I’d like a conversation on this. Ads say that nurses want us to “VOTE YES” on Question 1. Ads say that nurses want us to “VOTE NO” on question 1.
My initial feeling is to vote yes and limit the number of patients nurses are assigned.
This was supported when I heard the “VOTE NO” ads tell me that if I vote Yes, THE GOVERNMENT and NOT NURSES will decide how nurses will be allocated. That ad is pure bull. Yes, a new law will limit the number of patients a nurse will have, but nurses have never been the ones who decided how many patients they are responsible for, hospital administrators make that decision and while some of those administrators might be nurses, that ad is a deception and I don’t like ads written to deceive.
Your thoughts?
Please share widely!
Remember, nurses are trusted and loved. So whichever side convinces the public that nurses agree with them, wins,
Big business learned its lesson two years ago on the charter school question. Teachers are trusted, and when the NO campaign convinced the electorate that “teachers” were against it, the die was cast. The yes side scrambled and aired an advertisement starring a private charter school administrator posing as a teacher in heavy rotation, but it wasn’t enough.
So, hospital administrators and in-house operations like the “American Nurses Association” are advocating for no. And they are smart enough to put “nurses” on their ads and lawn signs who are actually in the minority, or are administrators with “nurse” in their job titles. This is like saying that “football guy Bill Belichick” thinks that football players should have practice twice a day year round.
Actual registered nurses, represented by the Massachusetts Nurses Association, an actual union of people who work directly with patients, favor this amendment. One survey found some 86% in favor. Most RNs (not all!) think we need these safe limits, even if it threatens “shareholder value” and executive salaries. There might be reasons to vote no, but nurses are in favor of question 1. So am I..
The no side is so misleading there ought to be some sort of sanction. Any product advertised that way would run afoul of truth in advertising laws. My understanding is that the no side is funded by hospital executives using RNs who now work mostly in hospital administration as spokespeople in their ads, but that a poll of actual day-to-day bedside nurses show 86% to be in favor of the question. Plus, doesn’t just plain common sense indicate that the more thinly stretched you are, the less you will be able to care for the patients in your care?
I’m voting “Yes” on 1 for precisely the reason Christopher is upset about the “No” side. Their advertising is so misleading and intentionally confusing the issue that it’s almost impossible to make an informed decision.
The only thing I am unsure of, and perhaps someone from BMG will add light to this is: what is the financial penalty to the hospital that cannot or decides to not comply?
If it’s a low fee, large hospitals will simply pay the fine and move on while smaller, less cash rich hospitals will go out of business.
Hospitals are already subject to numerous laws and regulations which I assume the state could shut them down for not complying.
That’s a good question. I doubt very much the question passes.
Why the doubt? Seems to me voters will be able to identify with the patients in hospitals who would be better served by nurses who aren’t stretched so thin.
Because the issue is confused. You have nurses saying that it will be bad for patients and them.
So why do you think those nurses will be more successful? For me, the yes side has the benefit of basic common sense.
Here’s a link to the actual petition. Section 231H has the information on the fines and enforcement.
California’s nurses union is pretty tough. They have evidently got the law passed in California and say it works.
Mrs. Conway is a first year (non-unionized) RN at a nursing home and supports Yes on 1. Nursing homes are already allowed to understaff due to an exemption. My wife is the only nurse on her floor this evening covering about 35 patients. While she is assisted by many wonderful CNAs and LPNs (one of whom was an MD in Haiti), it can still be a lot some nights. I hope this law can help her.
That’s another reason why health care in the USA is so expensive. Individuals with medical degrees from other countries are not allowed to practice in the USA. This is not true with other professions, just doctors, dentists (and lawyers).
Those who defend this say that “our standards are higher”, but there is no data to support that claim. If anything, given the reality that our average life span is not the highest in the world (and actually falling), the opposite it true,
A friend who worked as a nurse and quit wrote an email to her friends supporting these new limits on the number of patients a nurse can serve. She said that if such rules had been in place before she quit she probably wouldn’t have.
My wife is an RN. She quit working at hospitals many years ago because of the unmanageable workload, a comment I have heard many times from others. Heck, even my primary care physician tells me that he has a quota to meet each day with patients and that’s not a caring way to run a medical facility….but it is how a business works, and that’s the root of the problem.
I’ve been told by friends on Beacon Hill that this staffing requirement is simply not affordable. When I point to the fact that hospital CEO’s are paid in the millions of dollars each year, they tell me that’s unjust, but it’s a different matter. NO, it is at the heart of the matter.
It is clear from the comments so far that almost none of us have a very good understanding of the merits of Question 1. We are, however, aware that it is a very complicated subject requiring specific knowledge and experience. So, which side do we believe? As liberals, our natural instincts are to trust the nurses and not the hospitals. That’s certainly my instinct. But notwithstanding my belief that the nurses are more likely deserving of my trust than the hospitals, I plan to vote ‘no’ on Question 1. My reasons have nothing to do with the merits of Question 1, which, like everyone else, I find very complicated and difficult to understand, even after discussing it with two nurses and doing some research. And, if a political junkie like me finds the question presented too complicated and too difficult to understand, imagine the quandary of the average voter on November 6th who has given the question little attention and little thought. So, for me, it matters little that the nurses are right and have tried and failed to get what they wanted through collective bargaining and the legislature. They just have to keep trying. The simple fact is that the question presented is complicated—too complicated to be deemed a fit subject for determination by ballot. A yes vote will produce more such complicated ballot initiatives and that is just not an intelligent way to run a government.
I’ve been known to fall back on when in doubt, vote no, but in this case it’s just so obvious that patients would get better care if their nurses aren’t spread so thin. Same logic as applies to smaller class sizes. I don’t see this as a union vs. management issue so much as a public health issue, and to me it’s not complicated at all.
If it is “so obvious that patients would get better care if their nurses aren’t spread so thin” (and I agree that appears to be obvious), then doubling the number of nurses that would be mandated by Question 1 would provide patients with even better care. That’s obvious too, wouldn’t you say? But, of course, there are other factors in determining the exact number of nurses that is appropriate for a particular purpose or for a particular hospital. That’s obvious too. So, you believe the voters have the knowledge and experience to make this decision for every hospital. I don’t. And that too seems obvious.
Hey, I’ve never been a huge fan of letting voters decide directly, but since them’s the rules and I’m being asked my opinion as a voter I’m going to give it.
Questions 2 and 3 are relatively simple for the average voter to understand. By voting ‘Yes’ on Question 2, the voter merely indicates that he or she wants to repeal the atrocious decision in Citizens United and create a commission to research the current campaign finance system and recommend an appropriate amendment to overturn that decision. I know that some believe that it may be to dangerous to seek a constitutional amendment at this time, but at least the heavy lifting in Question 2 is left to the commission, not the voters. By voting ‘Yes’ on Question 3, the voter indicates that he or she does not want to roll back or repeal the civil rights laws granted to transgender individuals. I wish the bigots did not put this question on the ballot, but at least it’s easy for the average voter to understand (although some will likely be confused as to the meaning of a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ vote). On the other hand, to anyone not an expert on the subject, Question 3 is just about impossible to understand. Just take a look of the actual Initiative Petition, particularly the proposed wording of Section 231C. http://www.mass.gov/ago/docs/government/2017-petitions/17-07.pdf
Voting by instinct is not acceptable. Not voting at all is not acceptable. If you don’t have the expertise to understand what’s on the ballot, or better yet, if you believe the average voter doesn’t have the expertise to understand what’s on the ballot, then don’t vote for it. The initiative process was purposely made difficult in order to discourage its use except when there appears to be no other adequate remedy. In those few circumstances when its use may be warranted, specific statutory language, especially in areas the average voter is not familiar with, should be discouraged. I encourage you all to do just that by voting ‘No.’
Obviously, I meant Question 1, not 3, was impossible to understand. Gotta read my comments before I post.