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."

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 me to me you aren't actually uneducated in the matter.

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?

Option one won't work because they already did. For over a year now they have been ignored. I've already told you this. You think one is still an option when its not. This is way more than a black and white issue. But you won't listen to me because you want me to answer wour question I already pointed out isn't the right question to ask. Now I answered it and you still asked me the same thing.

I already answered your question. If you are against deaths, you should be pro nurses here. People will die in both situations, so let's pick the situation that will actual fix the issue then ask a pointless question which takes away the real issue. That's all I told you before. Everyone will tell you deaths are bad. Didn't realize I had to point it out to you.

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.

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.

See your missing the point. You are focusing on one aspect of this issue. This isn't about blaming deaths on anyone. If they don't threaten strike, then they will continue to put nurses AND patients in danger due to the horrible staffing ratios. The real question should be answered by you, should we keep putting more lives in danger by keeping things the way they are? Or force the greedy suits to make things safer? Your so focused on the patients who would be in danger when they are already in danger. Nurses for years have done everything within their power, including still working in these conditions and they have been ignored for years. There literally is nothing else to do but strike. And if the strike goes through, the hospital corporate suits all will have to pay the reprocussions of any damage. Stop trying to put blame on those being forced into this and put blame on the people who could easily change this.

If this is the only way to protect yourself and your family, wouldn't you do it? Pal, you really don't get it. Any death would not be on any one of the strikers at all. if they clock in and assume responsibility then yes, they are responsible and it would be a crime called patient endangerment. But if you dont clock in, and you don't get assigned patients, they are not your problem. Hospitals are running themselves in a very dangerous manner and if something were to happen it would fall on the nurses hands. They could lose their license, get sued, or be charged with a crime. Don't blame the victims because corporate suits are trying to save a few bucks. Nurses desperately tried everything and now it has come to the last resort. It's the hospital to blame for this crisis not the nurses.

You only take responsibility if you sign on and take over patients. If you never clock in, they were never yours to begin with. If you can't run a hospital without nurses, then maybe you should treat them like essential parts of your workforce. Nurses have been begging for this for years as they have been given way too many patients with in turn could cause an accident causing them to be sued and loosing their license. But no, let's blame the nurses for all this. Let's see you willingly sign up to be put in a dangerous situation like this.