Government run health care [Archive] - Page 2

Marigold2

10-14-2009, 12:32 PM

More from page three

There is a long-term price of illegitimacy as well, one that resonates at a time when the fear of crime, particularly the crimes committed by a generation of young, pitiless men and boys, has become a national obsession. When people ask where all these 16-year-old predators are coming from, one answer is chilling: from 14-year-old mothers. More than half the juvenile offenders serving prison time were raised by only one parent. If present birthrates continue over the next 10 to 15 years, the number of young people trapped in poverty and tempted by the streets will increase dramatically. Says John DiIulio, professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University: "You have a ticking crime bomb."
The second point of consensus is that historically the welfare system has rewarded everything it ought to prevent and punished everything it ought to promote. "The Federal Government has created a monster," says Ann Clark, a welfare case manager in Colorado Springs, Colorado. "I'm dealing with third- generation recipients. Welfare has become their way of life. It scares them to death to try to get off it." The idea is not that the government get into the business of deciding who should have children; rather it is to get the government out of such decisions, by removing all the perverse rewards and punishments embedded in the system.
Across the country, welfare case workers argue that most recipients want to work. "The problem is not work ethics," argues law professor Julie Nice of the University of Denver. "It is the lack of jobs." But those who do manage to find work can instantly lose their health coverage, food stamps, public housing and child care. Marriage too comes with a penalty. Mary Ann Mendez, a mother of three in Harlingen, Texas, received only Medicaid benefits when she was living with her common-law husband, who worked periodically. When he left her, however, her broken home was showered with benefits: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), more food stamps, gas money to get to and from school, and free day care. "It doesn't seem like they want families to stay | together," she says.
But when it comes to correcting all the other damaging incentives of the welfare system, the arguments break out. The hottest topic at the moment is the family cap. Already in New Jersey, Arkansas and Georgia, families receive no increase for children born while on the dole, and Clinton's plan would allow other states to follow suit. Since the average increase of about $67 is much less than the cost of raising another child, welfare mothers didn't really have much economic incentive to have more kids. But this above all is a symbolic issue, a chance for the government to send a message about how it plans to treat parents who have children they cannot afford.

« PREV PAGE (http://petoftheday.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980942-2,00.html)
1 (http://petoftheday.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980942-1,00.html)
2 (http://petoftheday.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980942-2,00.html)
3
4 (http://petoftheday.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980942-4,00.html)
5 (http://petoftheday.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980942-5,00.html)
6 (http://petoftheday.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980942-6,00.html)
7 (http://petoftheday.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980942-7,00.html)
8 (http://petoftheday.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980942-8,00.html)

caseysmom

10-14-2009, 12:35 PM

So your "facts" are incorrect.

The article is from 1994.

pomtzu

10-14-2009, 12:57 PM

So your "facts" are incorrect.

The article is from 1994.

Thank you!!!

So not only was the fact stated incorrectly - since "unwed" does not mean "on welfare", but the article is 15 years old. :eek:

So glad to see that you're keeping up with the times, Marigold. :rolleyes:

caseysmom

10-14-2009, 01:00 PM

I can think of at least one pettalker that wouldn't appreciate single mothers being lumped in a bucket with welfare mothers.

Marigold2

10-14-2009, 01:04 PM

Voluntary Relinquishment for Adoption
Numbers and Trends
Author(s): Child Welfare Information Gateway
Year Published: 2005
http://www.childwelfare.gov/images/mail.jpg Email (http://www.childwelfare.gov/sharedcontent/email_this/index.cfm?chno=AJ-0004A) http://www.childwelfare.gov/images/cart.jpg Order (Free) (http://www.childwelfare.gov/cart/view_cart.cfm?add_cart=1&recno=50049&itemType=Unbound) http://www.childwelfare.gov/images/print.jpg Print (PDF 195 KB) (http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_place.pdf) http://www.childwelfare.gov/images/share.jpg Share (http://www.childwelfare.gov/survey/disclaimerAskme.cfm?target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.addthi s.com%2Fbookmark.php%3Fv%3D250%26pub%3Dlorihunter&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.childwelfare.gov%2Fpubs% 2Fs_place.cfm)
http://www.childwelfare.gov/images/rate.jpg Rate This (http://www.childwelfare.gov/sharedcontent/rate_doc/rate_doc.cfm?chno=AJ%2D0004A) 4.8/5, 4 Reviews

Voluntary placement of children for adoption is relatively rare in the United States. This paper examines some of the more recent statistics and trends regarding the relinquishment of children by birth mothers.
How Many Women Place Their Children For Adoption?

The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) is the only national source of data on voluntary relinquishment for adoption. According to the 1995 NSFG, 1 (http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_place.cfm#1) less than 1 percent of children born to never-married women were placed for adoption from 1989 to 1995 (Chandra, Abma, Maza, & Bachrach, 1999).

The percentage is higher for White never-married women (1.7 percent) than for Black never-married women (near 0 percent).
Relinquishment by married and formerly married women is rarer still, and percentages are not available.
About 1.4 million children were born to unmarried women in 2003, comprising 34.6 percent of total births (Hamilton, Martin, & Sutton, 2004). If the relinquishment rate measured by NSFG in 1995 for never-married women were applied to all unmarried women who gave birth in 2003, this would mean that fewer than 14,000 children were voluntarily relinquished in 2003.
Who Are the Women Who Place Their Children?

Other than the NSFG data on mother's race, information about who relinquishes a child for adoption is limited, in part because relinquishment is rare and the numbers are so small.
Most research focuses on unmarried teens who relinquish a child. In addition to being disproportionately White, those who relinquish tend to have higher education and income levels, higher future career and educational aspirations, and a strong preference for adoption expressed by the teen's mother and/or the birth father (Miller & Coyl, 2000).

Namerow, Kalmuss, and Cushman (1993) studied 592 unmarried pregnant women age 21 or younger. The sample was selected from maternity residences, clinics, and teen pregnancy programs or adoption agencies. Postbirth interviews with 527 of the teens showed that those who had personal experience with adoption or had spent time at a maternity residence were more likely to relinquish. The choice to relinquish was also heavily influenced by the preference of the teens' mothers and boyfriends.
A study of 162 pregnant teens residing in a maternity home found that birth fathers' preference for adoption was the most powerful predictor of the mothers' consistency in their decision to relinquish (Dworkin, Harding, & Schreiber, 1993).

Marigold2

10-14-2009, 01:07 PM

The article continues.
One study at a residential facility for pregnant teens found that a disproportionate number of those who relinquished were from upper-middle-class families, living in the suburbs or small cities, and from intact families with highly educated parents (Moore & Davidson, 2002). The 178 teens studied were heavily influenced in their decisions to relinquish by peers and siblings and by having personal experience with adoption (knowing someone who was adopted or being adopted themselves).
What Are Some Trends in Placing Children for Adoption?

Two trends stand out, as shown in Figure 1:

A decrease in the percentage of children relinquished by never-married women
A decrease in the difference between White and Black women in placement rates

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_placefig1.gif
RaceBefore 19731973-19811982-19881989-1995All Women8.7%4.1%2%0.9%Black1.5%0.2%1.1%near 0White19.3%7.5%3.2%1.7%
D (http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_placedlink.cfm)
Since the mid-1970s, relinquishments have declined from nearly 9 percent to under 1 percent of births to never-married women. Among never-married women, relinquishment by Black women has remained very low-declining from 1.5 percent to nearly 0 percent, while relinquishment by White women has declined sharply-from nearly 20 percent to less than 2 percent.
Researchers offer various explanations for the dramatic decline in relinquishment. Some suggest that the increased social acceptance of single parenthood has led more unmarried women to keep their children (Miller & Coyl, 2000; Mosher & Bachrach, 1996). Also, a higher proportion of unmarried mothers are in their 20s rather than their teens, so the personal and financial stresses may not be as great as in the past (Freundlich, 1998). Several researchers agree that it is likely that relinquishment rates will not increase in the next several years (Miller & Coyl, 2000; Freundlich, 1998).
Chandra et al. (1999) hypothesize that informal adoptions are becoming more common. They suggest that transfer of custody from the birth mother to another person may be occurring increasingly in a variety of informal manners instead of through formal, permanent relinquishment of all parental rights and responsibilities. These authors cite Henshaw (1998) in suggesting that the decline in abortion rates shows that the decline in relinquishment is not a result of increasing selection of abortion over relinquishment.
The role of birth fathers in relinquishment decisions is unclear. Freundlich (1998) suggests that any increase in their role may be offset by other factors, such as court rulings that birth fathers have little right to veto relinquishment if they have not taken an active prenatal role and an active role immediately after the birth.
Future Research

The study of relinquishment is hampered by a number of limitations. Fisher (2003) notes several of these:

The relatively small number who relinquish makes generalizations based on samples difficult.
Many studies use biased samples of women who have self-selected by volunteering to report.
Very little of the literature addresses the behavior and rights of fathers.
As the percentage of women who place their children has dropped, the opportunity to study this population has decreased, and it is increasingly difficult to generalize from the small numbers of individuals studied. Future research may concentrate on the characteristics of this group and the factors that influence their decision to place their children for adoption.
References

Chandra, A., Abma, J., Maza, P., & Bachrach, C. (1999). Adoption, adoption seeking, and relinquishment for adoption in the United States. Advance Data (No. 306) from Vital and Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National center for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved February 16, 2005, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad306.pdf (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad306.pdf)
Dworkin, R. J., Harding, J. T., & Schreiber, N. B. (1993). Parenting or placing: Decision-making by pregnant teens. Youth & Society, 25, 75-92.
Fisher, A. P. (2003). Still "Not quite as good as having your own"? Toward a sociology of adoption. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 335-61.
Freundlich, M. (1998). Supply and demand: the forces shaping the future of infant adoption. Adoption Quarterly, 2(1), p. 13-46.
Hamilton, B. E., Martin, J. A.., & Sutton, P. D. (2004). Births: Preliminary data for 2003, National Vital Statistics Reports, 53(9). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved February 25, 2004, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_09.pdf (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_09.pdf)
Henshaw, S. K. (1998). Abortion incidence and services in the United States, 1995-96. Family Planning Perspectives 30(6), 263-270, 287.
Miller, B. C., & Coyl, D. D. (2000). Adolescent pregnancy and childbearing in relation to infant adoption in the United States. Adoption Quarterly, 4, 3-25.
Moore, N. B., & Davidson, J. K. (2002). A profile of adoption placers: Perceptions of pregnant teens during the decision-making process. Adoption Quarterly, 6(2), 29-41.
Mosher, W. D. & Bachrach, C. A. (1996). Understanding U.S. fertility: Continuity and change in the National Survey of Family Growth, 1988-1995. Family Planning Perspectives, 28(1). Retrieved February 16, 2005, from http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/2800496.html (http://www.childwelfare.gov/survey/disclaimerAskme.cfm?target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.agi-usa.org%2Fpubs%2Fjournals%2F2800496.html&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.childwelfare.gov%2Fpubs% 2Fs_place.cfm)
Namerow, P. B., Kalmuss, D. S., & Cushman, L. F. (1993). The determinants of young women's pregnancy-resolution choices. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 3, 193-215.
1The most recent NSFG includes data from a 1995 survey with a nationally representative sample of over 10,000 women. Data from 2002 (Cycle 6) have not yet been analyzed.back (http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_place.cfm#bk1)

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/images/mail.jpg Email (http://www.childwelfare.gov/sharedcontent/email_this/index.cfm?chno=AJ-0004A) http://www.childwelfare.gov/images/cart.jpg Order (Free) (http://www.childwelfare.gov/cart/view_cart.cfm?add_cart=1&recno=50049&itemType=Unbound) http://www.childwelfare.gov/images/print.jpg Print (PDF 195 KB) (http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/s_place.pdf) http://www.childwelfare.gov/images/share.jpg Share (http://www.childwelfare.gov/survey/disclaimerAskme.cfm?target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.addthi s.com%2Fbookmark.php%3Fv%3D250%26pub%3Dlorihunter&referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.childwelfare.gov%2Fpubs% 2Fs_place.cfm)

caseysmom

10-14-2009, 01:09 PM

Thanks that clears everything up.

Marigold2

10-14-2009, 01:12 PM

About 1.4 million children were born to unmarried women in 2003, comprising 34.6 percent of total births (Hamilton, Martin, & Sutton, 2004). If the relinquishment rate measured by NSFG in 1995 for never-married women were applied to all unmarried women who gave birth in 2003, this would mean that fewer than 14,000 children were voluntarily relinquished in 2003.
Who Are the Women Who Place Their Children

This states 1/3 of women, there are tons of articles like this, one just needs to look, read, study, explore and believe the facts even if they are not how your life is or has turned out. These are the facts. Yes the article in Time was old, the problem has not gotten any better, it has probably gotten worst. Why do you have such spite and joy in trying to prove me wrong? What do you have to prove? I am just stating facts. If you are willing or thinking of giving your child up being on welfare or / and not being able to take care of said child is a good possiblitiy. Unmarried women are much more likely to be on welfare, not all but most.

Marigold2

10-14-2009, 01:42 PM

Update March 19, 2009: 'Baby Boomlet'

According to www.cdc.gov (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_12.pdf):
The preliminary estimate of births in 2007 rose 1 percent to 4,317,119, the highest number of births ever registered for the United States. The general fertility rate increased by 1 percent in 2007, to 69.5 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years, the highest level since 1990. Increases occurred within all race and Hispanic origin groups and for nearly all age groups.
The birth rate for U.S. teenagers 15-19 years rose again in 2007 by about 1 percent, to 42.5 births per 1,000. The birth rate for teenagers 15-17 and 18-19 years each increased by 1 percent in 2007, to 22.2 and 73.9 per 1,000, respectively. The rate for the youngest group, 10-14 years, was unchanged. Birth rates also increased for women in their twenties, thirties, and early forties between 2006 and 2007. The 2007 total fertility rate increased to 2,122.5 births per 1,000 women.
All measures of childbearing by unmarried women rose to historic levels in 2007, with the number of births, birth rate, and proportion of births to unmarried women increasing 3 to 5 percent.
By race of 4,317,119:
2,312,473 were white. 27.8% to unmarried women for a total of 642,687 fatherless children.
627,230 were black. 65.2% to unmarried women for a total of 408,953 fatherless children.
1,061,970 were Hispanic. 51.3% to unmarried women for a total of 544,790 fatherless children.
49,284 American Indian, etc. 65.2% to unmarried women for a total of 32,133 fatherless children.
254,734 were Asian. 16.9% to unmarried women for a total of 43,050 fatherless children.
Total fatherless children: 1,671,613 or 38.72% to unwed mothers.
US births break record; 40% out-of-wedlock
AP Mar 18, 2009
Births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent, continuing a trend that started years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older. For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher...
The new numbers suggest the second year of a baby boomlet, with U.S. fertility rates higher in every racial group, the highest among Hispanic women. On average, a U.S. woman has 2.1 babies in her lifetime. That's the "magic number" required for a population to replace itself...While the number of births in the U.S. reached nearly 4.3 million in 2006, mainly due to a larger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics, it's not clear the boomlet will last. Some experts think birth rates are already declining because of the economic recession that began in late 2007...
Meanwhile, U.S. abortions dropped to their lowest levels in decades.
Conclusion

What we have is a growing demographic powder keg. In other studies the high school dropout rate nearly mirrors the unwed mother rate. Like unwed motherhood, it's also self-inflicted and has nothing to do with racism. According to Charles Murray (1993) the white illegitimacy was 22% (707,502 babies in 1991) and black illegitimacy rate was 68%. Using the above figures, the white illegitimacy rate has risen about 5% and the black rate has held steady. The problem for whites is the illegitimacy rate is concentrated in the bottom tier of the population:

For white women below the poverty line in the year prior to giving birth, 44% of births have been illegitimate, compared with only 6% for women above the poverty line. White illegitimacy is overwhelmingly a lower-class phenomenon. This brings us to the emergence of a white underclass. In raw numbers, European-American whites are the ethnic group with the most people in poverty, most illegitimate children, most women on welfare, most unemployed men, and most arrests for serious crimes. And yet whites have not had an "underclass" as such, because the whites who might qualify have been scattered among the working class...The figure in low-income, working-class communities may be twice that.
Places such as Appalachia and Tri-Cities. Yet most social programs are aimed at non-whites only, such as Obama's Racist' Stimulus Package (http://www.sullivan-county.com/racism/reich.htm). The other big demographic nightmare is Hispanics whose illegitimacy rates, dropout rates, crime rates, etc. could overtake blacks in a few years. Their population (legal and illegal) is exploding in this region as well as they are used by cheap-labor employers to displace poor whites and blacks from their jobs and further depress wages. It would make more sense to deport as many illegal aliens (mainly Hispanic) as possible and secure our borders, while allowing much higher immigration levels from East Asia and Europe. But then Asians are too successful and don't form the permanent cheap-labor and welfare underclass so desired by big business and liberals.

Cataholic

10-14-2009, 01:43 PM

I can think of at least one pettalker that wouldn't appreciate single mothers being lumped in a bucket with welfare mothers.

LOLOL, I pretty much buck every 'statistic' ever thought of by Marigold. I imagine between the two of us, she is a bit more closer to those she scorns than I am. :D

Marigold2

10-14-2009, 01:46 PM

Lots and lots of facts out there to check, read and explore. Does someone else have stats to post?

Cataholic

10-14-2009, 01:53 PM

I have no idea why you would be mean to me. What are you so angry about? I did not swear or yell at the patient, I nicely told him that we don't take Care Source we don't take it because it does not pay enough to keep an office open.
He attacked me, I laughted because it was funny. I get 100 phone calls a day and several have Care Source many people get nasty when I tell them we don't take it.
What ya gonna do? Take it personaly, NO you have to laugh about it and keep your humor and good mood. If he had not hung up on me I would have told him to call Care Source to find a provider who takes that policy. But he hung up, so he is the one who is F^%KED.
It's not my fault we don't take it. I don't make the rules, I just follow them.
My advice on lowing medicial rates was sound. Don't smoke, use birth control, watch the diet and exercise, Nothing nasty there. It would benefit all, as a country and just one on one. Diabetes is a very serious issue in this country as is being overweight. Heart disease, cancer, stroke and all be prevented or greatly reduced if we do our best to take care of ourselves.
As for 1/3 of all births being on welfare, well that is just a fact. I can't change it. I just stated the truth, it might not be pretty but it's true. We as Americans need to be more repsonsible for our bodies. We need better morals, better role models, and young women need to know that having a baby by 21 is not the be all end all. They need to educate themselves, be able to take care of themselves, travel, expolore, have fun, shop till they drop, break a heart or two, climb a mountain, backpack through Europe, go sailing, join the Peace Corps, go out west and follow the Oragan trial. So much to do and see and explore before you settle and have kids, Moms need to tell kids that, to educate them that life is a journey and it's a blast. I have taught my kids that. I am not bitter, I am very down to earth and partical. I tell the truth even if it is ugly. The only way to change and grow and make things better is to talk honestly. I do that. I didn't say anything that wasn't true.
Are you feeling guilty about something or picked on? Why? What did I say that was not true?

QUOTE=Cataholic;2197923]Marigold, your perspective is very unique. Very. So much broadstroke action you may as well be painting a barn.

I know I have said this before but you must have had a very, very difficult childhood to sound so bitter about many things.[/QUOTE]

Mean? Mean? Where was I mean? You are very bitter. Like you, I tell it like it is, even if it is ugly. And, I do, personally, find bitter ugly. Along with your "take" on the world at large. Very ugly. Only someone really bitter would continue with the late 1960's white elitism talk. We all get you are better than someone on welfare, that you are better than someone that would have <gasp> a child without being married (LOLOL), that you are better than those that don't have a job. So, relax, you are WAY better than me!

Marigold2

10-14-2009, 01:56 PM

Excuse me, you think I made those up? Check the facts yourself. Are you a single mom? Are you trying to prove something? I don't understand why you are so defense?
I am married. I have four children and three grandkids. Three children I gave birth to and a young man who I consider a son and treat in every way as one. I posted his wedding pictures just a few days ago. I live in a nice home, upscale development, have never been on welfare or any type of government program. I have never been arrested. I have been to jail but only with my dad who was in law enforcement to visit his coworkers. I work full time and am able to support myself if my husband would become injured or die. I am just a normal everyday women who tries to do her best. I live a good life and pay my own way.
What are you so mad about? Why are you so angry about the facts I have posted?

Marigold2

10-14-2009, 01:59 PM

pomtzu

10-14-2009, 01:59 PM

Why do you have such spite and joy in trying to prove me wrong? What do you have to prove? I am just stating facts. If you are willing or thinking of giving your child up being on welfare or / and not being able to take care of said child is a good possiblitiy. Unmarried women are much more likely to be on welfare, not all but most.

I don't know if this is addressed to me or caseysmom, but it hardly applies to me - a 65 year old retiree! :eek:

But you made some rather unfounded statements in Post #1 which I called you on, and you never answered sensibly. You stated that being on welfare means that you have declared yourself physically and mentally unable to care for yourself and you're asking the government to pay your bills. You never could answer where the unemployed person that perhaps needs some temporary help, fits in to your statement. Are they physically and/or mentally unable?? Doubtful - since they likely wouldn't have had a job in the first place. So you just saw fit to disappear for a while, and hope my question would be forgotten. Remember that????? :confused::rolleyes:

Cataholic

10-14-2009, 02:02 PM

Here is part of page 3
It is hard to argue with the evidence they cite. Nearly a third of American children are born out of wedlock, and those children are four times as likely as the others to be poor. Unwed mothers average nearly 8 years on welfare, in ^ contrast to 4.8 years overall. "From the President on down, there has been an amazing shift in attitude," says Douglas Besharov, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Today everyone recognizes that dealing with births out of wedlock is the central issue of welfare reform, so much so that the President's draft plan makes dealing with illegitimacy the No. 1 priority

Aw, Holy Crap! Now I am poor? Must be cause I am due 8 years of welfare checks. What could possibly be next, that I am undereducated? From a long family line of welfare recipients?

Someone should have told me sooner.

Cataholic

10-14-2009, 02:06 PM

I have no idea what your life is, nor is it any of my business. It's your life to make the best of. If you are offended by my stats then you need to look at yourself and your own self-esteem and wonder why.
Like I said what are you angry about? If you don't like your life change it. But don't get mad at me for posts facts.

LOL, truly, get over yourself, Marigold. You would have to ask the probably 25 or so people on here that I have met in person if they would consider me 'worried about my self-esteem' or if my life needs to be changed (though I do admit to being 25 pounds heavier than I should be).

I am not 'mad', I think you are horribly bitter and ignorant about life. It is comical, when it stops being so sad a commentary on what a 'normal' woman would think and post.

Now, I am off to look at myself!

Cinder & Smoke

10-14-2009, 02:24 PM

Now I am poor?
Must be cause I am due 8 years of welfare checks.

What could possibly be next, that I am undereducated?

GOSH, Joh!

WHO knew?
You're not out of FoodStamps, again, are you? ... I might have a couple extras.
Want 'em?

;)

caseysmom

10-14-2009, 02:38 PM

Marigold since Cataholic has too much self esteem to boast, I will for her...Cataholic is an attorney, hardly at the poverty level:rolleyes:

Marigold2

10-14-2009, 02:42 PM

As I said earlier I am posting stats and I asked others to post as well. I wanted an open discussion. Why isn't anyone posting facts? It's the truth we are after.

Marigold2

10-14-2009, 02:46 PM

Well you see that addes to the confusion. Why is she so upset about the stats I posted? They had nothing to do with her, they were never aimed at anyone here, they were posted from stats from leading news agencies. Why she got so upset is confusing. I was trying to have an open conversion without people name calling or taking offense.
Marigold since Cataholic has too much self esteem to boast, I will for her...Cataholic is an attorney, hardly at the poverty level:rolleyes:

caseysmom

10-14-2009, 02:50 PM

Well you see that addes to the confusion. Why is she so upset about the stats I posted? They had nothing to do with her, they were never aimed at anyone here, they were posted from stats from leading news agencies. Why she got so upset is confusing. I was trying to have an open conversion without people name calling or taking offense.

Your broad generalizations are insulting to people even if we are not in that particular situation that you are stereotyping, its called empathy...try it sometime it keeps you human.

Marigold2

10-14-2009, 03:07 PM

My post did not include those millions that had lost their jobs. It had to do with those that abuse the system. Those that take monies from deserving vets, the elderly or those that are truly ill and need money to live a decent and honorable life. We give money to teenage moms to care for their chidren instead of trying to convince them to give those children up for adoption. We need to educate young girls on the joys of life and education. Having babies is a wonderful thing but doesn't always remain so. Teenage girls should be thinking about school, purses, travel, what color nail polish to use and their future in this world. Not being a mom, they are children themselves and we the mom's and dad's should be helping them along. I love my grandkids but don't want to raise them. I raised mine and loved it but now it's me time. My friends have children who have children and they spend every free minute and dime helping them when they are barely making it themselves. Their grandchildren are beautiful and precious and they love them oh so much but they worry about themselves. Their parents are getting older, they are stuck in the middle between parents, children and grandchildren. They should never be in this postion. Even with their great love for their grandchildren I understand their concerns. They will have no retirement, no savings. No one to help them. They will spend years taking care of their mom and dad and their children and grandchidlren. Their children instead of taking steps to protect themselves against pregency have made generations take a new look at themselves and how they will servive. And this is in the best of families, in others the young girls are tossed out or not helped because the parents don't care or can't help. It's tragic all the way around.
I am home today not feeling well. I usually don't spend much time on PT not because I don't enjoy it but it's just that I am busy with family, friends and fun.

I don't know if this is addressed to me or caseysmom, but it hardly applies to me - a 65 year old retiree! :eek:

But you made some rather unfounded statements in Post #1 which I called you on, and you never answered sensibly. You stated that being on welfare means that you have declared yourself physically and mentally unable to care for yourself and you're asking the government to pay your bills. You never could answer where the unemployed person that perhaps needs some temporary help, fits in to your statement. Are they physically and/or mentally unable?? Doubtful - since they likely wouldn't have had a job in the first place. So you just saw fit to disappear for a while, and hope my question would be forgotten. Remember that????? :confused::rolleyes:

Lady's Human

10-14-2009, 03:11 PM

1/3 of births are out of wedlock...........

In no way, shape or form does that mean 1/3 of babies are born to mothers on welfare.

Marigold2

10-14-2009, 03:12 PM

Yes I did say that was incorrect unless I find other info.

Lady's Human

10-14-2009, 03:12 PM

As I've mentioned to other posters on here, Marigold, when you find yourself in a hole, the first step you need to take is put down the shovel.

Marigold2

10-14-2009, 03:22 PM

My broad generalizations are pulled from the leading news agencies. Do you take offense when reading a Time Magazine a newspaper? There are stats for every economic class, every religon, every ethic group, male, female, gay, straight, old, young, rich, poor and thousands of others. It's a gathering of info that is meant to be shared, studied and hopefully understand that we as a people can gain knowledge and improve. Every soul on this earth belongs to these stats and every one can be offened if they so choose by some of the findings. But why? It is what it is.
Should I take offense at findings that put Germans at fault for something or another. No. What about my religon? If people say something negitive I don't take it personally, they could very well be right. It's not perfect, nothing is.

caseysmom

10-14-2009, 03:25 PM

Its funny how many times you mention your German ancestry on here, I have been a member for years and years and never felt the need to mention my German roots, who cares?

Lady's Human

10-14-2009, 03:31 PM

Statistics can easily be twisted to fit the outcome that the person conducting the is trying to prove. Without the raw data to be able to crosscheck, they're fairly useless.

Time Magazine is hardly a "leading news source". It is a highly editorialized news magazine in which the articles are more editorial than information. They start out with a premise and then gather the data to fit their facts.

pomtzu

10-14-2009, 03:36 PM

My post did not include those millions that had lost their jobs. It had to do with those that abuse the system. Those that take monies from deserving vets, the elderly or those that are truly ill and need money to live a decent and honorable life. We give money to teenage moms to care for their chidren instead of trying to convince them to give those children up for adoption. We need to educate young girls on the joys of life and education. Having babies is a wonderful thing but doesn't always remain so. Teenage girls should be thinking about school, purses, travel, what color nail polish to use and their future in this world. Not being a mom, they are children themselves and we the mom's and dad's should be helping them along. I love my grandkids but don't want to raise them. I raised mine and loved it but now it's me time. My friends have children who have children and they spend every free minute and dime helping them when they are barely making it themselves. Their grandchildren are beautiful and precious and they love them oh so much but they worry about themselves. Their parents are getting older, they are stuck in the middle between parents, children and grandchildren. They should never be in this postion. Even with their great love for their grandchildren I understand their concerns. They will have no retirement, no savings. No one to help them. They will spend years taking care of their mom and dad and their children and grandchidlren. Their children instead of taking steps to protect themselves against pregency have made generations take a new look at themselves and how they will servive. And this is in the best of families, in others the young girls are tossed out or not helped because the parents don't care or can't help. It's tragic all the way around.
I am home today not feeling well. I usually don't spend much time on PT not because I don't enjoy it but it's just that I am busy with family, friends and fun.

Perhaps you need to say what you mean, but I have no doubt that you meant exactly what you said in the beginning posts. Saying now that you weren't referring to people who have lost their jobs is just your way of trying to back out - but I believe that was already mentioned here too. You were quite adamant about what you said about being physically or mentally unable. See post #12 where you said "what other option is there". But this comes from a person who also thinks that the government is doing a great job with Medicare too. :rolleyes:

Edwina's Secretary

10-14-2009, 07:52 PM

Oh my!!!!!:eek::eek::eek:

The other big demographic nightmare is Hispanics whose illegitimacy rates, dropout rates, crime rates, etc. could overtake blacks in a few years. Their population (legal and illegal) is exploding in this region as well as they are used by cheap-labor employers to displace poor whites and blacks from their jobs and further depress wages. It would make more sense to deport as many illegal aliens (mainly Hispanic) as possible and secure our borders, while allowing much higher immigration levels from East Asia and Europe. But then Asians are too successful and don't form the permanent cheap-labor and welfare underclass so desired by big business and liberals.

Eugenics anyone?

Although I have to say this is the first time in my life I have seen anyone suggest that "big business" and "liberals" have a common goal!

Cinder & Smoke

10-14-2009, 08:00 PM

Marigold, when you find yourself in a hole,

the first step you need to take is put down the shovel.

She got it, LH ...

If you'll notice, she's got the BACKHOE fired up and dirt's a-flyin!

:D

cassiesmom

10-14-2009, 10:20 PM

Can I just rant for a minute?

My primary care physician is affiliated with a big tertiary hospital system. I had to change doctors when my former primary care physician's practice (and all the physicians affiliated with the four hospitals in that system) dropped out of the UnitedHealthcare network. I chose based upon geography.

One specialist is with a different hospital system - again, based on geography and the network.

The other specialist is with yet another hospital system - when I started with him he was in the provider network, but they are dropping out effective 11/1/09.

And I get prescriptions at Walgreens, which is affiliated with none of them, of course.

None of these talk to each other. It is up to me to remember to tell each one what the other one said, and try to keep everything straight. Walgreens is actually a huge help in getting this done. This is a gol-durn pain! Health care reformers --- puhleeze make this easier for me!

blue

10-14-2009, 10:39 PM

So now paying into UI is Pork? Please explain the stretch of logic that being forced to pay into something and then getting something back is laundering money, Ild love to see that spin.

White post here.

Daisy and Delilah

10-14-2009, 10:49 PM

Unmarried women are much more likely to be on welfare, not all but most.

Forgive me if I've quoted this from a body of research. I believe this to be a statement made by you, Marigold, correct?

If this is from you, I think this is a very broad statement. This tells me that women without a man need to get help from outside sources because they can't make it on their own? :confused:

Cinder & Smoke

10-14-2009, 10:50 PM

None of these talk to each other.

It is up to me to remember to tell each one what the other one said,
and try to keep everything straight.

They don't TRY to talk to each other;
nor do they bother to read the NOTE, Letters, and Reports that get passed around.

I have a Cardiologist, a De-Fib Doc (my electrician), and a Kidney Doc.
All in different offices; all practice in the same Hospitals;
and theyall KNOW each other ... heck, they used to do Rounds together
when I was hospitalized.

What one does effects the Other Docs' parts of me ... they NEED to know
what each other is 'doing to me'.
When I see one of 'em, he/she writes a report on the office visit and SENDS
it to the other two. Sounds great --- everybody reads the same page.

And what happens to said report?? A Bean Counter opens it, reads it and
makes the decision (based on who knows what) to either FILE it in my
history file OR send it to the Doc for his/her personal review.

Can't tell you how many times I've visited Doc #1 and asked if he's seen
anything from Docs #2 or #3. The answer is almost ALWAYS that
"NO, haven't seen anything 'lately'."

THEN we peek into my file ... and #1 stumbles upon the Report his office
got and FILED AWAY a month or two ago from #2 or #3. :mad:

What's wrong with this picture?
:mad:
:rolleyes:

Edwina's Secretary

10-14-2009, 11:24 PM

You guys are making the case for getting technology into medical records! Less mistakes, greater ability and ease to share information.

By the way...I do love easy quizzes. I have been asked above UI...Unemployment Insurance.

Unemployment Insurance is a tax employers pay based on their experience rating. As in medical insurance, the more claims made against an employer (people who worked for the employer during the base period and then make a claim for unemployment for reason beyond the employee's ability to control) the higher the rate of tax paid by the employer.

Employees do not pay into Unemployment Insurance. Employers do.

And, in periods of high unemployment, as we are currently, the federal government supplements the funds that are paid out to the unemployed.

And that ain't no spin...:D:D:D

blue

10-14-2009, 11:33 PM

BS! Spin.

Daisy and Delilah

10-14-2009, 11:53 PM

Cataholic

10-15-2009, 07:44 AM

Forgive me if I've quoted this from a body of research. I believe this to be a statement made by you, Marigold, correct?

If this is from you, I think this is a very broad statement. This tells me that women without a man need to get help from outside sources because they can't make it on their own? :confused:

This is how I see Marigold's post. Some people find much comfort in tradition, the old way, etc. So, when someone else does something that is in opposition to that, it is threatening to that person's belief system. That person, with the threatened belief system *must* come out swinging in order to 'stay on top'. AND, that is totally okay, as we must all do what feels right or best for us. But, it shouldn't be that in order for one to feel better about ones' self, that one needs to make others feel bad.

Now, for the record, I do not 'believe' in marriage, per se. I mean, if you find that one special person, that is a wonderful, fantastic thing. And, I support you in your legally binding contract of marriage. But, that doesn't mean it is for me. Marriage is a state issue first and foremost- though many also have it religiously blessed.

I feel no 'need' to be married. I believe in other countries, "marriage" is less prevelant than here- but, I have not any research to link. :)

Many, many women find themselves in marriages that frankly- should anything happen to the male, will be in deep doo doo should the marriage fail. That would keep me up at night, fraught with worry. I think ALL people should be able to stand on their own two feed and provide for those they either bring into the world- or aquire along the way.

The larger issue I have with Marigold's 'research' (and I am not speaking solely of this thread, as she has made these comments at other times) is the large brush, and largely anti- human comments she makes about those she sees underneath her, status wise.

Insurance (LOL, I am pulling it back into topic) should be available to all. Even that poor guy that called her, asking about CareSource. I can imagine his frustration.

Edwina's Secretary

10-15-2009, 01:53 PM

Marigold,

Up to this point in time I have stayed out of the fuss at you. I thought - "she's just somebody who says whatever comes into her head without thinking of the consequences."

But then you posted quotes from "news sources" inlcluding this...
But then Asians are too successful and don't form the permanent cheap-labor and welfare underclass so desired by big business and liberals.

It struck me as curious. Big business and liberals? Liberals wanting a permanent cheap-labor and welfare underclass?

So I did some research. I found where it came from. The blog of one really odd guy. Hard to figure exactly where he is coming from but one thing is overwhelmingly clear. He is a good old-fashioned racist. Not the "modern" kind of racist who sighs and says "one of my best friends is black" - but the real down home kind. (He likes Jews, dislikes fundamental Christians, hates government medical programs even though that is the only way his wife can get medical care, hates liberals, hates enviornmentalist, hates creationist - are you seeing a pattern here??) What you posted was his conclusions. I wish I knew how to wash my computer after having his words on it.

I am hoping you did a search and found that quote - pasting it in haste. I am hoping you did not look at the source.

If I am correct, I would encourage you to be more careful in quoting "news sources." Just because it is on the web doesn't not make it a "news source" nor credible.

If you did know from whom you were quoting - well I don't even want to go there - just too disgusting.

Daisy and Delilah

10-15-2009, 11:42 PM

This is how I see Marigold's post. Some people find much comfort in tradition, the old way, etc. So, when someone else does something that is in opposition to that, it is threatening to that person's belief system. That person, with the threatened belief system *must* come out swinging in order to 'stay on top'. AND, that is totally okay, as we must all do what feels right or best for us. But, it shouldn't be that in order for one to feel better about ones' self, that one needs to make others feel bad.

Now, for the record, I do not 'believe' in marriage, per se. I mean, if you find that one special person, that is a wonderful, fantastic thing. And, I support you in your legally binding contract of marriage. But, that doesn't mean it is for me. Marriage is a state issue first and foremost- though many also have it religiously blessed.

I feel no 'need' to be married. I believe in other countries, "marriage" is less prevelant than here- but, I have not any research to link. :)

Many, many women find themselves in marriages that frankly- should anything happen to the male, will be in deep doo doo should the marriage fail. That would keep me up at night, fraught with worry. I think ALL people should be able to stand on their own two feed and provide for those they either bring into the world- or aquire along the way.

The larger issue I have with Marigold's 'research' (and I am not speaking solely of this thread, as she has made these comments at other times) is the large brush, and largely anti- human comments she makes about those she sees underneath her, status wise.

Insurance (LOL, I am pulling it back into topic) should be available to all. Even that poor guy that called her, asking about CareSource. I can imagine his frustration.

In the past, I've seen broad statements made by Marigold. Thanks for explaining this so well, Cataholic. To tell you the truth, this is exactly what I was thinking.

This statement is really hard to believe. Marigold, where are you getting these ideas of your's? I raised my children alone and they turned out remarkably well totally without welfare. Welfare never crossed my mind. I would gladly let you speak to both of them and perhaps they could shed some light on your twisted view of the subject. To me, you imply that a woman needs a man to survive. I am guessing what's next is that you think all the children of single parents are ignorant and uneducated. Does that sound unrealistic? So does your statement I quoted.

Some of the statements you make are utterly ridiculous. This is one of them. As you would like us to believe, I suppose, you have been fortunate to live a perfect life with the perfect family unit in a place that has been nothing but perfect. Every time someone tries to point out how off base you are, you have a fit over why people are disagreeing with you. I can only believe that you do this for sport. Surely you don't really support these comments do you?

Heaven forbid you should ever need help. I simply don't know how you're going to try to get it, you being of the upper crust, you know?:rolleyes: After the Appalachian thread, I said I would never enter this territory again. However, the quote I listed was far too tempting to not at least ask about it.

Question: The guy that asked you about CareSource::with an answer like the one he gave, there had to be something to provoke him. Ya think? I'm sure we'll never hear the rest of that story.:rolleyes:

I have to add this; sometimes you seem to be on a fairly decent path and BOOM, you blurt out another one of your questionable, opinionated, extremely broad, statements. Some of the things you say make some sense. It's too bad you so quickly negate all the good you may have done with one of your bloopers.:(

Marigold2

10-16-2009, 08:36 AM

I did not provoke that man who asked about Care Source. I was totally professional. I simply said to him,"I am sorry sir, we do not take that insurance". He was probably upset and frustrated because some Dr's don't take that insurance in their private practice as it does not pay enough to sustain an office.
As for saying a women needs a man to live a good life, you totally missed my point. My point was that a women should not go into motherhood until she has had her chance to live, explore, educate her life. I don't believe a single woman or a gay couple is any better or worst then a married couple in raising a child. My point was and always has been that I don't think that a young women should think that motherhood is the be all end all of her life. Having a baby at 15 or 19 when one is without education, money saved or a chance to experience life, to travel to volenteer, to know one self, to reach ones goals is often missing out on so much. To have your 20's to yourself and enjoy life, break a couple hearts, get to really know yourself and your stenghts. Not all women feel that way when they are young but many do later. I would like to see more women wait until they are 30 and have had some fun and some experience before bringing a child into this world and have some knowledge and wisdom to give said child. That was my point.

Cataholic

10-16-2009, 02:49 PM

Nice revision! I am sure it was the 5 or 6 of us that totally misunderstood what you were saying, rather than you posting some rather absurd things.

pomtzu

10-16-2009, 03:26 PM

Yes Marigold - you're right and the rest of us are all wrong.

And as far as the young women you say should explore, save money, travel, educate, spend on themselves, etc..............that's probably not an option for most. It would be nice to live that fairy tale life, but unless they are fortunate enough to have the resources to do so, then it ain't gonna' happen!! :(

Edwina's Secretary

10-16-2009, 07:34 PM

To have your 20's to yourself and enjoy life, break a couple hearts, get to really know yourself and your stenghts. Not all women feel that way when they are young but many do later. I would like to see more women wait until they are 30 and have had some fun and some experience before bringing a child into this world and have some knowledge and wisdom to give said child. That was my point.

I try and not make decisions or judgements about how others live their life. It is enough to take care of my own. There are lots of things I might like to see other people do but I am just thinking they are probably not interested in my opinion. I think people who have 19 children are...well whatever.

...do you have an explanation for quoting from a blog that is totally and completely racist and offensive??

Is that something that should be experienced as well?

Marigold2

10-16-2009, 09:07 PM

ES I posted several different stats. It was not my intention to just post one point of view but several. It was up to the PT people to offer their opinion,there by getting a cross section opinion from over the world and different ages and economic levels. That is why I kept asking others to post stats as well. Here are some facts now lets have opinions. Just as the judge in the south will not let the bi-racial couple get married there are different thoughts accross different areas of the country. I don't believe the judge is dumb or evil it's just the way he was brought up. He doesn't even think what he is doing is wrong. But to us, it's just disgusting. Being racist is a opinion and what you and I find wrong others do not.
Anyway......
As for young girls being able to travel and have fun. It is my hope that young women are able to. Men have so many oppertunites. For my daughter and her friends I hope and pray that they get the chance to do all those wonderful things before getting married and having children. Getting an education and being able to take care of one self is such a joy.
Getting your own apartment, painting the whole thing pink if you want, not having to ask a man what he wants for dinner, having to fold his cloths, or spending your weekend doing what he wants. Learning to be truly your own person. Those first few nights alone, begin afraid of sounds in the middle of the night, going home to an empty apartment on a cold, dark night. Scary, but then you do it and you find such strength and pride that you can take care of yourself. You are a strong, single independent women and the world is yours to take. Sat mornings laying in bed with three men, Ben and Jerry and Steve King. Oh heavely!!
Once you live alone for a year you find strength, confidence, courage you never knew you had plus a huge dose of pride.
If you go back to some of my old posts you will see that I have always said I believe a young girl should wait to have children. I don't think that having a baby in the teens or early 20's is an ideal situation. I have always been for women's rights. For any person man, women, black, white, straight, gay making their life the best they can, educating themselves so that they can take care of themselves and live a productive life. No one grows up saving I want to be poor, hungrey, and cold. We all have hopes and dreams and everyone is entitled to them.
Education is the key, with education nothing is impossible. I don't think that bringing a child into the world when you are not capable of taking care of yourself is good especially the child.
Children should be able to look up to their parents, have pride in them, have them as role models but when they are too young and uneducated the children start out with strikes against them. No child needs that.

Edwina's Secretary

10-16-2009, 09:10 PM

A four month old - breastfed baby is uninsurable due to "pre-existing condition" - he is too fat! :eek::eek::eek:

Too fat baby??? (http://www.wptz.com/news/21294957/detail.html)

Edwina's Secretary

10-16-2009, 09:19 PM

Marigold - you evade my question. And I understand why. I would not want to admit I had given a shred of credence to that horrible man.

But you did.

caseysmom

10-16-2009, 09:52 PM

I try and not make decisions or judgements about how others live their life. It is enough to take care of my own. There are lots of things I might like to see other people do but I am just thinking they are probably not interested in my opinion. I think people who have 19 children are...well whatever.

...do you have an explanation for quoting from a blog that is totally and completely racist and offensive??

Is that something that should be experienced as well?

This is the key to the whole thing to me, your first sentence is how I believe we should all live our lives.

Edwina's Secretary

10-16-2009, 11:51 PM

Lady's Human

10-17-2009, 12:19 AM

But to us, it's just disgusting. Being racist is a opinion and what you and I find wrong others do not.

No, racism is wrong. Period. It's not an opinion.

Anyway......
As for young girls being able to travel and have fun. It is my hope that young women are able to. Men have so many oppertunites.

MEN have so many opportunities?

And women don't???????

For my daughter and her friends I hope and pray that they get the chance to do all those wonderful things before getting married and having children.

They have the chance. Whether they choose to do so or not is entirely up to them, and has nothing to do with their choices being limited by society.

Getting an education and being able to take care of one self is such a joy.
Getting your own apartment, painting the whole thing pink if you want, not having to ask a man what he wants for dinner, having to fold his cloths, or spending your weekend doing what he wants.

Excuse me? As was asked so eloquently in the title of another thread, what century are you living in?

[

Once you live alone for a year you find strength, confidence, courage you never knew you had plus a huge dose of pride.

Again, what is preventing them from doing this? If they can't it's most likely their choices, regardless of their economic status.

If you go back to some of my old posts you will see that I have always said I believe a young girl should wait to have children. I don't think that having a baby in the teens or early 20's is an ideal situation. I have always been for women's rights.

Again, what is preventing them from doing this? If they can't it's most likely their choices, regardless of their economic status.

For any person man, women, black, white, straight, gay making their life the best they can, educating themselves so that they can take care of themselves and live a productive life. No one grows up saving I want to be poor, hungrey, and cold. We all have hopes and dreams and everyone is entitled to them.

I don't see why you included men in that, because as you stated already, Men have so many opportunities!

Didn't know we had regressed to the point of repealing women's rights.

Daisy and Delilah

10-17-2009, 03:35 PM

OMG!! Marigold, you have gotten so far off your original path, I can no longer keep up with it. Oh....wait a minute, I couldn't ever keep up with it......I thought I was confused. Now I feel like I've been stranded on a deserted island with no hope for rescue.:confused:

All you're saying is well and good. We would all like to live in a perfect world. It just doesn't happen like that. Aren't you the person that is normally dripping with bitterness and criticism? Your latest posts sound like they were written by someone living on Big Rock Candy Mountain.:confused: How did you get where you are now?

I also have enough trouble keeping myself in order. I have no time to dream for other people. Please come back to 2009.:eek:

cassiesmom

10-17-2009, 05:53 PM

You guys are making the case for getting technology into medical records! Less mistakes, greater ability and ease to share information.

My primary care doc is at Loyola University Medical Center. Almost completely paperless office. What took me some getting used to is that she types her notes into the computer while we are talking. I'm looking at her and she's looking at the computer. But it's pretty cool - she can look up my lab results and write orders (time for your mammogram, Elyse; I'll put an order in now [click click click], and you can make your appointment with the scheduler when you check out) as we are talking. They can even e-mail prescriptions directly to Walgreens for me.

At the dermatologist's office - she had a little device in her hands that looked like a computer game. Bigger than a PDA, but not as large as a laptop computer, and she was using a little pencil-like thingy to touch her notes right onto the screen. Zero paper there too. I have a prescription that was printed off of their computer, so it is on plain paper instead of Rx pad. I hope Walgreens will be able to accept it - we'll see!

I wish they could talk to each other electronically and I could read all their notes. I doubt that will happen anytime soon, though. I just have to remember to tell my primary care doc what the dermatologist said next time I go. I earned that responsibility by deciding not to go to a derm at Loyola. If I had, it would all be in the computer already. Oh well.

Daisy and Delilah

10-17-2009, 08:45 PM

My primary care doc is at Loyola University Medical Center. Almost completely paperless office. What took me some getting used to is that she types her notes into the computer while we are talking. I'm looking at her and she's looking at the computer. But it's pretty cool - she can look up my lab results and write orders (time for your mammogram, Elyse; I'll put an order in now [click click click], and you can make your appointment with the scheduler when you check out) as we are talking. They can even e-mail prescriptions directly to Walgreens for me.

At the dermatologist's office - she had a little device in her hands that looked like a computer game. Bigger than a PDA, but not as large as a laptop computer, and she was using a little pencil-like thingy to touch her notes right onto the screen. Zero paper there too. I have a prescription that was printed off of their computer, so it is on plain paper instead of Rx pad. I hope Walgreens will be able to accept it - we'll see!

I wish they could talk to each other electronically and I could read all their notes. I doubt that will happen anytime soon, though. I just have to remember to tell my primary care doc what the dermatologist said next time I go. I earned that responsibility by deciding not to go to a derm at Loyola. If I had, it would all be in the computer already. Oh well.

With this age of cutting edge technology, Elyse, you would think communication would be easy. Can anyone understand how it is so hard for all of these people to be on the same page? Is there not a way to have a universal data base for all things medical for a particular social security number? If not a SS #, some other point of ID?

I have seen, in my experiecne with doctors, they are not really interested in what the other doctors say anyway. Can this ever be fixed properly? It's the million dollar question I guess.:confused:

caseysmom

10-17-2009, 09:30 PM

Thats what I like about Kaiser, everything is on the computer and even I can see a lot of it and I can email any of my doctors.

My podiatrist has been wonderful, he even gave me his home number.

blue

10-17-2009, 09:48 PM

The more training I get in computers, networks, and comp security the less I like my medical records being all computerized.

Ive seen people turn a user name into a IP address, and into a home address. Heck, if your user name is tied to a photo I can find it.

What else can I find from just a user name?

caseysmom

10-17-2009, 10:08 PM

I could care less if anyone saw my medical records.

blue

10-17-2009, 10:25 PM

I could care less if anyone saw my medical records.

You would if you knew everything that was in you medical records, including all of your "private" information.

Edwina's Secretary

10-17-2009, 10:45 PM

Thats what I like about Kaiser, everything is on the computer and even I can see a lot of it and I can email any of my doctors.

My podiatrist has been wonderful, he even gave me his home number.

We have been thinking of switching to Kaiser during open enrollment this year. I have heard such good things about them. I especially like the ability to email and check things on line.

Do they usually have onsite pharmacy or mail order?

Computerize records cannot be any less accurate or confidential that paper records.

caseysmom

10-17-2009, 11:02 PM

We have been thinking of switching to Kaiser during open enrollment this year. I have heard such good things about them. I especially like the ability to email and check things on line.

Do they usually have onsite pharmacy or mail order?

Computerize records cannot be any less accurate or confidential that paper records.

I have never tried the mail order pharmacy, I have heard it can take a while.

It just depends on your doctor, I got a good doctor when I broke my foot. A few years ago when I had a pinched nerve in my neck the care wasn't as good.

I can email my doctor any type of concerns and he always answers me very promptly, that has been the case with all my doctors.

caseysmom

10-18-2009, 12:01 AM

You would if you knew everything that was in you medical records, including all of your "private" information.

There are so many replies to that but I will behave:o

Cataholic

10-19-2009, 12:03 PM

There is something in this recent discussion that is bothering me.

There was a thread in the last couple of weeks about a celebrity who was being blackmailed.

One poster referred to the son of this celebrity using a pejorative - because the parents were not married at the time of the child's birth. I tried to respond using the same pejorative for the grandson of a recently failed politician. But I just could not hit the enter key.

I don't think children should be labeled because of their parents. I don't think this dated word should be used today. It is demeaning and irrelevant.

I thought someone else would say something. But no one did. And I wonder why?

I was going to say something. But, then, I would have been told I was being 'defensive' or 'angry'. It is like arguing with some one that says, "you just like to argue". Any thing you say after that point seems suspect. So, I said nothing.

I do think it funny that when the rest of you "pure" (i.e., married, married with children, etc. You know, the 'right' way, LOL) people jumped in and expressed dismay at some of the comments posted that I didn't hear the 'why are you so defensive' or 'why are you so mad/angry' responses.

These types of comments are really offensive- no matter what someone's orientation.

Edwina's Secretary

10-22-2009, 04:42 PM

What do insurance companies and Goldilocks have in common....

Not too big...not too small!

Earlier I posted about an infant who was turned down for insurance coverage (until his parents took their case to the MSM) for being too big.

Now here is a case of a child turned down for insurance coverage (until her parents took their case to the MSM) for being too small!

Too Small (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33429907/ns/today-today_health/?GT1=43001)

And some people wonder why we need reform???:confused::confused:

blue

10-23-2009, 10:37 PM

The running theme Im seeing isnt that we need HCR , but we need Health Insurance Reform. But just reforming the HI business doesnt let .gov into the racket.

RICHARD

10-27-2009, 11:59 AM

The running theme Im seeing isnt that we need HCR , but we need Health Insurance Reform. But just reforming the HI business doesnt let .gov into the racket.

Dude.

The whole point about HCR and HIR is money.

The current regime just want to create more paperwork..lol, sorry, we are going paperless!!!...money and forms to fill out.

A week ago I saw that some phone users lost all the info on their phones because of a computer glitch.

People care more about their cell phone apps and info so why would they GAS about their medical records.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA......

Everyone had a paranoia about having their computers tossed by the government but have no worries about hackers stealing their MRs???

Next time you go to an ER or see the doc take a second to ask about your 'face sheet' on your account.

Age, weight, DOB, job, address, phone numbers, SSN, kids, I could get their info from that- I can get all you operations, doctor's notes....."Doc, My XXXX hurts when I XXXXXX.

If you think that you info is safe on line? You should see the stuff that the employees 'peek and leak' about your personal info.

And it's all there, at the touch of a button.:D

;)

Edwina's Secretary

10-27-2009, 04:38 PM

I always have to chuckle at people who are afraid of change.

The only thing that makes electronic medical records "more easy" to access is that electronic records are more legible. Handwritten records are notoriously prone to error because of bad handwriting. Sometimes even the people who are suppose to read them cannot.

Files left unlocked, documents left on copy machines, misfilings, etc. etc.

I have worked with "paper" personnel files for 30 years and know what all can go wrong.

People just need to get over "we've always done it that way" and their fear of change!

Catty1

10-28-2009, 10:10 AM

From LOLnews, our former Prime Minister Jean Chretien:

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/political-pictures-jean-chretien-health-care.jpg

RICHARD

10-28-2009, 05:13 PM

:) I do.

sasvermont

11-06-2009, 03:59 PM

I just got off the phone, after a 25 minute wait on hold, with the Fed. Government office that manages the retired employees and their spouses monthly payments. I need to get a breakdown of how much my Mom receives each month. They send that figure out once a year and you never see that number again until the tax forms arrive in the following year!

Well, I was prepared for a long wait but was surprised at how alert and spot on the person was at the other end of the call! I will confess that I said I WAS my Mother rather than her representative. I learned that lesson a long time ago.

The government has tons of web sites you can dig through to get information such as I needed but unless you go to that site several times a year, I can never remember where and what each department is/was. Often times you need an already established PIN number, which of course, I can never find.

Anyway, all in all it took only 4 minutes to get the information I needed. I did have that nasty wait at the beginning....... I had a comfortable chair.

I hope there is a government program offered with this healthcare reform progress and here's hoping we will have good people running it....and THEY HAVE LOTS OF PHONE LINES AND PEOPLE TO ANSWER THE CALLS!

RICHARD

11-07-2009, 08:44 AM

http://www.wpix.com/news/local/wpix-confidential-confettii,0,5603178.story?track=rss

Wheeeeeeeeee!!!!!

This isn't the government. There are the people charged to taking care of your med recs!

Enjoy!:eek:

Miranda_Rae

11-08-2009, 10:07 PM

First off I did not read all the pages, just the first page so if I am saying something taht is off track or not following the conversation I apologize. I just was reading some of hte things said and they REALLY struck home for me and would like to comment on them. And here I go.:o

If you are on welfare be it a week or a year or 10 years it is because for whatever reason you cannot take care of yourself finanically. Welfare helps that is what it is there for. People on welfare declare themselves unable to support themselves. Is that not correct? What other reason is there to be on welfare? You can't support yourself and you go and apply for help in food stamps and housing etc..

We need to make people more responsible for themselves, educate them so they can work and make a decent living.

One of my best friends is on food stamps and she is one of the hardest workers I know. She has 2 kids and one on the way. She is a cook at a restaurant and the reason shes on food stamps is because in this economy it is VERY hard to support a family on one income. Her fiancee works, but odd jobs because it is very hard to find jobs that keep people year around around here. I believe she wouldn't care about food stamps or assistance, but because she has children she wants them feed and clothed. I personally do not find welfare bad, only when the system is misused (which I have known a few) who purposely choose not to get a job beause they do not feel like working.

How are we supposed to educate people if they do not have the money? And what if people are responsible but they just do not have the money to go to college? Is the government supposed to pay for that also?

When I refer to people mentally unable to support themselves I speak of people who are depressed, bi-polar, vets with PTSD, people with all types of mental disorders are on welfare. Many homeless people also have mental disorders and are not on meds, even when help is available. Having a mental disorder is nothing to be ashamed of, welfare is there to help. People unable to hold jobs, cope with life because of mental illness are on welfare and yes that is what it is there for. People who suffer from depression are in deep pain and deserve help.
I am talking about those that abuse the system not those that deserve our help. I never mentioned people who lost their job. The only slackers I mentioned are those that have numorous kids with different fathers who will not or cannot support themselves. No where in my post did I bash anyone who is hardworking. I am talking about the Jerry Springer/Maury Povich crowd. And don't kid yourself they make up a huge amount of welfare people and take huge amounts of money. In these difficult times anyone of us can lose our home, or job. We are hard working, honest and deserve help.

Alright I am not trying to start a fight but i found this comment very uneducated. :( I have Borderline Personality disorder which is listed as a mental illness. If left untreated mental illnesses can lead to where you can not work anymore, but i think we should help educate people to get help before it gets to that point. First off, meds does NOT fix everything. When someone has a mental illness it requires therapy and sometimes therapy and meds. I believe that getting people help for their problems rather than putting them on a welfare program for food stamps and housing is more important. Whereas that is important also because people need food and a roof over their head, but they also need the help that could help them with their mental illnesses. People can not change the world but they can start in the small corners of their area.

Secondly the comment about not having people on welfare who have numerous kids with numerous fathers, did it occur that they may also have numerous mental illnesses that cause them to make the poor choices that got them into those situations so therefor they would "qualify" to be on welfare. I am just pointing out some thoughts that I had as I have been through the mental health circus for years and have met many different people in many different situations that have been on welfare and that have not. These were just my thoughts that crossed my mind due to where I have been and waht I have seen.

adequedia

11-16-2009, 05:53 PM

Geez guys, everyone knows its wrong for the government to become involved in peoples health care decisions. Unless it involves an act of Congress pandering to the religious right by preventing the feeding tube from being removed from a patient in a persistant vegetative state.

RICHARD

11-16-2009, 06:26 PM

RICHARD

11-18-2009, 05:00 PM

YAY!!!!!!!

I just heard that you do not need a mammogram if you are under 40!

Does this mean that they have cured cancer in young women?

I don't believe in stats that companies/news orgs put out so.......
Take half the population of the U.S.(women)-Say half of the that is under 40?

Now, that's about 80 million? How many are going to take the advice of the government and pass up the chance to keep them alive if they do have a yearly mammogram?

So what's next on the menu?

NO paps?, no prostate checks? No preventative checkups?

Remember this topic in a few years.:eek::rolleyes:

Edwina's Secretary

11-18-2009, 05:15 PM

YAY!!!!!!!

I just heard that you do not need a mammogram if you are under 40!

You are incorrect. That is not the announcement that came out this week.

RICHARD

11-18-2009, 06:24 PM

TFYS.

WASHINGTON - Women should continue getting regular mammograms starting at age 40, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Wednesday, moving to douse confusion caused by a task-force recommendation two days earlier.

Sebelius issued her statement following a government panel's recommendation on Monday, that said most women don't need mammograms in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34019898/ns/health-cancer/

Edwina's Secretary

11-18-2009, 07:24 PM

TFYS - I have no idea what that means but I am sure it is unpleasant.

There was nothing about women under 40 not needing mammograms.

Currently mammograms are not recommended for women under 40 unless there is an exceptional medical reason.

The issue is women between 40 and 50 as you subsequently correctly quoted.

Twisiting the truth to make something hysterical is not constructive. Your original statement was incorrect.

Karen

11-18-2009, 07:36 PM

Probably some newscaster shortening the story to a 'sound bite' - they seem to like to do that, like we have a shorter attention span than a gnat.

Richard, you're not female, so I wouldn't expect you to know this. But women under age 40 are only suggested to get mammograms if they have certain high risk factors. Of course any woman of any age can get one, if their doctor recommends it. But until now, one thing about turning 40 was that it now meant you were supposed to schedule an annual mammogram, even if you have no history of cancer in the family or other risk factors. Turning 40 was seen as reason enough. Breast cancer can hit any person, male or female, and there are even cases in young girls now. Men do get breast cancer, and it is a double burden for them, because everyone thinks it's a "woman" thing, so they are sometimes afraid to even tell people.

The study in the news suggested that women 40 and over do not need an ANNUAL mammogram, as was previously suggested. However, I will still ask my doctor, I normally schedule mine after I have had my annual physical, which is next week. I wouldn't mind skipping a year, IF she says so. The US Health and Human Services department, though is speaking out against that panel, and still recommending annual exams. Like I said, I'm gonna ask my doc next week. Mammograms are NOT fun, but if she says I should, I will.

RICHARD

11-18-2009, 07:53 PM

Probably some newscaster shortening the story to a 'sound bite' - they seem to like to do that, like we have a shorter attention span than a gnat.

Richard, you're not female, so I wouldn't expect you to know this.

I do have an honorary degree in Womanology from La Escuela de Golpes Duros and have dressed as a woman on Special Occasions.:eek::o;)

I can cook, clean, scrub and sort darks and whites before washing.

I just can not iron.:eek::(

------------

I could never begin to understand everything that women go thru.

I hate to shop? :eek:

Karen

11-18-2009, 07:57 PM

I do have an honorary degree in Womanology from La Escuela de Golpes Duros and have dressed as a woman on Special Occasions.:eek::o;)

I can cook, clean, scrub and sort darks and whites before washing.

I just can not iron.:eek::(

Trust me, you may the degree, but there are some things about being a woman you'd probably rather not know. Paul can cook, clean, scrub and is more meticulous about laundry even than I, and he's all male. In fact, my brothers were both taught to sew and cook, just as much as my sister and I were. Ma and Pa both cooked when given the chance, so there was no sense in segregating the next generation of cooks!

Edwina's Secretary

11-18-2009, 09:31 PM

A few more facts? The government panel, of doctors and medical researchers, studied radiation exposure, false positives, over aggressive treament, etc compared to cancers detected in making their recommendations.

Oh yes, the panel was appointed by......President G. W. Bush.

Now, can anyone tell me what TFYS means?

blue

11-18-2009, 09:51 PM

TFYS.

Thats called bringing the FUNNAY!!!

Edwina's Secretary

11-18-2009, 10:58 PM

... But women under age 40 are only suggested to get mammograms if they have certain high risk factors. Of course any woman of any age can get one, if their doctor recommends it. But until now, one thing about turning 40 was that it now meant you were supposed to schedule an annual mammogram, even if you have no history of cancer in the family or other risk factors. Turning 40 was seen as reason enough.

The study in the news suggested that women 40 and over do not need an ANNUAL mammogram, as was previously suggested.

You are quite right about the study Karen, but I have to disagree with one thing you said.

Probably some newscaster shortening the story to a 'sound bite' - they seem to like to do that, like we have a shorter attention span than a gnat.

I heard/saw this story reported on numerous reports - radio, tv and internet and not once did I hear anyone say/write or suggest that...

"women under 40 do not need mammograms".

Did you?

Of course, I've never heard anyone suggest that women under 40 do need mammograms.

So what does TFYS mean?

caseysmom

11-18-2009, 11:21 PM

The reports I read said this group was now saying the 40-49 age group didn't need the mammograms. I was told to get a baseline at 40 or right before 40 and then one every 2 years was what they said back then, my doctor said I don't care what kaiser recommends I want you to go every year.

They also say breast self exams were not necessary, that discounted all the other things they said as far as I was concerned.

caseysmom

11-18-2009, 11:22 PM

So what does TFYS mean?

I'll ask my teenagers and get back to you:D I usually prefer normal english.

RICHARD

11-18-2009, 11:53 PM

I'll ask my teenagers and get back to you:D I usually prefer normal english.

Your teenagers will not know, I think they'd be smarter and more intelligent that to fall for THAT one.

The
Financial
Yearly
Stats.

blue

11-19-2009, 12:03 AM

Tree
Frogs
Yearn for
Smores

RICHARD

11-19-2009, 10:09 AM

Tree
Frogs
Yearn for
Smores

Hey, You know it's all about the budget.
:)

-------------------------------

Bernardine Healy, from the Nat'l. Insitiute of Health was on the tube yesterday and commented on basic yearly screening protocol.

She made an interesting comment about how, since the yearly screening guidlelines were put into place way back when, that the incidence of prostate cancer in the U.S. had dropped 70%.

I don't remember what the percentage was with BC.

IT's all a matter of economics-the more the system can pare by eliminating simple dr. visits, they beleive that it will save money.

Compare a treatable illness, caught with pre-screening protocol, with the same disease in an advanced stage. Surgery, treatment, hospital stays are way more costly that putting forth the effort to make sure those conditions are treated at the beginning.

It is all about money.:eek:

lizbud

11-19-2009, 10:49 AM

So what does TFYS mean?

Richard won't spell it out b/c he would get a rap on the knuckles from
the Mayor. "The F*** You Say" according to the urban dictionary.

Edwina's Secretary

11-19-2009, 11:13 AM

Richard won't spell it out b/c he would get a rap on the knuckles from
the Mayor. "The F*** You Say" according to the urban dictionary.

And they call me the rude one...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

RICHARD...this statement could not be more wrong...

IT's all a matter of economics-the more the system can pare by eliminating simple dr. visits, they beleive that it will save money.

What the "system" is I have no idea but insurance companies, medicare...anyone in the health care industry want to encourage preventative care - "simple" doctor visits, etc.

A major shift in insured products this year is intended to drive that behavior.

IBM announced there will be no co-pay for routine, preventative doctor visits in their medical plans. Many other plans - including most Blue products are having one co-pay for preventative and a higher co-pay for a doctor visits for other than preventative. Preventative care includes most screening as well.

The issues of healthcare are difficult and emotional enough without people spreading false information. It does not help anything.

RICHARD

11-19-2009, 11:16 AM

Objective 1.2 Provide annual permanency planning training for all tribal child protection workers (Tribal Family Youth Specialists [TFYS]).

I guess THINK FOR YOUR SELF don't mean nothin, no more.

KNuckle rap? I am more into spanking.

Edwina's Secretary

11-19-2009, 11:46 AM

I guess THINK FOR YOUR SELF don't mean nothin, no more.

There is a difference between "think for yourself" and "make up stuff that isn't true."

Whether you are doing the former I don't know but you are certainly doing the latter.

blue

11-20-2009, 03:50 AM

I guess THINK FOR YOUR SELF don't mean nothin, no more.

Those that look for the worst, will believe the worst and blame somebody else for it.

Puckstop31

11-20-2009, 06:43 AM

10 hours of debate? ONLY? On the 'most important legislation in a hundred years.' Vote at 8pm, on Saturday night?

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091119-717535.html

Bribes to get votes? (Shocking, I know)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html

Unreal...

Then there is the 2.5 trillion dollar question... How is it Constitutional for the Federal Government to force me to buy something or put me in jail if I don't?

This is not about health care... This is about the "redistributive change" the President has talked about in his past.

Oh, don't forget the taxes... This will be GREAT for business.

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/111809pr-comptaxreid%282%29.pdf

Grace

11-20-2009, 07:31 AM

One has to subscribe to the WSJ to read the entire article - to continue reading, subscribe now.

I wonder if Harry Reid is hurrying so much because he's afraid of leaving no legacy, good or bad, when he gets defeated next fall ;)

Puckstop31

11-20-2009, 07:44 AM

One has to subscribe to the WSJ to read the entire article - to continue reading, subscribe now.

Thats right... Poo. I will try to get a summary up later... Gotta hit the road now.

I wonder if Harry Reid is hurrying so much because he's afraid of leaving no legacy, good or bad, when he gets defeated next fall ;)

:cool:

Edwina's Secretary

11-22-2009, 09:45 PM

I have a friend. I have known her..and her husband since before they were husband and wife - at least 25 years.

They have three children. Their son is grown and on his own. The girls are still in high school. They have been through many ups and downs in their marriage...the worst had been just over 11 years ago. She was diagnosed with lupus. Very, very sick. At times she was not expected to make it. She was on a kidney transplant list. Eventually, she went into remission. Her kidneys functioned at 25%. Enough.

When her daughters started high school she went back to work. Nothing fancy but with benefits. Her employer... loves her as she is a great person. But they had some concerns hiring her because of her medical history.

It was a good thing they hired her because her husband is a manufacturing engineer. And now - most manufacturing is done in India or China. Last year the company where he worked closed. He has been looking for work since. I got him a gig with a client for a few months. One company told him his English is "too accented."

And now...her lupus is back. She has been in the hospital. She is on dialysis and chemo. She is hoping she can work a few hours a day. The money of course. But also...by law she is entitled to 480 hours (12 weeks) of unpaid medical leave. After that, her employer can terminate her. And her benefits. (And mostly likely they will. Strictly business of course.) The family cannot afford COBRA. MAYBE...the stimulus funds that are helping people by paying 65% of COBRA will be extended beyond 12/31/09. Maybe not.

I have been helping their older daughter with her college applications. That will most likely have to take a back seat to the medical expenses.

I cannot imagine how frightened she is. Which of course, does not help her illness.

Please, please....do not say "pray for her." What she needs is a country that gets out of the dark ages. A country that recognizes it is not 1776 anymore. A country that recognizes, as the rest of the civilized world has, that adequate and affordable healthcare is a right...not a privilege.

Some of my PetTalk friends have met her. I know they will join me in hoping our country comes to its senses before it is too late.

Puckstop31

11-22-2009, 10:36 PM

blue

11-22-2009, 10:49 PM

Im going to implore for PTers to pray, send good vibes, or light a candle for ES's friend and her family. My understanding is the benefits from the bill under debate will not come into effect until 2013/14.

sasvermont

11-23-2009, 06:50 AM

ES, I am sorry to hear about your friends and their health and job situations.

Puckstop, how rude of you to make the comment about needing a brain. Grow up, will you?

Puckstop31

11-23-2009, 07:58 AM

Its rude to say that we should put a LOT of thought into the way we change our HCS?

ES provided a very good example of why the system needs to be better. All the good intentions in the world will not mean anything if the country can't afford the burden. The bills in both the House and Senate will hurt our economy even more than it already is. So again, how does it get paid for? How do we REDUCE costs? (Without reducing the quality of care.)

------

The Dark Ages? REALLY? The country that far and away gives more to charity? The country that was first to the moon.... How insulting for ES to say that our country needs to get out of the Dark Ages. "A country that recognizes its not 1776 anymore." Please.

Thats the emotional bullcrap that I am talking about.

"....that adequate and affordable healthcare is a right...not a privilege."

Thats the catch, eh? And if it is a RIGHT, why is there not a Constitutional Amendment in process? Oh, right... That is SO 1776. :rolleyes:

-----

Yes, I have ideas as to how to make it better and more affordable.

1.) Limit the awards for pain and suffering to reasonable amounts. Not the amount a good speaking lawyer can get out of a emotional jury.

2.) Allow insurance companies to sell policies in multiple states.

These two things by themselves will reduce the cost of care. There are more good, no GREAT ides out there. The problem is more people need to be willing to take on the responsibility themselves for THEIR healthcare. That alone is why it is dangerous to speak about healthcare as a right.

sasvermont

11-23-2009, 08:09 AM

What you said about requiring a brain, was rude. Nice try to dismiss it so easily.

Puckstop31

11-23-2009, 09:09 AM

What you said about requiring a brain, was rude. Nice try to dismiss it so easily.

Fair enough. I apologize for being rude.

Any comments on the substance?

Randi

11-23-2009, 09:41 AM

Sara, I so very sorry your friend is going through this. I can imagine how frightened she must be. :( I am one of those who have met her, and I will definately send her a card.

Concerning the possible change of the health care system in USA, I have to believe that it’s out of ignorance that so many are against it - or simply that people have no clue how such a system would work. It’s done in many European countries. It’s not perfect, but it secures everybody, whether they are rich or poor. We can get treatment in hospital for free, and I do think that should be a right for any person. Yes, we do pay more tax in European countries, but we can afford it, and we can count on free health care and feel reasonable safe. :)

At least some Americans have this view on healthcare:

“I am willing to pay $583.33 a month to prevent me from having ANOTHER $50,000 dollar bill for a one week hospital stay, like I had xx years ago. The following week I had to be rushed to another hospital and the bill was even higher with all the things they did to me. Fortunately at that time, I had excellent insurance and I only paid less than $200.00 for the whole thing. Things are different for me today. I have the same condition and NO insurance.

I am willing to pay $583.33 a month to be able to show the money-making doctors that they don't have to worry about me when they treat me. I don't want to be sent home ONE DAY before I need to be.”

And here’s an article from The Washinton Post that will enlighten you on health care in other countries:

5 Myths About Health Care Around the World

As Americans search for the cure to what ails our health-care system, we've overlooked an invaluable source of ideas and solutions: the rest of the world. All the other industrialized democracies have faced problems like ours, yet they've found ways to cover everybody -- and still spend far less than we do.

I've traveled the world from Oslo to Osaka to see how other developed democracies provide health care. Instead of dismissing these models as "socialist," we could adapt their solutions to fix our problems. To do that, we first have to dispel a few myths about health care abroad:

1. It's all socialized medicine out there.

Not so. Some countries, such as Britain, New Zealand and Cuba, do provide health care in government hospitals, with the government paying the bills. Others -- for instance, Canada and Taiwan -- rely on private-sector providers, paid for by government-run insurance. But many wealthy countries -- including Germany, the Netherlands, Japan and Switzerland -- provide universal coverage using private doctors, private hospitals and private insurance plans.
ad_icon

In some ways, health care is less "socialized" overseas than in the United States. Almost all Americans sign up for government insurance (Medicare) at age 65. In Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, seniors stick with private insurance plans for life. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the planet's purest examples of government-run health care.

2. Overseas, care is rationed through limited choices or long lines.

Generally, no. Germans can sign up for any of the nation's 200 private health insurance plans -- a broader choice than any American has. If a German doesn't like her insurance company, she can switch to another, with no increase in premium. The Swiss, too, can choose any insurance plan in the country.

In France and Japan, you don't get a choice of insurance provider; you have to use the one designated for your company or your industry. But patients can go to any doctor, any hospital, any traditional healer. There are no U.S.-style limits such as "in-network" lists of doctors or "pre-authorization" for surgery. You pick any doctor, you get treatment -- and insurance has to pay.

Canadians have their choice of providers. In Austria and Germany, if a doctor diagnoses a person as "stressed," medical insurance pays for weekends at a health spa.

As for those notorious waiting lists, some countries are indeed plagued by them. Canada makes patients wait weeks or months for nonemergency care, as a way to keep costs down. But studies by the Commonwealth Fund and others report that many nations -- Germany, Britain, Austria -- outperform the United States on measures such as waiting times for appointments and for elective surgeries.

In Japan, waiting times are so short that most patients don't bother to make an appointment. One Thursday morning in Tokyo, I called the prestigious orthopedic clinic at Keio University Hospital to schedule a consultation about my aching shoulder. "Why don't you just drop by?" the receptionist said. That same afternoon, I was in the surgeon's office. Dr. Nakamichi recommended an operation. "When could we do it?" I asked. The doctor checked his computer and said, "Tomorrow would be pretty difficult. Perhaps some day next week?"

3. Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies.

Much less so than here. It may seem to Americans that U.S.-style free enterprise -- private-sector, for-profit health insurance -- is naturally the most cost-effective way to pay for health care. But in fact, all the other payment systems are more efficient than ours.

U.S. health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs in the world; they spend roughly 20 cents of every dollar for nonmedical costs, such as paperwork, reviewing claims and marketing. France's health insurance industry, in contrast, covers everybody and spends about 4 percent on administration. Canada's universal insurance system, run by government bureaucrats, spends 6 percent on administration. In Taiwan, a leaner version of the Canadian model has administrative costs of 1.5 percent; one year, this figure ballooned to 2 percent, and the opposition parties savaged the government for wasting money.
ad_icon

The world champion at controlling medical costs is Japan, even though its aging population is a profligate consumer of medical care. On average, the Japanese go to the doctor 15 times a year, three times the U.S. rate. They have twice as many MRI scans and X-rays. Quality is high; life expectancy and recovery rates for major diseases are better than in the United States. And yet Japan spends about $3,400 per person annually on health care; the United States spends more than $7,000.

4. Cost controls stifle innovation.

False. The United States is home to groundbreaking medical research, but so are other countries with much lower cost structures. Any American who's had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian breakthrough. Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese labs.

Overseas, strict cost controls actually drive innovation. In the United States, an MRI scan of the neck region costs about $1,500. In Japan, the identical scan costs $98. Under the pressure of cost controls, Japanese researchers found ways to perform the same diagnostic technique for one-fifteenth the American price. (And Japanese labs still make a profit.)

5. Health insurance has to be cruel.

Not really. American health insurance companies routinely reject applicants with a "preexisting condition" -- precisely the people most likely to need the insurers' service. They employ armies of adjusters to deny claims. If a customer is hit by a truck and faces big medical bills, the insurer's "rescission department" digs through the records looking for grounds to cancel the policy, often while the victim is still in the hospital. The companies say they have to do this stuff to survive in a tough business.

Foreign health insurance companies, in contrast, must accept all applicants, and they can't cancel as long as you pay your premiums. The plans are required to pay any claim submitted by a doctor or hospital (or health spa), usually within tight time limits. The big Swiss insurer Groupe Mutuel promises to pay all claims within five days. "Our customers love it," the group's chief executive told me. The corollary is that everyone is mandated to buy insurance, to give the plans an adequate pool of rate-payers.

The key difference is that foreign health insurance plans exist only to pay people's medical bills, not to make a profit. The United States is the only developed country that lets insurance companies profit from basic health coverage.

In many ways, foreign health-care models are not really "foreign" to America, because our crazy-quilt health-care system uses elements of all of them. For Native Americans or veterans, we're Britain: The government provides health care, funding it through general taxes, and patients get no bills. For people who get insurance through their jobs, we're Germany: Premiums are split between workers and employers, and private insurance plans pay private doctors and hospitals. For people over 65, we're Canada: Everyone pays premiums for an insurance plan run by the government, and the public plan pays private doctors and hospitals according to a set fee schedule. And for the tens of millions without insurance coverage, we're Burundi or Burma: In the world's poor nations, sick people pay out of pocket for medical care; those who can't pay stay sick or die.
ad_icon

This fragmentation is another reason that we spend more than anybody else and still leave millions without coverage. All the other developed countries have settled on one model for health-care delivery and finance; we've blended them all into a costly, confusing bureaucratic mess.

Which, in turn, punctures the most persistent myth of all: that America has "the finest health care" in the world. We don't. In terms of results, almost all advanced countries have better national health statistics than the United States does. In terms of finance, we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero.

Given our remarkable medical assets -- the best-educated doctors and nurses, the most advanced hospitals, world-class research -- the United States could be, and should be, the best in the world. To get there, though, we have to be willing to learn some lessons about health-care administration from the other industrialized democracies.

Edwina's Secretary

11-23-2009, 10:52 AM

Thank you Randi for posting that. The xenophobia of some people in this country is embarrassing. There are many successful systems out there that could be adapted to the U.S.

Anyone who thinks we aren't already paying for each others medical insurance is naive. Every time we buy a can of soup - we are contributing to the medical insurance of someone else.

So we continue to provide healthcare in the most inefficient way possible.

Hurray for us...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Cinder & Smoke

11-23-2009, 11:21 AM

As Americans search for the cure to what ails our health-care system,
we've overlooked an invaluable source of ideas and solutions: the rest of the world.
All the other industrialized democracies have faced problems like ours,
yet they've found ways to cover everybody -- and still spend far less than we do.

Given our remarkable medical assets -- the best-educated doctors and nurses,
the most advanced hospitals, world-class research -- the United States could be,
and should be, the best in the world. To get there, though,
we have to be willing to learn some lessons about health-care
administration from the other industrialized democracies.

Hey Randi ...
We'll have an opening in the White House in a few short years ---
Would you be interested?

:D

RICHARD

11-23-2009, 11:30 AM

Randi,

I read thru the article and there are a few points that the writer seems to have missed.

No mention of the lawsuits for meds, implants and procedures that go wrong.

A good percentage of the techs, nusrses and docs are foreign born and educated.

-------------------

Innovation in health care are often stifled by lawsuits because 3 people out of 100,000 have some side effect or die from the treatment.

I do not know if you get the commercials on TV about a new medicine to treat nail fungus and at the end the announcer says that taking the medicine will cause 7 or 8 side effects that may make you SICKER than the original malady.

The current regime in control makes it sound like the problems with healthcare will magically disappear with a new law/bill.

The system has to be reformed by first controlling the costs of treatment and materials. People refuse to understand this and think that any opposition to the president's push to get HIS idea for healthcare enacted is racist or anti Obama.

These ideas show the desperation and the unwillingness to look at the whole picture, It's far easier to making the topic into a political struggle than it is to look out for the people that need to have any kind of health care.

Don't fall for the media horse crap about health care reform.

The writer also makes the assumption that we do not have the "world's greatest" heathcare.

I have to say we have the best facilities and the best treatment options, the problem is with the ability to provide those services and facilities to everyone here in the states.

The rest of the world have their systems in place and would have the same kind of outrage and problems trying to implement a change to those programs, just like we are going thru.

I do agree that the money making part of the system in the U.S. is part of the problem, so he did write the truth about that.

The real danger and cost to health care here in the United States are the people who have no qualms about letting a bunch of AH politicians determine the future of medicine.

In essence we are giving them a blank check to determine what is best for us.

It's like getting a prostate check from a homeless person off the street.
You pay for the exam, get the exam and have invested in a bottle of booze to keep the drunk, drunk.:eek::confused:

Randi

11-23-2009, 11:53 AM

Thank you for the offer, Phred - although I have to decline. I'm getting too old and lazy. :D

Richard, we don't do all these lawsuits over here, doctors get it right the first time. ;) ..... No, of course, sadly, mistakes happen, and people do get a lot of money if something goes wrong.

As far as I know, we don't have a lot of foreign doctors here, but they ARE looking for some. I don't know how well educated they are, compared to ours, but if they're not, I'm sure they'll get the proper training here. :)

The danger of the American health system is that a lot of people think only about themselves! We all should do more to help others. It helps us all and therefore helps you too.

RICHARD

11-23-2009, 12:06 PM

Thank you for the offer, Phred - although I have to decline. I'm getting too old and lazy. :D

Richard, we don't do all these lawsuits over here, doctors get it right the first time. ;) ..... No, of course, sadly, mistakes happen, and people do get a lot of money if something goes wrong.

I just passed over a story where a lawsuit against the tobacco company was settled for I don't know how many millions of dollars.

You can be assured that if you bring a lawsuit against any company for a med you were given for an illness and even if the case does not go to trial the company will settle out of court in order not to have a judgement go against them.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/Travel/Television/prweb3111644.htm

wow!

Edwina's Secretary

11-23-2009, 01:28 PM

Those who want to use fear -- say things like "now women under 40 will not be allowed to have mammograms!" also like to talk about how great our healthcare is now.

:DAs if pretty offices make for quality healthcare.:D The objective measures of healthcare - life expectancy, infant mortality, etc. - the US consistently lags.

I have to laugh when I read this statement too...

The current regime in control makes it sound like the problems with healthcare will magically disappear with a new law/bill.

Talk about horse crap? I have NEVER heard anyone in the current administration say that.

But then...I know it is an administration not a regime...:rolleyes::D

We need to focus on facts - not the hyperbolic hysterical horse crap people make up.

Edwina's Secretary

11-23-2009, 06:24 PM

What you said about requiring a brain, was rude. Nice try to dismiss it so easily.

Oh SAS! You didn't recognize the new, kinder, gentler version??:rolleyes::D

Karen

11-23-2009, 07:31 PM

By the way, I had my annual physical today, and asked my doctor about the mammogram study.

She replied that she thinks I should get one anyway. She stressed that there are no risks associated with getting one annually in terms of radiation exposure over time. And, she added, she's in her forties, and she's still planning on getting one annually.

So I will have my squish-o-gram in a couple weeks. I don't "do" pain for beauty's sake - hence not having pierced ears or wearing high heels, but I will endure pain for my health's sake.

Puckstop31

11-23-2009, 10:07 PM

We need to focus on facts - not the hyperbolic hysterical horse crap people make up.

AMEN!!!!

So, how do we pay for it? Did you happen to see the article the NYT had today? The one about our debt and its intrest?

cassiesmom

11-23-2009, 10:08 PM

Yes, I have ideas as to how to make it better and more affordable.

1.) Limit the awards for pain and suffering to reasonable amounts. Not the amount a good speaking lawyer can get out of a emotional jury.

2.) Allow insurance companies to sell policies in multiple states.

These two things by themselves will reduce the cost of care. There are more good, no GREAT ides out there. The problem is more people need to be willing to take on the responsibility themselves for THEIR healthcare. That alone is why it is dangerous to speak about healthcare as a right.

I'm not sure I want insurers selling across state lines. They can write a crappy policy, sell it dirt cheap (so people will buy it) in an insurance statute-friendly state (where they can win any cases that may go to court), and still be making money hand over foot.

My #2 would be
2.) Figure out a way for prescription drug manufacturers to sell their products cheaply. Why does my antihypertensive cost $3 a pill? Maybe the V.A. is onto something - they buy in enormous quantities, keep their formulary pretty tight, and pass the savings on to their patients.

Did you all see the story on 60 Minutes last night about older people in intensive care units? Heartbreaking.

Puckstop31

11-23-2009, 10:13 PM

Oh SAS! You didn't recognize the new, kinder, gentler version??:rolleyes::D

And, as ALWAYS with you.... Focus on "style" and never have anything to say about substance. Frankly, its a good thing this kind of stuff is all you ever have to say. Proves my point.

I try... I really do. But fake emotion is my kryptonite. If you REALLY cared about people, you would rail for more JOBS and not fake "free" health care for all. Nor would you insult our Constitution and those who still believe in it.

Puckstop31

11-23-2009, 10:22 PM

I'm not sure I want insurers selling across state lines. They can write a crappy policy, sell it dirt cheap (so people will buy it) in an insurance statute-friendly state (where they can win any cases that may go to court), and still be making money hand over foot.

Supply and demand. Some people might buy such a "crappy" policy... Others might shop around for the best policy. Its how a free market works. Of course, the tough part of a free market is some people win... Some people lose. Its how it is... Its how it always will be. History does not lie. Knowing that, i'd rather that destiny be MY choice. Ya know?

There are more smart people out there than I think you believe.

My #2 would be
2.) Figure out a way for prescription drug manufacturers to sell their products cheaply. Why does my antihypertensive cost $3 a pill?

Supply and demand? R&D costs? Crazy government regulations? Do you know what it takes to get a drug to market?

Edwina's Secretary

11-23-2009, 10:33 PM

She stressed that there are no risks associated with getting one annually in terms of radiation exposure over time. And, she added, she's in her forties, and she's still planning on getting one annually.

If there is no risk...why are the techs behind a lead shield?

I don't think there is enough data one way or the other.

But if you feel confident in the advice of your healthcare provider - I think you should follow his/her advice - and not be controlled by profit-driven insurance company executives!

sparks19

11-23-2009, 11:29 PM

well... I have lived in both worlds... "Free healthcare" in canada and the US system. BOTH systems are severely broken.

read the latest on my step father's saga who has been severely ill for at least a year... can no longer work... can't even make his weekly Drs appts without being totally run down for days unable to even get off the couch. went in for lung surgery (his second in less than two months) and was kicked out of the hospital because they just didn't have room for him. a man who is 60 years old having more infection removed from his lungs than his doctor claims he has ever seen. well you can read the thread if you wish. It was a disaster.

he is still not back to normal. still not able to work, still not able to do more than cook a meal and sweep the floors without being totaly run down and still no closer to a diagnosis than he was a year ago and can't get the REAL care he needs because they just don't have room and he isn't going to die tomorrow.

people here can't afford to get the care and suffer from the same problems.... but making it "free" for everyone isn't going to save everyone. There HAS to be an inbetween.

they can't make it work properly in Canada with a FrACTION of the population and you may be thinking "well more people more money for taxes" well ... also think of it this way... more people to go to emergency and run to the doctor for every cough and sneeze and that IS what happens. when it becomes "free" people will go for EVERYTHING because they can. emergency rooms, hosiptal beds, doctors offices will become totally clogged. I went to emerg with mono one year... didn't know it was mono. severely swollen throat to the point I couldn't swallow and it was affecting my breathing. I waited TWELVE hours in emerg. My father insisted I had to be seen (I was a teen) I was in really bad shape. couldn't eat, coudl barely drink, trouble breathing he thought I was having an allergic reaction to something after going to the ONLY doctor in town that was taking new patients and she pushed me off with some antibiotics and an "OH sorry you will be fine here you go" as she did everytime I came to her.

i've seen both and with a larger population it just DOESN'T work either way. there HAS to be middle ground.

as for mammograms...

I will have one every year as soon as I can get them. it's MORE likely I will die from breast cancer than die from radiation. with large breasts and with my grandmother dying from cancer (not breast cancer though) I will get the testing when I can. I give myself regular exams but sometimes it doesn't show up as obviously as some think nor does it show up in the exact areas people thing.... can even be under the armpit. I am a large breasted woman and I DO and will continue to take it seriously whether I need to pay for it or not.

Lady's Human

11-23-2009, 11:40 PM

The techs are behind lead shielding because they would recieve many times beyond the PEL or TLV through a day of work were the shielding not in place.

The person getting the mammogram does it once a year (if that)

Your rough dose of radiation from natural backgraound sources is roughly 350 millirems, depending on lifestyle.

A mammogram exposes you to 70 millirems. Given that, the level of exposure is comparatively minimal.

The person doing the mammogram does it repeatedly throughout the day, day after day, year after year.

As radiation damage is cumulative, they need the shielding.

blue

11-24-2009, 02:35 AM

Health Care is not a Right. Health Care is a service.

Freedom of Speech is a Right, not a service. The Right to protect your self, ala the 2nd Amendment, is not a service.

:rolleyes:Sparks and LH should be ashamed of themselves for bringing logic and real life experience into a purely emotional argument.:rolleyes:

Sarcasm

Edwina's Secretary

11-24-2009, 10:46 AM

The techs are behind lead shielding because they would recieve many times beyond the PEL or TLV through a day of work were the shielding not in place.

The person doing the mammogram does it repeatedly throughout the day, day after day, year after year.

As radiation damage is cumulative, they need the shielding.

Gosh LH...Think I might have said that tongue in cheek?

But...first - annual mammograms have not been around long enough to know conclusively the effects of the exposure.

And...I am not sure how many mammograms you have had (joking again! ;)) but earlier this year I had a "positive" mammogram. So back I went. For TWO HOURS I was pulled, pushed and repositioned. "Now put your left leg over your right ear"....etc...etc. They could not "see" anything. But I was to go back in six months. Again I did. And again I was pushed and pulled. And again they could not "see" anything.

They tell me I should go again in four months. I highly doubt I will do so. At this point I feel they are trying to prove they were right.

So in less than a year I have had over two decades of "once a year if that" exposure.

And a false positive.

And all those millirems concentrated in one part of my body - unlike what I receive enviornmentally.

I lost an aunt to breast cancer and one grandmother had breast cancer.

But I still think for myself. And decide for myself. And I don't listen to lay people who try to stir up hysteria by misreporting studies for their own political agenda.

Lady's Human

11-24-2009, 11:36 AM

As opposed to stirring up hysteria by passing on junk science to promote their own political agenda?

Or as opposed to stirring up hysteria by playing on emotion and ignoring logic to promote their own political agenda?

Edwina's Secretary

11-24-2009, 12:00 PM

cassiesmom

11-24-2009, 10:20 PM

Dr. Rob, physician and musician, on health care reform...

Read the entire poem at http://distractible.org/2009/10/04/seuss-was-a-doctor/

A plan that is public creates great distress,
Just growing the government won’t fix this mess!
Absolute power just leads to excess!
(But what’s their alternative’s anyone’s guess)

The patients are now in the poorest condition
We’ve put them all into this dreadful position
Ignoring the help of those greedy physicians
And trusting their health to those smart politicians

Edwina's Secretary

11-24-2009, 10:36 PM

I am very sorry, Cassiemom, that you felt you had to delete your post.

Don't feed the bullies!

joycenalex

11-28-2009, 04:27 PM

[QUOTE=Edwina's Secretary;2211020]If there is no risk...why are the techs behind a lead shield?

ES, i didn't get that your comment was tongue in cheek, i've had patients ask me that over the last 15 years, i'm sure more will. that radiologist isn't trying to prove he's right by asking you to return for follow up diagnostic exams, he's trying to prove that he's wrong, that the first positive mamm was an error, and that there isn't a very small cancer and the only way to prove this negative is a series of identical mamms for (often) 2 years. if there had been a high degree of suspicion for a small cancer, they very likely would have discussed a biopsy instead of followup films. since you were in a mamm room for 2 hours, it has to be very deep, very small, very central area, the tech must have been sweating razorblades at the end of it. i'm hoping for continued good health for you

Edwina's Secretary

11-29-2009, 01:52 PM

Yes, I understand why the techie stands behind a shield. I also understand why the dentist puts a lead apron over my torso before taking x-rays of my teeth. And it isn't because of "junk science."

Now I have had an opportunity to read a few articles on the report and am further convinced it is not a plot by a Marxist to force the US into socialism by forbidding mammograms to women under 40.:rolleyes::rolleyes: Or whatever.

This study looked at issue we will have to face whether we stay with the current healthcare delivery system or change. Cost/benefit ratios and defensive medicine. I learned things reading about the study and listening to an interview with one of the researchers on the panel.

To try and stir people up with ranting that does not even correctly reflect a study is not constructive. People should know more about breast cancer - not be misled by misinformation.

That was and remains my point.

Thanks for your good wishes joycenalex. I must admit though my thoughts during the two hours were not for the techie..;):D

Lady's Human

11-29-2009, 04:11 PM

But as long as the misinformation and twisting of words is coming from you, it's okay, right?

:rolleyes:

lizbud

11-29-2009, 05:55 PM

But as long as the misinformation and twisting of words is coming from you, it's okay, right?

:rolleyes:

Oh no, here we go again.:rolleyes: :(:(

Edwina's Secretary

11-29-2009, 06:31 PM

Oh no, here we go again.:rolleyes: :(:(

Don't feed the trolls Liz...:p:p

cassiesmom

11-30-2009, 06:46 PM

Why does my antihypertensive cost $3 a pill?

Supply and demand? R&D costs? Crazy government regulations? Do you know what it takes to get a drug to market?

Puckstop, I don't think it's supply and demand, R&D costs, or government regulations. I think it's Big Pharma's goal of profit. They tweak their formulations just slightly (Prilosec to Nexium, Effexor to Pristiq, Ambien to Ambien-CR) so they don't lose the big bucks that come with the patents. Have you ever tried enrolling in a pharmaceutical assistance program? It's not easy to qualify. And I believe that pharmaceutical companies can afford to help many more patients than they actually do. Why is it that they are willing to give away anti-retrovirals in Africa, but not to HIV/AIDS patients who might need them in North America? What's wrong with this picture? I don't think health care is in need of reform; I think health insurance (including Medicare, Medicaid, and prescription drug coverage) is desperately in need of reform.

RICHARD

11-30-2009, 07:58 PM

Some poor AP in Africa ain't gonna sue the effing pants off of Merck, Pzifer, or any other pharm company for giving them a 'shot o'cure".

It's easier to 'trial' a 'cure' withg poor destitute people who are not bombarded by lawyer AHs trying to get you to call them for your Mesothelioma case during their fave programs on the tube.

Also, they do not fear the side effects that every pill/med has to tell you about.

THAT is the reason that a pill is ten dollars or what ever they charge.:eek:;)

Puckstop31

11-30-2009, 07:58 PM

Puckstop, I don't think it's supply and demand, R&D costs, or government regulations. I think it's Big Pharma's goal of profit.

Is it profit or "too much" profit that is the problem? Not supply/demand? Then why are the drugs cheaper in areas of the world with WAY less demand for them?

Also, a little research will show that many companies generate a MUCH larger proft % than the pharmaceutical industry. It is very expensive to get a drug to market.

I don't think health care is in need of reform; I think health insurance (including Medicare, Medicaid, and prescription drug coverage) is desperately in need of reform.

I agree. But if you take the profit motive out of the equation, health care WILL need reform... Because it will suck because nobody with talent will want to do it anymore.

Profit is not evil. Greed, however, is. Put more responsibility into the hands of the patient. Let everybody see what it REALLY costs. Then people start shopping around, like we did with Tanya's pregnancy. We found AMAZING care for less than half the cost of the "usual" hospital here in town. Competition breeds cost cutting and better service. Lets face it... Healthcare IS a business.

No, its not "easy" to get there. Yes, not everybody will do well in such a system. It will still be better than what we get if government runs it all. Ask my father in law... Ask my brother in law... YEARS waiting for stuff that I could get next week, at worst, here.

Puckstop31

11-30-2009, 07:59 PM

RICHARD

11-30-2009, 08:05 PM

There is this as well.... See point #1 of "my plan". LOL

Don't bother posting until you announce your run for office.;)

----------------

Here's one little interesting thing about 'old stuff' that sits around an operating room.

Should there be any 'product' that sits on the shelf because the tech is no longer used or has been replaced by something newer and better?

It gets donated to a charity where docs take it to third world countries and use it on poor people in the area,

A laparoscopy/laparotomy kits are sold to hospitals as a unit.

(Baxter) They got smart and began to sell a package that includes EVERYTHING you need to pluck an appendix or a gall bladder.

Problem? The hospitals are strapped and HAVE to buy the whole kit from the manufacturer.

They will break it open and use 60 to 70% of the kit, the rest is either thrown away or te individually packaged things are set aside for emergency usage.

-----------------------------------

So, when you come in for a burst appendix, you are charged for the WHOLE KIT, no matter what is used.

I dislike the salespeople (med supplies and drugs) more than politicians.

I worked in the area where the sales reps would come in and almost offer themselves up in order to get a sale.

Those people were scumbags, liars and the biggest thieves on the planet.

Edwina's Secretary

11-30-2009, 10:16 PM

Puckstop, I don't think it's supply and demand, R&D costs, or government regulations. I think it's Big Pharma's goal of profit. They tweak their formulations just slightly (Prilosec to Nexium, Effexor to Pristiq, Ambien to Ambien-CR) so they don't lose the big bucks that come with the patents. Have you ever tried enrolling in a pharmaceutical assistance program? It's not easy to qualify. And I believe that pharmaceutical companies can afford to help many more patients than they actually do. Why is it that they are willing to give away anti-retrovirals in Africa, but not to HIV/AIDS patients who might need them in North America? What's wrong with this picture? I don't think health care is in need of reform; I think health insurance (including Medicare, Medicaid, and prescription drug coverage) is desperately in need of reform.

So good to have the voice of a healthcare professional - who works in the industry.

I agree with you the expression "healthcare reform" is a bit of a misnomer. The issue is how it gets paid for (insurance) and who can afford it.

Puckstop31

12-01-2009, 07:19 AM

So good to have the voice of a healthcare professional - who works in the industry.

I agree with you the expression "healthcare reform" is a bit of a misnomer. The issue is how it gets paid for (insurance) and who can afford it.

If only that were true... Have you actually read any of either bill?

Edwina's Secretary

12-01-2009, 12:35 PM

cassiesmom

12-01-2009, 10:47 PM

I dislike the salespeople (med supplies and drugs) more than politicians.

I worked in the area where the sales reps would come in and almost offer themselves up in order to get a sale.

Those people were scumbags, liars and the biggest thieves on the planet.

Just don't even get me started on pharmaceutical sales people. (shiver) I was waiting in the doctor's office one morning when one of them came in. Talk about a schmooze-a-palooza! I felt like the rep was wasting my time more than my doctor's, since I was paying to see her, and he wasn't.

Then in my last job there was a weekly inservice for the docs and clinical staff with a catered lunch, sometimes a guest speaker, and usually a "commercial" for a particular product that had either been added to formulary recently or they wanted us to add. The nurses weren't too welcome at those because we didn't directly contribute to formulary decisions.

Big Pharma likes to have nurses as sales reps - somehow it seems to make the sales rep image less sleazy. I wouldn't do it if it was the last job on earth. I'd take bedpans over a sample case in a heartbeat. The receptionist for the doctor I used to see kept track of how many sales reps came in each day. She would allow a couple, and then put a sign on the door: No more sales rep calls today. The doctor I go to now is part of a teaching hospital so I don't believe they don't get sales rep calls at all.

cassiesmom

12-01-2009, 10:50 PM

Put more responsibility into the hands of the patient. Let everybody see what it REALLY costs. Then people start shopping around, like we did with Tanya's pregnancy. We found AMAZING care for less than half the cost of the "usual" hospital here in town. Competition breeds cost cutting and better service. Lets face it... Healthcare IS a business.

No, its not "easy" to get there. Yes, not everybody will do well in such a system. It will still be better than what we get if government runs it all. Ask my father in law... Ask my brother in law... YEARS waiting for stuff that I could get next week, at worst, here.

They tried that at some of the hospitals in Chicago for awhile but it seems to have fallen out of favor for now. There was a big push to get people to ask about how much this service costs, and to call around and compare prices before (example) their colonoscopy, but I don't know how much it ever caught on.

Edwina's Secretary

12-01-2009, 11:12 PM

They tried that at some of the hospitals in Chicago for awhile but it seems to have fallen out of favor for now. There was a big push to get people to ask about how much this service costs, and to call around and compare prices before (example) their colonoscopy, but I don't know how much it ever caught on.

It is not practical for a number of reasons.

All the different for profit insurance companies have negotiated deals with certain healthcare providers. If my carrier doesn't have a deal with the hospital with the lowest rate it won't make any difference.

Many providers have no idea what the rate will be until they submit the claim. Too complex - too many different rates.

When you are in an emergency situation - calling around for the lowest rate could kill you.

Anyone see the piece on The Daily Show last night about the number of Americans moving to Mexico for better quality and lower cost - government healthcare?

Although I am sure you could fine two guys in Mexico who are dissatified with it...:rolleyes:

Puckstop31

12-02-2009, 08:53 AM

It is not practical for a number of reasons.

All the different for profit insurance companies have negotiated deals with certain healthcare providers. If my carrier doesn't have a deal with the hospital with the lowest rate it won't make any difference.

Many providers have no idea what the rate will be until they submit the claim. Too complex - too many different rates.

When you are in an emergency situation - calling around for the lowest rate could kill you.

These are among some of the reasons why I agree with you that the system needs to be "fixed" and/or changed.

What I don't agree with is what either house has come up with. Simply put, we cannot afford the monstrosity they have put together. Unless, of course, we are willing to have a lower standard of living. You can only tax the producing class so much.... History shows us this time and time again....

Anyone see the piece on The Daily Show last night about the number of Americans moving to Mexico for better quality and lower cost - government healthcare?

Although I am sure you could fine two guys in Mexico who are dissatified with it...:rolleyes:

First, The Daily Show? Really? I'd love to see the source material for THAT.

Next, its WAY more than 2 people. Some polls have it WELL over half of America does not like what is currently being debated.

Its statements like this why the left is losing traction on almost every issue. You continue to not listen to the people or reality. All you can do is try to shut us up or just ignore the facts.

Carry on....

RICHARD

12-02-2009, 10:08 AM

Are we going to 'hijack this thread' and start insulting the Mexicans?:eek:

----------
CM,

THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL SALESPEOPLE FOR PHARM COMPANIES.

Most of the female reps had the business acumen of a stripper.

Once the wallet, or any possibility of making a buck, disappeared? They dropped the 'sweetness and attention', along with the 'personal touch' they would give to the contract.

Because I worked in the office with the purchaser,I got to see the best of the sales pitches.

Being the sexist pig, with low morals, I really liked it when the gals would dress 'professionally' and flash cleavage and undies, all while sitting on the counter in those midis!

Sometimes I had to leave the office because the sweetness in the room would have put me into a diabetic coma.

-------------

The reason that "shopping" for rates fell out of favor is that the med companies/pharms and institutions would have to justify the profit made on each admission/procedure.

http://stores.ebay.com/TheMedWarehouse?_rdc=1

LOLOLOLOL,

Ebay for replacement parts.

Look at the prices for one screw?

50 dollars for a effing open end wrench in 11 mms?

150 dollars for a t-handled wrench to drive a bone screw?

I could take what I know about medicine, buy all the stuff and parts at a Sears/Craftsman sale and open up a clinic in Mexico.

Oh, I am sorry Mexico people, I meant no harm.

Edwina's Secretary

12-02-2009, 11:03 AM

THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL SALESPEOPLE FOR PHARM COMPANIES.

Most of the female reps had the business acumen of a stripper.

Once the wallet, or any possibility of making a buck, disappeared? They dropped the 'sweetness and attention', along with the 'personal touch' they would give to the contract.

Because I worked in the office with the purchaser,I got to see the best of the sales pitches.

Being the sexist pig, with low morals, I really liked it when the gals would dress 'professionally' and flash cleavage and undies, all while sitting on the counter in those midis!

Sometimes I had to leave the office because the sweetness in the room would have put me into a diabetic coma.

Wow. Could you imagine if anyone else said something like this?

Most of the Asian reps had the business acumen of a stripper.

Most of the African American reps had the business acumen of a stripper.

Certainly not all pharma reps...just most of the female reps...

Apparently insulting 51% of the population is acceptable.

cassiesmom

12-02-2009, 07:46 PM

Anyone see the piece on The Daily Show last night about the number of Americans moving to Mexico for better quality and lower cost - government healthcare?

I don't know if they still do, but UnitedHealthcare used to sell a product for U.S. citizens and residents who chose to obtain their care across the border.

PacifiCare and UnitedHealthcare Partner With SIMNSA to Enhance Cross-Border Health Care Services for Latinos and Their Families
Posted on: Wednesday, 27 September 2006, 09:00 CDT (source: redOrbit.com)

CYPRESS, Calif., Sept. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- PacifiCare, a UnitedHealthcare company, is partnering with Sistemas Medicos Nacionales, S.A. de C.V. (SIMNSA), to make available innovative health plans for Latinos who prefer to visit doctors in Tijuana and other border cities in Baja California, Mexico.

PacifiCare's partnership with SIMNSA enables PacifiCare to market SIMNSA products and services alongside PacifiCare and UnitedHealthcare programs that provide Southern California-based businesses affordable, comprehensive coverage for their employees. SIMNSA offers a host of health plans with low or no copayments as well as dental and prescription drug benefits.

Based in Chula Vista, Calif., SIMNSA is a California-licensed health plan that was developed to provide affordable, quality health care coverage for a growing segment of the U.S. work force that prefers to access health care services in Mexico. Health care services are rendered by a network of more than 200 doctors and specialists in Baja California. SIMNSA also contracts with clinics in the San Diego area for members who need access to urgent care.

SIMNSA members must access all routine care in Mexico, but are covered for qualified urgent and emergency care while working or living in the United States. SIMNSA plans are open to Mexican nationals who are legal residents of the United States, U.S. citizens of Mexican ancestry and dual nationals. In addition, SIMNSA can also accommodate employers that want to offer their employees a "split-family" coverage option. This option allows employees to choose PacifiCare for themselves and SIMNSA for their dependents.

Latinos of Mexican origin comprise nearly 60 percent -- or more than 20 million -- of the Hispanic population nationwide, and more than 32 percent of the total Latino population nationwide resides in California. More than 52 percent, or 40,510, of the Mexican foreign-born citizens who became naturalized in 2005 reside in California, according to the Migration Information Resource -- Spotlight on Naturalization Trends, Sept. 1, 2006. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics shows that, "among immigrants, Hispanic adults were the most likely to be without health insurance (37 percent)."

"According to San Diego's regional planning agency, nearly 35,000 people are commuting across the border into California each day to work," said Frank Carrillo, CEO of SIMNSA. "However, this doesn't include those who live in Southern California and support their families in Mexico. For these individuals, a California-based health plan may often not be an option. Through SIMNSA, however, our 20,000 members -- many of whom might otherwise be uninsured -- are able to attain employer-sponsored health care coverage for themselves and their families. By partnering with PacifiCare, we look forward to enhancing SIMNSA's brand and its health care programs throughout Southern California."

"We share SIMNSA's goal of improving access to quality, affordable health care coverage for Latinos, particularly those who are legally employed in Southern California and may live and have families in either Southern California or Mexico," said Russell Bennett, UnitedHealthcare's vice president of Latino Health Solutions. "Data published by the Yankelovich Hispanic Monitor indicate that the majority of Latinos prefer to receive health care information in Spanish. By offering health care programs that are linguistically and culturally appropriate, we believe PacifiCare and SIMNSA have a tremendous opportunity to leverage our mutual experience and expertise in better addressing Latinos' unique health care needs."

RICHARD

12-02-2009, 10:19 PM

He'll get a bill for the cord he broke-1,799.99 dollars.....

http://www.asylum.com/2009/12/02/george-hudson-stuck-on-the-toilet-serenades-hospital-staff-with-carols/?icid=main|main|dl5|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asylum. com%2F2009%2F12%2F02%2Fgeorge-hudson-stuck-on-the-toilet-serenades-hospital-staff-with-carols%2F

blue

12-04-2009, 02:53 AM

A Minority View.

BY WALTER WILLIAMS

RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2009

The Pretense of Knowledge

The ultimate constraint that we all face is knowledge -- what we know and don't know. The knowledge problem is pervasive and by no means trivial as hinted at by just a few examples. You've purchased a house. Was it the best deal you could have gotten? Was there some other house you could have purchased that 10 years later would not have needed extensive repairs or was in a community with more likeable neighbors and a better environment for your children? What about the person you married? Was there another person who would have made for a more pleasing spouse? Though these are important questions, the most intelligent answer you can give to all of them is: "I don't know."

Since you don't know the answers, who do you think, here on Earth, is likely to know and whom would you like to make these decisions for you -- Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, George Bush, a czar appointed by Obama or a committee of Washington bureaucrats? I bet that if these people were to forcibly make housing or marital decisions for us, most would deem it tyranny.

You say, "Williams, Congress is not making such monumental decisions that affect my life." Try this. You are a 22-year-old healthy person. Instead of spending $3,000 or $4,000 a year for health insurance, you'd prefer investing that money in equipment to start a landscaping business. Which is the best use of that $3,000 or $4,000 a year -- purchasing health insurance or starting up a landscaping business -- and who should decide that question: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, George Bush, a czar appointed by Obama or a committee of Washington bureaucrats? How can they possibly know what's the best use of your earnings, particularly in light of the fact that they have no idea of who you are?

Neither you nor the U.S. Congress has the complete knowledge to know exactly what's best for you. The difference is that when individuals make their own trade-offs, say between purchasing health insurance or investing in a business, they make wiser decisions because it is they who personally bear the costs and benefits of those decisions. You say, "Hold it, Williams, we've got you now! What if that person gets really sick and doesn't have health insurance. Society suffers the burden of taking care of him." To the extent that is a problem, it is not a problem of liberty; it's a problem of congressionally mandated socialism. Let's look at it.

It is not society that bears the burden; it is some flesh and blood American worker who finds his earnings taken by Congress to finance the health needs of another person. There is absolutely no moral case, much less constitutional case, for Congress forcibly using one American to serve the purposes of another American, a practice that differs only in degree from slavery, which we all should find morally offensive.

Whether it is health care, education, employment or most other areas of our lives, I ask you: Who has the capacity to master all the complexity to make choices on behalf of others? Each of us possesses only a tiny percentage of the knowledge that would be necessary to make totally informed decisions in our own lives, much less the lives of others. There is only one reason for the forcible transference of decision-making authority over important areas of our private lives to elite decision-makers in Congress and government bureaucracies. Doing so confers control, power, wealth and revenue to society's elite. What's in the best interests of individual members of society, such as a person who'd rather launch a landscaping business than purchase a health insurance policy, ranks low on the elite's list of priorities.