Politics and current news

[sampson]

I am new to this site and haven't actually started in my program yet and I want to learn as much about this field as I can. Can anyone tell me where I can find current news, or political stuff that is related to CRNA's? I tried the AANA site but figured you all would know of some better sites that discuss any issues going on that could affect our future. Thanks to anyone that provides any info.

[MmacFN]

hey sampson

We have alot fo politic information here but it is limited to SRNAs and CRNAs who have been validated. Other than here, the AANA site as well as the state organizations are the ones to look at. Though, both usually limit this information to members

If you want to read about the history and politics of the profession id suggest Watchful Care from the AANA bookstore. Its an eye-opener.

[pilot424]

In regards to this question, has anyone heard Hiliary's new healthcare plan? Does the AANA still have pull Clinton wise since the passing of his mother?

[kmchugh]

Frankly, the only people who have pull "Clinton-wise" are those with large piles of cash. Much larger than those of us who hang around here.

As far at the Clinton health care plan, there was a short bit on it in the paper today. Apparently, she wants to require all to buy healthcare insurance. Those who can't afford it will have it provided by the government. The government will pay for this through higher taxes on the "rich." (Read "us" for "the rich.")

Balk at this proposal to raise your taxes, you will be labeled, among other things, as greedy, heartless, and unchristian. You will be labeled other things as well, but the TOS forbids.

Kevin

[nojrevorg]

I couldnt have said it better mcugh. I get sick of the government putting their hands in the pockets of people who work their rearends off trying to make a decent living. I always get worried about the government extending its size. They have done a bang up job with social insecurity, just imagine how well they would do with health insurance. The state of maine put in a multi payer type insurance which would make it so that if you dont have health care or the ability to obtain it from the Dirigo (maines govt) heath care system. It is a nightmare. They will take your estate when you die, and they still owe the hospitals in the state some 30 million dollars in unpaid bills. You know where that money is going to come from.... I think their needs to be more APNs with independent practices to reduce the amount of people who use the er for their primary care. But who will listen to a SRNA/ Murse. anyway thats my rant.

[DIGNOUT]

New to the nurse-anesthesia.org boards, recently accepted to school, and a lurker on the AANA site...

With all having been said on this thread thus far, does the AANA endorse a candidate/platform (read "side of the isle") as some of those 'other' professional groups have in previous elections? Politics are sticky, I know, but the AANA appears to have a good head planted firmly on its shoulders and not shy of political involvement... a good thing nonetheless. Any additional dialogue is appreciated.

[kmchugh]

While the AANA, through our PAC, is active politically, so far they have been careful to avoid candidate endorsements, which I believe to be a very wise move. Candidate endorsement is a two edged sword. If your candidate wins, your organization stands to benefit a great deal. On the other hand, if your candidate loses, you could find yourself politically out in the cold for at least four years.

A good example is the ANA, which has traditionally endorsed the more liberal candidates and positions (they endorsed Kerry in the last election, and endorse a national healthcare program). Their support of these issues has surely hurt them with the current administration, and served to lessen their voice in the political arena. Add to that the fact that by such endorsement, an organization often can alienate as much as half of its own membership, it becomes apparent that endorsement carries far more risk than benefit.

Kevin

[DIGNOUT]

While the AANA, through our PAC, is active politically, so far they have been careful to avoid candidate endorsements, which I believe to be a very wise move. Candidate endorsement is a two edged sword. If your candidate wins, your organization stands to benefit a great deal. On the other hand, if your candidate loses, you could find yourself politically out in the cold for at least four years.

A good example is the ANA, which has traditionally endorsed the more liberal candidates and positions (they endorsed Kerry in the last election, and endorse a national healthcare program). Their support of these issues has surely hurt them with the current administration, and served to lessen their voice in the political arena. Add to that the fact that by such endorsement, an organization often can alienate as much as half of its own membership, it becomes apparent that endorsement carries far more risk than benefit.

Kevin

Politics as a whole is a double-edged sword, isn't it? I have noticed that ANA has made the ultimate sacrifice in past elections through candidate/agenda endorsement, even on a local scale here in Virginia with the VNA. Has it hurt them during Bush's monarchy or doing my state's conservative House leadership? I don't know. Sometimes going with one's conscience (the "feel good" approach) ends up shooting him or her in the foot. We may see a blurred, less straightforward approach from either side of the isle in 2008. This year, it isn't so kitschy to be labeled conservative or liberal. Thanks for your insight.

[DIGNOUT]

Funny thing. For any current ANA members, American Nurse Today has a piece in its "Headlines from the Hill" section entitled The next presidential election is right around the corner. Whom will ANA support?. Kevin- ANA will be endorsing a candidate for 2008, though no names just yet. They have, however, addressed endorsement as a sticky uphill slope, recognizing they are considering issues only of benefit to patients and nurses (and, ANA?). My crystal ball bets they go with Hillary. God, I love election season...:usa2:

[Nancicrna08]

Not a comprehensive list but current to see where healthcare is donating their monies. List retrieved from:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/industry.php?txt=H01&cycle=2008

Health Professionals
VIEW FULL SECTOR: Health
PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates
Election cycle: 2008 2006 2004 2002 2000 1998


Total Amount: $14,802,522
Total to Democrats: $8,574,134 (58%)
Total to Republicans: $6,230,388 (42%)
Number of PACs making contributions: 112

PAC Name Affiliate Total Dems Repubs

American Academy of Nurse Practitioners $4,000 $2,000 $2,000
American Academy of Physician Assistants $30,000 $22,000 $8,000
American Assn of Nurse Anesthetists $496,574 $294,574 $202,000
American College of Nurse Practitioners $1,000 $1,000 $0
American College of Nurse-Midwives $16,500 $16,500 $0
American College of Surgeons Prof Assn $400,500 $213,500 $187,000

American Interventional Pain Physicians $209,500 $122,000 $87,500
American Medical Assn $519,450 $274,000 $245,450
American Medical Group Association $23,000 $18,000 $5,000
American Nurses Assn $305,466 $266,466 $39,000

American Society of Anesthesiologists $809,500 $379,000 $430,500
Anesthesia Service Medical Group $16,500 $5,000 $11,500