Massachusetts residents, what do you think is important for voters to consider regarding Question 1 and nurse to patient ratios?

Having worked in EMS/Fire for the last 24 years, talking to friends in the hospitals, the problem is that the bill is poorly written. It is a one size fits all, without any wiggle room to adjust for patient flow. This is a great bill for med/surg and floor nursing but not for specialty/critical care or the emergency room,where the patient census can vary daily by 25 to 100 per day or per shift. Speaking with doctors and nurses, they say that the bill, is to constrictive and heavy on the penalties. The admin of the hospitals would have to hire an unbelievable amount of nurses to cover the confines of the bill. Which it is known they don't want to. In conclusion I am voting no on 1, because it is a bad bill, written properly it could be a great law for patients and staff. 

1)  This should never be on the ballot.  Too many uninformed citizens to weigh in on an important question.

2) You can't go back if the vote is yes, but the issue can be better resolved over time with a no vote.

3) Most nurses in Mass. are not in the union, and are voting no vehemently

4)  This is an outrageous money grab by a union, with patient care not guaranteed at all to be improved, as this state is a model of excellent health care, including the best nurses.

5) The Boston Globe, which almost never goes against unions, is recommending a no vote.

My husband is a physician and I personally know many nurses who work on the wards with patients. They all say YES! The no signs are misleading but they are posted by nursing associations that represent management and hospitals. There is a lot of money trying to make folks think that nurses say no but the Mass Nursing association that actually represents regular ward nurses support a YES vote. Follow the money. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that soo much money is being spent on convince people to vote NO? Nurses don’t have that much money. 

I do not believe that the goverment has ever done anything effeciently, I also believe that medical decisions should be left to the medical experts- doctors and nurses.

We don't take public positions on candidates or on ballot questions.

That being said, our democracy has been faced with a great challenge, that being the influence of money in our system.  Those with the money wield the political power.  If we can not enact meaningful campaign finance reform, the haves will continue to rule the United States as an oligarchy.  In effect we have not had true democracy for perhaps the last one hundred years, or maybe even for the entire existence of The USA.  

Supreme Court rulings have equated money and speech, and this has destroyed the idea of one person one vote.  If Warren Buffett calls one of the Senators from Nebraska, he gets put right through to the Senator, or may even have their cell phone #.  If I call one of my Massachusetts Senators, I might speak to a junior aide, and if I ever did get time with a Senator, it would be for two minutes and then I would be ushered out quickly.  Of course the difference is because Buffett is wealthy and I am nobody.  (Not singling him out.  I could have picked any super rich person for the example.)  The point is that we can not have democracy until and unless the influence of money in our system is fixed.  It is a huge problem.

Consider the following example of how the influence of money in our system destroys real democracy.  A Senator or House Member votes against the interests of a powerful corporation that is located in their state.  When that Senator or House Member comes up for reelection, the corporation will fund the candidate of the other major party in a huge way to punish that particular candidate or anyone who dares oppose them.  The corporation will make sure the other party is elected.  One may be tempted to say, "yes but grass roots citizen groups can do the same thing".  Yes and no.  Citizens groups tend to be single issue groups, so they may not always be paying attention.

By giving the overwhelming amount of the money that candidates use to run for office, corporations and wealthy individuals essentially own our politicians and our system.  Until this changes, we can not have real democracy.  

Most Sincerely, Chris and Pie, Owners of Norwell Thai Spa

Norwell's Only Authentic Thai Massage Therapy Shop

Norwell, Massachusetts

I work in healthcare system and know first hand that we have shortage of nurses and C.N.As throughout the country. I believe the question 1 is fundamentally not a sound question because it is based on a very narrow point of view in healthcare. While I wish we could have more nursing staff in this industry, but the fact is that we don't. And requiring lower patient to murse ratio in hospitals could and would put termendous pressure on nursing homes by causing nurses move from one healthcare setting to another. This also would force hospitals to come up with other ways of compensating for the extra cost in form of lowering nurses' pay rate, or cutting number of C.N.As, or eliminating other anciliary helps at hospital with which would cause more issues without any guarantee that could improve the quality of care. Therefore, I believe they have to leave the decision on the nurse to patient ratio to each setting of healthcare based on the acuity of the patients need and the services the healthcare entity provides.

So what happens in a disaster? Do hospital last turn patients away because there aren’t the right amount of nurses? Even on an ordinary day, nurses make judgements based on their patients needs. I don’t think this is something to legislate. My sister is a nurse and she is voting no so I think I trust her judgement 

I’ve spoken to several Nurses who are voting no. They do not believe government should regulate this issue. They say this will actually cause more patients nt receiving the proper car.

respected nurse practicer friend of mine told us that even tho it is imperfect, we need to vote yes because at least the issue will then be on the table for the nurses to have some bargaining power with the unions and the admin - right now, the non-medical admin makes the decisions about staffing and we all lose.

I believe That this needs more work before it is sent to a vote.

It is really sad how things are in health care.