Manchester, NH – Today, the Edwards family continued their four-day 'Fighting for One America' bus tour across New Hampshire. Senator John Edwards discussed his bold plan to provide truly universal health care to all Americans and outlined his plan to add 100,000 new nurses within five years.
"Elizabeth and I are really enjoying our tour of New Hampshire," Senator John Edwards said. "People have been asking excellent questions and we are having detailed discussions about how we are going to build one America together."
"One of the most important issues we hear about is health care," Edwards continued. "That is why I am proud that I was the first candidate to announce a health care plan and to have the only plan that is truly universal. But to ensure every person gets quality care, we also need to address our nursing crisis. Nurses are the backbone of our health care system, but we're facing a serious shortage with dire consequences for patients and for our health care system. I will fix this crisis so every American gets quality care."
While New Hampshire has more nurses per capita than any other state, the Granite State will have about 27 percent fewer nurses than it needs by the end of the next decade. And nurses are leaving the profession -- only 62 percent of nurses in New Hampshire today are working full-time.
Below please find a fact sheet on Senator Edwards' bold plan to address the nursing crisis in this country.
Edwards continues to drive the Democratic agenda with his specific ideas to transform our country. While Washington continues to offer only rhetoric, empty talk and half-measures, Edwards is offering courage, conviction and bold ideas to build one America.
The next two days of the tour will focus on additional critical issue facing America -- providing economic fairness and rewarding work; and ending the war in Iraq and honoring our veterans.
"Nurses are the backbone of our health care system. We cannot provide true universal health care without strengthening that backbone. We need to make a serious investment in the nursing profession, starting today." -- John Edwards
Nurses are the backbone of our health care system, yet there are far fewer nurses than our hospitals, health clinics, and nursing homes need. As a result, Americans are paying more and getting less from their health care.
John Edwards has offered a bold, detailed plan to take on the big insurance and drug companies to guarantee true universal health care for every American. His plan emphasizes prevention, primary care and pro-active management of chronic diseases. To ensure his plan succeeds and delivers quality health care for everyone, we must address the nursing crisis. As president, Edwards will invest the resources we need to add 100,000 nurses within five years – by bringing back 50,000 RNs who have left the profession, while retaining even more, and graduating 50,000 new nurses.
Edwards will keep skilled nurses from leaving the profession and bring back former nurses. Bringing back just 10 percent of the nurses who have left the profession will increase the number of veteran nurses serving America's patients by about 50,000. Edwards will:
Educating and training the next generation of health care workers is essential to meet the increased demand of a universal health care system. To add 50,000 new nurses to the profession within five years, Edwards will:
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!There will be a brief filed shortly with the US Supreme Court in the Al Odah et. al. v. US cases. I’ve spent some time reviewing a number of the matters from the DC Circuit decision that will be appealed, and I keep coming back to Kafka’s[...]
Read The Full Article:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/24/happy-trials-to-you/
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!Then (one year ago) in a Daily Kos interview with poli sci professors William A. Boettcher III and Michael D. Cobb:
...the key to maintaining or building support for the war in Iraq is to stress the likelihood of succeeding. It is not a coincidence that the Bush administration's rhetoric emphasizes "winning", "success", and "victory". We think their argument is reasonable on its face but wrong for at least two reasons: Americans' perceptions about the goal in Iraq is more important to know than whether we will succeed in the abstract, and the Bush administration is not trusted by a sizeable portion of the population to be credible when making the case for inevitable success in Iraq.
Now (WaPo's Jim Hoagland):
More important, Bush has called attention to the elephant that will be sitting in the room when his administration makes its politically vital report on Iraq to the nation next month. For Americans, the most important comparison will be this one: As Vietnam did, Iraq has become a failure even on its own terms -- whatever those terms are at any given moment.
That is, the administration has constantly shifted its goals in Iraq to avoid accepting failure and blame -- only to see the new goals drift beyond reach each time. Liberation of Iraqis became occupation by Americans, democracy became an unattainable centralized "national unity" government and this year's military surge has become a device for achieving political reconciliation among people who do not want to reconcile.
Regardless of how the Republicans and the neo-cons try to spin this, CNN's polling supports the observation Boettcher and Cobb made a year ago about credibility. CNN says:
A majority of Americans don't trust the upcoming report by the Army's top commander in Iraq on the progress of the war and even if they did, it wouldn't change their mind, according to a new poll...
He added, "It does seem to indicate that anyone associated with the Bush administration may be a less than credible messenger for the message that there is progress being made in Iraq."
How much clearer can it be?
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!Not to be beaten by Senator John Warner who called last night for the beginning of modest troop withdrawals from Iraq, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace is reportedly going to urge President Bush to cut troop levels next...
Read The Full Article:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002293.php
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!The Iowa straw poll and a good half dozen Democratic debates are behind us but the campaigns have yet to fully engage in the predictable, and by now ritualistic, arguments about who is ?better? on...
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!The Iowa straw poll and a good half dozen Democratic debates are behind us but the campaigns have yet to fully engage in the predictable, and by now ritualistic, arguments about who is ?better? on...
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!Now he tells us. General Peter Pace became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2005, the first ever Marine to become senior military adviser to the president. Known as "Perfect Pete" inside the...
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!There is much speculation in Washington these days about whether Iran will respond to a preemptive strike by the United States and/or Israel in order to damage or destroy its nuclear weapons program.
Read The Full Article:
http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/4060
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!The Bush Administration is loosing control of the message, both in the White House and among other Republicans. Could it be this is a sign of Bush's lame duck status? How long before the Presidential candidates on the Republican side follow the Barbour lobbying firm and undermine Bush's policies?
Read The Full Article:
http://allspinzone.com/wp/2007/08/24/bush-loves-maliki-republicans-nor-so-much/
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!
Crossposted from Town Called Dobson
click to enlarge
In Parts One and Two, I discussed the support Kucinich has and the irrational fear also associated with electing Kucinich. Today, I want to focus on the secondary soundbite I have heard over the last few weeks about Kucinich. The Kucinich critics to have their work cut out for them because they need to go back FORTY YEARS to find something to complain about. Their soundbite is "he drove Cleveland into bankruptcy." This, it turns out, is a lie. It is a Halliburton straw man with a touch of Sopranos level intrigue.
Dennis Kucinich started out as the Mayor of Cleveland in 1977 - the youngest Mayor of a large city in America. The city was hip deep in trouble with it's finances and crime. Not to mention, when Kucinich was sworn in, Cleveland was in one of its worst snow storms with winds of over 100 miles per hour - a sign of things to come.
He made good appointments and bad appointments for his administration and one of those, the Chief of Police, Richard Hongisto, proved to be real bad. The fiasco went so terribly wrong that a recall election was called and Kucinich won - maintaining control of the failing city.
One of his campaign promises was to not sell Cleveland's public electricity utility, Cleveland Public Power to Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company - a corrupt company with a stack of federal violations of anti-trust laws held against it. When Kucinich got in office, the mafia figured out that this young Mayor was actually going to keep his word and NOT sell Cleveland Public Power to Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company so the mafia put a hit out for the murder of Kucinich. Yep, Dennis Kucinich was the target of mafioso assassins, but that was nothing compared to the EXTREME pressure of the city council and local banks had placed on Kucinich to sell the utility. In the end, Kucinich still said no.
How many times have we wished for that tenacity in our politicians when dealing with Halliburton?
The main city creditor, Cleveland Trust, ignored all of Kucinich's debt restructuring plans and placed the city in default of payment. Here is the kicker - the bank's board had seven members who were on the payroll of Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company and they were also on that company's board. The collusion was right out of the Cheney Play Book. The bank was a major shareholder in CEI and thus the sale of the city's municipal light utility would have benefited the bank, not the citizens of Cleveland.
And again, Kucinich stood his ground. He put the decision to the people, vote to sell to CEI or vote for a .5% tax increase. Cleveland voted for higher taxes. Corporate interests lost and remarkably, the mafia recalled the assassin.
Cleveland never went into bankruptcy and the loan was paid and would have been paid if CEI and Cleveland Trust weren't involved in a conspiracy to rob the citizens of Cleveland of almost a third of a billion dollars, in 1970's money.
CEI was later acquired by FirstEnergy, the company was responsible for the 2003 blackout. Cleveland Public Power is still cranking out the watts to the city of Cleveland.
So that is the story, Kucinich is guilty of not bowing to Big Energy and ignored the deployment of assassins just to keep a campaign promise.
Here is my question, which of the "leading candidates" in this race; Clinton, Obama or Edwards would have withstood that kind of pressure?
Is it any wonder Ohio keeps sending Kucinich back to Congress? They know which side he is on.
Read The Full Article:
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=18503
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!
Powered by blogdig.net