Referendum Questions: What were MA voters thinking? Treat nurses like slaves, and let men use women's restrooms. Huh? (Boston: attorney, house)

[9162]

It is interesting that MA voters decided to enforce the almost slave like environment imposed on med/surge nurses in MA hospitals lately, refusing to restrict, or limit the amount of patients these nurses have to provide care for. With many MA hospitals, it is currently almost impossible for many nurses to get all of their work done now as it is within an eight hour shift, often requiring nurses to work 12 hour shifts just to catch up on paper work.


Current transgendered laws allow for the privilege, of not just people who have undergone hormone replacement therapy, or sexual reassignment surgery to use the rest room or locker room of their choice, but ANYONE who claims to be transgendered, even temporarily, regardless of hormone therapy, or any other gender surgery they may have had, for that matter. If people are delusional about their birth gender, why is that its OK for the other 99.6% of the population to be compromised, and have their dignity sacrificed over someone else's severe mental illness?

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by 9162

It is interesting that MA voters decided to enforce the almost slave like environment imposed on med/surge nurses in MA hospitals lately, refusing to restrict, or limit the amount of patients these nurses have to provide care for. With many MA hospitals, it is currently almost impossible for many nurses to get all of their work done now as it is within an eight hour shift, often requiring nurses to work 12 hour shifts just to catch up on paper work.

I think a main concern was for the smaller local hospitals and their ability to absorb that additional cost. Many of them are just barely hanging on by a thread, and there is a legitimate fear that could be what finally does them in. I wonder if it could be written so that hospitals with a lower volume could be granted waivers for some of these requirements, I bet it would have a better chance.

Originally Posted by 9162

Current transgendered laws allow for the privilege, of not just people who have undergone hormone replacement therapy, or sexual reassignment surgery to use the rest room or locker room of their choice, but ANYONE who claims to be transgendered, even temporarily, regardless of hormone therapy, or any other gender surgery they may have had, for that matter. If people are delusional about their birth gender, why is that its OK for the other 99.6% of the population to be compromised, and have their dignity sacrificed over someone else's severe mental illness?

Tell a lie long enough and eventually people will believe it, or scream "hater!" as loud as you can to anyone daring enough to start asking for facts or rational. This bully tactic is a common ploy of the far left in achieving their goals, ones which won't stand up to the scrutiny test. Read "Rules for Radicals".


But does this really shock you with an electorate that reelected Maura Healy as A.G.?

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Tell a lie long enough and eventually people will believe it, or scream "hater!" as loud as you can to anyone daring enough to start asking for facts or rational. This bully tactic is a common ploy of the far left in achieving their goals, ones which won't stand up to the scrutiny test. Read "Rules for Radicals".

The world must be a terrifying place when you believe every ghost story.

Those who supported a YES vote (taken from Wiki): 250 businesses, 350 clergy and congregations, 14 labor unions, 16 "women's and victim's advocacy groups," Boston Children's Hospital,[7] "every major New England professional sports team" including the Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins, and Patriots,[8] 29 mayors, Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, Massachusetts Major City Chiefs, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, Massachusetts ACLU, politicians from both parties in the state House and Senate, and "the entire Massachusetts Congressional delegation."[9]

Yeah, 'the left' was really bullying this one through

[G-fused]

Although I disagree, it is interesting to understand these perspectives.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by 9162

It is interesting that MA voters decided to enforce the almost slave like environment imposed on med/surge nurses in MA hospitals lately, refusing to restrict, or limit the amount of patients these nurses have to provide care for. With many MA hospitals, it is currently almost impossible for many nurses to get all of their work done now as it is within an eight hour shift, often requiring nurses to work 12 hour shifts just to catch up on paper work.

This is a tricky one to be honest. I know a lot of nurses were split on it. In theory, the idea of nurse-patient staffing limits is a very good one. Why wouldn't you want to ensure that nurses aren't overwhelmed, and patients have access to adequate care?

The problem is that, in practice, there are often unintended negative side effects. One commercial I saw hit on this - it talked about EMTs having to wait with patients until the nurse/patient ratio was OK. This pulls valuable resources away from where they might be needed, while simultaneously keeping the patient from getting adequate care. Yes, it was used for political propaganda, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

Here in MA, private mental health hospitals do have nurse/patient staffing limits. What hospitals do when they can't meet those limits is simply shut down sections of the hospital and operate under their capacity, thus reducing the number of beds available to people in need. This happens elsewhere in other hospitals too.

I would wager that most of the "No" voters (and I'm one of them), would absolutely agree that nurses are often overworked and over tasked. I would also wager that most of us want to see an improvement on that front. But nurse/patient limits alone are not the answer and before you enact them, you have to ensure there are other requirements in place to ensure that patients will receive appropriate care no matter what. Having seen the flaws of the limits in practice, I couldn't vote "yes" on this one.

[bjimmy24]

I voted no on nurse issue, but I was also unclear on why we were being asked to vote on it.

[Cape Cod Todd]

I think that when the Government steps in to mandate anything there will be problems.

In the case of Question 1 there are hospitals that get along just fine with the current situation and others that do struggle but placing a state law on all hospitals is like hitting a pin with a hammer. What would work in a Boston Hospital would not work in a smaller one in Western Mass.

The arguments both in favor and not in favor were compelling.



Question 2 the way I see it is why fix something that isn't broken? They will set up a panel of "experts" to investigate whether corporations have the same Constitutional rights as individuals when it comes to campaign financing. At least the 15 member blue ribbon panel will not be compensated from the tax payer coffers.



Question 3 is another why fix what isn't broken. Trans people are a fraction of our population and always has been and we haven't had problems because they have been discrete, but when a law is made to protect them then like any law there are people that will find loopholes that will be exploited. I thought we were trying to make more protections for women against predatory men and the ladies restroom and locker rooms were areas they could retreat to but not anymore.

I think most women would be upset, nervous or made uneasy if they came out of a bathroom stall to find some man standing there and with this law there would be nothing they or the Police could do about it. The slob could stand there all day if he chose to giving each woman concern that something bad could happen.



I think the final tallies of the questions prove just how entrenched in Liberalism Massachusetts is.

[bjimmy24]

I think women in men's bathrooms is way more common than vice versa. I see it with relative frequency. I've honestly never heard any of my women friends ever say anything about men in their bathroom.

[BostonMike7]

I think question #1 needs to be solved on a individual hospital approach, and not with a shotgun blanket law. I have a lot of family that are nurses and I think the reason they were so split on it is because what would benefit one hospital if the bill passed, would hurt another.

SO I still think there is a problem, but the voters rejected that measure as the way to solve it.

[inquisitive2]

Originally Posted by lrfox

This is a tricky one to be honest. I know a lot of nurses were split on it. In theory, the idea of nurse-patient staffing limits is a very good one. Why wouldn't you want to ensure that nurses aren't overwhelmed, and patients have access to adequate care?

The problem is that, in practice, there are often unintended negative side effects. One commercial I saw hit on this - it talked about EMTs having to wait with patients until the nurse/patient ratio was OK. This pulls valuable resources away from where they might be needed, while simultaneously keeping the patient from getting adequate care. Yes, it was used for political propaganda, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.

Here in MA, private mental health hospitals do have nurse/patient staffing limits. What hospitals do when they can't meet those limits is simply shut down sections of the hospital and operate under their capacity, thus reducing the number of beds available to people in need. This happens elsewhere in other hospitals too.

I would wager that most of the "No" voters (and I'm one of them), would absolutely agree that nurses are often overworked and over tasked. I would also wager that most of us want to see an improvement on that front. But nurse/patient limits alone are not the answer and before you enact them, you have to ensure there are other requirements in place to ensure that patients will receive appropriate care no matter what. Having seen the flaws of the limits in practice, I couldn't vote "yes" on this one.

Many people voted no on it because they knew that ultimately management would've used it to their advantage by reducing full time staff and hiring more per diem.