Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on February 28, 2007

Click here to view bill details.

This legislation is needed to protect patients in the very competitive business our medical care has become.

While it is admirable to suggest that minimum staff to patient ratios should be maintained by medical providers, this should only be done for state-funded establishments. Keep the state out of private enterprise, since the current regime has little understanding of how it operates. Let the laws of supply and demand dictate what is best for patients. Many hospitals are already increasing staff based on their patients' feedback.

As you look around our state & see the only buildings or additions going up are at hospitals, it would seem obvious they are making money hand over fist. Lets require them to at least give proper care to those paying for it all. Reduction of staff as costs increase is a disgrace to all that's right.

www.betternursingcare.com

As a RN trust me when I say you want a nurse pt ratio that is mandated by the state. As your local hospital is advertising they provide safe healthcare their really forcing nursing staffs to run under unsafe conditions. So while your grandparent is lying in his or her own waste because the nurse taking care of your loved one has a 1:8-10 patient ratio.... Think about that patient ratio. Or how about when your Mom who is fresh from surgery needs something and that nurse isn't avaiable because their are 6 other fresh surgical's that have hire priority then your mom... think nurse patient ratio. Another example is your wife is just admitted to ICU after a car accident but that nurse who really should be watching your wife is now having to care for another critical care patient as well so now this nurse has divide her time between two critically ill patient who really need just one one care. So, digest this what hospital administration's don't want you to know is while they say their losing money their really saying their losing their bonus and huge salary's. I'll put this chanllege to you find out what your area hospitals nurse patient ratio is and, then find out what the upper managment is bring home for their paycheck. Then let's talk about patient care, healthcare cost and loss and the care that I'am able to safely deliver to your loved one. I hope the state does step in and do the right thing. If healthcare special interest doesn't threaten your legislator with loss of funds and support when their term is up in office. So when it boils down to it at the end of the day it's all about the bottom line not your loved one.

It is important that people are aware of how many patients their nurse is caring for. Hospitals are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to trick people by advertising "High quality, Safe, Top Notch Care...." however, when in reality hospital administrative executives want to increase in the amount of patients assigned per nurse. This will no doubt reduce patient quality care. While hospital executives are raking in million dollar paychecks, hefty pensions, and wasting healthcare dollars by using anti-union outsource companies to try and divide hospital unions. The nursing staff is the backbone of ANY hospital. Having dedicated, well-trained licensed staff at the bedside to provide safe and effective care to ALL patients should be top priority. However, by continuing to spend money trying to break hospital unions, hospital executives are wasting valuable dollars that could be better spent through equiptment moderization, or continued training for current staff members.

Please help us pass this bill! I currently work 12 hour shifts and some days within that 12 hours I only see some of my patients 2 or 3 times! It is so unsafe and wouldn't leave any of my family alone ever if they were in the hospital. I hate not being able to care for my patients they way they deserve and need to be cared for.

Mandated Nurse to Patient Ratios as outlined in Senate Bill .063 would be a good thing. It also addresses acuity and would not harm those who have staffing ratios better then proposed. Some Hospitals would prefer to adjust "Staffing Levels" with ancillary help and not Nurses. Remember this: You are sent to a Hositpal for NURSING CARE. You can see your docotr in his office, you can get x-rays somehwere else and there are a many better motels. www.BetterNursingCare.com

Who would have thought that the norm in health care in the United States would be nursing ratios of 1:7 or more. Like third world countries, we are getting to the point that a patient who does not have a family member or other advocate constantly at their bedside is at risk of errors or injury by overworked nurses or unlicensed alternatives to registered nurses who simply cannot summon super powers to make up for being overwhelmed by the sheer volume of what is expected from them. There must be other ways to save money in our hospitals (maybe spend less on expensive marketing and other "fluff" rather and more on providing quality care by skilled nurses).

Recall Jenny!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd like to know what world this person lives in. Wishful think about that when it's your love one we can't mindfully get to because we have too many people to take care of.

Hospitals are for profit in this country. There will never again be 1:1 care. Hospitals have the profits down to a science. They know exactly how many nurses they need to care for patients. They know exactly how many case workers they need for billing. Guess which department has more staff.

Nurse to patient ratio? Please! Yesterday I was in charge of a Rehab unit, they were already short staffed on 7p-7a, and at 1800 the hospital wanted to admit/transfer a patient to our unit (the transfer was already approved), and I thought it's late and our kitchen closes at 1930 and by the time the transfer arrived the patient would need supper)so, I refused the transfer and they agreeed to send them in the morning at 0900. My day off was today, and by 1430 somting my boss called and was upset about my reasoning and she stated It doesn't matter how many nurses we are short you have to accept them anyway. Yesterday was bad we took a guy off the vent and waiting for him to die with the family present, AND MANY MORE OCCURENCES

You are obviously NOT a nurse who works in a hospital. *L

What world exactly do you live in? There is no way to keep government out of private institutions when those institutions are dealing with the welfare, safety, and overall health of men, women, and children. I have been an ICU nurse for over 6 years and worked at several different institutions during this time - my overall experience is that "safety" and "demand" are not regulated by patient satisfaction - they are regulated by a hospitals bottom line (profit). I work for a privately owned Catholic based NON PROFIT institution who currently would like to "bust" our union and increase their profits for our upcoming contract years. Our institution is the only hospital in Michigan to have nurse to patient ratio's at this time and our patient satisfaction scores have substantially INCREASED every year during our last 5 contract years. Despite this fact our new administration seeks to "bust" our union and end this practice to increase their profits. Do not believe for one moment that someone who is hired to run a hospital puts much thought at all into how good the care provided is - unless it COSTS them money, only then does "safety" and "care" become a consideration. Unless the state mandates that all hospitals provide safe staffing levels - such as those proposed, every person requiring hospitalization should have a knowledgeable and alert person at thier bedside AT ALL TIMES. Don't trust someone just because they are YOUR nurse - because they could be the nurse of 4-10 other people with a similar diagnosis. Trust the institutions that put "safety" above "profits" and allow their nurses the LUXURY of knowing their patients and providing the safest and most accomodating care possible. Unfortunately I believed I worked at such an institution but only our ongoing contract negotiations and our current administrations actions will reveal whether this is true.

union do to increase the profits? what do they do to increase your productivity? what do they do to increase your patient safety? not a thing. all they do is charge you union dues.

I too work at the only hospital in Michigan that has a Union Contract that spells out Nurse to Patient ratios, which are essentially equivalent to the ratios in this bill, and now administration is trying to break the union, cut nurses and get rid of our Nurse to Patient ratios. Our union WAS allowed to sit on committees that addressed issues such as Cost Savings, Patient Care Safety and Nurse to Patient Ratios and other Nursing / Management issues UNTIL the new management disbanded those committees in January. We had a very good collaborative relationship with our old management that benefited the bottom dollar and many issues all Hospitals face today. We had decent staffing and little difficulty retaining Nurses, in an environment that has a severe Nursing shortage, because of this Joint Labor Management team. Now our Top Executive spends a lot of his time in Lansing trying to fight the passage of this Proposed Bill. Why would Hospitals fight a Bill that is aimed at providing good Patient Care & Safety - Only because it compromises the Hospital's ability to make massive profits by cutting the very people that provide care to the patients - the NURSE or the technical support people required to assist the Nurse in caring for the patient. I guess if this Bill passes the Hospital Executives will have to take a pay &/or benefit cut or quit "rearranging" administrators under the guise of cutting upper management when in actuality they have moved or let go upper management with a separation pay equivalent to their original pay and then rehired them as consultants or in another capacity and paid them again, and then filled or have advertised to fill the originally vacated position. They say they have cut management but, we aren't blind, they have actually increased upper management numbers and costs. Nursing has a Standard of Care, the minimum required, for every diagnosis or surgical procedure there is. This Bill is nothing more than of Minimum Standard of Care requirement for Hospitals to follow. This Bill is needed to benefit both Patient Care & Safety and to protect the license of the bedside Nurse, by addressing acuity as well as basic Nurse to Patient ratios. Nurses can only be stretched so far and practicing outside of these Nurse to Patient Ratios can not possibly provide the patient care necessary for the very ill patients we see in this day and age of technology.

Los Angeles Times January 25, 2002 Friday Home Edition HEADLINE: Commentary; Nursing Is Not Just a Numbers Game BYLINE: SHIRLEY V. SVORNY, Shirley V. Svorny teaches economics at California, State University at Northridge, and is a contributing author of, "American Health Care: Government, Market Processes and the Public, Interest" (Independent Institute, 2000). Searching for something on which to base his reelection campaign, Gov. Gray Davis has chosen to pose as a champion of health care, with a proposal to mandate increased nurse-patient ratios across the state. Although his plan will win votes, it won't improve health care. Davis' plan presumes that hospitals are not concerned with caring for their patients and saving lives; that they are not working to get the best outcomes, given what people are willing to pay for health care. A mandate that forces hospitals to use more nurses will result in worse care, as hospitals cut back on other important needs. Health care is inherently risky. The concern that the nurses and their union representatives express about the chances of bad outcomes under current conditions is warranted. Mandating nurse-patient ratios may seem an obvious solution, but it could have unintended consequences. As health care costs rise in the state as a result of mandated nurse-patient ratios, some employers could decide that it is not worth it to offer health benefits to their employees. The number of people who go without health insurance would increase. Yes, patients would be better served if hospitals spent more money on nursing and other health care providers, updated technology and supplies. Increasing Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates would go a long way toward improving care in this country. But don't tell hospitals how to use the money, how many nurses to hire or how many sponges to use. The idea that government can tell hospital administrators how many nurses per patient they should have makes about as much sense as telling auto manufacturers how much steel should go in their cars. The right amount depends on the value of steel in production and its relative price. Both things change over time, and mandated production methods limit flexibility, preclude efficient production and result in fewer desired outcomes. Under Davis' plan, hospital administrators would be constrained. It calls for one nurse to every five patients recovering from surgery or serious illness. Emergency room nurses would be limited to one trauma patient, nurses in pediatric wards to four patients and obstetrics nurses to two women in labor. Perhaps buying new equipment would be a better use of hospital funds to enhance patient safety, but mandated nurse-patient ratios would force hospital administrators to put money in nurses, first and foremost. Whenever government tries to dictate outcomes, the results are bad news. If California moves forward with nurse-patient ratios, it will repeat the mistake it made in education, when it mandated class-size reduction in grades kindergarten through third. Class-size reduction had the same objective: to improve outcomes. Yet the reduction has led to a teacher shortage, forcing districts to hire warm bodies with little to no experience in the classroom. These teachers tend to work in the least desirable, most difficult-to-teach classes, in schools shunned by teachers with seniority. Some inner-city schools have 40% of their teachers on emergency credentials. Class-size reduction is great for the rich, bad for the poor. Increasing nurse-patient ratios would have a similar result. Hospitals in affluent areas would hire more nurses, drawing the best nurses from other, less desirable work environments. Staffing in county hospitals always has been troublesome. With mandated nurse-patient ratios, conditions would deteriorate. If Davis has his way, you will see more nurses in hospitals. You may even feel you are getting better care. But what you don't buy in the way of services may kill you.

You apparently are unaware that the difference between a live human being treated in a hospital and an inanimate object such as steel. Nurses in most major hospitals currently work with anywhere from 6-13 patients in an ED those patient's can be mildly ill to seriously ill and if it was your loved one lying on a gurney waiting for the nurse to bring in life saving medication or pain medication etc. I am sure you would be the first to pipe up, what is taking so long. You have not apparently had to sit in an ER for up to 4-6 hours just waiting to get back and be seen, and even then it can take up to an hour to get some sort of testing or medications if the nurses are overworked and rushed. You are truly clueless.

Where do you want to end this government oversight of business? Maybe a mandate that every gas station have three people at all times? Maybe rules for bartenders, I've seen some of those guys working their butts off.

To this kind of legislation should remember ... It is what your term-limited legislature is producing. Abolish term limits, now!

today, as a rn in the ACUTE CARE ER...not your sniffles, scrapes and toothaches..I had 11, yes I said 11, patients to care for today, and as I left my shift (late of course) the 12th was rolling in!!!!! of these patients, 2 were receiving blood products and platelets!!! For those of you out there who oppose this bill, next time your in the er with one of your family members that is bleeding profusely from the rectum, remember you decision as you wait for hours for your nurse to even be able to check your vitals, or check your iv site...I hope you hang your head low!! I think it is disgusting how we allow this!! and for those of you saying, "if you don't like it, then leave", as yourself if you would leave if you were the only income in your household to feed your kids, carry insurance and put a roof overhead.. especially in todays economy!!!!

 I hear ya sista!  People that do not have experience with the medical arena have no idea how overworked nurses are.  I think if those people ever experience a hospital for a loved one or themselves they too will realize that all nurse do is run and pray their patients don't have problems at the same time (which they always do).  We all know they will be the ones complaining that their nurse takes too long to respond to their needs.  And as far as lunches or breaks (as required by law) forget about it, those rarely happen uninterrupted, or they simply do not happen at all.  So, I back you up as many people do, forget about those people who think patients are machines and can wait an unlimited time without problems!

 don't nurses have a UNION to represent them? must they rely on the legislature to protect them from HARSH WORKING CONDITIONS?

it would seem to be against the interests of the BUSINESSMEN that own the hospital and wish to assure it's profitability to allow short staffing to put their fortunes on the line.

 

 Not all nurses have the opportunity to join a union (unfortunately).  And those of us who are lucky enough to have a union, well they cannot do everything.  We have staffing guidelines, even though they are not always followed.  We grieve those that are not followed, but in the end what does this do for our patients?  NOTHING!  They are left waiting for a nurse to take care of them. And sorry about the businessmen, wow that would be terrible for them to make less money wouldn't it? It is only human life...

overworked RN:

 Not all nurses have the opportunity to join a union (unfortunately).  And those of us who are lucky enough to have a union, well they cannot do everything.  We have staffing guidelines, even though they are not always followed.  We grieve those that are not followed, but in the end what does this do for our patients?  NOTHING!  They are left waiting for a nurse to take care of them. And sorry about the businessmen, wow that would be terrible for them to make less money wouldn't it? It is only human life...

Excellent response/comment, and right on the money.

I'm not crazy about government intervention in matters like this.  But sometimes it just becomes necessary because "market forces" (usually the drive to expand profit) irrationally override what once upon a time we called common sense, common decency and moral behavior.  That is a general statement, and since I haven't actually studied this particular issue don't have a position on this particular bill.  (It is history, anyway, since it failed to pass in the last legislative session, and so expired.  Perhaps a comparable bill will be introduced in the new term.)    

 

 

 Thank you for your words of wisdom!

 what i find irrational, sane, is that the businessmen that own and operate this hospital would put themselves in a position of losing everything through their negligence.

it's hard for me to fathom how much this would cost them should something, heaven forbid, go wrong that proper staffing would have prevented.

this alone should be an incentive to properly staff each and every floor of each and every hospital they run, but somehow it isn't. i can't see the profit motive pushing people to such wrecklessness.

as for government involvement, look what it did for the veterans administration.

careful what you wish for.

crazycajun:

 what i find irrational, sane, is that the businessmen that own and operate this hospital would put themselves in a position of losing everything through their negligence.

it's hard for me to fathom how much this would cost them should something, heaven forbid, go wrong that proper staffing would have prevented.

this alone should be an incentive to properly staff each and every floor of each and every hospital they run, but somehow it isn't. i can't see the profit motive pushing people to such wrecklessness.

as for government involvement, look what it did for the veterans administration.

careful what you wish for.

Well, the question arises as to whether you find that behavior irrational or sane, from the way your first sentence is written.

Business people all the time make irrational decisions in respect to risk.  Businesses would not fail, otherwise.  Some rely on insurance to bail them out of a risk gone bad.  Assuming that business people are universally smart and rational is adopting a perilous premise. Consider the current case of financial whiz kid Bernie Madoff, for starters.  And the whole mortgage mess with outfits like AIG Insurance.

The Veterans Administration is a government agency that has been scandalously starved of funding.  That has nothing to do with what is at issue in this discussion.

 

 

 

 sane,

bernie madoff used other people's money to make himself rich. folks sent him money in the hopes of making themselves rich. either way, they were specutlating with their own money.

hospitals taking risks with other people's lives is not speculating. it's just risky. i keep trying to see what else would make them take those kinds of unnecessary risks dealing with other people's lives and health.

mentioning the veterans administration has everything to do with the issue in this discussion, as it represents what happens when you put the government totally in charge. in other words, when you go to the government to FIX THE PROBLEM, they will simply take over, and soon ALL hospitals will be run exactly like v.a. hospitals. they have proven for decades that they prefer to run their hospitals the way that they do, and can see no other way to do it, despite the complaints of the citizens, veterans, and legislators.

 

Look what George W. Bush did for the VA. He underfunded it. Same as he did for New Orleans, No Child Left Behind, and the FDA. His goal was to make government not work. Mission Accomplished.

Medicare is the best run health care program going, much better than any private health care insurers. Business is good at making money, or should be, not saving lives.

Mandating specified nurse-patient ratios is a needed  function of our government.

 

 what exactly did gw do for the v.a.?

he funded it at exactly the same level as bill clinton, and jimmy carter. in other words, he approved the requested budget put forward by the v.a. through congress, where many democrats had the chance to up the ante.

as for new orleans, it's not the federal government's job to insure my house, it's my job. my house IS insured. my house is fixed. is YOUR house insured by the federal government?

no child left behind was the mantra of the teacher's union during the carter years, "W" just took it up and made it work. it just goes to show that simply throwing government money at a problem doesn't always fix it.

please explain WHY our government needs to be making medical decisions? nurse patient ratios are a MEDICAL decision based on the needs of the patients involved, and the skills of the nurses involved. i wouldn't want that IMPORTANT MEDICAL DECISION to be placed on the back of someone who is in some faraway federal office, shut away from the facts.

i'm also sure that the doctors involved have some say in that matter, and they don't seem to be particularly vocal in support of a higher nurse/patient ratio. i wonder why that is?

let's see... your union cannot get you a higher ratio, the doctors who work with the patients you care for won't speak up in support of your need for a higher ratio, the hospital owners won't pony up the funds necessary to provide more nurses, and the veterans administration has an even LOWER nurse/patient ratio than private hospitals.

i don't think i'd be trying to go to the same government that mandates a lower ratio for it's soldiers, sailors and marines during wartime. i don't think the outcome would be to your liking.

 

crazycajun posted:

 

”please explain WHY our government needs to be making medical decisions? nurse patient ratios are a MEDICAL decision based on the needs of the patients involved, and the skills of the nurses involved. i wouldn't want that IMPORTANT MEDICAL DECISION to be placed on the back of someone who is in some faraway federal office, shut away from the facts.”

 

Hey, aren’t you the poster who, in another thread (maybe several) has defended government stepping in to ban a medical procedure known in the medical profession as “dilation and extraction”?  D&X can fairly be characterized as controversial within the medical profession, that is, not all doctors agree on its necessity or application.  But it hardly stands universally rejected by the profession as an option in the health care arsenal.

 

If you don’t want the government making your medical decisions for you, why would you advocate having the government ban D&X or other potentially useful and valuable procedures, thereby making other people’s medical decisions for them? 

 

Not incidentally, it’s hard to see a nurse-patient ratio as a personal medical decision, per se.  That would mean it is a decision made by doctor and patient as to what course of treatment to pursue.  Nurse-patient ratio is a staffing management decision made by hospital administrators, who may or may not have real competence and primary interest in patient care. 

 

” let's see... your union cannot get you a higher ratio, the doctors who work with the patients you care for won't speak up in support of your need for a higher ratio, the hospital owners won't pony up the funds necessary to provide more nurses, and the veterans administration has an even LOWER nurse/patient ratio than private hospitals.

 

“i don't think i'd be trying to go to the same government that mandates a lower ratio for it's soldiers, sailors and marines during wartime. i don't think the outcome would be to your liking.”

 

You make many assertions, some of are evidently true and some of which are probably false.  Characteristically, they are mainly argumentative, and do little or nothing to make your case against this kind of legislation.

 

As stated well before this, the Veterans Administration is no model for quality patient care.  It may, however, serve as a model for what underfunded and/or cheapskate, corner-cutting hospital management in general does to the quality of patient services.

 

This is less because the VA is a government agency than it is because the VA has been cynically starved of funding by politicians of every political party for 30 years.  You have acknowledged the fact of the funding starvation in the post Vietnam War era – a time of burgeoning need for veterans’ services  -- but have not properly acknowledged the bipartisan responsibility for it. 

 

You are wrong to equate the VA with military medical services.

 

The VA does not provide care for active duty military personnel.  It was created to serve military veterans who have put in their time, as an acknowledgment of their invaluable service to the nation.  Politicians from all parties have cynically helped stiff the VA on its funding, and thereby put the screws to needy veterans.  

SaneMichigander:

 

crazycajun posted:

 

”please explain WHY our government needs to be making medical decisions? nurse patient ratios are a MEDICAL decision based on the needs of the patients involved, and the skills of the nurses involved. i wouldn't want that IMPORTANT MEDICAL DECISION to be placed on the back of someone who is in some faraway federal office, shut away from the facts.”

 

Hey, aren’t you the poster who, in another thread (maybe several) has defended government stepping in to ban a medical procedure known in the medical profession as “dilation and extraction”?  D&X can fairly be characterized as controversial within the medical profession, that is, not all doctors agree on its necessity or application.  But it hardly stands universally rejected by the profession as an option in the health care arsenal.

<no, it doesn't stand universally rejected by the medical profession, but it IS never necessary. please show how you think it is.> 

If you don’t want the government making your medical decisions for you, why would you advocate having the government ban D&X or other potentially useful and valuable procedures, thereby making other people’s medical decisions for them? 

<please describe exactly what is USEFUL AND VALUABLE ABOUT THE D&X PROCEEDURE. this should be good. by the way, the supreme court UPHELD the ban, so i'm not advocating the government IMPLEMENTING a ban, i'm congratulating them for HAVING a ban.>

Not incidentally, it’s hard to see a nurse-patient ratio as a personal medical decision, per se.  That would mean it is a decision made by doctor and patient as to what course of treatment to pursue.  Nurse-patient ratio is a staffing management decision made by hospital administrators, who may or may not have real competence and primary interest in patient care.

<every hospital has a doctor as chief of staff. it's his job to guide that decision making process. perhaps you should bring your staffing complaints to him. he is in a position to solve the problems.> 

 

” let's see... your union cannot get you a higher ratio, the doctors who work with the patients you care for won't speak up in support of your need for a higher ratio, the hospital owners won't pony up the funds necessary to provide more nurses, and the veterans administration has an even LOWER nurse/patient ratio than private hospitals.

 

“i don't think i'd be trying to go to the same government that mandates a lower ratio for it's soldiers, sailors and marines during wartime. i don't think the outcome would be to your liking.”

 

You make many assertions, some of are evidently true and some of which are probably false.  Characteristically, they are mainly argumentative, and do little or nothing to make your case against this kind of legislation.

 

As stated well before this, the Veterans Administration is no model for quality patient care.  It may, however, serve as a model for what underfunded and/or cheapskate, corner-cutting hospital management in general does to the quality of patient services.

<which is why you would not want to get the government involved in the first place.> 

This is less because the VA is a government agency than it is because the VA has been cynically starved of funding by politicians of every political party for 30 years.  You have acknowledged the fact of the funding starvation in the post Vietnam War era – a time of burgeoning need for veterans’ services  -- but have not properly acknowledged the bipartisan responsibility for it. 

<no, i EXACTLY acknowledged the bipartisan responsibility for it. from presidents of all stripes to the members of congress. by the way, the democrats are in charge, just raise the money that the v.a. needs to operate properly and let the taxation chips fall where they may. ohh... i see... raising taxes in a bad economy is a BAD IDEA... so, i guess your guys get to start thinking of other options.> 

 

You are wrong to equate the VA with military medical services.

<i never did. YOU assume that when i talk about soldiers, sailors, and marines that i am talking about ACTIVE DUTY soldiers sailors and marines. by the way, when you are injured enough to no longer be of service to the active military, you are discharged medically, given over to the veteran's administration.>

 

The VA does not provide care for active duty military personnel.  It was created to serve military veterans who have put in their time, as an acknowledgment of their invaluable service to the nation.  Politicians from all parties have cynically helped stiff the VA on its funding, and thereby put the screws to needy veterans. 

< okay, the democrats have been in charge for seventy five percent of the last fifty years, it's funny that they wait till NOW to deplore the conditions in the hospitals they refused to fund when THEY were in charge. they need to MAN UP and take RESPONSIBILITY for the deeds that they did.>

 

 

 if the congress cannot properly fund those who have served the nation so honorably, how the hell are they going to fund the part of the nation that  has been suckling off the public teat all their lives?

 my daughter has never needed the D&X proceedure. my ex has never needed the D&X proceedure. i have (obviously) never needed the D&X proceedure.

please explain what medical condition can only be cured by the D&X proceedure.

you have been asked that several times, yet you refuse to answer. the one instance of NECESSITY that was brought up was more closely related to genocide than medical necessity.

the proceedure cures no illnesses, diseases, or conditions other than pregnancy.

there is no life threatening condition, disease or illness that D&X "cures" that normal birth wouldn't cure just as well, without killing the child.

so, please tell me why women NEED to have this proceedure done.

also, please tell me the LOGIC that dictates that a woman carry the baby within her body KNOWING that she will abort it at the end of the term.

doesn't that sound a LOT like PRE-MEDITATION???

crazycajun:

 what exactly did gw do for the v.a.?

he funded it at exactly the same level as bill clinton, and jimmy carter. in other words, he approved the requested budget put forward by the v.a. through congress, where many democrats had the chance to up the ante.

as for new orleans, it's not the federal government's job to insure my house, it's my job. my house IS insured. my house is fixed. is YOUR house insured by the federal government?

no child left behind was the mantra of the teacher's union during the carter years, "W" just took it up and made it work. it just goes to show that simply throwing government money at a problem doesn't always fix it.

please explain WHY our government needs to be making medical decisions? nurse patient ratios are a MEDICAL decision based on the needs of the patients involved, and the skills of the nurses involved. i wouldn't want that IMPORTANT MEDICAL DECISION to be placed on the back of someone who is in some faraway federal office, shut away from the facts.

i'm also sure that the doctors involved have some say in that matter, and they don't seem to be particularly vocal in support of a higher nurse/patient ratio. i wonder why that is?

let's see... your union cannot get you a higher ratio, the doctors who work with the patients you care for won't speak up in support of your need for a higher ratio, the hospital owners won't pony up the funds necessary to provide more nurses, and the veterans administration has an even LOWER nurse/patient ratio than private hospitals.

i don't think i'd be trying to go to the same government that mandates a lower ratio for it's soldiers, sailors and marines during wartime. i don't think the outcome would be to your liking.

 

This particular poster has a peculiar habit of making unsupported statements as if they are pure fact. He must have gone to the Bill O'Lielly school of journalism, where the golden rule is, say it like it's an undisputed fact, and it will be one.

The facts stated in this post are all suspect, and a couple don't even require research to refudiate, such as presented in his last sentence.

He is also the poster who in another discussion, with me, wanted the government to make reproductive decisions for a woman. Typical right wingnut, big government in the bedroom, no government in the boardroom.

 

 so, impress us with your reasoning as to exactly how the federal government running YOUR hospital like a V.A. hospital will improve nurse/patient ratios.

you haven't even taken a lick at THAT snake, only at me. now, please answer the question.

it seems that the left is constantly refusing to answer the EASY questions, instead placing their rhetoric into the post, or changing the subject altogether.

i'm betting that you won't be able to.

 by the way... it's up to you to disprove what i say. so far, you haven't even tried, other than to "say it isn't so".

now, you also haven't posted any facts to back up your point of view. don't ask for what you don't give.

the government is indeed in your bedrooms, if you are killing viable babies in the birth canal. that's called MURDER.

the state leaves no stone un-turned to seek out and punish murderers.

crazycajun:

 by the way... it's up to you to disprove what i say. so far, you haven't even tried, other than to "say it isn't so".

now, you also haven't posted any facts to back up your point of view. don't ask for what you don't give.

the government is indeed in your bedrooms, if you are killing viable babies in the birth canal. that's called MURDER.

the state leaves no stone un-turned to seek out and punish murderers.

You don't quite understand, do you? It is not up to me to disprove what you say. I really don't care what you say. It is up to you to prove what you say. Just saying it doesn't make it so. I have the option of believing you, or not.

I don't have to answer your questions to your satisfaction either. I have to answer them to my satisfaction, and I have.

I participate in this forum in the hopes of gaining some knowledge by reading different opinions, not in arguing for arguments sake. I believe we are at that point. Nothing more is to be gained for me from this discourse, as you seem intent on winning an argument rather than exchanging viewpoints. You must have a lot of time on your hands. May I suggest you spend some of it learning to discuss, rather than argue.