Calif RN disagrees with CNA in many ways. Am I alone? - page 9

Hello! I am new to this site but felt compelled to ask the question. Am I the only RN in Calif that disagrees with CNA's "teamster tactics" regarding important health care and nursing issues? These... Read More

  1. by   lindarn
    Quote from imkw_np
    I don't fear them. I object to their public behavior because it reflects badly on nursing. I don't believe the CNA leadership has the nursing profession's best interests as their central mission. Expanding membership, collecting dues and partnering with other "service unions" seem to be the top priorities. Strong-arm tactics and blatent rudeness do not advance our profession. Nor do they lend a strong and intelligent voice to vital health care issues which nursing must speak to. The staffing ratios legislation was a great victory for nursing and for patient safety but haggling over the delay in further reducing from 6:1 to 5:1 is not necessary.
    Well, how has being "Mr. Nice guy", gotten nurses any thing?. If I am not mistaken, the ANA, State Nurses Associations, and nurses in general, have not accomplished anything at all to help nurses with increasing wages, (not a dirty word), improving benefits, and pensions, and of course, staffing ratios. In fact, the reason that CNA withdrew from the ANA was because, in the 1990's, the horrendous effects that care redesign had on staffing ratios, patient care, the lack of improved pay and benefits, etc, the silence of these organizations was deafening. The effect that these misguided policies has had a terrible effect on nurse retention, and mortality rates in hospitals, and lets not forget, patient satisfaction with their health care and hospitalizations.

    So, sometimes the CNA does not pattern their public relations demeanor with, "Miss Congeniality". It is a small price to pay for what they accomplished. And for what ALL OF THE NURSES IN CALIFORNIA, (and the public), HAVE BENFITED FROM. The dues that they collect paid for the lobbying, and tripps that they made that allowed these very beneficial policies to happen. Lets not forget how much money the Hospital Associatins, drug companies, etc., have contributed to the defeat of staffing ratios in other parts of the country. They also copntribute heavlily to the state nurses associations to buty influence that has allowed the de skilling of care at the bedside, and the dumbing down of our professional practice. These are the enemies that every nurse in the US should be fighting against. I would be thrilled if CNA or the NNOC ever decided to try to organize the nurses here in Spokane. Our state nursing association is, as we said in NY, is about as useful as tits on a bull. JMHO.

    Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN
    Spokane, Washington
  2. by   Sherwood
    Quote from lindarn
    Well, how has being "Mr. Nice guy", gotten nurses any thing?. If I am not mistaken, the ANA, State Nurses Associations, and nurses in general, have not accomplished anything at all to help nurses with increasing wages, (not a dirty word), improving benefits, and pensions, and of course, staffing ratios. In fact, the reason that CNA withdrew from the ANA was because, in the 1990's, the horrendous effects that care redesign had on staffing ratios, patient care, the lack of improved pay and benefits, etc, the silence of these organizations was deafening. The effect that these misguided policies has had a terrible effect on nurse retention, and mortality rates in hospitals, and lets not forget, patient satisfaction with their health care and hospitalizations.

    So, sometimes the CNA does not pattern their public relations demeanor with, "Miss Congeniality". It is a small price to pay for what they accomplished. And for what ALL OF THE NURSES IN CALIFORNIA, (and the public), HAVE BENFITED FROM. The dues that they collect paid for the lobbying, and tripps that they made that allowed these very beneficial policies to happen. Lets not forget how much money the Hospital Associatins, drug companies, etc., have contributed to the defeat of staffing ratios in other parts of the country. They also copntribute heavlily to the state nurses associations to buty influence that has allowed the de skilling of care at the bedside, and the dumbing down of our professional practice. These are the enemies that every nurse in the US should be fighting against. I would be thrilled if CNA or the NNOC ever decided to try to organize the nurses here in Spokane. Our state nursing association is, as we said in NY, is about as useful as tits on a bull. JMHO.

    Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN
    Spokane, Washington
    I also thank you Lindarn for your eloquence, professionalism and to your contributions to this forum and to the profession of nursing.
  3. by   redem2
    I agree that decertification is not the way to do it. If as a member you think your union is not doing what it's supposed to do you have to get active and participate. What is not working? I believe the union's success depends on each and every member's participation.
    I'm a member of CNA and I urge non union RNS to check
    on what CNA as a union and prof. organization is doing
    for RNS not only in California but outside.As healthcare providers we need to think of other people, like the uninsured or the minimally insured and how they affect
    ER admissions and ultimately affect hospital admissions .
    If we have a better healthcare system in this country
    ERs don't have to be crowded with patients who don't have insurance.Hospital admissions would be in control
    thus staffing/pt ratio will be more or less predictable.
    As a CNA member I look forward to this, when all citizens
    have equal access to healthcare.
  4. by   Nancy2
    I don't look foward to the day when or if we have socialized medicine as CNA wishes. I don't look foward to paying 50% taxes and then having a bureaucratic panel decide who gets a heart or a hip or whatever. If you talk to people from Canada you hear how people have to pay outside of there system to get a lot of things they need and they still have to pay all those high taxes. Universal healthcare is not the answer to our problems! We need to come up with something better. In theory, it all sounds good, but whenever we put the government in charge of anything, it becomes more complicated and more costly NOT less.
  5. by   fergus51
    I'm from Canada and I liked it. The only thing I've ever had to pay out of pocket for was meds. I didn't pay 50% taxes either. I paid about the same as I pay in California. Just FYI.
  6. by   mobilsurgrn
    Fergus, as a person who lived in Canada, how would an all-access system make a difference in ED visits? Would people avail themselves to clinics or primary care physicians because it was free? Do Canadians, as a rule, take more respsonsibilty for preventative care? I a Canadian has a URI or the flu can they get in to see a physician in a reasonable amount of time?

    I ask these questions because it seems now that if I get sick I can't get an appointment with my primary care doc for several days. By then, I am either well or really sick..

    We hear all of the horror stories about Canada, England, others, but you have first hand experience. Can Americans, who are comparably unhealthy, make this work?
  7. by   fergus51
    Quote from mobilsurgrn
    Fergus, as a person who lived in Canada, how would an all-access system make a difference in ED visits? Would people avail themselves to clinics or primary care physicians because it was free? Do Canadians, as a rule, take more respsonsibilty for preventative care? I a Canadian has a URI or the flu can they get in to see a physician in a reasonable amount of time?

    I ask these questions because it seems now that if I get sick I can't get an appointment with my primary care doc for several days. By then, I am either well or really sick..

    We hear all of the horror stories about Canada, England, others, but you have first hand experience. Can Americans, who are comparably unhealthy, make this work?
    I've said many times that I don't think a Canadian style system will work in America. It won't. Ever. I wouldn't advocate it because it's pointless.

    There are places where it's hard to get a family doctor in Canada so you have people relying on walk in clinics or hospitals. Smaller towns in particular have trouble attracting new docs, so EDs are misused there at times too. I come from a town of about 75000 people, always had a family doc, could generally get in within a day or two and when I couldn't, could just go to one of the half dozen walk in clinics in town. My wait time is actually a lot longer in the US. I've known I need to get my gallbladder out for a few weeks now, but because of the money I'm going to have to try to tough it out for a few months before scheduling the surgery. I don't know whether we focus more on preventative care in Canada... that seems to be underfunded and underdiscussed just like here. The system has its own problems, I just usually add my experience when people post things I have found to be completely untrue (like you can't pick your doctor in Canada, the government decides your treatment, health care is rationned, they don't have new technologies, etc).
  8. by   SFCardiacRN
    I just usually add my experience when people post things I have found to be completely untrue (like you can't pick your doctor in Canada, the government decides your treatment, health care is rationned, they don't have new technologies, etc).
    http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba104.html I've never sought treatment in Canada but this is what we keep hearing in the states.
  9. by   mark hamel
    A link to a far right think tank in Texas, get real
  10. by   fergus51
    Quote from SFCardiacRN
    http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba104.html I've never sought treatment in Canada but this is what we keep hearing in the states.
    Exactly, that's why I feel the need to post on occasion. That article screams of spin.

    Like it says this many Canadians are waiting for surgery or treatment. Well, what kind of treatment? Are they like my mother who had to wait for a minor foot operation done only really for cosmetic reasons (didn't affect her quality of life at all mind you)? Do the wait times impact patient outcomes (that's the biggie)? Plus they talk about things like the wait between seeing a GP and having surgery. Well, that's fine, but was surgery the first treatment tried? If I go to my OB/Gyn and have endometriosis, he may recommend medications and try them before surgery. So my wait time seems really long, but it's really that I've been trying for a non-surgical cure first. They also like to focus on provinces like PEI which have about the population of Wyoming, so I don't know how representative they are of the entire country. They talk about Canadians receiving treatment in the US, but always ignore the specifics like the actual percentage of Canadians who seek treatment in the US which is amazingly small and whether they sought treatment there, or just wound up getting sick while in the US and needing it then. I was really surprised at the assertion that racial minorities go to the back of the line for health care... I've never seen race listed under patient info. I was also surprised at the assertion that Canadians docs worry about the budget. I see that here, never saw it there. I could go on and on about that article, but suffice it to say it's propaganda.

    That particular article is so bad that they don't even get the population number right. The last time our population was what they quoted was around 1985. Canada has over 31 million people as of 2001's census and our population is currently estimated to be over 32 million (http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo03.htm). That big of a disparity alone is enough to tell me their other figures are suspect.
  11. by   mobilsurgrn
    Quote from fergus51
    Exactly, that's why I feel the need to post on occasion. That article screams of spin.
    It is nothing but spin and it was published over 10 years ago.

    But take the issue out of political context. The proposed legislation is rediculous. It is unsustainable and would never pass a means test. The bill's sponsor claims that the U.S. could provide the current model- every bell, whistle and stop, to all U.S. residents, not citizens but residents, by curbing costs through paperwork reduction, national contracts for drugs, elimination of all for-profit entities, renegotiated provider agreements and a modest payroll tax. The bill states that all existing for-profit properties would be purchased by the government.

    According to The American Hospital Directory, there are 1257 U.S.for-profit facilities with an average net present value of $30 million. So we would start out with a repurchase bill of $37 billion dollars. Then, regional government agencies would systematically "right-size" each community, closing hospitals and mothballing a good portion of the money spent to purchase the for-profits. Competition would end and with it so would many best practice pursuits. I don't advocate much of the current and past overspending due to competition but ending competition alltogether would be catastrophic.

    So here comes another proposed program that would land in the laps of the working middle class and gives honest, caring liberals, like myself, a bad name.

    If the CNA wants to put this stuff out as "what's best for patients" they must do some research, understand the implications and be responsible about telling all sides of the story. They have not done that- yet. It sounds good, it sounds right, and it's something that they can chastize opponents for not supporting.
  12. by   fergus51
    I do have to say best practice pursuits aren't dependent on competition for money. The best hospital that I have experienced in that regard was in Canada (most research, most likely to support evidence based practice, all RN staff, good equipment, encouraged increasing education in staff, etc).

    To me, I think the best solution for America would be some sort of mandatory insurance system coupled with insurance regulation.
  13. by   mobilsurgrn
    I don't think it's directly about money. I think recognition may go away in a one-payor model. I completely agree that a mandatory insurance model would be a good first step and I would not complain about paying a fair share for others to have it.

close