• Former Kauaian supports striking Wilcox nurses • Tracking caller down • Confused by Rice’s op-ed article I want to thank Wilcox’s nurses, and show my support for their stance to improve quality of care with an acuity system that
• Former Kauaian supports striking Wilcox nurses
• Tracking caller down
• Confused by Rice’s op-ed article
I want to thank Wilcox’s nurses, and show my support for their stance to improve quality of care with an acuity system that will ensure a safe nurse-to-patient ratio. Many of these nurses have worked at Wilcox for 10, 20, 30 years and more. They have the judgment, professionalism, and my trust, in understanding the needs of their friends and neighbors, the people of Kaua‘i, for whom they care.
Wilcox administration refuses to negotiate a workable acuity system. Now they add insult to injury by demanding that veteran nurses pass a “competency test” before returning to work, and threaten to slash LPN staffing ˆ but still refuse to discuss a safe nursing acuity system.
Many of Kaua‘i’s citizens have been recipients of quality care from these experienced RNs and LPNs, and feel safe in their hands when health problems require hospitalization. Their nurses have surpassed “competency testing” every day in years of dedicated service, confirmed by positive evaluations, and letters of gratitude.
Our nurses, many of whom Kauaians know by name, have proven their expertise and dedication, and their selflessness in foregoing income, health insurance and security to advocate a safe environment for their patients, their community, their neighbors and friends.
Let’s give our support as Kaua‘i nurses insist on protecting us, even as their jobs are threatened. Let us join together and laud their brave commitment for an acuity system that will ensure the people of Kauai quality health care.
(born & raised on Kauai)
A few issues ago, a lady wrote in about receiving a call at 4:30 in the morning. She, as well as many others on the island, including me, received an automated call at 4:30 a.m. from some type of finance company. I wasn’t able to catch the name, but did leave my name and phone number for them to call me back. (I had no intention of doing business with them, but wanted to know what company would call at such a rude time.)
Today, they finally called me back. The woman gave the name of the company as First National Mortgage. I asked where they were located and she said California. She did not want to give out any info. In fact, when I asked for a call back number, she disconnected the call. The phone number on caller ID was bogus of course. But in case anyone wants to pursue tracking down this company, perhaps the name above will help.
- Linda L. Kelekoma
Anahola
Confused by Rice’s op-ed article
My reading of Tom Rice’s opinion piece on July 15 left me confused. It was an odd mix of truth, errors and a huge post hoc fallacy.
Mr. Rice points out what most agree: We have a problem in funding health care costs in this country. His estimate that roughly 12 percent of our GDP is spent on health care is what most sources report. Europeans spend 6 to 10 percent for a similar level of care. My experience in the UK is that single payer plans work okay and would be fine if they had the same 12 percent of GDP level of funding.
However, much of his analysis seems to try to lay the blame for our problem at the feet of Sen. Hillary Clinton and “Hillarycare.” First, the Clinton plan did not call for a single payer system (Canadian or European-style health care). It required employers to provide their employees membership in private HMOs. Some on the left resisted the Clinton plan because they wanted a European-style single payer system. The right, and especially small businesses wanted status quo fearing high costs and “big government” Big business was neutral to mildly positive on the plan. The Wikipedia article titled “Clinton Health Care Plan” has a great overview on the matter. I would urge people to read it for themselves as there is no way to cram an overview into a letter to the editor.
Mr. Rice correctly points out that prior to 1990, most insured folks had cost plus healthcare provided by their employer. What he infers is that “Hillarycare” changed that after 1992. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The “Hillarycare” plan was completely shot down. No laws were passed, and no changes were instituted by the federal government. This was a major issue for the 1994 election that gave us our Republican Congressional majority that year. Newt Gingrich’s Contract for (on?) America included squashing the plan and succeeded. The system we have today the result of the “market approach” where people and business tried to solve the problem independently from governmental action. Business continued to force employees into HMOs and other managed care plans to cut costs. Or they just dropped health care altogether.
Our current system provides well for the wealthy like Mr. Rice and myself while an ever growing group at the bottom have little to no care beyond the emergency room. This might be “the best health care in the world” for Mr. Rice and myself, but it is lousy for those on the bottom of the pile.
Regardless of that, trying to link the growing problem to a non event is a post hoc fallacy obviously rooted in fear of Sen. Clinton’s probable run for President in 2008 (she‘s not my first choice either).
The most amusing part of Mr. Rice’s piece was his solution for handling the revenue shortfall at Wilcox. He proposes the state of Hawai‘i use tax dollars to close that gap. Just how does that differ from a single payer (government) system when you get right down to it?
Our solution is obvious. If we want more and more health care we are going to have to pay for it. How we pay and who gets coverage without fully paying their actual cost is where it gets difficult. A single payer system reduces overhead costs. Medicare, for example, spends very little on overhead compared to traditional insurance.
Government programs already pay on the order of 40 percent of all health care costs. However, as long as the two-thirds of us that have good coverage fear a reduction to the average, we will be stuck with our current system. When enough people lose coverage or fear losing coverage we will move to a single payer system, with private insurance overlays for those that can afford it, like Europe.
