According to the New York Post, Hillary Clinton will soon be playing nurse for the cameras:
She will work a shift as a nurse at a
Las Vegas hospital next week, it was disclosed yesterday … The high-profile event is part of the Service Employees International Union’s “Walk a day in my shoes program.”
Although the mental image of Hillary emptying bed pans provides something of a frisson, the more ominous aspect of this story is her partnership with the SEIU. The union’s president, Andy Stern, is a vocal supporter of the kind of “universal” health care that Clinton wants to foist on the country.
Now, why would the SEIU be so supportive of Hillary and socialized medicine? Here’s a hint: the majority of the SEIU’s members are employed in health care or in government. So, regardless of which version of “universal” health care Hillary and her congressional accomplices impose on the country, the SEIU wins.
If we wind up with straight socialized medicine, the number of government employees will increase dramatically, providing more potential members. And, if we get a “single-payer” system, the legislation will almost certainly include some sort of financial “incentive” for hospitals to become unionized.
Next week, when the headlines are full of Nurse Hillary and the SEIU, think long and hard about this.
Comments 6
Are you anti-trade union too?
Posted 09 Aug 2007 at 7:46 am ¶I once worked for a unionized hospital, and the union-imposed inertia combined with the inevitable upward pressure on expenses made efficient operation virtually impossible.
If you want health care to be like our disgrace of a public school system, unionization will do the trick.
Posted 09 Aug 2007 at 9:05 am ¶‘the union-imposed inertia’
That’s meaningless. What exactly did the unions do?
Posted 09 Aug 2007 at 4:01 pm ¶They made it nearly impossible to fire the slugs, or to make significant process improvements.
In order to get rid of a useless staff member, you practically had to have him on video murdering puppies. And, since the employees knew they were virtually “fire proof,” they were much more inclined to low productivity and poor quality work than any group of non-union employees I have dealt with.
If you wanted to make any serious process or organizational improvement, you were likely to find yourself accused (by the shop steward) of “changing the terms of the contract.”
So, in terms of effective management, we were rendered more or less “inert.”
Posted 09 Aug 2007 at 7:46 pm ¶‘In order to get rid of a useless staff member, you practically had to have him on video murdering puppies.’
Are you saying that unions are so powerful that management can no longer operate successfully? Or could it be just rank bad management in many cases?
Posted 10 Aug 2007 at 5:00 am ¶You’re being deliberately obtuse here. I’m saying that unions have the same effect on hospitals as they have on education. They create a situation in which high wages are paid to mediocre employees who are virtually impossible to get rid of. This is not a complicated concept.
Posted 10 Aug 2007 at 10:36 am ¶Post a Comment