I have only been a California Nurse (4.00 / 3)

I realize though the tremendous blessing it is to work where good standards have been fought for and gained by the hard work of the nurses of the California Nurses Association.

It's good for us all that the good thing we've got is spreading across the country.

---

by: Ludlow @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 17:22:19 PM CDT

I was part of the BOD (4.00 / 5)

That made the decision to become a national union.  It's a pretty good feeling to see how far we have come in the 4 years since.  And to know how much farther we will go in the next few years.  we're on a roll and it's only going to get bigger and better

---

by: Chico David RN @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 19:00:49 PM CDT

Nurses are the conscience of healthcare. (4.00 / 4)

We now need to continue the tradition of nurses working for social justice.

We cannot accomplish much good alone. We need to work together. For everyone.

---

by: greymare @ Fri May 09, 2008 at 22:25:20 PM CDT

It takes a union of nurses to change (4.00 / 2)

health care in this country.  This is the goal of CNA/NNOC.  So that this agenda will be accomplished, CNA/NNOC must step forward and organize every nurse in this country.  Tonight Bill Moyer's Journal on PBS was a clear, concise description of what this organization is working to accomplish.  Nurses, get on board.  It is about much more than wages and benefits.    

---

by: katnurseadvocate @ Sat May 10, 2008 at 00:44:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

for a life you can hang your hat on... (4.00 / 3)

ORGANIZE AND JOIN with The National Nurses' Organizing Committee. Our fight for single-payer health care is a righteous fight: upright, virtuous, noble, morally right, and ethical. The public trusts nurses to do the right thing on their behalf. We will overcome insurance company greed. It's a barrier to the care that our patients need. By virtue of our collective advocacy, we will tear that wall down by passing HR 676!

"No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream."
Dr. Martin Luther King  

---

by: RN4MERCY @ Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:29:10 AM CDT

Bill Moyers (0.00 / 0)

So, I saw these folks on Moyers last night.  Here's what I don't get - why be so stubborn about only supporting single-payer at the expense of practical healthcare reform?

When I hear people making the single-payer-or-nothing argument, it just seems like "nothing" is exactly what we're going to end up with.

This is pure speculation - but it really seems like groups like this want to support single-payer just so that when it never happens, never happens, never happens, they can still feel better than everybody else.  

Me, I just want healthcare.

---

by: warpigs @ Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:37:20 AM CDT

In a nutshell, sugar pills and placebo reforms... (4.00 / 4)

are not going to be safe and effective in curing the healthcare crisis. Therefore, it's unethical for us to recommend any of the so-called incremental snake oil "capsules" that are being proposed by the insurance companies. The fact that the candidates for president all propose some form of a mandate that will cement the problem (insurance companies) in place for many years to come is unacceptable. Insurance is no guarantee that you will get healthcare based on medical need. Please check out this story that was published in The Nation, on April 14th regarding "HEALTH POLICY PLACEBOS" by Dr. David Himmeltein and Dr. Steffie Woolhandler.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/...

---

by: RN4MERCY @ Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:37:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

mutually exclusive? (0.00 / 0)

But wouldn't you (I assume you're affiliated with the C.N.A.) want to actually be part of a solution rather than be an outsider?

I mean, yeah, single-payer is a great ideal, but what about practical change that can be accomplished in the not-too-distant future?  Why can't you work for both plans at the same time?  

I think I read that the plan (the one C.N.A. fought) in California would have covered more than 3 million uninsured). People are dying daily as a result of the current system.  If a (perhaps less-than-perfect) change could alleviate some of that suffering, shouldn't your ethical responsibilities as a healthcare worker compel you to support it?

---

by: warpigs @ Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:07:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's An Illusion (4.00 / 1)

The "coverage" offered by the plans had virtually no minimum standards.  It was guaranteed to cost you money so that you were "covered," but it was not guaranteed to actually provide you with health care when you needed it.

Deductables could be so high that for the most part you would simply end up paying twice--once for the insurance that didn't cover you, and once for the services themselves.

In short, it was a sham.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:37:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

ABx 1.1 was set to give private insurers captive clients (4.00 / 1)

without assuring what level of care those mandated/captive clients would receive. Wasting more taxpayer money on bad plans is no way to ease into care for all.

The problem continues to be that insurers are in it for profit. They are middlemen that add no health CARE value to our system. They siphon billions of dollars out of the system that should be used for the actual care of actual patients. They are our costly 3rd tit on a bull. Don't need them. Got to get rid of them.

---

by: Ludlow @ Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:35:21 AM CDT

it's weird (0.00 / 0)

I was doing some reading (What a way to spend a Saturday morning. I gotta get outside.), and came across CNA's support for this bill - SB 1459.

http://www.health-access.org/l...
(search for 1459 here)

http://www.californiachronicle...

http://www.healthyfamilies.ca.gov

I don't get how this group can be so "single-payer or nothing", but also support a bill that takes money away from public hospitals and gives it to the for-profit insurance companies they oppose.  What gives?

---

by: warpigs @ Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:57:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Single payer HR 676 is real reform... (4.00 / 1)

Yes, I am a member of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee. Yes, we support a "Medicare for All" health care system, based on the single payer model. Incremental market-based mandates will only serve to enrich insurance companies without any measures to control costs or expand healthcare access equitably. Insurance companies waste 30 to 50 percent of each health care dollar spent on administrative overhead and inflated executive compensation. They profit by denying care. That's immoral. Placebo reforms are unethical, and as such, they are not going to be effective at curing the problem, as I described in my previous post. If you think you have "coverage" that will translate into the actual care you need, think again! Read some healthcare "horror" stories about insurance company denials and exclusions.
www.guaranteedhealthcare.org
Real patients are suffering and dying, men, women, and children, who had "insurance". That's what we see, as nurses, everyday. That's why we're for single-payer.

Re: SB 1459, again, in a nutshell, we supported it because it is an expansion of an existing public program for children's healthcare. According to our Director of Government Relations, Donna Gerber, "We are proud to support Senator Yee´s SB 1459 because it would result in reducing the number of Californians without a health plan."
"The current administrative waste and cumbersome eligibility process is financially indefensible in the midst of the ongoing budget deficits. SB 1459 is the perfect proposal in this budget year for getting hundreds of thousands of children the healthcare they need and deserve now."
http://www.californiachronicle...

I believe you may have misinterpreted some concerns raised by an SEIU representative at the hearing about how the bill might possibly impact some public sector eligibility workers. There have been some discussions regarding possible language revision to address those concerns; however, the bill passed out of committee. In my read of the of the bill, there was no provision for privatization of services, or the "giving away" of money to insurance companies, as you put it.

---

by: RN4MERCY @ Sat May 10, 2008 at 19:36:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]