How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 The times...   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ]
 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The times...

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


125 posted 09-20-2009 10:21 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

          You may be right about the nature of President Obama's exemplars; I don't know.  Saying "all they are" is a bit dismissive in my opinion.  An illustration is meant to illustrate a point, and can do so well or poorly.  It may also do so honestly or dishonestly.  My understanding is that President Obama has in general played fair with his illustrations.  

     We may remember President Reagan's "Welfare Queen," in this regard, who turned out not to exist.  This exemplar fitted President Reagan's purposes very well indeed, but did so dishonestly.  We might remember President Bush's sharp rebukes to the Clinton White House Staffers for removing the W's from the White House typewriters, an exemplar that fit President Bush's purposes very well indeed but which was flawed by the fact that it the objectionable actions never happened.  

     Apt examples chosen to illustrate appropriate situations may bore the right wing.  I find a willingness at least to attempt to be confined by the bounds of aptness to be be somewhat refreshing.  

     Granted it doesn't have the excitement of telling two conflicting stories at the same time (The Iraqis were responsible for everything, from Vice President Cheney; and, I never claimed that Saddam Hussein worked with al qaida, by President Bush); but it does have that troublesome anxiety-lessening effect that so distresses many notable neoconservatives.  I must say I'm sorry that the President hasn't added enough chili to the beans for the conservative crowd by simply offering straightforward examples; and I hope he continues to remain fully as boring in the future.      

Sincerely, Bob Kaven
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


126 posted 09-20-2009 10:33 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

           Actually, I'm not interested in taking apart your post 124.  I appreciate your willingness to take a fair shot at giving a fair answer at what I thought were a decent set of questions.  Rather than try to take your thoughts apart, which would be not so nice of me, I think, I should take a try at answering the same questions myself.  Then both of us will have a chance to see each other's thinking.

     If you're willing to talk about your thoughts, you should have a chance to see my thoughts as well without any criticism in between, at least from me, and at least on this.  I have some comments that I made about examples and Obama earlier, before I'd seen your comments here.  

     Thanks for giving these a good shot.  I really do appreciate it.

Bob
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


127 posted 09-20-2009 10:47 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I must say I'm sorry that the President hasn't added enough chili to the beans for the conservative crowd by simply offering straightforward examples; and I hope he continues to remain fully as boring in the future.

I don't think congressional democrats would agree with you, Bob. Not only has he not influenced the Republicans, he has also lost much of the Democratic support. I, too, hope he continues along those same lines.

Yes, by all means, give your thoughts on your questions without any criticisms from me. After all, opinions are just that, and are to be respected.      
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


128 posted 09-22-2009 12:12 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Whatever the actual cost of illegal immigrants on our healthcare system, Grinch, and I see no reason not to go with the $10.1 Billion annual cost to the federal and state governments, it is a strain on the system. I don’t know how much better or worse allowing them to have coverage under any new plan the government might be able to push through, but either way it is a burden that we really can’t bear, given the current financial crisis.

And now I am angry. First we hear that there may not be sufficient vaccine for H1N1 because to be effective people may require two shots instead of one, then the next week we hear one dose seems to be sufficient. Well that seemed to be a bit of good news. Then a couple days later we hear that the vaccine will not be initially available to those 50 and older, and that those 65 and older will be the last group in line for any eventual availability. So the rationing has begun by the government already, even before they take over the healthcare system. It should be up to the physicians, depending upon patient vulnerability to death or health complications from the H1N1 strain. The criteria should be pregnant women, the very young, the very old and the very sick, as in the past, to determine who should receive the vaccine, not the government mandating an age based criteria. And now we will be shipping our ‘excess’ to other countries via the U.N. Will that be before or after everyone here who should get it has a chance at getting it, or will we newly defined ‘oldsters’ be shafted for the wannabe global government’s determination of the ‘common good’?
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


129 posted 09-22-2009 12:31 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Mike,

         I’ve put some thought into the five questions I proposed.  I was hoping that we could put Democrat/Republican and Liberal/Conservative aside for a while and simply look at what each of us thought the issues were and what we thought we needed or thought we might do about them.  Get to the root of things, if possible — radix, root, the word that radical comes from, a word that applies to both left and right at times.

What do you want your health care system to do for you and for your country?

     How many of the people in the country do you think it ought to cover?

     How do you think we ought to pay for it?

     How much should it cost?

     What do you think it ought to pay for?


1)  I want my health care system to supply health care for the citizens of my country and those residing here in that country, whose health affects those citizens.  I want that system to function from the time a citizen has a health care need until that need is resolved.  It will not be able to fill all needs of every person, but it should be sufficient to maintain or return anybody to health or to maintain them at their best level of functioning given the problems they face, even if the problem has to do with dying.  

     Should they wish extraordinary levels of care, such as plastic surgery for cosmetic rather than reparative reasons, or speculative and unproven treatments for conditions for which there are already proven and effective treatments, these might be covered by the purchase of a boutique policy or out of pocket.  There should be no need to fund a polysurgery addiction like Michael Jackson’s.

     There should be ongoing reviews of which treatments are the most effective for treatment of which conditions.  And yes, people should keep their final directives up to date.  There is no reason for us to repeat the Terry Schaivo sadness when a simple written directive would have made it clear that that yes she wanted to be kept alive on machines or that no she did not.  These decisions should be made by the people themselves, if only for the sake of the survivors.  

2)  I think such a program ought to cover everybody in the country.

3)  I think we are already paying for it.  I simply think we are not getting it.  I believe that much of the difference has been funneled into excess profits for insurance companies in the health care business and into excess profits for the drug industry as well as bonuses for some of their executives.

     The insurance companies seem to be trying to get the profit cap lifted on the product now from 20% to 35%.  I fail to see how this will help get any more people coverage.  I suspect that it will actually cut the number of benefits actually delivered, myself, and will probably raise the premiums as well.

     I believe that if what we are now paying in premiums was diverted toward health taxes, there would be enough to an excellect single payer system with room for private insurers to sell boutique policy coverage for single rooms, private duty nursing and the like.  

     Considerable money could be saved simply by refusing to pay enormously bloated prices for drugs and actually making drug companies bid for government drug contracts, and by refusing to allow drug companies to advertise other than to physicians.  Currently, they appear to be creating artificial markets for expensive drugs when less expensive and equally effective drugs will work just as well.

     Actually, Mike, I think I’ve covered five questions in three sections.

     What level of agreement do we have here between us and what level of disagreement, if we put the political labels aside and actually start looking at opinions and proposals?

     If you’ve got any thoughts or comments, I’d be happy to take a shot at coming to grips with them.

All my best, Bob Kaven
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


130 posted 09-22-2009 02:55 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


My perfect health care system would consist of government funded but independently managed not for profit health care provider running alongside the current private insurance companies. It would provide two basic health care plans. One that contained the bare minimum emergency services and serious illness cover - life, limb and organ threatening stuff.

The second would include treatment for non-threatening ailments and diagnostic procedures. Private comprehensive plans would also be available

The basic emergency plan would be automatically available to all citizens including the unemployed.

The enhanced basic plan would be automatically available to any income tax payer and their dependants, in addition anyone receiving social security benefits could opt into this system but their received benefit would be reduced if they did so. Anyone receiving a pension could also opt in at reduced rates.

Private enhanced plans would be available to anyone who preferred to opt out of the universal health system. They would still pay the universal health care charge but would receive a tax rebate.

In addition an agreement would be reached with health care providers whereby any citizen could purchase treatment direct from the provider on an "as needed" basis. The cost charged by the providers would be 20% higher than standard rates.

The premium for this universal health care will collected via an increase in income tax. Every taxpayer would pay the same flat rate at source. All legal dependants would be covered under the policy of the main wage earner residing at the family home; married couples with children would receive a tax rebate of 50% of the joint amount paid.

Any person preferring to opt out of the system and arrange private cover would receive a rebate equal to the non-emergency portion of the universal premium.

The system would be managed on a regional (State) level, each region would be responsible for treatment of national, epidemic or pandemic health care needs such as immunisation and vaccination against transmittable diseases within their catchment area.

Under this system everyone is covered if they fall under a bus but above and beyond that it's the individual's responsibility and choice regarding what health care they want.  
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


131 posted 09-22-2009 05:03 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Whatever the actual cost of illegal immigrants on our healthcare system, Grinch, and I see no reason not to go with the $10.1 Billion annual cost to the federal and state governments, it is a strain on the system.


And if the total cumulative cost is zero it's no strain at all.

You don't know what the cost of presumptive coverage given to illegal immigrants is Denise, any more than you knew what unrecoverable losses are attributable to them. Nobody does, you don't, I don't and the government, both state and federal, don't either. So what are the chances that a bunch of racist bigots who have a grudge against immigrants got it right?

I'll give you a clue it's probably no chance whatsoever.

A 75 year old Latino goes into a hospital emergency room after being hit by a drunk driver - unfortunately he died three days later from complications.

Was he an illegal immigrant Denise, would you treat him anyway?

A 6-year-old Asian girl is rushed into the emergency room after collapsing in class. She spends 4 hours in surgery but dies two days later due to acute peritonitis caused by a burst appendix.

Was she an illegal immigrant, would you treat her anyway?

A 22-year-old white woman is brought into the emergency room ranting in what sounds like Dutch or German, she's heavily pregnant and needs to undergo an emergency caesarean section. She survives but discharges herself from hospital two days later.

Is she an illegal immigrant Denise, would you treat her anyway?

Not sure? The emergency room staff probably aren't either but it doesn't really matter because they're obliged to treat all of them all under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986. If the costs for treatment for any of the above aren't claimable from an insurance company or the family of the deceased then the hostpital has two choices. They either write the cost off as an unrecoverable loss (your $200 million) or they "presume" that the patient is covered by Medicare or Medicaid and bill the state (your $10 billion figure).

Oh I almost forgot to add.

The 75 year old Latino was a second generation Mexican-American born in Califonia who fought for his country in Vietnam where he received the medal of honour.

The 6 year old Asian girl was the daughter of the local police chief.

The 22-year-old white woman? She's back on the farm that she's lived on all her life. The hospital received payment in cash from the Amish community 3 days later.

.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


132 posted 09-22-2009 06:27 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Denise,

          Doing things the traditional way has its points.

     It certainly sounds attractive, the way you state it, when you speak of the new strain of Flu.

     I notice, however, that while you spoke at some length about your fears — which I share — and your suspicions of governmental actions — which I also share in general, though not in this case — you do not speak of having checked these things out.

     Were my degree of alarm as great as yours, and it seems that it is not in this case, I would be interested in getting some information because I am aware that Flu is a wily illness.  While the standard order would seem useful for many strains of flu, it would not be useful for others.  It might even be counterproductive.

     The big Flu of 1918, for example, was not such a big deal for the elderly or for children.  The people it struck, almost by choice if one could attribute choice to a plague, were those who were healthy and in the prime of life.  Using your administration schedule applied to those folks would have left you feeling triumphant.  Almost everybody who got your (nonexistent at the time) vaccine would have lived; and how simply awful for those strong young folks that we weren't able to save because we ran out of vaccine before we got to them because your rationing scheme sent the "life-saving" vaccine to the traditionally more vulnerable.

     Did you in fact run across reasonably objective information that gives more substance to your reasonable fears of governmental action than those things you've already mentioned?  If so, I'd be interested in a reference I could follow up on.  It sounds like an ageist policy on the face of it, and I'd like to know the rationale behind it if this is in fact the way the government is now doing things.  Hard data?

Sincerely,  Bob Kaven

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


133 posted 09-22-2009 08:28 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

The step-wise approach that angers Denise for which she condemns "our government" is the recommendation of SAGE to WHO, the World Health Organization.
"SAGE was established by the WHO Director-General in 1999 as the principal advisory group to WHO for vaccines and immunization. It comprises 15 members who serve in their personal capacity and represent a broad range of disciplines from around the world in the fields such as epidemiology, public health, vaccinology, paediatrics, internal medicine, infectious diseases, immunology, drug regulation, programme management, immunization delivery, and health-care administration."
I could be wrong but they sound like a pretty credible group to me. Why should our government ignore their advice?
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/notes/h1n1_vaccine_20090713/en/index.html
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


134 posted 09-22-2009 09:28 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I've never advocated that those needing care not be treated, Grinch. I've said that earlier as well. I'm simply saying that I don't know which would cost more, covering them with any eventual plan or allowing for emergency care only, but that either way is still a burden on our economy. What needs to be done, today, is a serious effort at stopping the flood of illegal immigration.

Bob, I heard the information on the evening news and on the radio. I didn't do internet research on it, although I'm sure it is out there for those who wish to investigate further, as Jennifer did. It does fit in nicely with the views of Obama's chief health advisor, Ezekial Emanuel. Coincidence? You can also google him to read his views and justifictions for age based treatment.

I don't esteem those organizations as highly as you seem to, Jennifer. I believe that it is immoral beyond imagining that any age based criteria be implemented in the distribution of health care, promoting the view that the most valuable group in a society are those aged 15 thru 49, and will therefore get preference in a treatment, regardless of their actual need of treatment based on physical condition, health history and probable rates of a successful outcome without treatment, while those who are very young, very old, and very sick, whose morbidity rates would be highest without treatment, find that treatment is simply not available to them.

Yes, I do condemn those in our government who adopted such a plan. The choice was theirs, after all. No one is forcing them to go along with the recommendations of SAGE. They could have left the decisions in the hands of the physicians to administer a tight supply wisely as they see necessary to the most endangered in the population, not the most 'age-worthy'. 'Need', not 'age', should be the criteria used.

It would almost be funny if it weren't so sickening: This is the same group of people who scoffed at and accused concerned citizens in August at the various town hall meetings of spreading 'misinformation' about Obamacare when they voiced concerns of impending rationing of healthcare by the government, among other things. Well, it seems they are already doing it, aren't they, Jennifer?  So who is really spreading misinformation, the concerned citizens or the government?
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


135 posted 09-22-2009 10:06 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Denise, I believe the idea behind the step-wise approach has absolutely nothing to do with age discrimination. Rather, the idea seems to be to try and control the spread of the disease by vaccinating those more likely to be exposed to it and likely to pass it on. Who’s more likely to be exposed or pass it on, an eighty year old woman sitting home watching Dancing with the Stars or a person out and about at school or work on a daily basis? Those most endangered ARE those most likely to be exposed.

And please don’t confuse treatment with vaccination. No one will be denied treatment because of their age. Also, you might want to check the morbidity rates to date by age. I think you’ll be very surprised.

No, I don’t think “they” are rationing healthcare anymore than triage unit at your local hospital emergency room. They are simply using what may be limited resources (vaccine) in a manner they deem most effective in helping to stop the spread of the virus.

JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


136 posted 09-22-2009 10:22 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Also

Denise - “I believe that it is immoral beyond imagining that any age based criteria be implemented in the distribution of health care.”

Does that mean you’re opposed to Medicare and the Prescription Drug Program for Seniors? Do you think a similar program should be available to everyone regardless of age? Or do you think those programs should be discontinued because they’re age based and thus, in your opinion, immoral?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


137 posted 09-22-2009 10:56 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Denise,

           Jennifer's made some excellent points that I think you believe you've addressed, but you don't to me appear to have done so.

     If one develops a treatment for Tay-Sachs disease, which is a genetic disease that affects one particular group of European Jews, you don't demand that you be moved to the head of the line for that treatment on the grounds that you might have some Jewish ancestry and that you're over fifty.  The treatment should not get distributed on the basis of the eldest and the sickest and the youngest first.

     There would be a good case for treating children before reaching reproductive age, but not elderly people who will not pass it on or for treating sick people whose treatment might be affected by treatment for Tay-Sachs disease and who may not reproduce while they are very sick anyway.  You would treat the people who would benefit from the treatment.  You would withhold treatment from those who would not benefit because the treatment might do harm, and the basic principle of medicine is to avoid doing harm whenever possible.

     The same reasoning is applied to the decision to treat any population.  You want to treat the vulnerable members first, and thus limit the spread of the disease in the population as a whole.  You need to determine who those members are by doing research into the nature of the illness.

     In the case of a large scale illness, you are not only treating an individual patient, but you are treating a population as well, and there is a medical specialty that focuses on that particular area of art and science.  It is epidemiology.  It is as complex as cardiology or neurology, and it is what Jennifer is trying to address with you here.

     While you have every right to have an opinion on what is right and wrong about the way these decisions are made, as I believe I do as well, neither one of us are competent or even board certified in that area of medicine.  Actually to claim expertise as opposed to the right to an opinion  pretends to a level of knowledge that I don't have.  I do on occasion lay claim to that level of personal chutzpa, but that is of limited use in convincing those who refuse to acknowledge true extent of my cosmic powers.  

     That means basically everybody else.

     You may not like Jennifer's point; you may even be outraged by it.  She still seems to have the science of the matter on her side.

     This doesn't make you wrong.  

     It does suggest that the two of you are talking past each other.  Sadly.

Yours, Bob Kaven
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


138 posted 09-22-2009 11:17 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I think you all have gotten off-point. Grinch gives examples of three people being rushed to emergency rooms. I don't understand the point. Those people get treatment now in the system we have. The only point about illegal aliens is that Obama used those figures while speaking of how many people in the country were without health care...and while he was saying that illegal aliens would not be covered. When he was confronted by that fact, via Wilson's "You lie!" outburst, he changed the figured to eliminate them.

So what's the point? If Obama claims they will not get free medical care, fine. In his plan AND the way things are now, they are still going to get emergency treatment so what does that have to do with the government taking over health care?
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


139 posted 09-22-2009 11:24 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I should think, Jennifer, that 50 plus folks out there in the work-a-day world are just as exposed as younger workers of 18 thru 49, and school kids of ages 5 thru 14 are just as exposed as those 15 and above. And even the elderly may come in contact with an infected person at the grocery store, or church, or hair salon. They would be even more at risk if they have underlying health conditions that make them less likely to withstand a serious respiratory infection which could result from any type of flu, as would any person of any age with any underlying health condition, young or old.

And yes, if Ezekial Emanuel has his way, not only vaccinations but other treatments as well will be age restricted. His writings should give everyone pause.

And now you want to compare a health insurance program for seniors, that they must contribute towards out of their social security check, with treatment/vaccine administration mandates by the government? That's a poor comparison.

Why don't we stick with the flu, Bob. Of course genetic specific illnesses such as Tay-Sachs have their own specific criteria not relating to the general population.

If we are interested in treating the most vulnerable then it must be done by treating those most vulnerable to death and disability, not by excluding them.


JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


140 posted 09-23-2009 06:54 AM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

“If we are interested in treating the most vulnerable then it must be done by treating those most vulnerable to death and disability, not by excluding them.”

We’re not talking about your ordinary seasonal flu, Denise. We’re talking about the possibility of a world wide pandemic. You don’t prevent or limit the spread of a pandemic by treating the most vulnerable. (Treatment comes after you contract the disease and should not be confused with prevention measures such as vaccines) What you need to do is take measures to help stop the spread of the disease before it reaches pandemic proportions. It seems reasonable to me that experts in  fields such as epidemiology and pubic health, like SAGE and WHO, have a better grasp on how best to deal with and prevent a pandemic than those of us posting on a poetry discussion forum.  If I were President, I’d give their opinion far more weight than that of those consumed by anger, fear, or with some sort of political ax to grind.

No, I don’t want to compare  “a health insurance program for seniors” with “ treatment/vaccine administration mandates by the government”. I simply asked if an age based health care program like Medicare was ok with you since you “believe that it is immoral beyond imagining that any age based criteria be implemented in the distribution of health care.” I’d gladly pay what the average SS recipient pays for their government provided health care program for a similar one for myself. Unfortunately I don’t have that option since I don’t meet the age requirement. Why shouldn’t I have access to the same sort of health care program as Seniors? Isn’t that age based discrimination?


Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


141 posted 09-23-2009 08:56 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I wouldn't trust SAGE or WHO, Jennifer. Their ideology seems the same as Zeke's to me.

I'm at a loss as to how those 50 and older, still out in the work force, are not as susceptible as those aged 18-49 and why children under 15 are not as vulnerable. What is the reasoning for that?

Seniors for the most part have a plan that they have paid into for the past 40+ years, so after you have done that, maybe you'll have it too...or maybe not. I wouldn't envy the seniors their health coverage just yet, Jen. The politicians seem intent on severely diminishing it.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


142 posted 09-23-2009 09:44 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=110710
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


143 posted 09-23-2009 10:22 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

So we need a government takeover of health care to avoid pandemics??

If I were President, I’d give their opinion far more weight than that of those consumed by anger, fear, or with some sort of political ax to grind. Those people have a name...congressional Democrats...and their numbers are growing.

Yes,I realize it is popular these days to brand any dissident to the president's policies to be either unruly, Nazis, angry mobs, un-Americans, or any other such adjectives you may choose to employ. We have apparently moved passed the days when Hillary screamed out that it was every American's right to question, criticize, challenge and even rebel against party policies they did not agree with. Funny how things change with the location of the shoe..
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


144 posted 09-23-2009 12:46 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

From what I've seen and read, the anger, fear, political ax description fits teabaggers more so than Democrats.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


145 posted 09-23-2009 01:31 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

“Funny how things change with the location of the shoe..”

Indeed.

“Twelve years later, by the end of George H.W. Bush’s presidency, it (the deficit) had exploded to $4 trillion. Reagan was a “B” grade movie actor and a doddering, probably clinically senile president, but he was a sheer genius at rewarding his friends by saddling other people with debts.

Bill Clinton reversed Reagan’s course, raising taxes on the wealthy, and lowering them for the working and middle classes. This produced the longest sustained economic expansion in American history. Importantly, it also produced budgetary surpluses allowing the government to begin paying down the crippling debt begun under Reagan. In 2000, Clinton’s last year, the surplus amounted to $236 billion. The forecast ten year surplus stood at $5.6 trillion.”

So where were all those teabaggers the last eight years when the Bush 2 Administration was turning billions in surplus into trillions in deficit? It took them eight full years to get their water hot?

I do envy Seniors their government health care program, Denise. What a single recipient is getting for less than a hundred dollars a month, I couldn’t get for thousands. To me that definitely seems like age based discrimination since I also pay into the Medicare system. Sorry, World Net Daily is not a credible source. It’s primary focus seems to be to inflame more impressionable conservatives. Should you care to offer a link from one of the many unbiased, credible sources like some of those Bob has mentioned, I’d be glad to read the material.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


146 posted 09-23-2009 02:07 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

While the seniors were paying into the system all those years they weren't able to use it during that time either, Jen. The payment was for a future benefit. And at the time they either had to pay for a private plan as well or had an employer plan as a job benefit, or did without, when they were younger.  Hopefully it will be there for us some day.

It's difficult to find real pertinent news and commentary other than at conservative sites, in my opinion, so I can't help you there if you want liberal sources.

And I doubt you'd find a single teabagger among the Tea Party participants. More likely you'll find them at MSNBC. They seem very familiar with the practice.

It took someone like Obama with his over-the-top, over-reaching, power-grabbing, socialistic/communistic tendencies to wake people up. If he had appeared to be a little more moderate or centrist people may still have been sleeping.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


147 posted 09-23-2009 02:31 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
What needs to be done, today, is a serious effort at stopping the flood of illegal immigration.


I agree that immigration needs to be addressed Denise and I can give you plenty of reasons backed with facts and figures as to why. What I can't do is tie immigration to the strain on the health care system, not because it isn't a strain, but because there's no evidence one way or the other.

Mike, that was the only point I was trying to make really. As you rightly said emergency care won't change whether the bill passes or not and there's no provision in the bill to give illegal immigrants any additional cover.

If Obama used a figure for the uninsured that included illegal immigrants he was wrong, the problem though is proving how wrong, if at all, he actually was given that the numbers for almost all groups who are uninsured are, at best, basically ballpark guesses.

If for instance the number of illegal immigrants is actually double the highest estimates and all the other groups are roughly correct he's hyping the uninsured figure for legal citizens. If however the figure for illegal immigrants is correct and the legal but uninsured estimates are out he could be bang on or grossly underestimating the uninsured figures.

Personally I think the illegal figure is more likely to be wrong but I wouldn't trust the other figures much either. That's mainly because I don't think that national census information, where most of the figures come from, is even close to being accurate.

quote:
So we need a government takeover of health care to avoid pandemics??


I don't think so but I can see the advantages of the government formulating the national response and having enough control of the system to co-ordinate and implement the agreed response. That's how it happens in the UK. Private insurance companies play no role in vaccination and immunisation programs, the government forms the appropriate plan and the NHS implements it. The cost is picked up by the government, and ultimately the taxpayer, as a special and one off addition to the health budget.

How does it work in the US?

.
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


148 posted 09-23-2009 04:38 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

So what you’re saying, Denise, is that a government run health care program is ok with you as long as it benefits Seniors like yourself.

And, in your opinion, a similar program for non-Seniors in desperate need of health care as many of us are, would be one of Obama’s “over-the-top, over-reaching, power-grabbing, socialistic/communistic” programs.

I didn’t ask for liberal sources, I asked for unbiased credible sources. Unfortunately WND is neither, WND is stuck in the hysterical birther death panel mode that feeds the fear, anxiety and anger of those whose dislike of Obama is colored as much by their personal prejudices as their  politics.

It’s been a pleasure chatting with you again, Denise. Take care.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


149 posted 09-23-2009 05:44 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Denise,

          All flu doesn't behave the same way.

     Each flu attacks differently, within a limited set of parameters.

     Each flu has a different set of symptoms.  Some are more dangerous, some are less dangerous.

     Not each flu is dangerous to the same population.  Flu is not always dangerous to people at all.  Some flu is simply dangerous to ducks, which is why China is one of the big sources for flu.  They raise and consume a huge number of ducks.  This is why chicken eggs are often used to create the vaccine, because of the easy availability over here and because flu loves birds.

     When flu crosses over the line and infects people, each variety of flu finds different sorts of people more tasty.  Some kinds of flu love old folks, because their immune systems aren't very good.  This is not necessarily so good for the flu itself, because when it kills its host, it kills itself as well.  A lot of the structures inside your cells were once, we think, diseases that our bodies adapted to and reached a compromise with, good for our bodies and good for the illness as well.  The illness gets to survive as part of a larger structure much more successfully than it could have ever done on its own.  The body has made friends with an enemy, and now has a useful structure to, for example, do cell repairs.

     Flu is trying to reach a compromise with birds or people or pigs to make it more successful as an organism.  If it succeeds, it's good for everyone.  If it fails, it may kill us off or kill itself off.  It's trying a whole range of different ways of doing this very rapidly.  We have vaccines against at least three different strains of flu every year, but there are many more of them.  The H1N1 is not one of the three included in the usual three flu package shot  this year.  I am not clear why that is.

     The fact that it is being distributed differently, however, offers a clue.  The regular flu shot apparently goes after the usual people in the usual way.  So, in order to give it, they can all be bundled together in one injection and reach everybody who needs that shot, including you and me.  We are the people that the regular three flu bugs of the year find tasty.  We are the usual suspects, as they said in Casablanca.

     The H1N1 flu appears to be a different character.  He doesn't find the usual suspects as tasty.  If he took a bite out of you or me, he'd probably be likely to make a sour face and say pfui.  Then he'd spit us out as not being to his taste because what H1N1 wants is an experiment.  He wants to try the taste of other human folks who taste different than us and might give him a chance to survive longer and get a bit further down the line toward organelle status.  So he's trying a different evolutionary strategy.  It's important that if we're going to block that move, that we should target those people that he's going to find tasty.  You and me are not very high on his menu list, which is why we got special treatment for the regular flu shots, where we are high on the tasty dish list.  For H1N1, the order of tastiness appears to have been flipped.

     Near as I can tell that's the deal.

Sincerely, Bob Kaven  
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> The times...   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors