anything involving the government falls under option (b), and as we've already shown on this thread, government-run retirement doesn't work and is entirely unsustainable in the long run. a)most people will try this( me included ), b)i reject your characterisation , that by expecting to recieve social security benefits , is expecting others to pay for my retirement , i paid into social security , so i am simply recieving what i have earned when benefits are paid to me .you have not shown that government run retirement is unsustainable .

here's an observation which is not going to make alot of people happy: nobody has a right to retirement. the ability to retire is not a civil right, by any possible construct. agreed , so i guess you want to go back to dickensian times when the poor / workers worked until they dropped .

in that vein, here's a real shocker that i bet most people aren't aware of: you have no right to the money you've been paying in to social security!i have no right to any money i put in any insurance , i simply have to expect , when i have fulfilled my obligations the insurer will fulfill theirs ( whether government or private )

how can this be? simple. social security was never set up as legal, contractual agreement. in fact, the supreme court ruled way back in 1960 in fleming vs. nestor that congress can change the rules regarding eligibility and benefits however it wants, whenever it wants. they could decide tomorrow to change the rules of eligibility that would deny you any benefits and there is nothing you could do about it.if this were to happen , we do have recourse ,ie. when the next election comes around we could vote for whoever said they would restore the system if you were not aware of this, you can read about it right here on the social security administration's website: fleming v. nestor.

i ask you this: would you willingly put your money in any investment or bank that operated under rules like this, where they could merely change the rules one day and, poof!, your money is gone? of course not! so why on earth are we so gullible that we'll give this sort of blind faith to professional politicians in washington? at the moment we can because socal security is the dreaded third rail to politicians they are very leery of making changes because , it has been political suicide to change social security .as to poof your money has gone , are you deaf , didn't you hear the explosive bang a couple of years ago when banks were teetering and falling , our investments collapsing in value with them !it blows my mind that people look to social security as some sort of iron-clad guarantee of retirement security when it is nothing of the sort, and we don't even have so much as a legally enforceable contractual agreement!

ok , as to the alternative you have offered ie. reduce present expenditures to what you can afford ( i agree , but i'm not sure the corporations would d/t a reduced amount of money being available for discretionary spending upon their products /sevices. ).

save for retirement , as you appear averse to risk , i guess the only safe investment is in fdic insured bank accounts .if you invest only in bank accounts ( interest rates will always less than inflation ), however hard you save you aint going to have enough to retire , ever .

so were are we to invest for retirement ?

i am not relying upon social security to entirely fund my retirement , but it is an integral part of anyones retirement planning , simply because you cannot ignore any source of income you hope to have when you retire , nb i used the word hope as nothing is guaranteed , in anyones retirement plans .

+ Add a Comment