I Don’t Hate America!

With low numbers in the delegate count, including the latest Rasmussen Poll stating that Ciresi has a better chance of losing against Coleman (than Franken), Ciresi decides to drop out of the U.S Senate race today. This was reported on KSTP’s 5 Eyewitness news:

Mike Ciresi announced he would withdraw his candidacy for the U.S. Senate Monday afternoon.Ciresi said in a statement that he was retracting his bid to relieve unnecessary fights.

“We are at defining moment in our nation’s history, and we have the opportunity to reject the failed policies of the past and write a new chapter in the American story. I am confident we will do so because of the spirit, creativity, and optimism of our fellow citizens,” Ciresi said.

In the statement, Ciresi also thanked the state and his staff members.

“I firmly believe that America’s best days are still ahead of us. As we return to private life, I will continue my efforts, as I have my entire life, to work with others in contributing to the common good of our state and nation,” Ciresi said.

From my post on Feb. 29th, Franken leads Coleman, latest poll,

Today’s latest Rasmussen Report shows Al Franken leading Norm Coleman, 49% to 46% if Franken were to be the DFL candidate. If Ciresi were to get the DFL nod, Coleman would be ahead, 47% to 45%. There was no mention about Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer.

Mike Ciresi’s statement, from MinnPost:

From: Ciresi, Michael V.
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 4:28 PM
Subject: MIKE’S STATEMENT ON WITHDRAWING FROM SENATE RACE

I am announcing today my withdrawal from the contest for the DFL endorsement and the conclusion of my candidacy for the U.S. Senate. In my judgment, continuing the endorsement race would only lead to an unnecessary floor fight. It is time to step aside.

On entering the race, I expressed my passionate belief that our country had lost its direction and that the middle class was being crushed economically. We have a failed foreign policy that has led us into a war that, despite the extraordinary service of our armed forces and the sacrifices of their families, has served to further destabilize the Middle East and led to a less safe world. Middle class jobs are evaporating and quality educational opportunity is being denied to our children. College education is increasingly unaffordable, and graduates are saddled with enormous loans. We have a “sick care” system rather than a health care system that is affordable and accessible to all. The environment is not being nurtured and protected. We have a tax system that has created the greatest wealth gap since the early 1900s. Staggering debt is being passed on to future generations, and yet those who seek political office say little about the difficult economic choices we must make.

We are at defining moment in our nation’s history, and we have the opportunity to reject the failed policies of the past and write a new chapter in the American story. I am confident we will do so because of the spirit, creativity, and optimism of our fellow citizens.

Ann and I have traveled our entire state for the past year, and the desire and sense of urgency for change is palpable. We believe that the people will demand that the tough choices be presented and that the vast majority of Americans will reject self-interest in favor of the common good and shared sacrifice. I firmly believe that America’s best days are still ahead of us. As we return to private life, I will continue my efforts, as I have my entire life, to work with others in contributing to the common good of our state and nation.

Ann and I and our family wish to express our deep gratitude to all of our fellow Minnesotans who have so graciously welcomed us into their homes, businesses, and towns and engaged us in heartfelt discussions concerning the issues facing our nation. We are also deeply indebted to all of our supporters and staff who passionately believe in our message and have worked tirelessly on our behalf. The memories and friendships forged are timeless. We encourage all to remain committed to changing the direction of our nation and to support candidates of their choice.

Fondly –

Mike and Ann Ciresi

Does Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer have a chance to scoop up more delegates? More to come soon.

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 campaign e-mail sent out yesterday, Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer stated his campaign is now second behind Franken and one ahead of Ciresi. This is quite a change in momentum for all the candidates. Duluth just had their district convention which JNP garnered 10 delegates to Franken’s 10 and Ciresi’s 2. Tonight is “Super Saturday” which will distribute between 100 and 200 delegates among the candidates in over 30 senate and county conventions. We may be seeing JNP continue his upward trend tonight! More to come later.

Via press release:

MAYO CLINIC SAYS RAILROAD SAFETY PLAN FAILS TO PROTECT ROCHESTER
Specific mitigation proposed to address increased hazardous material shipments and DM&E’s chronic safety problems

Rochester, Minn. (March 5, 2008) – Mayo Clinic asked federal regulators today to require specific improvements to the Safety Integration Plan that is supposed to protect communities affected by Canadian Pacific Railway’s acquisition of the Dakota Minnesota & Eastern (DM&E) Railroad. In comments filed with the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) on behalf of the Rochester Coalition, Mayo Clinic also today proposed specific mitigation measures that could ease local safety concerns.

The STB currently is reviewing the Canadian Pacific’s bid to take over DM&E, which has among the worst safety records in the railroad industry and presently operates on substandard tracks. If approved, the acquisition will cause a dramatic increase in traffic, including hazardous materials shipments on DM&E tracks, and may, according to the agreement between the railroads, result in sending more than 43 high-speed, coal-unit-trains through Rochester and within a few 100 feet of Mayo Clinic every day.

Flaws in the current proposed safety plan include:
- Fails to require a timetable for rehabilitating faulty tracks.
- Neglects to make track improvements a condition for allowing increased hazardous materials shipments.
- Ignores conflicting statements from DM&E about the amounts of ethanol, anhydrous ammonia and other hazardous materials expected to be transported through Rochester.
- Fails to prioritize track maintenance or require specific emergency plans for responding to derailments in densely populated areas such as Rochester, which represents 40 percent of the total population located along the DM&E rail line.
- Overlooks the need for a specific emergency plan that in the event of a hazardous material derailment accounts for Mayo Clinic’s 1,000 daily inpatients, 200 ICU beds, 200 daily surgeries and 30,000 doctors, nurses and staff.
- Fails to address the involvement of DM&E management in the operation of the merged railroad, providing no assurances for when or if DM&E will be required to meet Canadian Pacific’s minimum safety standards.

“It needs to be abundantly clear that the DM&E will be a safer railroad as a result of this merger,” said Glenn Forbes, M.D., CEO of Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

An incident involving a release of hazardous materials such as anhydrous ammonia near Mayo Clinic in Rochester would put at risk many thousands of people, including patients in critical health situations and the more than 30,000 physicians and staff who would not leave their sides.

“Accidents happen, even to safe railroads,” added Forbes. “We can’t leave the safety of our patients and staff to chance, which is why we remain adamant that everything within reason be done to ensure their safety.”

As currently proposed, the Canadian Pacific says it will provide approximately $128 million in capital safety improvements to DM&E over the next three years, in addition to DM&E’s prior commitments of approximately $172 million. However, these funds fall well short of DM&E’s previously stated needs, which were estimated at $875 million 10 years ago.

DM&E president Kevin Schieffer recently was asked while under oath during a deposition to confirm his compensation as a comparison to the amount the Canadian Pacific is contributing to safety improvements. He did not answer. Mr. Schieffer’s personal compensation has been a topic of widespread speculation since the Canadian Pacific announced it was acquiring the DM&E for $1.48 billion and it was reported the deal included financial incentives tied to completing DM&E’s controversial Powder River Basin (PRB) expansion.

“Given the DM&E’s deplorable safety record, it is appropriate to compare the money going into the pockets of DM&E’s executives and shareholders from the sale of DM&E, including incentives tied to the proposed PRB expansion, with the amount being put toward safety improvements,” said Steve Ryan, legal counsel for Mayo Clinic. “The public has a right to know about what is motivating DM&E’s rush to advance the PRB expansion and if there is a disproportionate investment being made in personal gains over public safety.”

Proposed Mitigation

The STB has previously ruled that it will require mitigation only if the Canadian Pacific decides to proceed with DM&E’s controversial PRB expansion. Mayo Clinic maintains that any increase in hazardous material shipments through Rochester without adequate mitigation – regardless of the PRB expansion – poses an unacceptable risk to the community and the patients and staff of Mayo Clinic.

As a condition of the Canadian Pacific’s acquisition, Mayo Clinic today requested the STB require specific mitigation for Rochester, including:
- Regulatory/contractual speed limits on local hazardous materials traffic.
- Pre-notification for Rochester emergency services of hazmat cargo.
- Whistle-free crossings for non-grade separated road crossings.
- Increased inspection and installation of wayside detectors, such as hot box/loose wheel detectors, to the west and east of Rochester to provide timely warning of potential problems prior to entering Rochester city limits.
- Fencing for bike paths and pedestrian crossings and sound barriers.
- Consultation on how best to minimize project-related impacts to Mayo Clinic, including limited transportation of hazardous materials through Rochester.
- Multiple grade separations for specific in-city road crossings. These grade separated crossings should be designed and located to facilitate the movement of emergency vehicles to and from medical facilities providing emergency services in Rochester, including Saint Marys Hospital and Rochester Methodist Hospital, which are both Mayo Clinic hospitals.
- Negotiate voluntary contractual limitations on the total number of through-traffic trains moving through Rochester with Mayo Clinic and the City of Rochester.

“The Surface Transportation Board should require mitigation for Rochester as a condition of the DM&E sale,” said Dr. Forbes. “Absent adequate mitigation and mandated safety improvements, DM&E will not be a safer railroad as a result of this acquisition but it will have more opportunity to make mistakes that could prove catastrophic for our patients, staff and community.”

Tim Walz recently endorsed Steve Sarvi for Congress, as announced on Sarvi’s campaign website. In his statement, Walz says,

“Steve’s experience serving his community and country prepare him well for service in Congress. Change began in 2006 with my election and now we must strengthen that change in 2008.”

Also announcing his endorsement is construction contractor Dan Powers, who recently dropped out of the race for the 2nd district seat. His statement says,

“I have decided to support Steve Sarvi because the 2nd Congressional District needs to be united, today, around a candidate who will defeat John Kline in November. In Steve Sarvi, we have a candidate with the vision, values and experience to help our nation change course – something Democrats, Republicans and independents all are calling for. In Steve Sarvi we will find the solid leadership and strength of character needed to move us forward on a path of hope. I believe Steve will unite people from all sides of the ‘aisle’ to bring meaningful, needed change to Washington.”

Steve Sarvi is an Iraq war veteran and has given 19 years of military service. His fresh perspectives, especially on the war on terror, will hopefully move voters in a traditionally red district. We saw Walz do it in 2006 and we can bet Sarvi will put up a good fight as well.

*Update - Ollie at Bluestem has more analysis of Sarvi’s endorsement.

Today’s latest Rasmussen Report shows Al Franken leading Norm Coleman, 49% to 46% if Franken were to be the DFL candidate.  If Ciresi were to get the DFL nod, Coleman would be ahead, 47% to 45%.  There was no mention about Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer.

 From Rasmussen Reports:

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found Al Franken slightly ahead of incumbent Senator Norm Coleman in what is likely to be a closely contested campaign. Franken, a former comedian and political commentator, leads Coleman 49% to 46%. If the Democrats nominate trial attorney Mike Ciresi, the poll shows Coleman attracting 47% of the vote while Ciresi earns 45%.

These results show a significant improvement for Franken since an early November poll found him trailing by seven-points. That same survey found Coleman with a three point lead over Ciresi.

Coleman has long been considered one of the more vulnerable incumbent senators up for re-election in 2008. Any incumbent who polls below 50% is considered potentially vulnerable and that is especially true for an incumbent who trails a challenger early in the campaign.

Against Franken, Coleman earns support from 82% of conservative voters while Franken draws support from 88% of liberal voters. Over half (58%) of moderate voters choose Franken, while 37% choose Coleman.

Coleman is viewed favorably by 55% of Minnesota voters and unfavorably by 42%. Fifty-percent (50%) of voters view Franken favorably, while 42% view him unfavorably. Ciresi is viewed favorably by 46% of voters, and unfavorably by 42%.

When it comes to the upcoming election, the economy is the most important voting issue for 38% of voters in the North Star state. The War in Iraq is the issue of highest importance for 23%.

In polling for the Presidential Election in Minnesota, John McCain leads Hillary Clinton, but trails Barack Obama. That same dynamic is found nationally in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Steve Sarvi is launching his second listening tour in the 2nd district of Minnesota. From the e-mail sent out today, here are the listed dates and times for the tour:

Saturday, February 16:

11 AM, Sister’s Coffee Shop, 202 2nd Street East, Hastings

1 PM, Tom Moy’s Cafe, 8200 Hadley Avenue South, Cottage Grove

3 PM, VFW, 8790 Upper 208th Street, Lakeville

5 PM, Apple Valley Community Center, 14603 Hayes Road, Apple Valley

Sunday, February 17:

1 PM, Home of Kathy Siebsen, 42108 205th Avenue, Le Center

3:30 PM, Hosted by Mick McGuire, 202 Oak Avenue West, Montgomery

5:30 PM, Chameleon Cafe, 408 Main Street West, New Prague

Monday, February 18:

5:30 PM, Mocha Monkey, 115 S Olive Street, Waconia

7:00 PM, American Legion, 102 West 4th Street, Chaska

Tuesday, February 19:

11:30 AM, Inver Hills College, 2500 East 80th Street, Inver Grove Heights

5 PM, Caribou Coffee, 5763 Blaine Avenue, Inver Grove Heights

7 PM, Al Baker’s Restaurant, 3434 Washington Drive, Eagan

Wednesday, February 20:

5:30 PM, Coffee ta Cream, 1156 Shakopee Town Square, Shakopee

7 PM, Dan Patch Coffee Depot, 4800 West 123rd Street, Savage

Thursday, February 21:

5:30 PM, Edelweiss Bakery, 16186 Main Avenue South East, Prior Lake

7 PM, Jo Jo’s Rise and Wine, 12501 Nicollett Avenue, Suite 100, Burnsville

Friday, February 22:

11:30 AM, St. Olaf College, 1520 St. Olaf Avenue, Northfield

4:30 PM, Froggy Bottom, 305 Water Street South, Northfield

6 PM, Home of Yvette Marthaler, 821 Northwest 3rd Avenue, Faribault

Sunday, February 24:

4 PM, Home of Peggy Hanson, 500 Calhoun Avenue South, Lanesboro

Sarvi campaign website: http://www.stevesarvi.org/

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.

Ann Coulter, the outspoken conservative pundit has stated she would vote for and campaign for Hillary Clinton if John McCain gets the Republican nomination.  Here is the recent YouTube video from the Hannity & Colmes show that caused this news to spread:

This is the same Ann Coulter that made harsh comments about Bill and Hillary Clinton in a January 10th, 2002 New York Observer interview with George Gurley.  Courtesy Media Matters.

[Gurley] Do you have a perverse admiration for her [Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)]?

[Coulter] “Ewwww, no. As with John Kerry, I generally don’t admire people who get ahead on somebody else’s coattails. She’s like the anti-feminist. No, except she isn’t — because all feminists behave that way and pretend to be, ‘Oh, I’m a strong woman.’ They’re all weak and pathetic.”

[…]

[Gurley] What should we remember about Bill Clinton?

[Coulter] “Well, he was a very good rapist. I think that should not be forgotten.”

 Clinton thinks it is rather funny and probably doesn’t believe it either:

“I’m a conservative, Neil.  I just have a thing for voting for the more conservative candidate and it’s McCain versus Hillary.”

Is anyone else extremly confused how liberal democrats and conservative republicans (like Coulter) can vote for the same candidate?