American Nurses Association Letter to Reid nuCategories/MediaResources/PressRelease s/2009-PR/ANA-President-Letter-Senator-R eed.aspx

December 18, 2009
Senator Harry Reid
Senate Majority Leader
S-221 Capitol Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-7020

Dear Senator Reid:
On behalf of the American Nurses Association (ANA), the only full-service professional organization representing the interests of the nation's 2.9 million Registered Nurses
through its 51 constituent member associations, I am writing to urge you to keep the democratic process moving in the Senate by voting to end debate on H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Nurses across this country have waited decades for this historic moment and the time is at hand. While political maneuvering delays reform, our patient's needs are not on hold.
The uninsured and underinsured continue to delay or forgo much-needed care; they continue to arrive in the emergency rooms across the country for conditions that could have been easily prevented with access to primary care--we are paying a high price for inaction. Quality health care for all should not be a partisan or political issue.
While we realize that no piece of legislation is perfect, we also realize that doing nothing is not an option. We know that passage of H.R. 3590 represents our only hope for muchneeded,
comprehensive, and meaningful reform of our nation's healthcare system.
America's nurses understand the cost of inaction--we cannot afford to wait--it must be done before the end of the year.
Once again, the need for fundamental reform of the U.S. health care system is critical.
ANA and nurses around the country are ready to work with you. We are almost there.
Please vote YES to end the debate on H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act and move the process forward towards a final vote of passage.
Rebecca M. Patton, MSN, RN, CNOR

They join the American Medical Association, AARP, American Hospital Association, and (according to his widow) Ted Kennedy would be voting for the Senate Bill if he weren't dead.

Please don't use this Diary to trash Nurses.

Tags: aarp, AHA, AMA, ANA, Senate Health Bill, Ted (all tags)



Re: thatis a professional org

I'm waiting for the American Cornhole Association to chime in before I make my decision.

by fogiv 2009-12-23 08:36AM | 0 recs

i OWN you.

by fogiv 2009-12-23 09:00AM | 0 recs

by ND22 2009-12-23 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: American Nurses Association Letter to Reid

I was watching C-SPAN before the vote Monday night and Harry Reid was talking about "the AARP, the American Association of Colored..." before realizing he was getting them mixed up with the NAACP.  Just another reason it's dangerous to hold a vote at 1am.

by Steve M 2009-12-23 09:13AM | 0 recs

That is funny!

by chrisblask 2009-12-23 10:58AM | 0 recs

It offends me that you bring in Kennedy's name on this. The lion would have been roaring and we would have had a better bill. One that won't take away my health care and give it to insurance companies.

That's what I believe.

by luckymortal 2009-12-23 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: offended.

you knew him better than his wife?  okay.

by fogiv 2009-12-23 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: offended.

His wife doesn't think we'd have a better bill if he'd worked on it?

by luckymortal 2009-12-23 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: offended.

she supports the bill because she seems to think he would too.  Would his involvement have improved the process or the results?  We'll never fucking know, but I'm 99.9999998% sure he'd vote to pass.  Are you not?

by fogiv 2009-12-23 10:45AM | 0 recs
His wife thinks we have this bill.

and she's right.

Ezra Klein makes a good case for what's good about the bill in response to whazzername's lap-dogging to the FOX-viewing Tea Party fruit cakes:

For the nearly 50 million Americans caught in the ranks of the uninsured, here's the deal: The bill expands Medicaid, a public program, to cover about 20 million of, uh, "you." Private insurance gets nothing. If you make more than 133 percent of the poverty line, but less than 400 percent, there's a huge system of new subsidies to help you afford private coverage. There are also new regulations on insurers forcing them to spend between 80 percent and 85 percent of every premium dollar on medical care, barring them from rejecting you or charging you higher premiums due to preexisting conditions, ensuring they can't place any annual caps on insurance benefits, and more.

But here's the catch: So long as insurance won't cost more than 8 percent of your monthly income, you have to buy into the system. You can't wait until you get sick or get hurt and and then buy insurance, shifting the costs onto everyone else. The cost of having a universal, or near-universal, system is that people have to participate. The promise is that, for the first time, participation will be possible.

(more righteous ranting at the link)

Would Teddy have been able to convince Chinless Joe to agree not to be a Palinicious filibuster slut?  I dunno, but I doubt it.  You'd have to ask Mrs. Kennedy if she thinks so, but she'd probably include something in her answer along the lines of him not lick-spittling on FOX in any case.

by chrisblask 2009-12-23 11:05AM | 0 recs
Ok, look, I'm angry about this bill.

I want that to be understood. A lot of the arguments FOR are appeals to authority of this politician or that, and it almost works on me, because I respect these people.

But I also know that a lot of face-saving goes on in politics and politicians always prance around making these kinds of claims... I'm skeptical.

The medicaid expansion is an unqualified good for the very poor.

But the working poor and the working uninsured are going to get screwed big-time, and these politicians are prancing around saying "well, we 'covered' them!"

Those subsides Ezra's talking about help people buy insurance they can't afford to use, so he can claim they're covered. Meanwhile, the subsidies, as I understand it, make up the dif. on the 8%.

So, by Ezra's value judgment, I can now afford health insurance. Well, thanks a lot Ezra! But 8% of your income is a much bigger deal if you're poor, and it's going to cost the working poor on HEALTH CARE.

So we're taking away their HEALTH CARE to say we gave them INSURANCE. And his final big "mechanism" for keeping down costs is the one that the Republicans have proposed: screw the poor and working people.

Look, insurance companies SELL PRODUCTS intended to mitigate the risk that poor people will stiff on medical bills!

So all the major provision in this bill does is keep those insurance companies from having to pay out on their products!

Poor fellas! Market pressures sure are tough!

by luckymortal 2009-12-23 11:14AM | 0 recs
Fair enough,

it's easy to be angry about this entire topic.  I even understand (though I don't entirely side with) the general anger on the Right: it can be argued that costs and choice could be negatively impacted by doing anything that the Left wants to do.

My broadest answer to all the anger is that only time will tell whether the fears of either side are realized in the real world.  I have (blind, starry-eyed, fan-boy... ;~) faith that the politicians pulling for this thing aren't complete idiots and that they believe the worst fears won't be realized.  I have even more faith that, if some of the worst possibilities arise, our crazy-assed system will chew on those and mitigate those in the end.

I expect this bill to cost my family cash that we can't afford (we're "house insurance" folks atm), but it also means that my ulcerative-colitis suffering wife will be able to get sick without a/ wiping us out or b/ dying because we can't get her care.  I think it means that the American medical access issue will continue to Progress in coming years, as opposed to quite possibly never progressing again in my life.

I'll take it.

by chrisblask 2009-12-23 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Fair enough,

Ok, we're ultimately on the same side... and I'm glad of that.

The problem with that, as I see it, is that I can name 10 different people I know who got wiped out even WITH insurance!

Right now, a woman my wife works with just finished cancer treatments. Now, she comes to work crying every day because the insurance is denying every single little thing they can, and not on the grounds of "pre-existing condition." But it's a constant fight. Her boss, who used to work for an HMO, "comforted" her by saying they'll probably only do that for the first one or two years, and they'll likely pay for most of what they were supposed to pay. In the mean time, bye bye credit!

It's galling to no END that this bill rewards those fuckers for this kind of behavior.

by luckymortal 2009-12-23 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Fair enough,

Pre-existing and limits just got wiped away.  I find that kind of hard to internalize.

We all know folks who have been wiped out with insurance.  Now, because this bill just passed, we are enormously less likely to know any more.

Frickin' awesome.

by chrisblask 2009-12-23 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Fair enough,


they didn't even include any way to enforce the ban on rescissions, pre-existing conditions, etc in the bill.

it's not going away

by jeopardy 2009-12-23 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Ok, look, I'm angry about this bill.

8% of your income is only applicable to insurance premiums and does not apply to deductibles or coinsurance. Even subsidized coverage has deductibles and coinsurance of 20% up to an out of pocket maximum.

by MOBlue 2009-12-23 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Ok, look, I'm angry about this bill.

Currently my Insurance costs over 10% of the family gross income, has deducibles, caps, co-pays.

Do most people who have insurance currently think 8% is high? Or are the vocal complainers mainly those who haven't been buying insurance all along?

by QTG 2009-12-23 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Subsidies

If a person receives health insurance through his employer but its cost exceeds 8 percent of his income, and if his income doesn't exceed 400 percent of the federal poverty line (i.e., $88,000 for a family of four) he can trade the existing federal tax subsidy for that coverage for a "free choice voucher" allowing him to purchase health insurance on the newly established exchanges, which otherwise are open only to people who don't receive health insurance through their employers. This was inserted at the urging of Sen. Ron Wyden, D.-Ore., who favors elimination of the tax exclusion for health insurance and replacing it with vouchers for the purchase of private insurance.

But you make a very cogent and compelling argument, notwithstanding.

Thanks for the stimulating dialogue.

by QTG 2009-12-24 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Once again from the top

If a person receives health insurance through his employer but its cost exceeds 8 percent of his income, and if his income doesn't exceed 400 percent of the federal poverty line (i.e., $88,000 for a family of four) he can trade the existing federal tax subsidy for that coverage for a "free choice voucher" allowing him to purchase health insurance on the newly established exchanges, which otherwise are open only to people who don't receive health insurance through their employers. This was inserted at the urging of Sen. Ron Wyden, D.-Ore., who favors elimination of the tax exclusion for health insurance and replacing it with vouchers for the purchase of private insurance.

The 2009 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia Persons           Poverty
in family      guideline
1             $10,830
2              14,570
3              18,310
4              22,050
5              25,790
6              29,530
7              33,270
8              37,010
For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person.

When you get a chance, you can practice your multiplication skills to figure out what 400% of those values means. (Hint: Take each dollar amount and multiply by 4)

by QTG 2009-12-24 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Once again from the top

He gets a voucher. He also needs some fiscal discipline and maybe a life coach.

by QTG 2009-12-24 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: thats funny but fucked up!

You may like CCR, but I can assure you the surviving members would not like you.  I can speak with authority on this.

by fogiv 2009-12-24 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: i hung with fogerty at the

I can guarantee John Fogerty would find your behavior on this blog repellent.  Guarantee.

by fogiv 2009-12-26 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: sorry dude

Lol.  You have no idea.  Let's put it this way (in the event that my username isn't telling enough):  your knowledge of roots music isn't as impressive as you think it is.  Try me.

I don't hate the Clintons, and I don't speak for groups.  I am however very comfortable speaking for myself and my family.  Take your fake name-drop shit elsewhere.  This is one particular con job that will not sell, meathead.

by fogiv 2009-12-27 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: pathetic

My position has been, and remains, that JCF would find your behavior on this blog abhorent (as would most sane people).

I've never hated the Clintons in any way (though I preferred candidate Obama).  You're suggesting otherwise is a lie (and typical of you).

out with it man...its no state secret...

Actually, I rather cherish my relative anonymity, thanks.

by fogiv 2009-12-27 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: and hed just love

Everyone thinks you're an asshole.  It doesn't require independent verification, but I'll check on your story all the same.  Not that it would change anyone's opinion of you.

by fogiv 2009-12-27 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: oh my god!

Actually, that's my fucking name, you moron.

by fogiv 2009-12-27 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: oh i luv it

try not to break your keyboard lud.

by Strummerson 2009-12-27 10:56AM | 0 recs

Now that my name is involved, that's libel.  Here's hoping your lawyer is smarter than you are.

by fogiv 2009-12-27 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: why do you keep erassing

Were you not so stupid, you'd see it's proof that I am who I say I am.  The HR are for your continued defamation, and violation of site guidelines.

by fogiv 2009-12-27 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: i think yes

I expect their anger, but over the long haul, I expect they will adjust and find a way to pay for it and ultimately be happier and more secure.  Whether they will feel grateful at that point, I have no idea, but I don't anticipate generations of working-class folks cursing the Democrats for forcing them to buy health insurance.

I would love to provide "free" health insurance for each and every working-class family in this country, but sadly it seems like we're not there yet.  Short of that, I think 8% is a pretty good deal in terms of affordability, and I say that with full recognition of the fact that none of these people have a spare 8% of their income just lying around gathering dust.  But they are not helpless and they will find a way.

by Steve M 2009-12-24 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: mo offense meant

I know that it's fashionable on the Internet to pretend like you understand a person's motivations from top to bottom based upon whatever fleeting details of their personal life you've managed to glean, but it's not very endearing and it's usually not very accurate.

I'm a successful lawyer today because my dad busted his ass cleaning carpets for 35 years so I could go to a good school.  I come from a family of cops and bartenders, not Ivy Leaguers.  You don't know my family and you don't know my friends, but I think I know more than a little bit about the working class and the sacrifices they make.

I stand by everything I said.  And you still haven't explained to me how those people wouldn't be pissed about a new "tax" if they were paying for a public option instead.

by Steve M 2009-12-24 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: mo offense meant

" And you still haven't explained to me how those people wouldn't be pissed about a new "tax" if they were paying for a public option instead."

Not to answer for him, but for a lot of people, there is a real difference between paying into the commons, the common good (taxes, etc)...

and being forced to pay for private companies CEO's (that have been victimizing us) 5th mansions.

by jeopardy 2009-12-24 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: mo offense meant

That's not what the working-class people we're discussing are angry about, that's what YOU'RE angry about.

He brought up people who have 50 bucks left over at the end of the week and suddenly find out they've got this big new expense.  Now he and I differ about how their reactions will shake out over the long haul, but I pretty much guarantee you that guy with 50 bucks is not like "oh, I guess this big new expense is okay, as long as I'm paying into the commons!"

It is a question of affordability, it is not a question of the principle of the thing.  If people can't afford the premiums under this bill, they couldn't afford the premiums of a public option either.

by Steve M 2009-12-24 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: mo offense meant

i'm not trying to answer for the rest of his posts.

I answered why some people might be more upset about paying to for-profit insurance companies than a gov. option.

Do you not accept that there is a difference for some people?

by jeopardy 2009-12-24 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: mo offense meant

You're answering a question that no one asked.

by Steve M 2009-12-24 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: mo offense meant

your words:

"And you still haven't explained to me how those people wouldn't be pissed about a new "tax" if they were paying for a public option instead."

I answered why people can be more pissed about one than the other.

I know you hate me right now - you've made that abundantly clear in other posts. But I was simply trying to point out that one situation you outlined might be more objectionable than the other situation you outlined to some people.

by jeopardy 2009-12-24 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: mo offense meant

To some people, yes - just not the people we were discussing before you came along.  You inserted a non sequitur.

by Steve M 2009-12-24 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: oh no!

Hey, you know I support a public option 100%, and I support more taxes on the rich 100% (myself included, even though I can't even afford to buy a house!)

But I think we are guilty of expecting way too much from the very first year of a Democratic President and Congress.  I agree with Markos and Jerome that the only long-term solution is to work within the system, and unfortunately that means a long slog.  Maybe you'd rather be out there throwing bombs with Bill Ayers!

by Steve M 2009-12-24 09:36AM | 0 recs
Not me... ;~)

but i really am a friggin socialist underneath, so who listens to me on that stuff..

No, seriously, I do listen, I just don't agree.  Like a lot of people who don't share your views on that stuff I believe those views are more heart than head - that we are capable of doing more for more because of our capital system (whether we always do or not is another issue).  But hey, even I could be wrong (heaven forfend!).

Other than the details of policy debates, my point is that we will all move the ball down the field together if we at least manage to talk civilly to each other most of the time.  You may have gathered that from the little tussle Jerome and I had the other day.  His remarks about "the Motley Moose crowd" are precisely the point of disagreement, and the delta in understanding about that is imho the #1 (and #2,3,...) problem we need to wrestle with.  The Moose is not a monolith bloc by any definition - quite the opposite - but what those who discuss there share is a passion for finding some common understanding among people who don't always share the same beliefs.  It has been the experience there that there is a certain delta-V between opinions that may be too wide to allow for constructive discussion at many times, but that if you try real hard to remember that the people you are talking with aren't evil because they disagree you can at least create a calm zone to ponder the other person's perspective.

I don't think you are a bad person.  I disagree with some of your views, but I surmise that they come from good intentions notwithstanding.

Merry Christmas to you, ludwigvan, and a happy new year whatever it brings.



by chrisblask 2009-12-24 10:03AM | 0 recs
It still takes two to tango,

and imho you are at best falling into the trap of reactionary mud slinging.  There are an infinite number of Grandmother-class lessons about the virtue of rising above that apply to conversation in general and flat-text blogging in specific.  A line I used earlier today falls into that category, I think:

Ignoring someone else's ignorance and letting that stand next to your own better example is sometimes the best retort, anyway.

I know all (or most) of the folks you tango with better than I know you, some of them I got to know by arguing with them rather heatedly.  I know that all of their intentions are good, though their methods in responding to you may not be what I would choose.  I assume yours are good, too, because - 1/ almost everyone's are and 2/ you respond cognitively in exchanges like this - but I would give you the same advice I would anyone else: answering fire with water usually gives better results than answering with fire.

by chrisblask 2009-12-26 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: we can get a better bill

How well did they work out in the 90's

by labor nrrd 2009-12-24 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: His wife thinks we have this bill. lescu/the-democrats-authoritari_b_402146 .html

Democrats and liberals once stood for providing a social safety net through government programs like Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance, which were administered by government employees for the benefit of the American people and not by private companies for the benefit of their shareholders and executives who receive multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses.

For over 60 years, they stood for the principal that health care should be a right and not a privilege and that Medicare should be extended to all Americans.

Democrats in Congress, under the leadership of Barack Obama, have now turned that principal on its head and made health care neither a right, nor a privilege, but an obligation for individual citizens and a government-mandated profit center for private corporations.

For the first time in American history, Democrats are about to pass a bill that uses the coercive power of the federal government to force every American -- simply by virtue of being an American -- to purchase the products of a private company.

At heart, the Democrats' solution to 48 million uninsured is to force the them to buy inadequate private insurance -- with potentially high deductibles and co-pays and no price controls -- or be fined by the federal government.

In effect, this represents an historic defeat for the type of liberalism represented by the New Deal and the Great Society and the ascendancy of a new type of corporatist liberalism.

by jeopardy 2009-12-23 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: His wife thinks we have this bill.

I'm beginning to believe that the big ball-breaker in this Bill is the 'everybody has to play' provision. If so, I say tough shit. Free ride is over.

by QTG 2009-12-23 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: His wife thinks we have this bill.

It's not new- it came to power with Clintonism in the 90's--  the "3rd Way"- might be an ok check mechanism in a socialist/statist society, but it was devasting to the Democratic Party here.  Obama is actually a little bit of a tilt left from that.

by Skipster 2009-12-24 03:21AM | 0 recs
Re: mytholized msm spun cw

I got 'spun', and I think I know 'msm', but 'mytholized' and 'cw' are throwing me. Do I need a decoder ring or something?

by QTG 2009-12-24 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: mytholized msm spun cw

NAFTA and welfare "reform" were a myth?  Awesome.

by labor nrrd 2009-12-24 08:40AM | 0 recs
Where do you get 60 votes from?

Obama, Kennedy, Jesus ... will all need 60 votes in the Senate (maybe Jesus has other options).

And the maths doesn't work for a better bill - the Blue Dogs and Lieberman and Olympia Snowe are the ones to go after NOT this bill.

Elect more progressives and then have another go Good luck with that BTW - Congress may well turn redder in November.

by prem28885 2009-12-25 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: American Nurses Association Letter to Reid

And as they have seen the end result of the Democratic Senate's health care bill, progressives have started to get angry.

Stripped of the public option, progressives could now look through the Democratic health care bill to its essence:

the permanent entrenchment of the corrupt private health insurance corporation as the nexus of the American health care system; the authoritarian liberal solution of solving the problem of the uninsured by using the coercive power of the federal government to force citizens to buy inadequate private insurance sold by oligopolies with their profits subsidized by taxpayer dollars;

and the increased political power of the of the private health care industry into the indefinite future, fueled by government money that can then be used to lobby the government for more private benefits. lescu/the-democrats-authoritari_b_402146 .html

by jeopardy 2009-12-23 06:04PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads