July 21, 201015 yr Jingthing: The Democratic party has been in control of the House and Senate since the 2008 elections. They have had a "super majority" in both houses of Congress since the elections of 2010. They have done nothing to pass legislation in your area of concern. Why not?
July 21, 201015 yr They have done nothing to pass legislation in your area of concern. :lol: Thanks that did make me laugh.
July 21, 201015 yr Jingthing: The Democratic party has been in control of the House and Senate since the 2008 elections. They have had a "super majority" in both houses of Congress since the elections of 2010. They have done nothing to pass legislation in your area of concern. Why not? The Dems have been in control of both houses of Congress since the 2006 mid-term elections and have had a super majority since the 2008 election.
July 22, 201015 yr I stand corrected, Koheesti. Of course you are right, which makes the question to Jingthing even more interesting. The Dems have done NOTHING when they could, yet he blames the Republicans. Strange thought processes.
July 25, 201015 yr Here's a little data on one of the socialized medicine bastions. Seems they have tried to run their health care system with bureaucrats and it isn't working. Now they plan to give it back to the doctors. I wonder when we will arrive at the startling conclusion that our government cannot effectively run anything? Do you wonder why the approval rating for Congress is at it's current 11%? ______________________________________________________ Britain Plans to Decentralize Health Care By SARAH LYALL Published: July 24, 2010 LONDON — Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate. The new British government’s plan to drastically reshape the socialized health care system would put local physicians like Dr. Marita Koumettou in north London in control of much of the national health budget. Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948. Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers. The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished. In a document, or white paper, outlining the plan, the government admitted that the changes would “cause significant disruption and loss of jobs.” But it said: “The current architecture of the health system has developed piecemeal, involves duplication and is unwieldy. Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.” The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, also promised to put more power in the hands of patients. Currently, how and where patients are treated, and by whom, is largely determined by decisions made by 150 entities known as primary care trusts — all of which would be abolished under the plan, with some of those choices going to patients. It would also abolish many current government-set targets, like limits on how long patients have to wait for treatment. The plan, with many elements that need legislative approval to be enacted, applies only to England; other parts of Britain have separate systems. The government announced the proposals this month. Reactions to them range from pleased to highly skeptical. Many critics say that the plans are far too ambitious, particularly in the short period of time allotted, and they doubt that general practitioners are the right people to decide how the health care budget should be spent. Currently, the 150 primary care trusts make most of those decisions. Under the proposals, general practitioners would band together in regional consortia to buy services from hospitals and other providers. It is likely that many such groups would have to spend money to hire outside managers to manage their budgets and negotiate with the providers, thus canceling out some of the savings. David Furness, head of strategic development at the Social Market Foundation, a study group, said that under the plan, every general practitioner in London would, in effect, be responsible for a $3.4 million budget. “It’s like getting your waiter to manage a restaurant,” Mr. Furness said. “The government is saying that G.P.’s know what the patient wants, just the way a waiter knows what you want to eat. But a waiter isn’t necessarily any good at ordering stock, managing the premises, talking to the chef — why would they be? They’re waiters.” But advocacy groups for general practitioners welcomed the proposals. “One of the great attractions of this is that it will be able to focus on what local people need,” said Prof. Steve Field, chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, which represents about 40,000 of the 50,000 general practitioners in the country. “This is about clinicians taking responsibility for making these decisions.” Dr. Richard Vautrey, deputy chairman of the general practitioner committee at the British Medical Association, said general practitioners had long felt there were “far too many bureaucratic hurdles to leap” in the system, impeding communication. “In many places, the communication between G.P.’s and consultants in hospitals has become fragmented and distant,” he said. The plan would also require all National Health Service hospitals to become “foundation trusts,” enterprises that are independent of health service control and accountable to an independent regulator (some hospitals currently operate in this fashion). This would result in a further loss of jobs, health care unions say, and also open the door to further privatization of the service. More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/world/europe/25britain.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp
July 29, 201015 yr I see BO has at the eleventh hour halted Arizona's new Immigration bill. I wonder if he did it through fear that one day he may have to visit the State and some police officer may have demanded to see proof of his Immigration status ?
July 29, 201015 yr Author He might be better off giving automatic American citizenship to anyone with an Indonesian birth certificate.
July 29, 201015 yr So you think I made this up? Shocking! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100617/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2681_2 In a rare bit of good news for Democrats, a new Associated Press-GfK poll finds a significant turnaround in public sentiment toward the health care reform bill approved by Congress earlier this year. According to AP, 45 percent of those surveyed approve of the bill and 42 percent oppose. Over time, as predicted by democrats, Obamacare becomes more and more popular. The loud protests are OVER. Obamacare is now accepted and LIKED. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/29/AR2010072900004.html
July 29, 201015 yr Author If I remember correctly, last time you posted this, someone posted another poll that REFUTED it - still beating a dead horse?
July 29, 201015 yr So you think I made this up? Shocking! http://news.yahoo.co.../ynews_pl2681_2 In a rare bit of good news for Democrats, a new Associated Press-GfK poll finds a significant turnaround in public sentiment toward the health care reform bill approved by Congress earlier this year. According to AP, 45 percent of those surveyed approve of the bill and 42 percent oppose. Over time, as predicted by democrats, Obamacare becomes more and more popular. The loud protests are OVER. Obamacare is now accepted and LIKED. http://www.washingto...0072900004.html If Obamacares so much, why is he against gay marriage?
July 29, 201015 yr So you think I made this up? Shocking! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100617/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2681_2 In a rare bit of good news for Democrats, a new Associated Press-GfK poll finds a significant turnaround in public sentiment toward the health care reform bill approved by Congress earlier this year. According to AP, 45 percent of those surveyed approve of the bill and 42 percent oppose. Over time, as predicted by democrats, Obamacare becomes more and more popular. The loud protests are OVER. Obamacare is now accepted and LIKED. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/29/AR2010072900004.html You are right, Jingthing. The "like-ability" has jumped all the way from 48% to 50%, completely leapfrogging that 49% number. Of course that means 50% still don't like it but we can pretend they don't exist. OK?
July 29, 201015 yr I read somewhere that Prince Obama allegedly had some gay adventures in the past? Why would he be against gay marriage I mean he has no problem signing a bill that sponsors abortion centers although not in the US if I am not mistaken... Or could it be those religious fanatics like the new born Christians and Evangelicals that are behind the scenes?
July 29, 201015 yr Here's a little data on one of the socialized medicine bastions. Seems they have tried to run their health care system with bureaucrats and it isn't working. Now they plan to give it back to the doctors. The problem with that article is that our health care system is working. It might not be the most efficient in the world and it might not have the cutting edge treatments available in the US but most people don't need that kind of treatment anyway - they have chronic conditions which usually require regular medication and check-ups. If I lived in the US I'd be bankrupt and medically uninsurable. In the UK I'm guaranteed treatment along with every other citizen. Even you are entitled to free emergency treatment if it becomes necessary while you're visiting the UK.
July 29, 201015 yr Here's a little data on one of the socialized medicine bastions. Seems they have tried to run their health care system with bureaucrats and it isn't working. Now they plan to give it back to the doctors. The problem with that article is that our health care system is working. It might not be the most efficient in the world and it might not have the cutting edge treatments available in the US but most people don't need that kind of treatment anyway - they have chronic conditions which usually require regular medication and check-ups. If I lived in the US I'd be bankrupt and medically uninsurable. In the UK I'm guaranteed treatment along with every other citizen. Even you are entitled to free emergency treatment if it becomes necessary while you're visiting the UK. I have an American friend who had to go to the hospital in England and managed to bullshit his way into the NHS system using a friend's address. He's one of those guys who can just annoy you so long that you give in.
July 29, 201015 yr Everyone is entitled to emergency room treatment for free no matter where they're from.
July 29, 201015 yr Everyone is entitled to emergency room treatment for free no matter where they're from. That is certainly true in America. My sister is living proof. If she ever wins the lottery, the first $600,000 or so goes to the gov't, but that's not a big oncern.
July 29, 201015 yr Everyone is entitled to emergency room treatment for free no matter where they're from. That is certainly true in America. My sister is living proof. If she ever wins the lottery, the first $600,000 or so goes to the gov't, but that's not a big oncern. How does it work in the US? Can you get treatment at any hospital emergency room if you're in need of it?
July 29, 201015 yr Everyone is entitled to emergency room treatment for free no matter where they're from. That is certainly true in America. My sister is living proof. If she ever wins the lottery, the first $600,000 or so goes to the gov't, but that's not a big oncern. How does it work in the US? Can you get treatment at any hospital emergency room if you're in need of it? My sister was in a car accident. When they bring you in and you're critical, they don't check your insurance and if you don't have enough money they throw you out on the street. She has been in a wheelchair since that accident over 20 years ago. She was in the hospital for months. First in a rotating bed to keep pressure off the spine then for long rehab. I think the way it works is that if you are old or poor, you are taken care of with Medicare or Medicaid. If you are dying from an accident, you are taken care of when they bring you in. The middle class without life-threatening probems are screwed. If you are middle class and able to walk in on you own and complain about something, you're screwed. I don't know if it differs state to state. I've been away a long time. Maybe someone like flying who still lives there can correct me if I've got something wrong.
July 30, 201015 yr How does it work in the US? Can you get treatment at any hospital emergency room if you're in need of it? The middle class without life-threatening problems are screwed. If you are middle class and able to walk in on you own and complain about something, you're screwed. I don't know if it differs state to state. I've been away a long time. Maybe someone like flying who still lives there can correct me if I've got something wrong. Well I can only speak from my own experiences of what I read & see..... It seems mostly as you said... Example..emergence due to accidents etc are treated/stabilized immediately without concern for does the patient have medical insurance. If a walk in emergency cuts etc in need of stitching they will ask if you have insurance while admitting you take your info. If not you will be asked to sign what amounts to a promissory note & given an application for State government provided insurance for those that do not have any. Your cost for the day is $25 usd if you have it It has always been simple to obtain govt insurance & if you have less than xxxx in the bank & do not have employment based insurance they will supply it. FREE Of course this is not the cream of the crop insurance where you choose any doctor you want but it is medical insurance. You do get treated & many do work the system by going back & using the ER as their doctor of choice. It is actually good insurance & they will refer you to what ever specialist you need....You just cannot go directly yourself...which is actually how my insurance also works & I have paid for mine all my adult life. I do not know about the long stay care but I will bet it is as good as most because most judging by my mom etc who also paid all her life is not that great either. ie: they like to move you out asap & you have to demand some kind of physical therapy follow ups. I am 90% sure all States work this way for both medical & food.None are refused If you have no medical you will qualify for a State or Welfare department type of assistance & only asked to fill simple forms stating your income & savings etc. Then asked every few months 6 I think to answer a status note. Same for food...Anyone with low resources qualifies. I have forgotten what the call it now. It is no longer called food stamps because they get a EBT card. Then every 1st of the month it is automatically recharged for them. That one kind of pisses me off because they do get a crazy large amount & eat better than most of us While folks like this can get free medical & food they do not get cash. Which is why they use the card now to cut down on folks selling the stamps for 50 cents on the dollar since they had so much. Then they would buy ciggs & booze. But if you have children you do get money & if any are under 5 years old you do not need to work. This creates a viscous circle for some. They want to have a baby every 4 years so they have a lifetime of free everything. They fool themselves into thinking that is a life. Almost forgot but if your without children & having long term medical problems yet under SS age you also can get cash or if serious debilitating enough get SS early. Which is actually a higher amount than if you had to wait till you were 62
July 30, 201015 yr Everyone is entitled to emergency room treatment for free no matter where they're from. That is certainly true in America. My sister is living proof. If she ever wins the lottery, the first $600,000 or so goes to the gov't, but that's not a big oncern. How does it work in the US? Can you get treatment at any hospital emergency room if you're in need of it? Every hospital that participates in the Medicaid system is required to accept any patient that shows up in the Emergency Room. How do you think 11 million illegal immigrants are being tended to? If you want to go to the head of the line, show up wearing a hat with the letters I.C.E. on prominent display. Most emergency rooms empty rather quickly when they see one of those hats. Here is a link that explains the emergency medical care system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act PS: I.C.E. stands for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
August 1, 201015 yr Author A woman in a hot-air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am." The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 min utes west longitude.” She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican." "I am”, replied the man. "How did you know?" "Well”, answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me." The man smiled and responded, "You must be an Obama Democrat." "I am”, replied the balloonist. "How did you know?" "Well”, said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you are going. You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault."
August 1, 201015 yr More Obama stuff: The original for those who don't know the TV character, Urkel...
August 1, 201015 yr Author Obamacare is now accepted and LIKED. Nancy Poloski and Harry Reid do not make up a majority.
August 2, 201015 yr Talking about Obamacare, some of our members have compared the expected legislation to improve our lives, as the National Health Service has improved medical care in the UK. We can only hope Obamacare doesn't follow the latest trend of the NHS. ______________________________________________________ Axe falls on NHS services NHS bosses have drawn up secret plans for sweeping cuts to services, with restrictions on the most basic treatments for the sick and injured. By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent Published: 9:19PM BST 24 Jul 2010 Some of the most common operations — including hip replacements and cataract surgery — will be rationed as part of attempts to save billions of pounds, despite government promises that front-line services would be protected. Patients’ groups have described the measures as “astonishingly brutal”. An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered widespread cuts planned across the NHS, many of which have already been agreed by senior health service officials. They include: * Restrictions on some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures. * Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends. * The closure of nursing homes for the elderly. * A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using accident and emergency departments. * Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for surgery for obesity. * Thousands of job losses at NHS hospitals, including 500 staff to go at a trust where cancer patients recently suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff shortages. * Cost-cutting programmes in paediatric and maternity services, care of the elderly and services that provide respite breaks to long-term carers. The Sunday Telegraph found the details of hundreds of cuts buried in obscure appendices to lengthy policy and strategy documents published by trusts. In most cases, local communities appear to be unaware of the plans. Dr Peter Carter, the head of the Royal College of Nursing, said he was “incredibly worried” about the disclosures. He urged Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, to “get a grip” on the reality of what was going on in the NHS. The Government has promised to protect the overall budget of the NHS, which will continue to receive above-inflation increases, but said the service must make “efficiency savings” of up to £20 billion by 2014, which would be diverted back to the front line. Mr Lansley said last month: “This protection for the NHS is protection for patients – to ensure that the sick do not pay for the debt crisis.” Dr Carter said: “Andrew Lansley keeps saying that the Government will protect the front line from cuts – but the reality appears to be quite the opposite. We are seeing trusts making job cuts even when they have already admitted to being short staffed. ‘‘The statements he makes may be well intentioned – but we would implore him to get a grip on the reality, because these kinds of cuts are incredibly worrying.” Katherine Murphy, of the Patients Association, said the cuts were “astonishingly brutal” and expressed particular concern at moves to ration operations such as hip and knee operations. “These are not unusual procedures, this is a really blatant attempt to save money by leaving people in pain,” she said.“Looking at these kinds of cuts, which trusts have drawn up in such secrecy, it particularly worries me how far they disadvantage the elderly and the vulnerable.‘‘We cannot return to the days of people waiting in pain for years for a hip operation or having to pay for operations privately.”She added that it was “incredibly cruel” to draw up savings plans based on denying care to the dying. On Thursday, the board of Sutton and Merton primary care trust (PCT) in London agreed more than £50 million of savings in two years. The plan included more than £400,000 to be saved by “reducing length of stay” in hospital for the terminally ill. As well as sending more patients home to die, the paper said the savings would be made by admitting fewer terminally ill cancer patients to hospital because they were struggling to cope with symptoms such as pain. Instead, more patients would be given advice on “self management” of their condition. Bill Gillespie, the trust’s chief executive, said patients would stay at home, or be discharged from hospital only if that was their choice, and would be given support in their homes. This week, Hertfordshire PCT plans to discuss attempts to reduce spending by rationing more than 50 common procedures, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic treatment. Doctors across the county have already been told that their patients can have the operations only if they are given “prior approval” by the PCT, with each authorisation made on a “case by case” basis. Elsewhere, new restrictions have been introduced to limit funding of IVF. While many infertile couples living in Yorkshire had previously been allowed two cycles of treatment — still short of national guidance to fund three cycles — all the primary care trusts in the county are now restricting treatment to one cycle per couple. A “turnaround” plan drawn up by Peterborough PCT intends to make almost £100 million of savings by 2013. Its cuts include closing nursing and residential homes and services for the mentally ill, sending 500 fewer patients to hospital each month, and cutting £17 million from acute and accident and emergency services. Two weeks ago, Mid Yorkshire Hospitals trust agreed plans to save £55 million in two years, with £20 million coming from about 500 job losses. Yet, a month before the decision was taken, senior managers at a board meeting described how staff shortages were already causing delays for patients being diagnosed and treated for breast cancer. Mr Lansley said any trusts that interpreted the Government’s demands for efficiency savings as budget or service cuts were wrong to do so, and were “living in the past”. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7908742/Axe-falls-on-NHS-services.html
August 4, 201015 yr Well, here's the latest. A flow chart for Obamacare. Do you folks still love it? _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Full page version here: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/PhotoPopup.aspx?path=obamacare_chart_LG.jpg&docId=542520&caption=
August 4, 201015 yr Well, here's the latest. A flow chart for Obamacare. Do you folks still love it? _______________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Full page version here: http://www.investors...542520&caption= It sure is purty.
August 4, 201015 yr Does Sweden have socialized medicine? http://www.thelocal.se/28150/20100803/ ______________________________________________________ I know Canada has socialized medicine. http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/News/Local/2010-07-29/article-1632292/Peakes-woman-loses-her-baby,-dignity-while-awaiting-hospital-treatment-/1 ______________________________________________________ Is this what the US Congress signed our citizens up for?
August 17, 201015 yr How does it work in the US? Can you get treatment at any hospital emergency room if you're in need of it? The middle class without life-threatening problems are screwed. If you are middle class and able to walk in on you own and complain about something, you're screwed. I don't know if it differs state to state. I've been away a long time. Maybe someone like flying who still lives there can correct me if I've got something wrong. Well I can only speak from my own experiences of what I read & see..... It seems mostly as you said... Example..emergence due to accidents etc are treated/stabilized immediately without concern for does the patient have medical insurance. If a walk in emergency cuts etc in need of stitching they will ask if you have insurance while admitting you take your info. If not you will be asked to sign what amounts to a promissory note & given an application for State government provided insurance for those that do not have any. Your cost for the day is $25 usd if you have it It has always been simple to obtain govt insurance & if you have less than xxxx in the bank & do not have employment based insurance they will supply it. FREE Of course this is not the cream of the crop insurance where you choose any doctor you want but it is medical insurance. You do get treated & many do work the system by going back & using the ER as their doctor of choice. It is actually good insurance & they will refer you to what ever specialist you need....You just cannot go directly yourself...which is actually how my insurance also works & I have paid for mine all my adult life. I do not know about the long stay care but I will bet it is as good as most because most judging by my mom etc who also paid all her life is not that great either. ie: they like to move you out asap & you have to demand some kind of physical therapy follow ups. I am 90% sure all States work this way for both medical & food.None are refused If you have no medical you will qualify for a State or Welfare department type of assistance & only asked to fill simple forms stating your income & savings etc. Then asked every few months 6 I think to answer a status note. Same for food...Anyone with low resources qualifies. I have forgotten what the call it now. It is no longer called food stamps because they get a EBT card. Then every 1st of the month it is automatically recharged for them. That one kind of pisses me off because they do get a crazy large amount & eat better than most of us While folks like this can get free medical & food they do not get cash. Which is why they use the card now to cut down on folks selling the stamps for 50 cents on the dollar since they had so much. Then they would buy ciggs & booze. But if you have children you do get money & if any are under 5 years old you do not need to work. This creates a viscous circle for some. They want to have a baby every 4 years so they have a lifetime of free everything. They fool themselves into thinking that is a life. Almost forgot but if your without children & having long term medical problems yet under SS age you also can get cash or if serious debilitating enough get SS early. Which is actually a higher amount than if you had to wait till you were 62 This used to be the case but is no longer true. Under the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program which was part of the original Social Security Act of 1935 and colloquially called welfare (There is not now or has there ever been a program officially known as welfare) this was true but the The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 replaced AFDC with a cash block grant called the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. TANF placed a lifetime limit of five years (60 months) on the amount of time a family with an adult could receive assistance funded with federal funds, increased work participation rate requirements, and gave broad state flexibility on program design. Spending through the TANF block grant was capped and funded at $16.5 billion per year. This legislation was passed during the Clinton administration with wide bi-partisan support. It has since been hailed as a great success as the number of people receiving welfare has dropped sharply since it was passed. It was unfortunately about the last time the Republicans and Democrats worked together to do something to benefit the country without turning it into a toxic political free-for-all of bashing one another. In todays poisonous political climate in the US it is doubtful we will see that sort of cooperation again anytime soon, especially in an election year.
Create an account or sign in to comment