Who won the third presidential debate and why?

Sure.

I've simply refuted the suggestion that that it is impossible to find a good job.

You know the old saying: "You made your bed..."

 

I knew the argument sounded familiar. I heard it from all my visual designer friends during the dot.com boom.

 

Do you really think that Registered Nurses will have a bust like the dot.com industry or a virtual designer?

I think not.

The baby boomers are just now starting to retire, and the shortage of RNs guarantees me a great job pretty much until I retire.

I will be going to grad school to become a Nurse Anesthetist after my fiancee finishes her Doctorate in Pharmacology in May '06. She also has a lucrative job lined up after she finishes her schooling.

So, there are good jobs out there, if you choose a field that will provide such.

 

Gee, how funny is it that I'm posting from a hospital that is experiencing a budget crunch and cutting back on staff, including RNs, stretching all of us to the wire.

Good luck with grad school; I honestly mean it - just recognize that with health care being run as a for-profit industry, RNs (and RNAs, and pharmacists) are commodities, and subject to the same budgetary constraints as paper and electricity. Many hospitals are finding it cheaper to simply hire casual RNs with no benefits, and, in some instances, more education means you price yourself out of their range. So yes, speaking as an insider, I do not think it's unreasonable to imagine that health care could experience a dot.com like bust.

EDIT: It occurs to me now that what I wrote above wasn't clear - I don't work in web design or commercial advertising. I work in health care and education. I have friends who are(were) graphic and web designers.

 

I don't know where you work, but everyone I know has no problems in getting jobs. No hospital I know in this area is cutting back on jobs. If the workload is stretched, it's due to the RN shortage. Surely you can see that the shortage of RNs is extreme (over 500,000 RNs short nationwide right now), and that it's only going to get much worse as the baby boomers retire.

....And the contract RNs who don't have benefits make well enough to pay for their own (the average contract RN here at this hospital makes over 40 bucks an hour). I can go work for a hospital where RNs are on strike (say in California) and make over 10 grand in one month take home. My cousin (who is an RN) did that.

I cannot recall that there ever has been a time for a nursing 'bust'.

just recognize that with health care being run as a for-profit industry

You should know that for-profit hospitals are a segment of the total sum, only.

I work in a non-profit institution, and the majority of hospitals in this area are non-profit. We do have the Tenet system, but most people work there under contract or pool.

I can't see how anyone can come to reasonable conclusion that there will be a RN 'bust' similar to the dot.com industry. They are two totally different conceptions in business, as the ill require care and there are more and more people getting into the retirement bracket than ever before.

The point is, if you choose a field that has no ability for diversification or for opportunity, than what do you expect?

So, if you go to college with an unmarketable major, then don't expect financial success.

 

College isn't even a viable option for many people.

 

I don't necessarily agree with that.

 

I don't agree there, college is always an option.

You just have to explore what is out there and take advantage of it.

 

Agreed, Mr44.

 

Which is it DM, is college not a viable opion for some, or do you agree with Mr44?

But I 100 percent agree...as much as I would've loved to have majored in something closer to my interests, and no, my current job is not my dream job...but I do have a family to support and often being practical and choosing something more 'marketable', as you said, is IMO a very smart move.

Truthfully, I don't like looking at financial reports and such all day, but my skills and background (hopefully) give me some sense of job security and stability. On the flip side, a lot of my work is interesting enough and I work with good people. Either way, its after work where I get to spend time with my family, and come to these forums to really explore my interests. Its a situation I am very happy with.

 

Whoops!

Thanks for pointing that out, DS77. I agree with Mr44 on the issue...

(..tired, just got off work, ready to go to sleep...)

It may not be the best or easiest option, but it is always an option.

I don't have the view that everyone must go to college, as there needs to be the blue collar worker out there getting the job done.

However, if one wants to move up the chain, then college is a necessity and is generally always an option, even if it requires night school.

 

There are many people who can't afford college. There are many people in situations where they can't do it. It is not a viable option for many.

 

This is all very interesting, but what does any of it have to do with the debate ?

Peace,

V-03

 

What are "situations where they can't do it"?

People who can't afford it can seek out scholarships and grants, and then, for what they can't cover that way, can take out loans. Having a college education is enough of an advantage that it is likely to be worthwhile, even with having to pay the loans back.

-Paul

 

But that's the issue.

What I am talking about was brought up by DM ans DS above.

First off, there shouldn't be a stigma that "forces" people to go to college.

But beyond that, there are always options.

However, Americans tend to be uncompromising with this topic as well.

Here in Illinois, for example, one can use Pell grants to completely pay for 2 years at a community college, and have some money left over.

It might not be "perferct," but it's certainly a solid start. However, quite a few kids have the mentality that if it's not Northwestern, then it isn't worth going to.

Well, yeah, not everyone is going to be able to go to Northwestern, but nothing is wrong with that.

Trade schools, community colleges, state schools are all options, and may even reprsent a better fit.

Not only that, but there are Pell grants, MAP scholarships, IVG grants, work study, student loans, etc.. all which represent options if one is willing to work for them.

Instead of simply giving up, and saying "I can't go to school," one simply has to turn that can't into a do...

Now, it might not be easy, but it is certainly obtainable.

 

I believe we were talking about GWB's claim of a stronger economy.

Re: the RN issue - I can't write much now, as I have other responsibilities which will pull me away from the computer.

Nursing is becoming a more popular major now, precisely because there is a perceived dearth in registered nurses, and yes, there are many who are retiring. However, there are many who are presently in training or who have completed the minimum requirements to work in the field (GNs, LPNs, RNs); advance training (BSN, MSN) can be deleterious precisely because these individuals can expect higher salaries. For-profit hospitals save money by hiring RNs and below - BSN/MSNs cost them too much, and aside from more abstract training (theories of nursing, etc.), don't necessarily possess better clinical skills. Why pay more when you can get the same level of care for a patient?

Further, many hospitals are avoiding using contract nurses whenever possible, and are simply drawing from their casual pool, simply because it's cheaper. Your assessment of why we are stretched thin is simply wrong - we are stretched thin because our administration has lost six full-time nurses and two aides, and has not hired replacements, because of cost-containment. Period.

Many of the nurses presently working at my hospital came over from another hospital which also closed, due to financial mismanagement. Specialized units (e.g., CCUs) were and are sitting empty and unstaffed in our network because their census has been consistently low, which resulted in firing the clinical staff until equilibrium was reached.

Managed care has also created a less patient-centered, more institution preservation mentality in health care. The bottom line for many hospital administrations is "How can I ensure the standard of care while simultaneously reducing costs?" An unfortunately reality is that sometimes the second part of that sentence takes precedence over the first; our geriatric psychiatry unit (ostensibly 65+ with Medicare) is currently full (12 beds are full; 4 are actual geriatric patients, the others are occupied by drug abusers, people two to three decades away from admission criteria, and one guy who was in prison for ten years for murder) - and this is supposed to be a geriatric unit. Policy has given way to expediency to keep the hospital open; as such, the appropriate standard of care has been subsumed into what will make the most money.

If you are experiencing good times and bonhomie in your hospital, more power to you. Just don't entertain the illusion that all is rosy in health care, and that things will never change. There is a double-edged sword at work. On the one hand, you've got a lot of young people who are willing to work for less than you, which will be easier once you've become more specialized and your asking price goes up. That's the wonder of the market economy. On the other hand, many people are electing graduate education, meaning that people who are entrenched in the health care sector are becoming increasingly specialized, and consequently more expensive for hospitals and private care clinics to afford. The market is rewarding people who do not seek further training with greater job security.

Seriously, I'm not trying to simply argue for the sake of argument - there is an empirical basis for everything I'm saying here. Health care is increasingly become more market driven, and as a consequence, jobs within health care are no longer as secure as they were.

 

What are "situations where they can't do it"?


Young man, think about the single mother who needs to care for her young. She works full time, then at night you expect her to leave her children for a college education? Maybe when they get older, but certainly not while they're still kids.

 

Again, I'm baisng my statements off of what happens in Illinois.

Here, grant money can be used for costs incurred while pursuing an education. This includes child care. I suspect it would be the same in most states.

Again, it might not be perfect, but it is certainly better than taking a defeatist attitude before one has even begun.

 

I have the BSN, and there is no difference in salary (unfortunately) for an ADN and a BSN. There also isn't much separation in pay from a new graduate nurse to an experienced RN. That contributes to the high turnover.

Contract nursing is a necessity due to the high turnover ratios found within most hospital settings as RNs tend to move around a bit. Only a few hosptials I know of do not utilize contract nurses.

There will never be a nursing 'bust', where an RN won't be able to find a job somewhere like other industries. There may be a 'bust' in certain nursing specialites, though. However, it's much cheaper for a hosptial to pay for a CRNA's salary (even though it averages $150,000/year) than it is to pay for an Anesthesiologist (which goes $300,000/year and up).

The hospital I work at is having a multi-million dollar expansion and adding 5 floors to the Critical Care Tower (I work in Intensive Care).

The cost-cutting is part of any business, but health care is an essential business not equitable with other industries like the computer industry, for example.

- More people are getting older.
- More people are going to require health care.
- The health care they require involves nursing care.
- There is already a huge nursing shortage.
- The nursing shortage is only going to get worse.
- If society wishes to keep its members healthy, then there must be adequate professional nursing care at the forefront of health care.

Is health care expensive? Sure, it is.

Like you stated, some hospitals are indeed mismanaged (I can name a few), but that's like any other business.

Hospitals must maintain a balance with keeping their RNs happy and keeping their costs effective.

I'm personally not a fan of for-profit hospitals, because they tend to be a bit more 'skimpy' on the monetary side.

We're certainly heading for a health care crisis with the RN shortage and the baby boomer retirement, and neither candidate addressed the issue adequately.

Kerry wants more government control, of course. That won't work, and will cost exorbitant amounts of money. Much of that money will go to beaurocratic waste and abuse, as is typically the case in any government run program.

Bush has only a minimal plan which offers small businesses the ability to 'pool' their coverage. That is a treatment of a symptom, not a treatment of the actual disease.

 

Darth Mischievous: I'd hate to interrupt this great debate on health care, but I don't think you answered my question that I posted a page ago, which I'll repost here:

Here are the facts (remember I'm only talking about the budget/tax issue, which is a major reason why President Reagan defeated Walter Mondale in 1984):

1. Reagan raised taxes in 1982.

2. Reagan denied he would raise taxes while running for reelection in 1984.

Given that the Republicans are all chanting "look at the record" this year for attacking Senator Kerry for his votes for higher taxes, tell me why it isn't fair to do the same for Reagan.

 

Mav said...1. Reagan raised taxes in 1982.

Where did you hear this?

EDIT: As for the answer to the question of this thread...Seeing as how Bush's numbers continue to climb, Bush won.

Again, the media reports who they want to win with bogus polls...the people report who really did win.

 

2004 Presidential Race - 3 Way
Poll Date Bush/
Cheney Kerry/
Edwards Nader/
Camejo Spread
RCP Average 10/14 - 10/18 48.8% 44.9% 1.8% Bush +3.9
FOX News (1000 LV) 10/17 - 10/18 49% 42% 2% Bush +7
ABC/Wash Post (1203 LV)* 10/16 - 10/18 51% 46% 1% Bush +5
Zogby (1208 LV) 10/16 - 10/18 45% 45% 2% TIE
TIPP (807 LV) 10/15 - 10/18 48% 46% 2% Bush +2
CBS News (678 LV) 10/14 - 10/17 47% 45% 2% Bush +2
CNN/USAT/Gallup (788 LV) 10/14 - 10/16 52% 44% 1% Bush +8
Time (865 LV w/leaners) 10/14 - 10/15 48% 47% 3% Bush +1
Newsweek (LV) 10/14 - 10/15 50% 44% 1% Bush +6

Bush won the last debate. That is what the people said.

 

Again, the media reports who they want to win with bogus polls...the people report who really did win.

LOL! You say this and then your very next post you post a poll and say "look, Bush won the debate!". You're something else J-Rod.

 

Hey...Thanx Cyp!

LOL Found the article after my edit time expired. But all these polls agreed and...It is too close to the election to lie big.

 

I have a great job. I can get another job whenever I see fit. I can diversify and go to the place of my choosing. I can further my career by going to grad school, which is what I plan to do. I agree with you. The spirit, drive and optimism you have captures the essence of what makes America great. It was, is, and always will be those that overcome huge hurdles, not complain and see the bright side of life that make it in the end and are truly the happiest and most successful people.

BTW, I think Bush won the debate hands down!