Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

JesusSandals73 t1_j3jum7i wrote

Reply to comment by Conscious_Card6261 in Talks continue as approximately 9,000 nurses threaten to strike at 4 NYC hospitals by DrogDrill

People will die right now as a tired, weary nurse takes on 8+ critical patients. Only difference is the nurse who is forced into this will be the one to take the fall.

5

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3jw87s wrote

Please have the courage to answer the question Ive asked 3 times before you comment elsewhere.

Is the right for nurses to strike more important than the deaths and the negative potential health outcomes of patients because of a staffing ahortage caused by strikes?

−3

JesusSandals73 t1_j3jwjqf wrote

Your question is pointless and has an obvious answer. Answer deaths will be inexcusable. Both situations will put people in danger and may cause deaths. Happy? Deaths are bad. All I'm telling you is that that question takes away the real issue.

3

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3jxfuy wrote

Dude no Im not happy you still didnt answer the damn question. Here I will do it this way. What do you think is preferable

  1. Nurses cant strike and have to negotiate through other means for what they need but fewer people die.

  2. Nurses can strike and get better conditions but in the process people die because nurses did not show up to work.

Just reply with a 1 or 2.

−2

JesusSandals73 t1_j3jzfd6 wrote

I can't believe you asked me this same question in two threads when I already told you option one doesn't exist anymore. I pointed out to you many times the question is the wrong question to ask but yet you are desperate for an answer. Fewer people don't die in option one. You force more people to be put in danger with option one. You have no proof to prove option one causes less deaths. It's a stupid question and that statement is by far the most uneducated thing you have said yet. And I already said if a strike forces better conditions, then the sooner we get to having a safer hospital conditions. Why put more people in danger longer?

1

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3k0y39 wrote

Option 1 is absolutely an option, police and fire fighters still negotiate despite not being aloud to strike. This has worked for decades in ny.

I dont need a study to tell you that more people will die in option 2 than 1. It is the difference between no nurses and 1 over worked nurse. Like gtfo dude, what reality do you fucking live in?

Please pick one option

  1. Nurses cant strike and must negotiate through other means to get what they want resulting in fewer deaths.

  2. Nurses go on strike, potentially getting what they want, but people die in the process.

Please reply with a 1 or 2. Upon doing so you will have answered the question directly and we can move on.

2

JesusSandals73 t1_j3k3ehz wrote

Police and Fire fighters aren't privatized, almost all hospitals are. You say you don't need to study to know that option 1 causes fewer deaths when you offer no evidence and are going with the "trust me bro". Both options are equally deadly. I will now copy and paste from the other thread where you are doing this twice. I may also add you have been down voted and disagreed with numerous times so I know I'm not the only one here.

"You have successfully made this argument redundant because you have ignored every point I gave to keep asking the same question, which I already answered, then you changed some words around to try to make me change my answer to the one you want. I also addressed the whole death issue too, and I have gave you some counterpoints which could have furthered this discussion, but you are so insistent about ignoring all of them to make me answer it again. I'm obviously pro nurses, pro strike if it means making the hospital safer rather than prolong the dangerous conditions we have right now. PEOPLE WILL PUT IN DEADLY SITUATIONS IN BOTH OPTIONS. How many times have I told you that, since both situations are deadly, and if I had to pick, I would pick the deadly situation that will in return make the dangers go away rather than prolong them. But now you asked me the same question AGAIN and added that option one will cause fewer deaths which is wrong and thrown in there to make me pick the option YOU want me to pick. I told you that, ignored me, then asked it again calling me a coward. Your question is flawed and unfair to the real issues, but all you can do is keep repeating it until I answer again. This will be my last post in this thread UNLESS you give me an actual response that isn't you pointlessly asking me to answer the same question and proving to me you aren't actually uneducated in the matter."

1

Conscious_Card6261 t1_j3k5ssz wrote

I literally dont care Im getting down voted, I saw it coming. Look i bring up the taylor law only to point oht that the conflixt Im raising is a relavant question. No more.

0