Seems to me that would mean less income and longer and harsher working environments for the nurses. Am I wrong?
2007-06-27 08:31:25 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
You may be wrong, yes. What it would mean is probably more demand for medical care services - since someone else is picking up the tab when you go to the hospital, you might as well get all the services you might concievably need (better safe than sorry) - which would mean higher wages for nurses, especially unionized ones. It might also mean longer hours, but then, they're paid overtime, so while it'd be tough they'd at least be compensated. The decline in quality of care due to overworked providers, OTOH, would presumably come with no such compensations.
2007-06-27 08:37:59 · answer #1 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Longer hours, harsher work environment. Dude, have you any ides what kind of conditions nurses work under now? Having been a RN in Calif. for over 30 years, I think I can speak to the issue. There are a overwhelming number of people that are either uninsured or under insured. If there was a mechanism to where everybody could afford to go to the Dr. not just when they are sick or dying, but for preventative care also, we would actually see a decrease in hospital stays.
When a person has a chronic illness and no insurance, they are limited to ER visits for care, by law a n emergency room cannot turn you away for lack of funds. Problem is ERs do not provide but very limited follow-up care. The patient goes home runs out of medications gets worse, goes back to the ER, gets admitted stays a period of time. Gets discharged, runs out of medicine, gets sick and the cycle repeats itself.
Granted not everybody will be totally happy with a change, but we have people in this country now who are going to India and Thailand for surgery, and not the kind that makes you pretty.
2007-06-27 08:47:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
You are wrong, they already work too long for too little, the difference is they see the havoc caused by our totally disorganized and mismanaged health insurance companies and they have an actual interest in helping the sick.
The only thing HMOs have done is limit care and paid the HMO exec.
Its not the patient who orders tests and hands in requests for payment, its the doctors. In the old days, when a test meant a simple blood test or xray, maybe you might have a point, about usage,but for so many tests now there is actual pain, or side effects or the preparations for the tests are so stringent, that many people avoid them. Amazingly dishonest doctors still bill for them. They did the research on usage about ten years ago, they found about the same when there was a co-payment as when there wasn't. No increase in visits were found.
2007-06-27 08:38:06 · answer #3 · answered by justa 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Because their main concern is the availability of health care to all people.
2007-06-27 08:39:07 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I guess they just got sick of seeing people die just because they didn't have health insurance and were legal Americans.
2007-06-27 08:41:17 · answer #5 · answered by jackie 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
That one word "California" says it all.
2007-06-27 08:41:29 · answer #6 · answered by barry c 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋