I Don’t Hate America!

From MyFox 9:

MINNEAPOLIS — Former Vice President Al Gore thinks Al Franken would be “a fantastic senator,” according to a letter sent to Democratic delegates.

Gore’s endorsement of Franken’s bid for the U.S. Senate comes days before Franken squares off against opponent Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer for the DFL endorsement at the state party convention in Rochester, Minn.

One reason Gore endorses Franken is their shared goals of an effort to slow global warming.

The big day is this Saturday where Franken and Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer will fight for the DFL party nomination.  It should also be mentioned that the Minnesota Nurses Association (MNA) and AFL-CIO have endorsed Franken.  I do wish that JNP would voice his concerns for nursing more, like Franken has done on his website.  I have contacted JNP twice about it with no answer.  However, I cannot endorse Franken for his poor universal healthcare plan that requires each state to enact their own.

In response to the comments on my previous post, ANA endorses Hillary Clinton, I did some investigating into why Obama may not have been chosen over Clinton.

The ANA endorsement process involves four steps. Here is a brief outline of the steps found at the ANA site (some material quoted directly to ensure accuracy):

Step 1: The ANA chooses four members from the ANA-PAC board to serve on the Presidential Endorsement Task Force. This year, it was the following:
- Sara Jarrett, RN, MS, MA, EdD of Colorado (Chair)
- Barbara Crane, RN, CRRN of New York
- Elizabeth Dietz, EdD, RN, CS-NP, of California
- Representative Erin Murphy, BSN, RN of Minnesota

Step 2: The task force works with the ANA Government Affairs to:
- Review candidates voting records,
- Work on drafting a questionnaire,
- Polling of Constituent Member Associations (CMA) and ANA membership for their preferred candidates, and
- Conducting interviews with the candidates.

Step 3: The ANA’s Board of Directors are given the recommendation from the PAC board (which includes the task force and their work with the ANA Government Affairs) and an endorsement process decision is made. The three options are:
- No endorsement or support of a candidate,
- Support one or more candidates during the primary elections, or
- Support of a candidate following the party nominating conventions

Step 4: “The ANA Board of Directors will vote to ratify the PAC Board’s endorsement recommendation.” This information is then communicated to ANA members, CMA’s, the candidates, and appropriate media parties.

———-

Six questions were chosen for the candidate questionnaire. Here is an example of an unanswered one. Click the names below to read the candidate’s responses in their entirety.

Hillary Clinton

Barack Obama

———-

My investigation:

Finding 1

Representative Erin Murphy (DFL 64A) has been an excellent advocate for nurses. Just recently, I wrote Strib: Minnesotans could save 12.3 billion in healthcare costs in which I mentioned Rep. Murphy’s continuing support. Since finding who served on the Presidential Endorsement Task Force, I did some searches on any personal endorsements prior to the ANA decision. My concern was for any bias before serving on the Task Force.

Clinton’s webpage specifically mentions Representative Erin Murphy’s joining of Clinton’s Minnesota Steering Committee in a January 25th press release along with nearly 50 other Minnesota legislators and community leaders. Curiously enough, this came on the same day as the ANA endorsement of Hillary Clinton. The timing was appropriate, but I wanted to find out more. Mike from Blog4President.US made the announcement of Rep. Murphy joining Clinton’s campaign on January 24th, 2008. Again, timing is very important as a personal endorsement should not come before the association endorsement, especially since Rep. Murphy was bound to ANA endorsement rationale:

However, as a professional organization ANA will consider candidates based solely on who will best serve the interests of the nursing profession and their patients. Political parties or personal agendas will not matter in this process. No political support will be offered by ANA without thoughtful analysis of a candidate’s past record and views on nursing.

Turns out, John Edwards had already received an endorsement from Representative Erin Murphy following the launch of a “Women for Edwards” campaign on May 15th, 2007. If any of you remember, John Edwards was in the race until January 30th, 2008, just five days after Murphy’s joining of Clinton’s Steering Committee. Blog4President.US also announced Murphy’s support for Edwards.

I am very proud of Rep. Murphy’s accomplishments, but I bring up these issues since I worry about any bias when choosing the candidate for an association that represents 2.9 million nurses. This is especially important since she threw her early support toward John Edwards and now Clinton, with no mention of any support for Obama. I hate to pick on her, but I could not find any information on the others serving on the Task Force.

Finding 2

Step 2 of the endorsement process involves conducting interviews with the candidates. The ANA sent questionnaires to all candidates, but only received answers from Democrats Clinton, Obama, Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich, Richardson and Republican Ron Paul.

The only candidates that participated in the interview were Clinton, Kucinich, and Richardson. This makes Clinton the only candidate who participated in the interview who was still in the race at the time of selection. Because Obama did not participate in the interview, he consequently lost points throughout the endorsement process. This is despite his strong answers on the questionnaire.

Unfortunately, according to a letter sent back to nurses who were upset about the ANA endorsement, the following are the actual results of the member-base votes*:

Clinton - 42%
Obama - 21%
McCain - 8%
Edwards - 9%, Huckabee - 8%, Romney - 5%, Guliani - 3%, Thompson - 3%, Kucinich - 1%, Paul - 1%, Biden - 0.5%, Richardson - 0.12%, Dodd - 0%, Gravel - 0%, Hunter - 0%

*Despite my frequent activity working for nursing and political issues, I was not aware of this voting and consequently, my vote was not represented in the final tally. I am curious to know what the actual numbers are.

Finding 3

The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (CNA/NNOC) are vocal supporters of national single-payer coverage, which Clinton’s plan lacks. In advertisements that came out prior to the endorsement, the NNOC came out in full force challenging Clinton’s healthcare plan. Check out this YouTube video of one challenge:

It is only fair to say that Obama has been challenged as well because his plan does not include single-payer coverage either.

However, Obama has been consistent with the ideal that he supports a single-payer system. From Obama’s fact check:

Obama said, “Here’s the bottom line. If I were designing a system from scratch I would probably set up a single-payer system…But we’re not designing a system from scratch…And when we had a healthcare forum before I set up my healthcare plan here in Iowa there was a lot of resistance to a single-payer system. So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices….Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system. For now, I just want to make sure every American is covered…I don’t want to wait for that perfect system…The one thing you should ask about the candidates though is who’s gonna have the capacity to actually deliver on the change?…I believe I’ve got a better capacity to break the gridlock and attract both Independents and Republicans to work together.”

Finding 4

The movie SiCKO pointed out the fact that many members of Congress receive contributions from the healthcare industry. Clinton is one who has, and still receives money from many of these insiders. The CNA/NNOC concluded an analysis on contributions and released a press release last summer. This was outlined on Fierce Healthcare:

The CNA/NNOC analysis concludes that healthcare industry players contributed $3.7 million to current candidates during the first quarter of 2007. It also notes that the industry–which it defines as including drug and insurance companies, doctors, hospitals, dentists and nursing homes–spent more than $2.2 billion on federal lobbying over the past decade. By CNA/NNOC calculations, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) and Sen. John McCain (R) got the lion’s share of healthcare contributions of all presidential candidates, collecting 40 percent of the overall total.

Using data from the Center for Responsive Politics, Barack Obama receives 99% of his donations from individual contributors with a mere $25 received from PAC’s. Clinton receives 87% from individuals with over $1 million from PAC’s. She also recently donated $5 million from her own wallet to catch up with Obama’s advertising.

In an article entitled, “Deborah Burger and Maureen Caristi: Guaranteed healthcare, not just insurance,” the author’s look at the bigger problem of healthcare reform. Pieces quoted from the article:

“…simply adding more Americans into a flawed insurance system will not solve our national health care crisis. Especially when you let insurers continue to charge as much as they want, and do nothing to stop their callous, all too routine practice of denying medical treatment or blocking access to specialists or diagnostic tests because they don’t want to spend the money.

Mandating people to buy insurance is at the center of the debate on health care between Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — she’s for it, he’s against it…”

“Obama has a point that the cost of insurance makes it a bad bargain for many Americans. Insurance policies now average over $12,000 per family just for the premiums, not including skyrocketing deductibles, co-pays and other costs that have made medical bills the leading cause of personal bankruptcy.”

“The individual mandate cheerleaders claim that if you don’t put everyone in the insurance pool, only the sick will buy health care and insurance companies will raise costs. Have any of them noticed that insurance premiums have gone up 87 percent nationally the past decade without a national individual mandate?

But individual mandates are popular with the insurance industry and those close to it. Insurers reap millions of new customers with minimal requirement to change their behavior. It further entrenches a broken system, expanding the reach of an industry that treats every dollar spent on care as a “medical loss ratio.”

It distorts the role of government, which should be to protect people, not act as an insurance agent.”

Finding 5

Many people across the internet are looking for the quote that Clinton apparently said about nurses being “overpaid and undereducated.” There are also rumors about her calling nurses “glorified waitresses” at one point. I scoured the net, including searching my graduate school databases with no evidence of these quotes. However, the website, Snopes, thinks they found the source for the “overpaid and undereducated” quote.

In remarks by Hillary Clinton for the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women (Sept. 5th, 1995 in Beijing, China), Clinton said the following,

As long as discrimination and inequities remain so commonplace around the world - - as long as girls and women are valued less, fed less, fed last, overworked, underpaid, not schooled and subjected to violence in and out of their homes - - the potential of the human family to create a peaceful, prosperous world will not be realized.

Full text and video can be found here. There were multiple statements made about nurses which could have caused this to be misinterpreted. However, many people still swear that they heard Clinton make the rumored comments.

Finding 6

Here are excerpts from the letter sent by ANA president, Rebecca Patton, in response to those against the ANA endorsement of Clinton,

In making this endorsement, the ANA Board recognized Senator Clinton’s longstanding commitment to nursing and health care. During her time in the Senate, Clinton has been an advocate for nursing issues. Clinton was in support of the Title VIII Nurse Reinvestment Act programs which provide much needed funding for nurse education. She recognizes the need for more nurse practitioners and supports increased authority for and utilization of nurse practitioners as a means of improving access to health care. She has a long history of advocacy for health care reform, and her current plan emphasizes the need to reduce costs, improve quality and ensure affordable health care for all Americans. She was a co-sponsor of the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007 which would improve mental health services.
From its inception in 1896 to the present day, ANA has recognized that individuals can shape health care policy consistent with the goals of registered nurses and in the best interest of their patients.

Obama’s Views:
- Regarding the Title VIII Nurse Reinvestment Act, Obama not only supports it, but he calls for greater funding in this statement:

I support reauthorization of Title VIII training programs with greater financial incentives for students and nurse faculty, including scholarships and loan repayment. Given the dire shortage of nurses, no less than $200 million should be allocated for Title VIII programs and the Nurse Reinvestment Act.

- Regarding APRN’s, Obama endorses this idea heavily in his statement,

I will support inclusion and expanded reimbursement for APRN services through federal health programs, my new public plan, and private plans offered through my plan’s National Health Insurance Exchange.

- S.558 - Obama is also a co-sponsor of the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007.

- From Advance for Nurses, Kate Hartner sums up Obama’s responses,

Obama proposes: supporting minimum staffing ratios, limiting overtime, reauthorizing Title VIII training programs with scholarships and loan reimbursement, health system reform, paperless systems, supporting nursing unions and expanding APRN practice.

I think it is only fair that a rationale letter would address how Obama and Clinton differ in their views, rather than explain most of the same things the candidates agree on.

———-

Summary

Needless to say from my week of exhausting investigation, I am disappointed in the American Nurses Association. I feel they prematurely endorsed a candidate that has a history of supporting nurses, but lacks the necessary ideas for a new direction for healthcare in this country. Obama’s healthcare plan, though not single-payer, works better in this country that seems entirely focused on their wallets. Clinton has gone as far as to say she’s willing to garnish wages as an enforcement mechanism. How can we force people to purchase coverage from insurance companies, feeding into our already broken healthcare system more, then go on to say we will punish our own citizens by taking away their hard-earned money if they don’t buy? And that dubious statistic that Clinton throws out that Obama’s plan will leave out 15 million people? That was already proven false at FactCheck.org. Blueollie has another excellent analysis on this topic.

I will say that I am slightly disappointed in both candidates as they do not provide true single-payer universal healthcare. However, Obama’s plan will best address the cost control issue currently plaguing our system. Mandating insurance will frustrate consumers while limiting options for those with low incomes. The question here is… is it better to have stripped down insurance (to satisfy a mandate to have coverage), or to buy into affordable, full coverage, which includes subsidies if you do not qualify for SCHIP or Medicaid?

As a registered nurse, I wait for the day when I don’t have to tell my patient that the life-saving drug they are prescribed costs $4 a day, since I worry they will have to choose between taking the drug, or eating a meal. As a registered nurse, I wait for the day that I can treat my patients out in the community, before they end up in the hospital bed, since preventing a disease will cost much less for everyone. As a registered nurse, I wait for the day that a patient of mine can see any doctor or APRN of their choosing, without having to get prior-approval from their insurance company. As a registered nurse, I can’t wait for the day that Barack Obama becomes our next president.

In a surprising move that should upset many nurses, the American Nurses Association endorsed Hillary Clinton for president on January 25th, 2008.  Needless to say, I am still holding my belief that Barack Obama will best serve the interests of our nation when it comes to healthcare.  More criticism to come.

Via press release:

THE AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION ENDORSES
SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY)

SILVER SPRING, MD –The Clinton Campaign today announced the endorsement of the American Nurses Association (ANA). The ANA represents the interests of the nation’s 2.9 million registered nurses.

“Too many Americans must do without high quality health care, and this country deserves a president that will make health system reform a priority,” said ANA President Rebecca M. Patton, MSN, RN, CNOR. “Senator Clinton has shown a commitment to implementing real change in our health care system to ensure high quality, affordable and accessible care. She has also recognized the importance of educating, recruiting and retaining, RNs, and the need to improve the nurse’s work environment which includes addressing safe and appropriate staffing. America’s 2.9 million registered nurses represent the largest group of health care professionals. We have long advocated for the critically needed reforms vital to the improvement of health care and will use our power in the voting booth to make health care a priority.”

“I am honored to have the support of the American Nurses Association,” said Clinton. “We owe nurses a great debt of gratitude for the critical role they play every day in providing quality care. As President, I will continue to support efforts to attract and retain qualified nurses, especially in rural and urban areas, and to improve working conditions. I look forward to working with America’s nurses to deliver affordable, quality health care to every American.”

Hillary has a history of working for America’s nurses. In the Senate, Hillary introduced the Nursing Education and Quality of Care Act, which would expand the number of programs that address nursing faculty shortages and increase the supply of nurses in rural areas. As part of the Nurse Reinvestment Act, she helped create grants that expanded nurse Magnet hospitals. Hillary also supported increased funding for both Title VII and Title VIII, which help to address the higher education needs of nurses and nursing faculty. Finally, she has supported programs to attract nurses to the field, including efforts to improve the quality of the working environment for nurses.

Hillary’s American Health Choices Plan will cover all Americans and improve health care by providing consumers new choices, lowering costs and improving quality. Under Hillary’s plan, Americans who like the insurance they have can keep it and stay with their doctor. But Americans who don’t like the coverage they have will be able to pick from the same set of plans Members of Congress choose for themselves. Under Hillary’s plan, insurance companies won’t be able to deny people coverage for a pre-existing condition and tax credits will ensure that working families never have to pay more than a limited percentage of their income for quality health care. People who change jobs will be able to keep their health care.

ANA has been making presidential endorsements since 1984. The endorsement process includes sending a questionnaire on nursing and health care issues to all of the Democratic and Republican candidates, an invitation to all of the democratic and republican candidates for a personal interview and an online survey of ANA’s membership regarding which candidate is most supportive of nursing’s agenda.

# # #
The ANA is the only full-service professional organization representing the interests of the nation’s 2.9 million registered nurses through its 54 constituent member nurses associations. The ANA advances the nursing profession by fostering high standards of nursing practice, promoting the rights of nurses in the workplace, projecting a positive and realistic view of nursing, and by lobbying the Congress and regulatory agencies on health care issues affecting nurses and the public.

Good Strib article out today. Let’s hope T-Paw answers with a little more can-do optimism. An important issue that needs to continually be addressed is the freedom of Advanced Practice Nurses (APRN’s). APRN’s need less restrictions when it comes to writing prescriptions and also need better recognition for reimbursement through insurers. This will help improve healthcare for all Minnesotans by providing better access and quality. Key legislators helping the cause for nurses: Rep. Paul Thissen, Rep. Tom Huntley, Rep. Erin Murphy, Rep. Diane Loeffler, Rep. Maria Ruud (she is a Nurse Practitioner), Sen. Tony Lourey, Sen. Linda Berglin.

*Update 2/10/08* Corner House Comments writes his analysis of H.R. 676, the most well-known push for universal healthcare at the federal level. 

Minnesotans could save billions in health care costs, task force says

A report recommends a wide range of ways to improve care and trim costs by $12.3 billion.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty said there’s much he likes in the wide-ranging recommendations he received Tuesday from a task force he appointed to find ways to improve health care in Minnesota.

But he stopped short of endorsing some of the panel’s recommendations, such as requiring Minnesotans to buy health insurance or raising the cigarette “health-impact fee” to discourage smoking.

“I think we’ve done enough to smokers for now” by banning smoking in most bars and restaurants and adding the 75-cent fee, he said. And requiring everyone to have insurance might “criminalize poor people” who can’t afford it, he added.

Still, Pawlenty said the task force report “can be the framework for a significant health care reform initiative in Minnesota.”

The broad range of recommendations would link doctors, hospitals, employers, patients, insurers, schools, communities and policy makers in initiatives aimed at paring $12.3 billion from health care costs otherwise projected to soar from about $30 billion now to $57.4 billion by 2015.

“Maybe we can do that without mandating health care coverage or the tobacco fee,” said Rep. Tom Huntley, DFL-Duluth, co-chair of the task force.

“But we’ve got to start now,” Huntley added. “Paying docs to keep people healthy and reducing the number of uninsured can make a huge difference.”

Pawlenty and legislative leaders said they will try to hammer out a proposal to present to the Legislature, which convenes next week.

But the task is daunting at a time when Minnesota faces a budget deficit and the Legislature will focus much of its attention on bridges and other transportation issues, Huntley and others said.

The task force recommendations are similar to those due later this week from a legislative commission. Both groups spent the summer analyzing the health care system and seeking ways to change how health care is delivered and paid for in Minnesota.

‘Can’t do this piecemeal’

“I’m hopeful we’ll be able to get together [with the governor] on a plan, but we can’t do this piecemeal,” said Sen. Linda Berglin, DFL-Minneapolis, co-chair with Huntley of the legislative commission and a member of the task force.

Huntley said the most expensive immediate need is about $57 million for a public education campaign to reduce smoking and obesity, and to educate Minnesotans about the new system.

Among the task force recommendations:

• Set statewide standards for physical activity in schools and require them to offer meals that exceed federal nutrition guidelines to fight obesity.

• Offer health-insurance subsidies to low-income people. For instance, a family of two earning less than about $3,400 a month — three times the federal poverty guideline — should pay no more than $238 monthly for insurance.

• Eliminate insurance premium variation based on health status, but allow differences based on age, smoking and where someone lives.

• Allow doctors and hospitals to set their own prices, but stop negotiating discounts with insurers so that a patient would pay the same regardless of insurance plan.

• Set up ways for consumers to easily compare costs of different providers, including costs of “baskets” of comprehensive maternity care and other conditions.

Via press release:

WALZ RESPONDS TO BUSH’S FINAL STATE OF THE UNION

(Washington, DC) – The following statement can be attributed to Congressman Tim Walz (MN-01).

“I’m pleased that this was President Bush’s last State of the Union speech. The American people are demanding change in Washington’s priorities and while the Congress has made some progress, the President has been a consistent roadblock. Tonight we heard more of the same from the President. What we need is a change in priorities.

“I, like many Americans, had high hopes for the President’s State of the Union Address: We wanted to hear his plan to make the economy work for all Americans, his plan to truly change the course in Iraq, and his plan to make health care available and affordable to everyone. Instead of rolling up his sleeves and sitting down with us in Congress to make the changes the American people are waiting for, the President delivered uninspiring sound bites.

“The American family needs to be Washington’s top priority as we move into 2008. Joining me tonight to listen to the President’s State of the Union was Victor Vieth, Director of Winona State University’s National Child Protection Training Center, which helps protect our kids from predators. I wanted to hear the President make protecting our children a priority.

“Tomorrow, the House will vote on an economic stimulus package to help ensure American families can afford the rising costs of food and heat during this economic downturn. And in the coming weeks, we will try again to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program so that more of America’s kids can get the health care they need. These are America’s priorities and I will continue to fight for our kids and families.

“I believe strongly that despite the economic downturn, the future holds great promise for America. Democrats and Republicans found common ground on the economic stimulus package and I am hopeful that we can sit down and work together on more issues.”

-30-

Note: I posted this on my graduate studies discussion board as an opinion piece.

Despite the tremendous cost that healthcare is in our country, I believe that it is still a basic human right to receive it. This includes everything in our healthcare system including, but not limited to medications, technology, long intensive care stays, neonatal intensive care units, and dialysis machines. I do not doubt that there are valid arguments on both sides, including the financial impact and quality of healthcare, but my basic fundamental belief in healthcare for all defines my position regardless of financial considerations. To put it simply, the premise of healthcare for all comes no matter what and it is up to us to figure out how to contain costs.

An analysis done by Smith, Cowan, Sensenig, Catlin, and Health Accounts Team (2005) of our current, predominately entrepreneurial healthcare system revealed an expensive system, costing 15.3% of our country’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2003. The same team found that the per capita expenditure was $5670 in 2003 (Smith et. al, 2005). This is an expensive investment considering 47 million Americans are still uninsured, with the number rising every year (U.S Census Bureau, 2007).

Government spending has been fluctuating recently in light of the Iraq/Afghanistan war. To compare spending, translating per capita expenditure for healthcare in 2003 to a family of four will yield $22,680 ($5670 multiplied by four) per year. A recent report from Senator Schumer and Representative Maloney from the Joint Economic Committee Majority Staff (2007) shows the total economic cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan war from 2002 to 2008 for a family of four to total $20,900 for these years.

Complaints about how much we spend in healthcare can be paralleled with complaints that we spend too much for war. Our priorities need to be questioned if we need to spend such large amounts in foreign countries when our domestic healthcare system is failing. Some may be surprised to hear that through our estimated family contributions of $20,900 to the government for the war, we have paid for universal healthcare in Iraq! The U.S has “spent nearly US $1 billion on Iraq’s healthcare system but more than $8 billion is required over the next four years to fund the current healthcare structure [in Iraq]” (IRIN, 2006, para. 3). The U.S is now burdened with two healthcare systems, both failing, and both needing more funds. The question is not only do we support certain proposals to cover all Americans, but instead, does our government have their priorities straight when it comes to our money.

IRIN. (2006). Iraq: Country’s healthcare system rapidly deteriorating. Retrieved on November 27, 2007, from link

Schumer, C. E., Maloney, C. B. (2007). War at any price? Retrieved on November 27, 2007, from link

Smith, C., Cowan,C., Sensenig, A., Catlin, A., & Health Accounts Team. (2005). Health spending growth slows in 2003. Health Affairs, 24(1), 185-194.

U.S Census Bureau. (2007, August). Household income rises, poverty rate declines, number of uninsured up. Retrieved November 27, 2007, from link

Last weekend was MNA’s 102nd annual House of Delegates convention.  I had the opportunity to be a delegate among 200+ Registered Nurses (RN’s) to represent MNA’s membership of almost 20,000 RN’s.  Like many union organizations, we voted on everything from financial issues to legislative priorities.  As this was my first convention, I did not expect that legislators and senate candidates would be so willing to come and listen with us.  The goal of the MNA PC (our political action committee) was to get a legislator (representative or senator) from every district to sit with their corresponding MNA member’s district.  It was quite successful with over thirty who came. 

I had the opportunity to meet Ron Erhardt (R) 41A, who isn’t my actual representative since I moved last week.  He is the only republican pro-choice candidate in the house.  The MNA believes that 2008 will be a big year for healthcare reform and safe staffing.  Ron wasn’t as optimistic about this as his last statement before leaving was, “I don’t believe in government-run healthcare.”  He was very willing to listen to what we had to say, but hopefully he will continue engaging in conversation with us as we discuss the difference between government-run and government-funded healthcare.  I will write more about that at a later time.

Betty McCollum also addressed us regarding our nursing safe staffing initiatives.  Here is the YouTube video of her statement:

The current U.S senate candidates were all invited to participate in speaking to the delegation.  The DFL candidates Al Franken, Mike Ciresi, Jim Cohen, and Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer accepted our invitation.  The GOP candidate, Norm Coleman ignored our invitation by not even responding to the MNA request.  All spoke about nursing issues and wanting to move toward universal healthcare, but their plans for implementation differ greatly.  Here’s a quick position statement from each candidate’s webpage:

Al Franken - “I would require every state to cover every one of its citizens, and the federal government to provide funding to fulfill that requirement. Each individual state would be free to offer a variety of options, as long as they add up to universal coverage, giving us 51 laboratories (if you count DC) to figure out which system works best. “

Mike Ciresi -  “Provide universal coverage.  Keep people healthy through preventative health care and early detection and cure of diseases – before they become chronic problems .  Keep people affordably insured for their lifetime – from job to job, and through retirement, and forever eliminate the term “pre-existing condition”

Jim Cohen - “A pragmatic progressive dares speak the truth that the most practical and economical way for all our citizens, including children, to have access to quality and affordable health care is a publicly funded single payer system modeled after Medicare. This is not socialized medicine. It is simple common sense and a moral dictate.” 

Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer - “We need a universal, single-payer comprehensive health care system with a focus on prevention. It will provide security to our families and improve the competitive position of U.S. companies.”

Norm Coleman - “Senator Coleman is deeply committed to the goal of giving all Americans access to quality, and affordable healthcare. With that in mind, he’s fought to pass common sense legislation to drive healthcare costs down.”Before IDHA! endorses any candidate, we will make sure to send out interview questions regarding important issues affecting the nation.  It will be up to the candidate to address our specific issues of importance, such as student financial aid, healthcare costs, and transportation… to name a few. 

Notwithstanding the Bush administration’s bull-headed ideology (maybe just blindness to the issue), the Democrat-led Congress is trying again to extend children’s health benefits.

Earlier this week, Rep. John Kline, R, MN-2, came out with a column full of gloom and doom scenarios about the bill. It didn’t take long for Rep. Tim Walz, DFL, MN-1, to answer with a column of his own shedding daylight on Kline’s rhetoric such as a claim that S-CHIP legislation provides give-aways to illegal immigrants. What is really sad about this whole state of affairs is that Bush, Kline and others shouldn’t even need a Democrat to tell them they’re wrong; GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa, has blamed false gloom and doom comments like those from Kline on “intellectual dishonesty.” Wow; that’s brutal.

A letter to the Red Wing Republican Eagle by Cannon Falls’ Joy Jacques shows frustration with Kline’s priorities:

Can someone tell me why we continue to throw an unlimited amount of money into Iraq, but we can’t help American kids get health insurance?

Republicans failed us yet again when they refused to override Bush’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

It’s obvious that Republicans like John Kline will approve endless sums of taxpayer money to conduct war, and for their own pet projects, yet claim that funding SCHIP is too costly.

These Republicans say nothing about the social costs of denying millions of children access to insurance. They say nothing as they spend $12 billion a month in Iraq. They say nothing when their colleagues spend millions on pork-barrel projects.

They spend and spend, but they won’t fund our kids and help our families.

Does your family have job and health insurance security? Many middle-class families are one catastrophe away from losing what they have worked so hard to achieve.

Our family experienced this. After a costly surgery my husband was laid off by the company that had employed him for 10 years. Our family faced his lost income yet we could continue our insurance for $800 per month.

That’s a lot of money for after you’ve just lost your job.

Policy makers seem more afraid of “socialized medicine” and “Hillarycare” than in dealing with a broken system. All we hear are scare tactics from the Republicans and insurance companies.

It’s long past time we stopped giving these people the benefit of the doubt. Republicans in Washington like John Kline have stopped representing their constituents.

They continue to support a president and an administration that have done nothing but lead our country closer and closer to bankruptcy and ruin.

Let’s send them a clear message. American families should be their first priority.

Reading this letter coupled with the news that Tim Walz plans to hold another town hall meeting with constituents makes me wonder when and if Kline ever intends to hold one.

At the meeting in Winona last weekend, Walz made it clear to the attendees that that type of gathering is one of the most fundamental principles of democracy.

“I would argue it’s a requirement of our citizenship to engage in these discussions,” Walz told the crowd. “I would also argue that it’s a requirment of the job in representing you. It’s critically important that I provide a forum that has as easy and unrestricted access as possible to air your points of view and your concerns.”

Kline’s record of constituent outreach is anything but “easy” or “unrestricted” to constituents. When Kline does invite citizen input the medium is usually a “tele-townhall meeting” which is by its nature restricted. If Walz is able to provide stellar constituent service after fewer than 11 months in office, why does Kline continue to lack in that department?

The voters of the Second Congressional District have sent John Kline to Washington three times. I would certainly think that after five consecutive years of service to the district he ought to feel comfortable enough to have an open and honest conversation with constituents. Or is he comfortable?

Come on, John, how does avoiding open and honest discussion with the public give us a reason to not replace you with Steve Sarvi next November?

When Minnesota state Sen. Sharon Erickson Ropes, DFL-Winona, was campaigning last year for the seat being vacated by Republican Bob Keirlin, one of her major themes was heath care reform.  Sen. Ropes, who is also a registered nurse, will be seeking constituent input on the subject next Thursday when she and Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville and chair of the Senate Health, Housing and Family Security Committee, hold what is billed as a “community listening session” in Winona.

The following information was forwarded by her office:

 Senator Sharon Erickson Ropes of Winona along with Senator John Marty,
chair of the Minnesota Senate Health and Housing Committee, will hold a
community listening session on affordable health care on Thursday,
November 1st, from 6:00- 8:00 p.m. at the Minnesota State College
Southeast Technical, Tandeski Center, Room 141 in Winona.

The general public, local elected officials, and concerned citizens are
invited to attend.  Those who have received this email are welcome to
forward this email to any interested party.

Senator Sharon Erickson Ropes encouraged Marty to come to Winona as
part of his effort to obtain public input on health care. “When I was
campaigning back in 2006, I heard repeatedly about problems with the
high cost of health care. I will continue working with Senator Marty to
enact legislation providing affordable health care to all
Minnesotans,” said Erickson Ropes.

“We would like to invite business owners, community members and
families with and without health insurance who live in and around the
Winona area to talk about the impact that health care costs and lack of
access to affordable health care is having on their lives.” said
Senator Marty.

“I’m hopeful that concerned citizens, business representatives, and
members of the medical community will attend this public meeting and
will take this opportunity to share their concerns and suggestions,”
Erickson Ropes said.

People interested in testifying may contact Senator Erickson Ropes’s
office at 651-296-5649 or simply show up at the hearing.

Since some of the Republican candidates for Congress in Minnesota’s First District, such as state Rep. Randy “the Whammy” Demmer and Brian Daivs, have had problems with various issues such as “mathematics” and “perspective” it has been suggested that I open the Danielson School of Adult Education. If I did, I wouldn’t even require an admissions application from any of candidates lined up to take on Tim Walz as I know at least the two I mentioned can pay the tuition without a problem. Considering all of the extra per diem Rep. Demmer has taken, I would just be scared that his tuition would be considered publicly subsidized. Hee Hee.

I can teach the math course seeing as I have basically already given away the curriculum. My IDHA colleague and registered nurse Jason Bauman can teach an introductory course on health care. Ian Galchutt could teach a course on communications, but he would probably just indoctrinate the class with Barack Obama talking points.

While we work out issues with obtaining a land grant and gaining accreditation, here’s a classic from Hall and Oates clearly titled after the concept of my school.