Obamacare Threatens U.S. Medical Education System
Sunday, November 1, 2009 6:18 PM
By: David A. Patten
The federal government will expand its role in training new doctors and nurses under the Democrats' healthcare reform proposals to the point that one prominent surgeon is warning of a federal "takeover" of medical education.
The HR 3962 reform bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled last week would provide billions in medical-education grants.
Some of those grants would help future doctors and nurses pay for their degrees in return for their participation in specific disciplines or programs.
Other grants would pay organizations to create educational and training programs under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Democrats say the programs are a necessary aspect of bringing another 36 million individuals into the U.S. healthcare system.
The Association of American Medical Programs projects a shortage of between 124,000 and 159,000 physicians by 2025. Reform will aggravate that shortfall by an additional 25 percent, the association states.
"There is mounting evidence that a physician workforce shortage exists in primary care as well as in a number of other specialties," according to the association's report.
Opponents of healthcare reform warn that universal coverage under these circumstances can only lead to one thing: rationing of healthcare.
Fox News contributor and Newsmax pundit Dick Morris, for example, writes: "Because there will not be enough doctors, nurses, and medical equipment for the massive influx of patients under the Obama plan, there will be rationing, more draconian year after year."
Spending federal dollars to bolster training and education, and directing it toward fields in short supply, would seem one way to address that problem. But some medical experts see a darker intent behind the extensive, medical-education provisions in the reform bills that are now under consideration in the House and Senate.
Dr. Russell Blaylock, a board-certified neurosurgeon and author who is editor of the Blaylock Wellness Report published by Newsmax Media Inc., warns that reform proposals portend a "takeover of the entire medical-education system."
Blaylock told Newsmax he foresees the day when medical schools "will have to get federal approval, that they will appoint professors and set curriculum for the schools and they will direct residence and intern-training programs and set curriculum for these training programs."
He added, "Now, that means. . . federalization of medical education in the United States, which is the open door for federal medical license."
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_healt_care_doctors/2009/11/01/280124.html
Increased federal involvement in medical education indicates that proponents of reform "are lying," and intend to socialize the healthcare sector, Blaylock told Newsmax. Healthcare accounts for approximately one-sixth of the nation's economy.
"If you look at the history of the socialization of medicine in every country in the world it all started the same way," he said. "It's piecemeal, where there's a group of people who are not covered, and all we are trying to do is cover them. Well, then there is another group that needs to be covered, so now we cover them. And then you say, 'Well, if those two groups are getting it, why should we do it for everybody else.'"
That said, it is possible to improve health care coverage without turning us into the USSR, as the current administration is want to do with this pending healthcare bill. As for the rush rush rush--there is no rush because as I said, even if this passed tomorrow, there would be no relief for the uninsured until 2013, but medicare/medicaid would be slashed instantly to the tune of 500 billion dollars.
You see, they know we cannot afford what they are so glibly saying they are trying to do.
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 02:50:20 PM
That said, it is possible to improve health care coverage without turning us into the USSR, as the current administration is want to do with this pending healthcare bill.
I'm living in one of those USSR countries in your view I think.
For long healthcare was taken care of by .gov. Only those above middle class had to pay some extra. Since several year we started doing it USA style. Let the market do it's things. Costs rise about 10% each year...
I don't know about the USA but here the costs of health care can be greatly reduced by kicking half of the management.
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 03, 2009, 03:21:55 PM
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 02:50:20 PM
That said, it is possible to improve health care coverage without turning us into the USSR, as the current administration is want to do with this pending healthcare bill.
I'm living in one of those USSR countries in your view I think.
For long healthcare was taken care of by .gov. Only those above middle class had to pay some extra. Since several year we started doing it USA style. Let the market do it's things. Costs rise about 10% each year...
I don't know about the USA but here the costs of health care can be greatly reduced by kicking half of the management.
Our nearest neighbor Canada has a socialist health care system. They come here for health care if it is something serious and they can afford it. There are plenty of news reports about rationing health care in socialist countries.
The biggest contributor to rising healthcare costs in this country are the lawyers and their lawsuits. Doctors and hospitals have the burden of huge insurance policies which comes right off the bottom line before they are ever paid for their services. If a doc has to pay 100,000 a year for insurance against lawsuits, what do you think he has to charge for his services? But the democratic party is controlled by the legal lobby, so they won't even consider tort reform. That alone would have an immediate effect on the price of healthcare and consequently on the price of healthcare premiums.
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 03:29:56 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 03, 2009, 03:21:55 PM
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 02:50:20 PM
That said, it is possible to improve health care coverage without turning us into the USSR, as the current administration is want to do with this pending healthcare bill.
I'm living in one of those USSR countries in your view I think.
For long healthcare was taken care of by .gov. Only those above middle class had to pay some extra. Since several year we started doing it USA style. Let the market do it's things. Costs rise about 10% each year...
I don't know about the USA but here the costs of health care can be greatly reduced by kicking half of the management.
Our nearest neighbor Canada has a socialist health care system. They come here for health care if it is something serious and they can afford it. There are plenty of news reports about rationing health care in socialist countries.
I can give you a 100% guarantee that when our healthcare was really socialist people
never were turned away for anything. No matter the cost and/or duration of the treatment.
That was before the first steps to an open market were set.
Rationing and turning away people, for me, is the oposite of a socialist system. It's a sign of a market driven system.
QuoteThe biggest contributor to rising healthcare costs in this country are the lawyers and their lawsuits.
Here that's as good as not existing.
Quote from: wwI can give you a 100% guarantee that when our healthcare was really socialist people never were turned away for anything. No matter the cost and/or duration of the treatment.
Maybe you guys never get seriously ill because in other socialist countries it's a different story. Now we are really into who lives and who dies.
Rationing care from limited fundsThe NHS cannot, and never has been able to, offer every treatment to everyone who needs it.
The NHS is funded from taxes, and it spends more than £42bn every year - £779 for every person in the UK. But it is not a bottomless pit of funds and some treatments have to be restricted.
Raising taxes to pay for every possible need is politically unthinkable, as it would require a massive increase in income tax to raise enough revenue to make a significant difference to spending.
This means some treatments have to be restricted, or rationed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/251988.stm
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 03:48:33 PM
Quote from: wwI can give you a 100% guarantee that when our healthcare was really socialist people never were turned away for anything. No matter the cost and/or duration of the treatment.
Maybe you guys never get seriously ill because in other socialist countries it's a different story. Now we are really into who lives and who dies.
Yep, we a superhumans. Must be the cheese :laughing7:
And even the cheese eaters get decades of AIDs and cancer treatment to name just two. I think you are confusing socialist with communist.....
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 03, 2009, 04:00:14 PM
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 03:48:33 PM
Quote from: wwI can give you a 100% guarantee that when our healthcare was really socialist people never were turned away for anything. No matter the cost and/or duration of the treatment.
Maybe you guys never get seriously ill because in other socialist countries it's a different story. Now we are really into who lives and who dies.
Yep, we a superhumans. Must be the cheese :laughing7:
And even the cheese eaters get decades of AIDs and cancer treatment to name just two. I think you are confusing socialist with communist.....
No I"m not confusing anything. The same people who brought us Darwinian evolution as science now want to control our medical schools and who gets to be a doctor and who gets treatment and who doesn't.
I've talked to a lot of docs about this bill, and make no mistake, there will be a serious healthcare crisis in this country if it is passed because docs did not put 8 hard years into their education to have the govt tell them who they can treat and how.
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 04:25:29 PM
I've talked to a lot of docs about this bill, and make no mistake, there will be a serious healthcare crisis in this country if it is passed because docs did not put 8 hard years into their education to have the govt tell them who they can treat and how.
And because that's the state of things in the USA every other (socialist) .gov is doing the same? Is that what you are saying?
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 03, 2009, 04:28:45 PM
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 04:25:29 PM
I've talked to a lot of docs about this bill, and make no mistake, there will be a serious healthcare crisis in this country if it is passed because docs did not put 8 hard years into their education to have the govt tell them who they can treat and how.
And because that's the state of things in the USA every other (socialist) .gov is doing the same? Is that what you are saying?
How clear can I make this to you? We are not a socialist country. We are a constitutional Republic. Even if we have not looked like that for years, that is what we are. And, nowhere in my constitution does it say that Obama or his minions can decide who lives and who dies through rationed healthcare, or that the government has any business in healthcare to begin with.
Not that any of it matters, since they are making sure that we go broke first.
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 04:32:22 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 03, 2009, 04:28:45 PM
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 04:25:29 PM
I've talked to a lot of docs about this bill, and make no mistake, there will be a serious healthcare crisis in this country if it is passed because docs did not put 8 hard years into their education to have the govt tell them who they can treat and how.
And because that's the state of things in the USA every other (socialist) .gov is doing the same? Is that what you are saying?
How clear can I make this to you?
Perhaps by answering my questions. And then not assuming what Obama does or doesn't want to do means that's the standard for all other countries. Because that's a 100% false assumption.
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 03, 2009, 04:57:27 PM
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 04:32:22 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 03, 2009, 04:28:45 PM
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 04:25:29 PM
I've talked to a lot of docs about this bill, and make no mistake, there will be a serious healthcare crisis in this country if it is passed because docs did not put 8 hard years into their education to have the govt tell them who they can treat and how.
And because that's the state of things in the USA every other (socialist) .gov is doing the same? Is that what you are saying?
How clear can I make this to you?
Perhaps by answering my questions. And then not assuming what Obama does or doesn't want to do means that's the standard for all other countries. Because that's a 100% false assumption.
I am not trying to make a standard for other countries. I am trying to maintain the standard for my country which standard is the Constitution for the United States.
This standard is like Jesus is the standard for all Christians. You compare everything to Jesus and then you know how much it is missing the mark.
This healthcare bill when compared to our Constitution misses the mark by a country mile. We are talking here about putting 1/6th of our economy into the hands of the government. This would make our founding fathers role over in their graves. When has a government ever willfully given up its power once it has taken power to itself? Never. The purpose of power is to perpetrate itself.
That is why our founders limited government on every side.
We are talking here about changing the very nature of our government.
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 05:03:47 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 03, 2009, 04:57:27 PM
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 04:32:22 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 03, 2009, 04:28:45 PM
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 04:25:29 PM
I've talked to a lot of docs about this bill, and make no mistake, there will be a serious healthcare crisis in this country if it is passed because docs did not put 8 hard years into their education to have the govt tell them who they can treat and how.
And because that's the state of things in the USA every other (socialist) .gov is doing the same? Is that what you are saying?
How clear can I make this to you?
Perhaps by answering my questions. And then not assuming what Obama does or doesn't want to do means that's the standard for all other countries. Because that's a 100% false assumption.
I am not trying to make a standard for other countries. I am trying to maintain the standard for my country which standard is the Constitution for the United States.
And what was that standard say 10 years ago Molly? Did the homeless with a zero bankaccount got every possible treatment? In my country where at that time .gove controled close to 100% of healthcare everyone got the healthcare you they needed for as lonng as they needed. I'm speaking now for my own country. But know it is/was not dissimilar to other western European countries. Maybe Taffy and Sven can tell you about their country.
You know why we no longer have that type of healthcare? Because it was to good. The costs got out of control. Partly because socialism attrackts to much parasites.
QuoteDid the homeless with a zero bankaccount got every possible treatment? In my country where at that time .gove controled close to 100% of healthcare everyone got the healthcare you they needed for as lonng as they needed.
To the best of my knowledge, no homeless presenting themselves with a medical problem at an emergency room, has ever been turned away. Our emergency rooms do not turn people away.
QuoteYou know why we no longer have that type of healthcare? Because it was to good. The costs got out of control. Partly because socialism attrackts to much parasites.
Exactly. So why even go there?
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 06:15:43 PM
QuoteDid the homeless with a zero bankaccount got every possible treatment? In my country where at that time .gove controled close to 100% of healthcare everyone got the healthcare you they needed for as lonng as they needed.
To the best of my knowledge, no homeless presenting themselves with a medical problem at an emergency room, has ever been turned away. Our emergency rooms do not turn people away.
And when it not a emergency?
Headache. Sore tooth. Infected fingernail of that kind of minor stuff.
QuoteQuoteYou know why we no longer have that type of healthcare? Because it was to good. The costs got out of control. Partly because socialism attrackts to much parasites.
Exactly. So why even go there?
Don't get me wrong; I'm not a socialist. But it certainly has its good sides.
I can and do know. I don't have my info from a newspaper 2000 miles away. I have my info from living here all my life.
QuoteAnd when it not a emergency?
Headache. Sore tooth. Infected fingernail of that kind of minor stuff.
Headache could be signs of a serious medical problem. Sore tooth could lead to a serious medical problem, as could infected fingernail. Same answer as above.
We also have dental schools which offer free or inexpensive services.
QuoteDon't get me wrong; I'm not a socialist. But it certainly has its good sides.
I can and do know. I don't have my info from a newspaper 2000 miles away. I have my info from living here all my life.
You just told me socialism doesn't work--because of the parasites and because it costs too much money. But, it's irrelevant. I do not live in a socialist/communist country. I live in a Constitutional Republic. And, I'd like to keep it that way.
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 06:35:07 PM
You just told me socialism doesn't work--because of the parasites and because it costs too much money.
I'm not gonna bother answer that again. Sorry but you sounding like an ET with very narrow tunnel vision.
If you don't understand me just ask. If you have no clue what happens outside your borders. ask. But don't try to twist my words and use them against me. Won't work..
QuoteBut, it's irrelevant. I do not live in a socialist/communist country. I live in a Constitutional Republic. And, I'd like to keep it that way.
You genenalizing way and way to much Molly. Look at the map of Europe. Republics and kingdoms in various forms. Dunno how to say it buy inside a form of government other forms can fit.
A kingdom can be democatic or dictatorial. Far left or far right. When the US was founded there where 6 (?) diffrent parties. All their own idea's. And all part of America. So your constant mentioning "Constitutial Republic" doesn't really show your insight in the world goverments. I live in Constitutional Monarchy. The difference with the USA. Very very little.
Both our countries and leaders came into existance because of mass murder. You know. I never look at the label something has. I look what's under that label of nice words. And it's very very common to find slaves and slavedrivers under those label. Ofcourse you are free to totally disagree. :2c:
QuoteIf you don't understand me just ask. If you have no clue what happens outside your borders. ask. But don't try to twist my words and use them against me. Won't work..
I thought I did understand your words. Here are your words--
You know why we no longer have that type of healthcare? Because it was to good. The costs got out of control. Partly because socialism attrackts to much parasites.You said that, not me, although I would agree that either it leads to rationing or it falls of its own weight [cost]. And, yes, socialism does attract parasites.
QuoteSo your constant mentioning "Constitutial Republic" doesn't really show your insight in the world goverments. I live in Constitutional Monarchy. The difference with the USA. Very very little.
I am talking about a specific Constitution, our Constitution, not your Constitution. And, besides that, we don't have a king, although not for lack of trying in recent times.
A Constitution can say anything, and I can guarantee you that your constitution does not look like ours.
Just a reminder that their are more opinions as well as facts on the issue of Healthcare Reform than the talking points spouted by Miss Molly in her regular political rants.
There's links and more information laid out here for those who want to study the issue:
http://www.pleasecutthecrap.com/
Quote from: Raggedy Anne on November 03, 2009, 08:37:31 PM
Just a reminder that their are more opinions as well as facts on the issue of Healthcare Reform than the talking points spouted by Miss Molly in her regular political rants.
There's links and more information laid out here for those who want to study the issue:
http://www.pleasecutthecrap.com/
He's right about this much--
the fact is, more than 80% of the American people have health insurance.As far as studying the issue, I thought we don't have time to study it. Nancy Pelosi wants to pass a 2000 page bill [that changes daily] by Thanksgiving that no one will have even read completely through when/if it passes [including you, I might add]. And we can certainly expect them to dump an extra 500 pages on just hours before the vote because that has been their modus operandi.
Want to really in truth take time to study the problem? I'm all for that.
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 08:23:21 PM
QuoteIf you don't understand me just ask. If you have no clue what happens outside your borders. ask. But don't try to twist my words and use them against me. Won't work..
I thought I did understand your words. Here are your words--
You know why we no longer have that type of healthcare? Because it was to good. The costs got out of control. Partly because socialism attrackts to much parasites.
I said that and I still see it that way. I'm not saying socialism is perfect. Or communism or kapitalism. Or..
You can't deny socialism sounds good: Help the weak. Or communism: All are equal.
But....! theory and reality are diffrent. Both systems possible work quite well. But they are driven to the extreme. Or get poluted by things that don't belong in that system.
QuoteYou said that, not me, although I would agree that either it leads to rationing or it falls of its own weight [cost]. And, yes, socialism does attract parasites.
And in communism all are the same. As in equally poor. And that's exavtly the same as kapitalism driven to the extreme. You can work 15 hours a day for a slice of bread and the elite (the party in communism) downs in wealth.
QuoteQuoteSo your constant mentioning "Constitutial Republic" doesn't really show your insight in the world goverments. I live in Constitutional Monarchy. The difference with the USA. Very very little.
I am talking about a specific Constitution, our Constitution, not your Constitution. And, besides that, we don't have a king, although not for lack of trying in recent times.
I did mention your form of state didn't I?
QuoteA Constitution can say anything, and I can guarantee you that your constitution does not look like ours.
If that's true why is every socialism the same for you? Can't that exist in different forms.
And yes your worthless constitution of hollow words is different that our worthless constitution of hollow words.
I really don't understand why you even argue with me about this. You daily post something how stangled (almost) the whole world is by that Bilderberg clan. Do they live by the constitution? Think not. They bypass it whenever needed.
And that is why I say and keep saying 'hollow words'.
I don't mind if God Himself personally wrote the US constitution and triple checked it afterwards. Satan is running the show now. And case I've hurt your pride... satan runs the show on every part of the planet.
I think it was your quote: "The only time a politician doesn't lie is if he has to cover up a bigger lie"
And such people have to secure your constitution?
I think we both made our points.:Peace:
Quote from: wwAnd yes your worthless constitution of hollow words is different that our worthless constitution of hollow words.
It's only worthless and hollow words if, as with the words of Jesus, men in their own minds make them of no effect with their worthless and hollow traditions.
But our Constitution is still the highest law in the land, no matter what men might try to do or say otherwise. And, one day the people of this country are going to figure that out.
It's not pride you are seeing, it's hope.
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 09:19:13 PM
Quote from: wwAnd yes your worthless constitution of hollow words is different that our worthless constitution of hollow words.
It's only worthless and hollow words if, as with the words of Jesus, men in their own minds make them of no effect with their worthless and hollow traditions.
Agreed. And sadly they did a very "good" job.
QuoteBut our Constitution is still the highest law in the land, no matter what men might try to do or say otherwise. And, one day the people of this country are going to figure that out.
And the constitution is never bypassed, twisted or plainly ignored. I think your answer is yes seeing your quote below.
QuoteIt's not pride you are seeing, it's hope.
Then I hope you haven't put your hope on a politician.
You are meaning King of kings I assume.
Took only a dozen of messages and finally we (at least partly) agree :winkgrin:
carry on guys..the second thread is intitled Healthcare :icon_flower:
QuoteThis standard is like Jesus is the standard for all Christians. You compare everything to Jesus and then you know how much it is missing the mark.
I am not making a case either way for socialized medicare or not.
However, if I compare a market driven healthcare system to Jesus, it looks very much unlike Christ. He didn't charge for healing. So when we get like THAT, where nobody pays, and everyone gives freely without expecting money in return because they don't need it, THEN it will look like Jesus. Sadly, that is not something either the market system or the single payer system can provide the people. It is only something that the Sons of God can provide.
But I do agree, Molly, the standard of socialized Medicare does miss the mark of the intention of the Constitution. Don't want you to think I misunderstood you. I think you are right about that.
It's just that when I compare ANYTHING man has to offer, including even the Constitution, to Christ, it doesn't look like him much at all.
I've lived in a few countries including the USA Canada and France (Guadeloupe). France by far had the best system.
The problem IMO is not neither democratic socialism or democratic capitalism. The problem is the "ideal" that the people serve the government. I have yet to live in a country were this was not the problem.
I do not believe that any one political philosophy can best address all social issues. On the contrary the view that it can polarizes the public into "camps" and "enemies" and empowers the government to have the people serve it. Divide the public !. Who can make the most useless and fake promises and promise the most for a greedy public full of self interest.
Anyway :), sorry for the rant.
I just believe that we should stick together and get away from the idea that one view solves all problems.
IMO health care should be predominantly social in nature. But run with accountability. Which is not the case anywhere I have ever lived.
JMO of course
Barry
With unlimited resources very much is possible. But resources are not unlimited. I'm the first to agree there is a lot of greed everywhere. But all that high-tech medical stuff isn't build of :2c: cardboard boxes.
I think most will agree childeren learn best in somewhat smaller classes/schools.
But it all costs money. And whatever system you choose the cost somehow has be paid by people.
Perhaps ideal healthcare would cost $500/month. Ideal schooling the same. That's simply out of reach for most. So choices have to be made. And very often that means reducing quality or increasing costs/taxes somewhere.
So I fully agree wiyj your quote Barry
QuoteI just believe that we should stick together and get away from the idea that one view solves all problems.
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 04:25:29 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 03, 2009, 04:00:14 PM
Quote from: Molly on November 03, 2009, 03:48:33 PM
Quote from: wwI can give you a 100% guarantee that when our healthcare was really socialist people never were turned away for anything. No matter the cost and/or duration of the treatment.
Maybe you guys never get seriously ill because in other socialist countries it's a different story. Now we are really into who lives and who dies.
Yep, we a superhumans. Must be the cheese :laughing7:
And even the cheese eaters get decades of AIDs and cancer treatment to name just two. I think you are confusing socialist with communist.....
No I"m not confusing anything. The same people who brought us Darwinian evolution as science now want to control our medical schools and who gets to be a doctor and who gets treatment and who doesn't.
I've talked to a lot of docs about this bill, and make no mistake, there will be a serious healthcare crisis in this country if it is passed because docs did not put 8 hard years into their education to have the govt tell them who they can treat and how.
How this will affect my mother that has age sickness and many dr and hospital visits, will probably be bad for her.
What do you think will happen to the aged and sick?
Closing in on cancer
By Abigail Klein Leichman
November 12, 2009
An Israeli researcher has stumbled on a drug that kills cancer cells without harming normal cells, paving the way for a more effective treatment against cancer.
An Israeli research scientist has accidentally discovered a chemical compound that eradicates cancer cells without harming normal cells in the process.
The substance may prove to be the long sought-after "holy grail" in the wider field of cancer treatment. For now, it shows promise as a specific weapon against breast cancer.
Prof. Malka Cohen-Armon, a biochemist at Tel Aviv University, tells ISRAEL21C that the compound is a component of a family of drugs developed 10 years ago to preserve nerve cells stressed by a stroke or inflammation. But further study showed the drugs were inappropriate for their intended use, and they were released only for research purposes.
Cohen-Armon and her team of researchers began working with the drugs to study how the compound affected signal transmission within the nucleus of cells. Their goal was to find an application for DNA repair. Its effect on cancer cells was an unexpected, and potentially huge, discovery.
"We found that those drugs somehow turn on a mechanism in cancer cells that causes them to die within 48 to 72 hours without harming normal tissue," explains Cohen-Armon, a professor in the Neufeld Cardiac Research Institute of TAU's Sackler School of Medicine. "In fact, the normal cells continue to proliferate even in the presence of the drug."
In experiments with female mice, the compound was injected with several types of cancerous tissue, particularly breast-cancer cells. Cohen-Armon was amazed to discover that the substance suspends cell division in both cancerous and normal body cells - but while cancer cells never recover, normal cells are back in business within 12 hours.
Normal cells in business 12 hours later
"If we had tried to look for some drug that would do this, it would have taken us a lot of time," says Cohen-Armon, whose latest findings appear in the current issue of the international peer-reviewed journal Journal of Breast Cancer Research.
The potential applications of such a drug are enormous, admits Cohen. Today, in the US alone, about 1.3 million women are diagnosed with breast cancer annually, while 465,000 women die from the disease annually according to the American Cancer Society.
Patients diagnosed with the disease must undergo chemotherapy and radiotherapy, both of which are aggressive treatments that kill cancerous and healthy cells causing severe side effects in the patient. In some cases, patients undergoing chemotherapy can even die from the side effects of the treatment.
"We actually found the Achilles heel of the cancer cell," Cohen-Armon said in an article in Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. "As soon as you can target cancerous cells without killing healthy ones, you can produce medications that would cause a lot less suffering to the patient. We can even give a much more aggressive treatment without worrying about harming healthy tissues."
Cohen-Armon, who is working with veterinarian Dr. David Castel, Sheba Cancer Research Center scientist Dr. Shai Izraeli and PhD student Asher Castiel, hopes that in future, the drug could also be used for other types of cancer.
"If we can understand the molecular mechanism well, then perhaps [we can identify] other drugs that could be used even more efficiently and for other cancers," she explains, adding that today the researchers still have no idea exactly why the drug affects cells in this way. "Then we can give a drug specific to whatever cancer a patient has, and with no side effects."
A breakthrough that needs support
At present Cohen-Armon and her team are restricted to exploring the effects of this drug on breast cancer alone as the drug is patented to a US pharmaceutical corporation until 2017. The university's technology transfer company, Ramot, has secured a usage patent enabling it to develop the drug to treat only breast cancer, and is reliant on the US company's continuing goodwill.
The team is also working with severely limited funds. A major infusion of funds is necessary to bring the potential treatment from lab to market.
"A university cannot develop a drug on its own," Cohen-Armon tells ISRAEL21c. "These experiments, if undertaken by a pharmaceutical company, can be completed in a shorter time because they have more resources. So we must find a company interested collaborating with us in developing this drug."
Cohen-Armon has worked at the university for 26 years. "I am interested in basic research, but now and then we have a breakthrough when I notice something that could be applicable," she says.
Four years ago, while working with scientists at Israel's Bar-Ilan University and Columbia University in New York, Cohen-Armon isolated a protein in the nucleus of animal and plant cells that is central to the formation of long-term memories.
That protein is now being researched further in the United States with the help of a grant from the National Institutes of Health.
http://www.israel21c.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7379:closing-in-on-cancer&catid=57:health&Itemid=63
Here in Blighty we have like a single payer system. Even with so called rationing 100% of Britons get to see a doctor and get treatment, the draw back is tht waiting lists are long. BUT I would take that any day over the US system. That 45.7 million Americans are with out health care, its a joke. To me it seems the christian thing to do to give everyone health care. Those who can afoard there own can keep their own and those who are bankrupting themselves and getting into massive dept, families breaking down from stress of huge bills, people having to wait until they qualify for the ER to get care, all these people will be offered a ray of hope with the public option. So you will never please all the people all the time but at least with a public option you can treat all the people.
Also it isn't Obamacare. Obama hasn't had anything to do with the bill as it stands now, he gave it up to the house and now its in the senate so how is it obama care? its as more Grassley care than obama care!!
QuoteThat 45.7 million Americans are with out health care, its a joke.
You're right, it's a joke. It's a made up number. It's more like 10 million who could easily be absorbed by an improved medicare/medicaid system which we already have.
The public option will drive the ins companies out of business. Everyone knows this.
The states could solve this problem. We don't need to give the government 1/6th of our economy to manage like they have social security, medicare, and the post office.
Now they are talking about a 250,000 fine and five years in jail if you don't enroll in their healthcare plan. That won't bankrupt people?
Even if the plan were implemented tomorrow, it won't help the uninsured until 2013, but it will cut millions to medicare immediately. Tricky, huh?
However, it could be that none of us will need much healthcare in the future, so the problem will become moot.
I think the Senate removed that portion of the bill regarding the fine.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/interview-with-the-president-jail-time-for-those-without-health-care-insurance.html
Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2009, 09:38:26 PM
You're right, it's a joke. It's a made up number. It's more like 10 million who could easily be absorbed by an improved medicare/medicaid system which we already have.
That figure comes from the Census Bureau.
Quote from: Seth on November 20, 2009, 09:57:56 PM
I think the Senate removed that portion of the bill regarding the fine.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/interview-with-the-president-jail-time-for-those-without-health-care-insurance.html
That would be nice but Obama says he doesn't want people to 'free ride' his socialized medicine system, so there will be penalties. What about the provision that guarantees the pensions of unions with tax payer dollars? Is that a 'free ride'? What about asking doctors to work way below their payscale? Is that a 'free ride'? What about forcing small business to bear a bigger burden. Is that a 'free ride'? What about spending money we do not have. Is that a 'free ride'? What about forcing our grandchildren and the rest of the world to pay for us? Is that a 'free ride'? What about controlling the medical schools and who gets money to become a doctor? Is that a 'free ride'? What about asking nurses to do the work currently reserved for doctors? Is that a free ride? What about panels deciding who gets what medical care based on age and illness? Is that a free ride?
Free ride and socialism go hand in hand. But, it's always a free ride for some and a nightmare for others.
Quote from: natcat86 on November 20, 2009, 10:05:45 PM
Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2009, 09:38:26 PM
You're right, it's a joke. It's a made up number. It's more like 10 million who could easily be absorbed by an improved medicare/medicaid system which we already have.
That figure comes from the Census Bureau.
Oh and that makes it a true and accurate number?
The Myth of the 46 MillionBy Philip Klein on 3.20.09 @ 6:10AM
"Even for folks who are weathering this economic storm, and have health care right now," President Obama said at this month's White House health care summit, "all it takes is one stroke of bad luck -- an accident or an illness, a divorce, a lost job -- to become one of the nearly 46 million uninsured..."
Whether it's in political speeches, commentary, newspaper features, or hard news stories, the statistic of 46 million uninsured is one of the most-widely cited numbers in the health care debate. It promotes the idea that nearly one out of every six Americans does not have access to health care and it plays into the arguments of those calling for massive expansion of government to fix the problem. Yet the ubiquitous figure is highly misleading.
To be clear, the statistic is not pulled out of thin air. It comes from an annual report by the Census Bureau, which most recently pegged the number of uninsured at 45.7 million for 2007. But the problem lies in the way the statistic is commonly cited and understood.
For starters, the statistic does not mean that there are "46 million uninsured Americans," as the New York Times reported in a recent story on health care, and as is echoed throughout the media. Just a quick look inside the Census Bureau data shows that 9.7 million of the uninsured are not citizens of the United States. Liberals can argue that we still have a moral duty to cover non-citizens, but this doesn't change the fact that as a matter of accuracy, the Census data only tells us that 36 million Americans are uninsured.
But this doesn't fully convey the problematic nature of the 46-million statistic. As even the authors of the Census Bureau report themselves acknowledge, "health insurance coverage is likely to be underreported" in the Current Population Survey from which the health insurance data is derived. The reason is that respondents are asked in February through April about their health coverage status in the previous calendar year. Some may answer the question as intended, but others may cite their current insurance status, and others may say they were without insurance even if they only spent a portion of the year without coverage.
"[T]he estimate of the number of people without health insurance," according to the report, "more closely approximates the number of people who are uninsured at a specific point in time during the year than the number of people uninsured for the entire year."
In reality, a person who goes without coverage for a few months while between jobs is in a completely different boat from somebody who is permanently without insurance. But the broad citation of the headline figure would have you believe that there are literally 46 million people who never, ever, have coverage.
How many people actually spend the whole year without health insurance? It's difficult to say, and recent data is hard to come by. But in 2003, the Congressional Budget Office took a stab at answering the question, and looked at two studies from 1998 that conducted interviews multiple times over the course of the survey period. One study pegged the number of people who were uninsured for the entire year at 31 million, while another put it even lower, at 21 million. In either case, the number was significantly lower than it was in 1998's Current Population Survey, which found 43.9 million uninsured.
Another problem with citing the 46-million figure is that many of those who are identified as uninsured are actually eligible for existing government programs but simply never bothered to enroll. In 2003, a BlueCross BlueShield Association study estimated that about 14 million of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP. These people would be signed up for government insurance if they ever made it to the emergency room.
In addition, some of the 46 million could theoretically afford health coverage, but chose not to purchase any. In 2007, 17.6 million of the uninsured had annual incomes of more than $50,000 and 9.1 million earned more than $75,000. In fact, as Sally Pipes notes in the Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide, those making more than $75,000 per year are part of the fastest growing segment of the uninsured population.
The Census figures also show that 18.3 million of the uninsured were under 34. Some in this age group may have simply determined that they are young and healthy and thus can do without coverage.
When all of these factors are put together, the 2003 BlueCross BlueShield study determined that 8.2 million Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care but earn too much to qualify for government assistance. Even being without insurance still doesn't mean they won't have access to care, because federal law forbids hospitals from denying treatment to patients who show up at the emergency rooms. This exercise isn't about downplaying the problems facing the American health care system, but a necessary part of devising the proper remedies. Under current state laws, mandates force insurers to provide certain benefits, meaning that young and healthy Americans must choose between paying exorbitant premiums to cover treatments that they don't need or going without health insurance. Many of these so-called "young invincibles" who are included in the ranks of the uninsured could be wooed into the market were they allowed to purchase catastrophic insurance with lower monthly premiums.
Right now, the tax code exempts people from paying taxes on health care benefits purchased through their employer, while denying the same tax advantages to individuals. Ending this discrimination would make health care more affordable to those who are self-employed or not covered through their workplace. In addition, this would allow Americans to have health care policies that are portable, so it would reduce the gaps in coverage people can face when they quit or lose a job.
Those pushing for a major government intervention in health care are distorting the 46-million statistic to boost their cause, and by disseminating it so widely without further elaboration, the media is rigging the game in their favor. http://spectator.org/archives/2009/03/20/the-myth-of-the-46-million
That article is all, "some may" or "theoretically" lots of supposition and opinion so not too reliable.
But we shall agree to disagree, I can understand why people are passionate on both side. The fairest way to decided if there is a public option is already taking place. Obama voted in by the majority of American's who knew he would want a public option. The bills have been voted on in the house, so its the most democratic and fair situation it can be! The majority of Americans want a public option so... there you go! God bless democracy!
Quote from: Molly on November 20, 2009, 10:07:05 PM
Quote from: Seth on November 20, 2009, 09:57:56 PM
I think the Senate removed that portion of the bill regarding the fine.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/interview-with-the-president-jail-time-for-those-without-health-care-insurance.html
That would be nice but Obama says he doesn't want people to 'free ride' his socialized medicine system, so there will be penalties. What about the provision that guarantees the pensions of unions with tax payer dollars? Is that a 'free ride'? What about asking doctors to work way below their payscale? Is that a 'free ride'? What about forcing small business to bear a bigger burden. Is that a 'free ride'? What about spending money we do not have. Is that a 'free ride'? What about forcing our grandchildren and the rest of the world to pay for us? Is that a 'free ride'? What about controlling the medical schools and who gets money to become a doctor? Is that a 'free ride'?
Free ride and socialism go hand in hand. But, it's always a free ride for some and a nightmare for others.
Trust me, I am not defending or opposing gov't sponsored healthcare. Just thought it was a pertinent enough point that the Senate removed the bill's portion regarding a $250,000 fine and jail time as far as what I saw in the article.
Quote from: natcat86 on November 20, 2009, 10:23:16 PM
That article is all, "some may" or "theoretically" lots of supposition and opinion so not too reliable.
But we shall agree to disagree, I can understand why people are passionate on both side. The fairest way to decided if there is a public option is already taking place. Obama voted in by the majority of American's who knew he would want a public option. The bills have been voted on in the house, so its the most democratic and fair situation it can be! The majority of Americans want a public option so... there you go! God bless democracy!
Does this look theoretical to you?
When all of these factors are put together, the 2003 BlueCross BlueShield study determined that 8.2 million Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care but earn too much to qualify for government assistance. Even being without insurance still doesn't mean they won't have access to care, because federal law forbids hospitals from denying treatment to patients who show up at the emergency rooms. How about this?
In addition, some of the 46 million could theoretically afford health coverage, but chose not to purchase any. In 2007, 17.6 million of the uninsured had annual incomes of more than $50,000 and 9.1 million earned more than $75,000. How about this?
Just a quick look inside the Census Bureau data shows that 9.7 million of the uninsured are not citizens of the United States.Where do you come by the opinion that most Americans want the public option? The polls show that most Americans do not want any part of their healthcare boondoggle. We have, after all, watched them bankrupt medicare, social security, and the post office. Nor do we want them to have access to our most private medical files or control over any part of our lives.
I personally doubt, if the truth were really known (if the polls weren't manipulated) that most Americans really do want a public option. At least in my opinion, those that have an understanding as to what that would mean and where it ould almost undoubtedly lead. The government selling health insurance? :mshock: I believe some things need fixed, health INSURANCE (this is an insurance bill) and access be made available to all - just don't mess up the whole system.
Also, IMO, as far as people having gotten to know Obama so they voted him in - I think there's much more involved in that. I believe people were already so disillusioned with what was going on with the previous administration, as well as, for whatever reason, not being able to fully realize at the time all that Obama really stood for, that those factors had a lot to do with his being elected. I think and hope there will be a return to something closer to (the good parts) of what our founding fathers envisioned - minus some of the things they were blinded on (slavery, conquest, etc.) True justice, liberty, equality....
HOWEVER, I still personally believe things will be a mess until God, however He chooses to do it, truly ushers in His Divine Government. I'm not up for an argument here, God veils and reveals, and these are my :2c:. It's a complicated issue, but I do believe we should be praying for our leaders and for God to overcome evil with good - as He will.
I followed that logic that Obama was voted in by a majority therefore the majority of americans must support a public option. There are polls showing the majority do and polls showing the majority dont. But the fact is that the majority voted for obama.
Quote from: natcat86 on November 20, 2009, 10:47:25 PM
I followed that logic that Obama was voted in by a majority therefore the majority of americans must support a public option. There are polls showing the majority do and polls showing the majority dont. But the fact is that the majority voted for obama.
well, following that same logic, his approval ratings have fallen well below 50 percent, and he hasn't even been in office for one year.
Well this is only my opinion but I think that the amount of lies that have been told, death panels, forced abortion etc have probably added to a drop in public opnion. Also many dems have lost faith because they wanted a stronger public option and they feel he has allowed too much to be given up and too much pandering to the repubs and blue dogs.
Quote from: jabcat on November 20, 2009, 10:41:56 PM
I personally doubt, if the truth were really known (if the polls weren't manipulated) that most Americans really do want a public option. At least in my opinion, those that have an understanding as to what that would mean and where it ould almost undoubtedly lead. The government selling health insurance? :mshock: I believe some things need fixed, health INSURANCE (this is an insurance bill) and access be made available to all - just don't mess up the whole system.
Also, IMO, as far as people having gotten to know Obama so they voted him in - I think there's much more involved in that. I believe people were already so disillusioned with what was going on with the previous administration, as well as, for whatever reason, not being able to fully realize at the time all that Obama really stood for, that those factors had a lot to do with his being elected. I think and hope there will be a return to something closer to (the good parts) of what our founding fathers envisioned - minus some of the things they were blinded on (slavery, conquest, etc.) True justice, liberty, equality....
HOWEVER, I still personally believe things will be a mess until God, however He chooses to do it, truly ushers in His Divine Government. I'm not up for an argument here, God veils and reveals, and these are my :2c:. It's a complicated issue, but I do believe we should be praying for our leaders and for God to overcome evil with good - as He will.
Jabcat, my thoughts exactly. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
CHB
Quote from: natcat86 on November 20, 2009, 09:13:09 PM
Here in Blighty we have like a single payer system. Even with so called rationing 100% of Britons get to see a doctor and get treatment, the draw back is tht waiting lists are long. BUT I would take that any day over the US system. That 45.7 million Americans are with out health care, its a joke. To me it seems the christian thing to do to give everyone health care. Those who can afoard there own can keep their own and those who are bankrupting themselves and getting into massive dept, families breaking down from stress of huge bills, people having to wait until they qualify for the ER to get care, all these people will be offered a ray of hope with the public option. So you will never please all the people all the time but at least with a public option you can treat all the people.
Also it isn't Obamacare. Obama hasn't had anything to do with the bill as it stands now, he gave it up to the house and now its in the senate so how is it obama care? its as more Grassley care than obama care!!
Exactly, Natcat. Americans must look so stupid to the rest of the world. In fact, I've been told how stupid we look from a good number of on-line friends who are not Americans. There has been a real dumbing down of the people here. We have become a people manipulated by fear. It's pathetic. The Bush/Cheney administration used fear as their choicest weapon. Obama is a man of reason who is the leader of many unreasonable people. His situation reminds me of that which Moses had to deal with.
Anne
:cloud9: Not pertaining to healthcare comment here; is anyone aware that Obama is busy putting in devout Muslims in key positions, including our National Security department? I find that unsettling personally, only 8 years after 911. Blessings.....
Quote from: Cardinal on November 22, 2009, 10:17:37 AM
:cloud9: Not pertaining to healthcare comment here; is anyone aware that Obama is busy putting in devout Muslims in key positions, including our National Security department? I find that unsettling personally, only 8 years after 911. Blessings.....
I don't know, but it sounds like a typical right-wing rumor that very well may be untrue. You know like "He was born in Kenya" and is actually a "Muslim" etc... all lies.
Why isn't Karl Rove in jail?
Anne
Quote from: Raggedy Anne on November 22, 2009, 01:28:07 PM
Quote from: Cardinal on November 22, 2009, 10:17:37 AM
:cloud9: Not pertaining to healthcare comment here; is anyone aware that Obama is busy putting in devout Muslims in key positions, including our National Security department? I find that unsettling personally, only 8 years after 911. Blessings.....
I don't know, but it sounds like a typical right-wing rumor that very well may be untrue. You know like "He was born in Kenya" and is actually a "Muslim" etc... all lies.
Why isn't Karl Rove in jail?
Anne
You really should give up the 'right wing/ left wing' nonsense. This is their way of dividing our country into 'teams.' We are not teams in a game, we are each citizens, and should behave as such.
I wouldn't mind seeing Karl Rove in jail, too, if he's broken laws, and I'd also like to see Obama's original and complete birth certificate. I would have to produce mine if he requested it.
Here you go Molly :happygrin:
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
Unless you would like him to bring it round your house for you to inspect personally I dont know what else he can do to prove he was born in US???
Quote from: natcat86 on November 22, 2009, 01:51:42 PM
Here you go Molly :happygrin:
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
Unless you would like him to bring it round your house for you to inspect personally I dont know what else he can do to prove he was born in US???
That's not his birth cerficate. That's a certificate of live birth, which has also been claimed to be a forgery and since it's on the internet, could be anything. It doesn't name the hospital where he was delivered or the doctor who delivered him. He has repeatedly been asked in the courts to produce his birth certificate and he's spent over a million dollars fighting the request. Why?
Well in my opinion because it is a racist request. The disbelief that a black man could become presidant. Surely he must be illegitimate. Thats what it looks like from over here in the UK anyway.
Quote from: natcat86 on November 22, 2009, 02:30:14 PM
Well in my opinion because it is a racist request based. The disbelief that a black man could become presidant. Surely he must be illegitimate. Thats what it looks like from over here in the UK anyway.
Oh c'mon. ROFL. Have you read our Constitution? Our President
must be
a "natural born" citizen. Our founders did not want the commander in chief of our military forces having a loyalty to any other country.
There is a lot of question as to whether Obama qualifies as such, even if he were born in Hawaii, which is not yet proven, since his father was a subject of the British Crown at the time of his birth. That's right, the man might actually be a British citizen.
Ahhh, that explains his move to socialise health care! :wink:
Quote from: natcat86 on November 22, 2009, 02:37:18 PM
Ahhh, that explains his move to socialise health care! :wink:
There you go. :wink:
Hey Molly, sorry for being argumentative. Have thought about it and there is no way I can realy appreciate how you feel about this issue because at the end of the day its not happening in my country. Its easy for me to disagree from way over here. :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Molly on November 22, 2009, 02:10:35 PM
Quote from: natcat86 on November 22, 2009, 01:51:42 PM
Here you go Molly :happygrin:
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
Unless you would like him to bring it round your house for you to inspect personally I dont know what else he can do to prove he was born in US???
That's not his birth cerficate. That's a certificate of live birth, which has also been claimed to be a forgery and since it's on the internet, could be anything. It doesn't name the hospital where he was delivered or the doctor who delivered him. He has repeatedly been asked in the courts to produce his birth certificate and he's spent over a million dollars fighting the request. Why?
I find that so odd. If it's of such great importance why isn't solid proof asked of
all candidates
before they can even be part of elections?
It's like getting a job as pilot on a airliner. And a year later they ask you to show your flying license?
Just show the thing and get it over with.
When someone who won a medal on the olympics is caught afterwards (sometimes even months) that he or she took drugs; that medal must be given back.
But what if 20 years later Obama is proved to have no/false/wrong birth certificate?
What would be the concequences? What happens to all the laws/treaties he signed?
I fully understand many of the no-birth-certificate-lobby are there because they hate Obame because he's black, a Democrate or something else. But shouldn't even the biggest Obama fan want that laws are followed. And especially with something as simple as showing that piece of paper. How can such a piece of paper that every legal American has can harm the reputation of Obama? There is no shame in a piece of paper that every American has.
Quote from: natcat86 on November 22, 2009, 02:30:14 PM
Well in my opinion because it is a racist request. The disbelief that a black man could become presidant.
Mc Cain was asked of the same. He is born outside the USA (too). So he showed proof he was born on a US military base. And that counts as US soil. End of story. It could be just as easy for Obama. Obama was a liar from the beginning :laughing7:
He had all kind of excuses. I will show it but not now because my mother is ill. True and sad. But he could easily have one of his many people of his campain team get that certificate. Or certainly he must have enough time to have picked it up himself by today.
Quote from: natcat86 on November 22, 2009, 02:42:07 PM
Hey Molly, sorry for being argumentative. Have thought about it and there is no way I can realy appreciate how you feel about this issue because at the end of the day its not happening in my country. Its easy for me to disagree from way over here. :HeartThrob:
Your missing the point.
It's often said the UK is the 53rd US state but now it seems the USA is the 2nd UK state.
Quote from: MollyThat's right, the man might actually be a British citizen.
:laugh:
Quote from: wwI find that so odd. If it's of such great importance why isn't solid proof asked of all candidates before they can even be part of elections?
It should be, but it's never been an issue before. Usually it's very obvious where a candidate was born and who his parents are and where they were born--that is, all in this country. There is so much cloudiness about Obama's past, and his parents, and where they were at the time of his birth, that these records need to be produced, including his passports and college records [did he receive aid to foreign students as some have claimed?].
QuoteBut what if 20 years later Obama is proved to have no/false/wrong birth certificate?
What would be the concequences? What happens to all the laws/treaties he signed?
Everything he signed will be null and void--if we are still a country by then.
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 22, 2009, 02:59:40 PM
the 53rd US state but now it seems the USA is the 2nd UK state.
Nooo! We dont want it! :tongue:
:hijacked: :offtopic: :spank: :coffee2:
Quote from: MollyThat's right, the man might actually be a British citizen.
Quote from: ww:laugh:
Did we just lose the revolution? :mshock:
Not off topic at all. He's trying to make us look just Britain with socialized health care--or worse.
Ok well aslong as we're talking about Britain... :icon_queen: :icon_king:, over here you can buy medical insurance and get excellent care. There are lots of big insurance companies, there is market competition. You cannot opt out of National Insurance which is what pays for NHS but it isn't much really and everyone is free to go private if they have the money and want to do that. Many people who could go private dont because many people are very pleased with NHS. THe insurance companies in this country wont make as much profit as those in US but over here we put the health care of the nation before capitalism. Oooh I'm feeling all patriotic,
God save our gracious Queen
Long live our- :Shoot:
:mshock:
Just thought I'd add tht was me getting shot not the Queen!!!!!
Quote from: natcat86 on November 22, 2009, 03:35:19 PM
Ok well aslong as we're talking about Britain... :icon_queen: :icon_king:, over here you can buy medical insurance and get excellent care. There are lots of big insurance companies, there is market competition. You cannot opt out of National Insurance which is what pays for NHS but it isn't much really and everyone is free to go private if they have the money and want to do that. Many people who could go private dont because many people are very pleased with NHS. THe insurance companies in this country wont make as much profit as those in US but over here we put the health care of the nation before capitalism. Oooh I'm feeling all patriotic,
God save our gracious Queen
Long live our- :Shoot:
:mshock:
Let me guess--You must be young and healthy--or rich.
Rationing care from limited funds
The NHS cannot, and never has been able to, offer every treatment to everyone who needs it. The NHS is funded from taxes, and it spends more than £42bn every year - £779 for every person in the UK. But it is not a bottomless pit of funds and some treatments have to be restricted.
Raising taxes to pay for every possible need is politically unthinkable, as it would require a massive increase in income tax to raise enough revenue to make a significant difference to spending.
This means some treatments have to be restricted, or rationed. The media hype over the anti-impotence drug Viagra forced the issue out into the open.
The government has restricted the circumstances in which people will be prescribed the drug. Responsibility
The British Medical Association wants the government to accept responsibility for rationing decisions and to consult the public over which treatments should be restricted on the NHS. This would require a national policy - at the moment
health authorities make the decisions on drug rationing on an individual basis. This leads to accusations that care is being delivered by postcode since patients living under one health authority are denied a treatment available to those living under another.
The issue of rationing has also come to the fore due to the setting up of primary care groups later this year, when GPs will take over responsibility for commissioning care for their patients.
In a January 1999 survey of GPs, conducted by Doctor magazine,
one in five said they knew patients who had suffered harm as a result of rationing. More than 5% of the 3,000 surveyed also said they knew of patients who had died as a result of being denied treatment on the NHS. Expensive treatments
One of the most controversial rows over rationing concerns beta interferon, a treatment for multiple sclerosis.
The full effectiveness of the drug has yet to be established, and because it is very costly - approximately £10,000 per patient per year - some health authorities are reluctant to allow doctors to prescribe it.
Another example is a drug used in the treatment of ovarian cancer, Taxol, which has been licensed for use in the UK since mid-1998.
It costs £1,500 per injection and the average course requires six of these.
There are two studies that show the drug extends a patient's life by a year, but this is not enough evidence to justify prescribing it for everyone with ovarian cancer.
Marilyn Bush had the disease but was able to get the treatment because her private health care insurance agreed to pay for it.
She said: "Could you imagine how you would feel if you knew you could not possibly find the money for a drug you needed?"
Popular treatments
The case of Viagra is different, however. At an NHS price of £4.84 a pill, it is nowhere near as expensive as beta interferon.
But the government placed a temporary ban on NHS prescriptions of the drug because it feared so many patients would want it. The ban is to remain in place until guidelines have been formulated to define who should get Viagra and who should be denied it. The guidance is due to be published in January 1999.
In future, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will issue guidance for a whole range of treatments.
In the meantime, however,
it is up to individual health authorities to set priorities and to decide who is eligible for treatment. Health authority guidelines
Dr Gordon Rustin, who treated Ms Bush, is familiar with the implications of local priority setting.
"Some health authorities have made special funding available just for patients who fit into certain clinical trials and some health authorities have said they will not provide any extra funding for Taxol." Dr Rustin said that before he sees a patient
he has to check their postcode to see which health authority pays for their treatment. He says he can only then prescribe the drug if he knows the authority will fund it.
He said authorities have to make a crude calculation.
"They want to show that we can improve duration of life with a new drug and they then try to calculate the extra duration of life," he said.
"If you get an extra year of life for less than £10,000 then it is generally considered that that is a reasonable buy."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/251988.stm
QuoteRationing care from limited funds
And now name me a system that hasn't limited funds.
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 22, 2009, 03:53:54 PM
QuoteRationing care from limited funds
And now name me a system that hasn't limited funds.
Yeah, so we might as well let bureaucrats decide instead of doctors, right? They can check through their buddies or their comrades and just knock out those on the no fly list.
Quote from: Molly on November 22, 2009, 03:58:39 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 22, 2009, 03:53:54 PM
QuoteRationing care from limited funds
And now name me a system that hasn't limited funds.
Yeah, so we might as well let bureaucrats decide instead of doctors, right? They can check through their buddies or their comrades and just knock out those on the no fly list.
The use of the word comrades doesn't make me overlook you didn't answer my question.
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 22, 2009, 04:06:20 PM
Quote from: Molly on November 22, 2009, 03:58:39 PM
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 22, 2009, 03:53:54 PM
QuoteRationing care from limited funds
And now name me a system that hasn't limited funds.
Yeah, so we might as well let bureaucrats decide instead of doctors, right? They can check through their buddies or their comrades and just knock out those on the no fly list.
The use of the word comrades doesn't make me overlook you didn't answer my question.
I did answer your question. There is no question that doctors ration healthcare now. They are trained to do so. They don't dole out antibiotics to everyone who requests them neither do they dole out transplants to everyone who needs one. They make decisions based on years of medical training and experience, not based on who their buddies are.
There is a reason why we do not want to put the power of medicine in the hands of the government that transcends healthcare issues.
Any problems in this country could be easily addressed and fixed without handing over 1/6 of our economy to a bunch of bureaucrats who have the best interests of their party or personal biases at heart, not the healthcare of the country. The people promoting this have not only made their views known about abortion and treament of the elderly, but they mean to implement them. They have shown that they do not respect the privacy or the civil rights of our citizens. They make lists of enemies. This is too much power in the hands of the government.
Ok now we are getting somewhere. Healthcare is rationed. For medical reasons you say. That's good. That's how it should be. But hospitals, the people that work there and those who research new mediacl techniques do so for cash. Yes and some for greed.
My point is and was that whatever system you chose it will cost money. That money somehow has to be payed. Regardless of the system. The comrade system possibly has lists of people who are allowed to get care. But what about the greed hog system? I "you" seem ill/costly you can't even get insurance. They won't accept you. The max. spended on you is capped. Etc.
Even in a system with very hard working, none greedy people, and zero overhead a $ can only be spend once.
And when the pot of money is empty there are only a few choices: Let people pay more. Less research. Don't treat people. Etc. It's are rationing. Except the pay more option. But some people simply can't pay more.
Quote from: Molly on November 22, 2009, 03:47:20 PM
Let me guess--You must be young and healthy--or rich.
Young :Sparkletooth: and healthy thanks to the NHS! :gwink: Definately not rich!! I had my son with NHS care. Excellent pre- natal support, fantastic care after emergency C-section, excellent post natal care. Couldn't be happier with the level of care I recieved. I'm not saying the NHS isn't without its faults. BUT just like in US if you can afford insurance you can get it, but UNLIKE the US if you can't afford insurance you don't have to wait until you qualify for the emergency room to recieve treatment.
Did it ever occur to you, WW, that a lot of doctors in this country donate their time for free?
The best doctors make a lot of money and can afford to do this both financially and out of generosity of heart. Neither do hospitals turn people who are in need away. A lot of these hosptals were founded by Christian and religious organizations--Catholic, Methodist, Presbytarian, Jewish,etc.
We have a long history in this country of caring for all the sick and needy.
Go to Russia to live and see how great their healthcare is.
Quote from: natcat86 on November 22, 2009, 04:37:38 PM
Quote from: Molly on November 22, 2009, 03:47:20 PM
Let me guess--You must be young and healthy--or rich.
Young :Sparkletooth: and healthy thanks to the NHS! :gwink: Definately not rich!! I had my son with NHS care. Excellent pre- natal support, fantastic care after emergency C-section, excellent post natal care. Couldn't be happier with the level of care I recieved. I'm not saying the NHS isn't without its faults. BUT just like in US if you can afford insurance you can get it, but UNLIKE the US if you can't afford insurance you don't have to wait until you qualify for the emergency room to recieve treatment.
You're young and healthy! How did I know that? lol
What makes you think you have to wait until you qualify for the emergency room to receive treatment in this country? Been reading a lot of propaganda? I've been both insured and uninsured and I've never been denied treatment by a doctor or a hospital when I've needed it. You are making statements based on a total lack of knowledge of what you are talking about.
If this is such a terrible place to have babies, why are women from other countries coming here so often to have babies?
Quote from: Molly on November 22, 2009, 04:54:24 PM
If this is such a terrible place to have babies, why are women from other countries coming here so often to have babies?
I didn't say it was a terrible place to have babies. I was using my experience of needing a large amount of medical care to show that my experience of the NHS has been positive. You jumped to the wrong conclusion there and put words in my mouth.
You may have received care but there are people who are waiting to go to the ER because they have no health care. Do I really have a total lack of knowledge, seems like hyperbole to me and if you are right and I am wrong you shouldn't need to exagerate, the facts will back you up. Unfortunately they dont.
http://www.allbusiness.com/health-care/health-care-facilities-hospitals/13069021-1.html
Now there might be provision for them that means they do not have to wait so long and perhaps it is just lack of education as to what is available to the unisured. Either way its a fault with your system.
Here's a list of some of the free medical and dental clinics in Cincinnati, Ohio, a city picked at random.
Stop slandering our country. All the big hospitals also have free clinics, run by the best doctors in the hospital.
http://www.freemedicalcamps.com/vcamp.php?cityid=1172
Quote from: Raggedy Anne on November 22, 2009, 01:28:07 PM
Quote from: Cardinal on November 22, 2009, 10:17:37 AM
:cloud9: Not pertaining to healthcare comment here; is anyone aware that Obama is busy putting in devout Muslims in key positions, including our National Security department? I find that unsettling personally, only 8 years after 911. Blessings.....
I don't know, but it sounds like a typical right-wing rumor that very well may be untrue. You know like "He was born in Kenya" and is actually a "Muslim" etc... all lies.
Why isn't Karl Rove in jail?
Anne
:cloud9: This was an article I read in the news. Blessings...
You have some free clinics, which is brilliant but unfortunately a lot of people are suffering under the current health care system. That is not slander it is a fact. The people benefiting the most from the current system are the health insurance companies, their lobbiests and the members of your government they bribe with campaign donations (Obama included). I would be slandering the US if what I said was false but it isnt. 45,000 people die a year from not being insured. http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf
Quote from: natcat86 on November 22, 2009, 05:21:08 PM
You have some free clinics, which is brilliant but unfortunately a lot of people are suffering under the current health care system. That is not slander it is a fact. The people benefiting the most from the current system are the health insurance companies, their lobbiests and the members of your government they bride with campaign donations (Obama included). I would be slandering the US if what I said was false but it isnt. 45,000 people die a year from not being insured. http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf
The first sentence of that article cited the bogus '46 million' figure therefore the rest of the article goes in the wastebasket without even reading it. The figure is more like ten million and that number could be easily absorbed by medicare/medicaid.
I just told you there are plenty of free clinics in all the cities in this country so that no one without healthcare should ever do without. According to the BBC a lot of people are dying in your country from rationed government healthcare, so you are hardly one to throw stones or offer a better solution.
Other than noncitizens, most of the people who do not have healthcare in this country, don't have it because they don't want it.
:sigh: I am objective enough to say that the NHS has problems. I have! I gave you an example from my own experience, I'm not arrogant enough to say that applies to everyone in UK. I am certainly not one to offer a better solution, thats what you voted Obama in to do. I wish we were as lucky as you guys to have an opertuntiy for a complete over hall of the system. Your government has the chance to put partisen politics aside and do something amazing, we have a leader we didn't even vote for! (Oh wait you've been there dont that :laugh2: )
If there are plenty of free clinics then is it stupidity or irresponsibilty on the part of those who die from lack of treatment or are the numerous accounts in the news of people suffering for lack of insurance, personal testimonies I have heard from people I know in america all fabrications?
You keep making this personal, which is fine I guess, but I really dont understand why you would want to defend a system that is killing people. :dontknow:
Quote from: natcat86 on November 22, 2009, 05:42:08 PM
:sigh: I am objective enough to say that the NHS has problems. I have! I gave you an example from my own experience, I'm not arrogant enough to say that applies to everyone in UK. I am certainly not one to offer a better solution, thats what you voted Obama in to do. I wish we were as lucky as you guys to have an opertuntiy for a complete over hall of the system. Your government has the chance to put partisen politics aside and do something amazing, we have a leader we didn't even vote for! (Oh wait you've been there dont that :laugh2: )
If there are plenty of free clinics then is it stupidity or irresponsibilty on the part of those who die from lack of treatment or are the numerous accounts in the news of people suffering for lack of insurance, personal testimonies I have heard from people I know in america all fabrications?
You keep making this personal, which is fine I guess, but I really dont understand why you would want to defend a system that is killing people. :dontknow:
I thought you had the perfect system. Why would you want a complete overhaul?
Put partisan politics aside? Are you kidding me? A democratic Congress and a democratic President are ramming something down our throats that they have been trying to do since the days of Hilary and Bill Clinton. However, they are still not doing what they were elected to do--stop the war.
You bet it's personal. This is going to affect my life, my doctors, and my Constitution. Can't get more personal than that.
Come over here and get sick and dial 911 and get the best medical care in the world right now, with or without insurance. They'll even give you a ride to the hospital. And it won't take two hours like it took them to get Diana to the hospital.
Quote from: Molly on November 22, 2009, 04:41:41 PMDid it ever occur to you, WW, that a lot of doctors in this country donate their time for free?
:blahgreen: :blah: :blahgreen: :blah:
Quote from: MollyGo to Russia to live and see how great their healthcare is.
Off-topic
Quote from: MollyStop slandering our country.
Trust me; natcat isn't needed for that :laughing7:
Quote from: MollyAll the big hospitals also have free clinics, run by the best doctors in the hospital.
You point is?
Quote from: MollyIf this is such a terrible place to have babies, why are women from other countries coming here so often to have babies?
Ok now I see. The USA is a socialist country with free-riders :laughing7:
I don't want to say this Molly but your superiority complex has taken you to the point you need a dog.
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:6ArTvpiRYSzDCM:http://www.vegansoapbox.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Guide-Dog2.jpg)Free ofcourse!
Quote from: Molly
Yeah, so we might as well let bureaucrats decide instead of doctors, right?
The insurance companies now tell doctors what to do, what will be covered and not covered. It's like the corporate control of health care. Not to mention, God forbid I want a prescription refill before the very day my medicine runs out (which interferes with travel plans since I can't get my prescriptions filled in another state). Therefore, if I want to go out of state for a holiday or whatever reason, it best not fall on the wrong date when I need to get my blood pressure medicine, otherwise, I'm trapped at home. And you know that is the truth, Molly! We are currently being held hostage by the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies. America is in the 4th stage of Capitalist Cancer.
And because we are a completely divided nation, we are headed for civil war unless God intervenes. It happened before. We have a very bloody history, not to mention we are a nation that was born of rebellion and it was a fight over money of course. And don't give me the fake story about how we fought for religious freedom. The Puritans were savage brutes who had no mercy on the natives.
Anne
Diana died in France but that was real classy of you. Not going to discuss this with you anymore Molly beacuse you are twisting my words or maybe you just havent read my replies. I never said we had a perfect system. You are twisting my words again. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt earlier when I was the one who brought up the fact that you will have to live it not me but you made it personal. I dont want to discuss it with you anymore becuase you sound a lot like an angry Glenn Beck viewer and not a lot like Jesus.
But I will continue to pray that God's perfect will be done in my country and yours.
:HeartThrob:
Quote from: Molly on November 22, 2009, 05:48:22 PMCome over here and get sick and dial 911 and get the best medical care in the world right now, with or without insurance. They'll even give you a ride to the hospital. And it won't take two hours like it took them to get Diana to the hospital.
Here in Russia we have to wait 6 hours. Sorry 6 minits. Plus 2 minutes to verify the Party membership number.... :laughing7:
Quote from: Molly on November 22, 2009, 05:09:34 PM
Here's a list of some of the free medical and dental clinics in Cincinnati, Ohio, a city picked at random.
Stop slandering our country. All the big hospitals also have free clinics, run by the best doctors in the hospital.
http://www.freemedicalcamps.com/vcamp.php?cityid=1172
B.S.
America is not the greatest nation on earth Molly. I know you've been fed that since you were able to crawl, but it's just not true. We may be the greediest nation on earth. And possibly the most arrogant and sinful nation on earth. Seems like that would be obvious to you since you live here. Have you not been witness to all the corruption that has been exposed, and all the pornography and weapons we produce - that is all we make now. We peddle pornography and weapons of mass destruction. You really ought to humble yourself. The Day of the Lord is upon us. No flesh will glory in His presence.
Anne
Quote from: raggedyanneThe insurance companies now tell doctors what to do, what will be covered and not covered. It's like the corporate control of health care.
That's mostly because of the HMO's. You pay less for insurance on an HMO but this is the fallout because HMO's are run on the Harvard Business School model. Any doctor worth his salt knows how to justify his treatment to the insurance companies.
QuoteNot to mention, God forbid I want a prescription refill before the very day my medicine runs out (which interferes with travel plans since I can't get my prescriptions filled in another state).
Ask your doctor for a 3 month prescription. Solves that problem in a New York minute.
QuoteWe are currently being held hostage by the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies. America is in the 4th stage of Capitalist Cancer.
This coud be solved at the state level. The state is allowing them to hold us hostage by limiting the competition, among other things. Right now only a few insurers are allowed in your state by state law. Open it up to all the insurers and watch the game change overnight with good old fashioned captialism.
And, by the way, WW, you have to give me something to work with other than calling me names. I already have a superior dog. :laughing7:
:cloud9: It appears a reminder is needed..........from the "What you MAY NOT DO" thread under board rules and regulations. Everyone take a deep breath, step back, and remember that the next time one of us needs prayer, almost every regular on this board is right there to pray; that says a lot about character.
For these one warning may be given and then if repeated, you will be banned without further explanation. The ban may be of time duration but rather expect it to be permanent.
1. Trolling.
2. Baiting.
3. Flaming.
4. Calling out any member's views/opinions as stupid, dumb, crazy etc. viz. insults.
5. Public criticism of moderation decisions.
6. Starting a new thread of a similar topic as one that is recently locked.
Quote from: raggedyanneAmerica is not the greatest nation on earth Molly. I know you've been fed that since you were able to crawl, but it's just not true. We may be the greediest nation on earth. And possibly the most arrogant and sinful nation on earth. Seems like that would be obvious to you since you live here. Have you not been witness to all the corruption that has been exposed, and all the pornography and weapons we produce - that is all we make now. We peddle pornography and weapons of mass destruction. You really ought to humble yourself. The Day of the Lord is upon us. No flesh will glory in His presence.
I see the ideal rather than the reality. There are a lot of wonderful people in this country who hold to our founding principles and do their best to uphold them even in this terrible political climate we have been in for years.
This country has a lot of enemies who have been trying to overthrow it since its founding. The only thing new about that is they are getting very close to succeeding.
Quote from: Molly on November 22, 2009, 06:10:30 PMAnd, by the way, WW, you have to give me something to work with other than calling me names. I already have a superior dog. :laughing7:
I did so often Molly. For you things are simple. If it is not exactly like the US it's communist.
But I made a claim. Just read my last post.
The USA is a socialist nation.Now prove me wrong while reading your own claims. You can't. *
Perhaps I got that wrong. Under the Bush administraion the USA was a socialist state.
Obama was born in Stalingrad and is changing the USA in a communist state. :winkgrin:
*=USA is not socialist. But you have no clue what socialist means.
You think to much in black and white.
A few hours ago you answered RA she should not think left/right. But then you only think
USA-Good. World bad.
USA-Capitalism. World-Communism.
Quote from: Molly on November 22, 2009, 06:16:11 PM
I see the ideal rather than the reality.
That is honest.
QuoteThere are a lot of wonderful people in this country
But all the people outside the USA have goat legs and horns?
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 22, 2009, 06:25:03 PM
Quote from: Molly on November 22, 2009, 06:10:30 PMAnd, by the way, WW, you have to give me something to work with other than calling me names. I already have a superior dog. :laughing7:
I did so often Molly. For you things are simple. If it is not exactly like the US it's communist.
But I made a claim. Just read my last post.
The USA is a socialist nation.
Now prove me wrong while reading your own claims. You can't. *
Perhaps I got that wrong. Under the Bush administraion the USA was a socialist state.
Obama was born in Stalingrad and is changing the USA in a communist state. :winkgrin:
*=USA is not socialist. But you have no clue what socialist means.
You think to much in black and white.
A few hours ago you answered RA she should not think left/right. But then you only think
USA-Good. World bad.
USA-Capitalism. World-Communism.
I've been railing about it for years, ww. You just didn't hear me. We are the greatest experiment in freedom on the face of the earth--yes I believe that. This does not sit well with our enemies. Nor will it ever sit well with those wanting a one world government, a return to world tyranny, or a return to feudalism. Once we lose our freedoms, the whole world will go dim.
We need to return to our roots and take back our government while it is still possible.
So everyone who disagrees with you is an enemy of freedom. Is that what you are saying?
Quote from: natcat86 on November 22, 2009, 06:01:09 PM
you sound a lot like an angry Glenn Beck viewer and not a lot like Jesus.
just to clarify this was directed at your tone Molly not your views. But sorry either way cuz it wasnt kind. :mblush:
Why don't we stop and think for a second that not everyone that likes Glenn Beck and agree with many of his views are not haters. Also, not everyone that agree with Barack Obama are haters. Many people on both sides have their heads in the sand. Some on the far right extreme are angry, twisted haters. On the other hand, some on the far left extreme are angry, twisted haters.
Why don't we try to keep things more in the middle here and focus more on the things of the Kingdom, including that God's in the process of reconciling all to Himself?
UR board - Gary's request.
Quote from: jabcat on November 22, 2009, 09:31:46 PM
Why don't we stop and think for a second that not everyone that likes Glenn Beck and agree with many of his views are not haters. Also, not everyone that agree with Barack Obama are haters. Many people on both sides have their heads in the sand. Some on the far right extreme are angry, twisted haters. On the other hand, some on the far left extreme are angry, twisted haters.
Why don't we try to keep things more in the middle here and focus more on the things of the Kingdom, including that God's in the process of reconciling all to Himself?
UR board - Gary's request.
Thats why I appologised because I mis-spoke. So appologies again to anyone I offended.
It wasn't solely directed at you - I believe all of us, including me can benefit.
:girlheart:
Quote from: jabcat on November 22, 2009, 09:31:46 PM
Why don't we stop and think for a second that not everyone that likes Glenn Beck
I have no clue who that is.
QuoteAlso, not everyone that agree with Barack Obama are haters.
The things I hate about Obama what I hate about all split tongue politians. And that doesn't depent if that politician is green, purple or blue.
QuoteWhy don't we try to keep things more in the middle here and focus more on the things of the Kingdom, including that God's in the process of reconciling all to Himself?
UR board - Gary's request.
Well what can I say. I made my points. Asked my questions. And unless they are answered instead of bypassed I
try :footmouth:
No apologies from me (would be a lie). But I'll try to step a bit to the background to honor the wish of Gary :winkgrin:
Thanks Nat.
**Note - this is NOT just a rant for Nat :bigGrin:. I need it too. EDIT* I wrote this before seeing your post WW, and I personally very well may agree with you more than you know. :wink:
OK, this is what I had written:
You know, the thing is, if I say "I think Barack Obama stinks, the Democrats are idiots, many of them are so open minded their brains have fallen out" (or the opposite for the "other side of the aisle") then I really don't know who I'm offending, who I'm hurting, or what dischord that may stir up.
I actually have some quite firm beliefs on some things political - concerns about what leaders are saying and doing. I just think we need to handle with care, that political views should not get in the way of our MAIN focus, including unity among believers - as much as is possible. There are issues that can divide us, and issues that can unite us. How should we approach those topics, and which ones should we spend most of our time on? Hard to know sometimes - I know some of these are important issues, but easy does it, eh?
If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Romans 12:18
Quote from: WhiteWings on November 22, 2009, 06:51:53 PM
So everyone who disagrees with you is an enemy of freedom. Is that what you are saying?
I didn't say that. But, whereas you might find socialized medicine consistent with your form of government, I do not find it consistent with mine. And, if people disagree with me I'm wiling to explain why I feel that way, which actually I already have.
Also, if it's not broke, don't fix it. There is no reason to change our whole way of doing business when a smaller fix would solve the problem.
These people have an agenda, and it's not healthcare IMO.
We do not need a 2000 page bill setting up all kinds of bureaucracies and God knows what else to fix whatever is currently wrong with our healthcare.
That's 2000 pages of new laws! :msealed:
I don't even think War and Peace is 2000 pages long, and that book went on forever.
Quote from: Molly on November 22, 2009, 09:57:54 PM
There is no reason to change our whole way of doing business when a smaller fix would solve the problem.
That's the one :thumbsup:
Quote from: jabcat on November 22, 2009, 09:50:50 PM
I actually have some quite firm beliefs on some things political - concerns about what leaders are saying and doing. I just think we need to handle with care, that political views should not get in the way of our MAIN focus, including unity among believers - as much as is possible. There are issues that can divide us, and issues that can unite us. How should we approach those topics, and which ones should we spend most of our time on? Hard to know sometimes - I know some of these are important issues, but easy does it, eh?
If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Romans 12:18
Amen Jabcat, I am still a relatively new christian and before I became a christian had a very worldly, human centred view point. I am still new at making Christ the centre of all my thoughts/ideas and ideals. Some people seem to be converted and they automatically seem to think like Christ, for me it seems to be one area at a time. I am very greatful that the Lord has Chastened me this evening regarding this issue :happygrin: It has to be Jesus when you can feel told off then feel wonderful peace right?!
:cloud9:
Bless you. We're all still learning. Shoot, ANYthing I say that may have any merit at all, I need to hear it and grow in it myself. And yes, Jesus is working on you and me. It's a sign we are His children that He loves and is bringing into His image.
despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction:
For whom the LORD loves he corrects; even as a father the son in whom he delights.
Pr. 3:12,13
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. Eph. 2:10
James.
On Health Care - for those who missed the Special Comment by Keith Olberman last month on this life and death issue, it was a very solid argument:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/33217642#33217642
Magnetic Discs Could Kill Cancer Cells
AOL News
posted: 9 HOURS 54 MINUTES AGO
comments: 107
Nov. 30) –- Doctors may have discovered an unlikely tool to kill cancer cells: tiny magnetic discs, too small to be seen by the naked eye. The discs are just 60 billionths of a meter thick, said the French news agency AFP.
The so-called "nanodiscs" are made of an iron-nickel alloy, the agency reported. When they are subjected to a magnetic field, the discs vibrate. This movement damages the membranes of cancer cells and causes them to self-destruct.
Elena Rozhkova, who co-authored the new study, has high hopes for the clinical application of nanodiscs, said AFP. She said that subjecting the discs to a magnetic field for about 10 minutes was enough to destroy 90 percent of cancer cells in lab tests.
Another scholar, Jon Dobson of Britain's Keele University, speculated that the body's own defenses could be persuaded to cooperate with the discs, said the agency. He suggested that antibodies could be used to guide the discs to tumor cells.
"This provides an elegant and rapid technique for targeting tumor destruction without the side effects associated with systemic treatments such as chemotherapy," said Dobson.
2009 AOL LLC. All Rights Reserved.
2009-11-30 15:31:37
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670#
"Intelligent Design--Unlocking the Mysteries of Life"
[Scientists say goodbye to Darwin, and hello to God]
Natural Selection is replaced by Irreducible Complexity.
You guys will love this film. :Sparkletooth:
This thread reminds me of Transponder for some reason. I wonder how he is doing.
The Health Care Bill No One Can See
December 19, 2009 - by Richard Pollock
Harry Reid has yet to present a final health care reform product to his colleagues. Not that anybody would understand what's in it anyway
There was an air of unreality in the United States Senate when I entered the Capitol building on Wednesday to record some PJTV interviews. I sat down with five U.S. senators to discuss the imminent future of the long-embattled health care bill.
We are approaching the eleventh hour for Sen. Harry Reid's (D-NV) slowly dying health care legislation, which he insists will be passed before Christmas. This is the same bill that was to be enacted last summer, then by August, then after Labor Day, and then before Thanksgiving. Now it may be a Christmas present for the country.
The senators gave good information and offered sharp criticism of the bill. What I had not expected was to discover that, well ... there is no bill.
What about the 2,074-page document we've been reading about that purports to be health care legislation? Oh, they replied, that bill was pulled by Reid more than a week ago along with the public option, which is now dead.
So Mr. Reid has no bill for senators or the public to read. No one knows what will be in the new bill. And the new, concealed bill still has to be "scored" by the Congressional Budget Office before the Senate can debate it and before an increasingly skeptical public can make their opinion known.
But Senator Reid was vowing to keep the U.S. Senate hostage while he and his allies worked behind closed doors to craft a bill he will eventually unveil to the public. He says he will give the senators 72 hours to digest it before a vote. And this bill probably will exceed 2,074 pages.
So there is no plan — neither a public option nor expanded Medicare. Then what is there?
It can be anything Mr. Reid and his pals want to dream up in their private, well-appointed Capitol Hill sitting rooms.
"The irony is," said Senator Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-MO), "the president campaigned on total transparency. ... What kind of bill is this?"
Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) told me that the request for lawmakers to vote on such a massive bill sight unseen was unprecedented. "I haven't seen anything like this on a bill of this magnitude," he mused.
"Unbelievable," Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) said. It is the "most closed process" he has seen in his lifetime.
Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) was pretty fired up. "I've been in elected office for 32 years. ... Here we are with a 2,074-page bill and no one knows what's in this bill."
Senator Mike Johanns comes from Nebraska, the same state as wavering Democratic Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE). "About a week from now," Johanns laments, "we'll cast a final vote redesigning everyone's health care and today we don't know what's in a final bill."
Johanns observed that even Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill), the second-ranking Democrat, confessed he was kind of clueless about what would be in the final bill. Durbin admitted on the Senate floor on December 10: "Most of us know the fundamentals, but we don't know the important details."
Two-thirds of a year into our intense national debate, and it's pretty amazing that there are no details for the public to read, analyze, or debate on health care reform.
So without a real bill, senators have been reduced to shadowboxing over the complex 2,000-page bill that doesn't exist. The process is such a non-process that it has produced a surreal environment.
In "normal" times, pulling a bill would spell its doom. But we do not live in normal times. The president and his party are determined to pass "something," regardless of whether it is good or bad.
It's presidential face-saving time — a time to salvage a reputation that is heading south. That's what it has come to. Desperate to achieve some kind of success, the president is forcing the Senate to pass a bill it has not seen with a vote now scheduled as early as this weekend or as late as Christmas Eve. Turn away from your mistletoe and turn on C-SPAN for breaking news.
But isn't this the era of the Obama presidency, where there was supposed to be openness and transparency in government?
On January 21, 2009, the president issued an eloquent statement — almost poetic — on how information can really be a truly valuable national asset:
Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset.
So here we are, eleven months into his young administration, and we are seeing a pivotal bill born of the worst possible process: no openness, tons of secrecy, and back room wheeling and dealing.
And are the "good government" types screaming? How about those ethics groups? Are they foaming at the mouth?
The reality is that hardball Democratic Party practices do not seem to connect with Democratic Party ideals. Their idea of governing is to cut deals behind closed doors, to anoint winners and pummel losers. Has anyone told them it is the most corrosive and cynical way to govern in a democracy?
The Washington Post laconically reported last Monday:
The full contents of the legislation probably will not be known until Tuesday, at the earliest, when the Congressional Budget Office is expected to provide an official cost analysis.
That was last Tuesday. There hasn't been a CBO ruling. Hence there is still no bill to examine.
After eight years of screaming about President Bush's secrecy, it is interesting that the mainstream media is largely mum about the legislative abuse now underway.
Even in small town city councils, most bills have to be read three times and public meetings convened before a bill becomes law. This principle has died on the national scale.
For PJTV, I tried to pin down where the secret Democratic Senate meetings were being held on health care. They turned out to be a movable feast. Some were announced; many never were. No one knows who sat in what meetings and on what topics.
We don't know how AARP fared in influencing details of the bill. Or how SEIU shaped the bill. Or what Big Pharma was promised for its endorsement of an early Obama plan.
Citizens cannot see who authored which provisions, who won big federal favors, or who will get new privileges in the Brave New World of Big Brother delivering health care.
No one knows ... yet.
A penchant for secrecy is a style of governing that is well known in many authoritarian countries. We don't have to stretch our imagination to see these governing styles on display in Iran, China, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea.
Thankfully America isn't Venezuela. And Obama has not become Hugo Chavez.
I suspect the face of authoritarianism here may arrive with more benign faces. It may emerge with subtle velvet hands like those used by regulators out of the European Union's faceless bureaucracy. There, regulations are hatched in private among elites, then paternalistically dispensed to their citizens. The EU model is driven by an impenetrable bureaucracy that has little accountability, protects special groups, and informs the public in a genteel way about what it is they can and cannot do.
This may be more in tune with the Obama administration and so-called "progressives." As they stand in awe over Europe for its many "superior" ways, they may be looking at a neo-European governing style as a role model.
Rather than assume their penchant for secrecy with the health care bill is an aberration, this could become their governing norm.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-health-care-bill-no-one-can-see/
Quote from: Molly on December 04, 2009, 06:17:49 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670#
"Intelligent Design--Unlocking the Mysteries of Life"
[Scientists say goodbye to Darwin, and hello to God]
Natural Selection is replaced by Irreducible Complexity.
You guys will love this film. :Sparkletooth:
Watching this now...
Thanks for the link.
15:56 - 18:00 or so: the bacterial flagellum motor thingy....
way cool.
sorry. vocabularly escapes me at times like this. :laughing7:
Edited to add: vocabularly?
spelling escapes me, too.
:laughing7:
I love this kind of stuff.
Quote from: sparrow on December 21, 2009, 09:50:47 AM
15:56 - 18:00 or so: the bacterial flagellum motor thingy....
way cool.
sorry. vocabularly escapes me at times like this. :laughing7:
Edited to add: vocabularly?
spelling escapes me, too.
:laughing7:
I love this kind of stuff.
Wait until you see how that amazing molecular motor is manufactured, based on a complicated set of instructions that must first be given to the manufacturing plant. Where did this information come from? There is NO doubt that there is an Intelligence that designed this process. And this is only one of thousands of such processes that make possible that mystery we call life.
You know, Sparrow, the sad thing is that scientists have known this for decades, but were not allowed to tell the general public about it because the 'communists' holding the purse strings would stop funding their work. So they try to tell us in all sorts of subtle ways that the evidence shows that God exists and designed life, but now that is finally all changing. It can no longer be denied.
A healthy science is a science that observes and reports the truth as it is observed.
"What we're seeing in the DNA molecule is actually an artifact of mind, an artifact of intelligence, something that can only be explained by intelligent design."
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. --Col 1
:cloud9: Cool video...... :thumbsup:
Cash for Cloture: Demcare bribe list, Pt. II
By Michelle Malkin • December 21, 2009 02:48 AM
A month ago, I compiled Part I of the Demcare bribe list as Harry Reid rushed before Thanksgiving to secure his first cloture vote on the government health care takeover. (Quick re-cap: $300 million Louisiana Purchase for Landrieu; $300 million California doctor payments; AARP goodies; abortion and union lobby concessions.)
Here's Part II of the Cash for Cloture bribe list all in one handy place (hat tip again to my friend ChristinaKB for the apt phrase she first coined on November 21 for the Demcare wheeling and dealing).
GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell alluded to all this backroom dealing on the floor early this morning before the cloture vote, but lamely refused to name names on the Senate floor.
Let the sun shine in.
1. Sen. Ben Nelson's "Cornhusker Kickback." The CBO says the Nebraska Democrat sellout's special Medicaid expansion subsidy will initially cost an estimated $100 million. The Hill reports that while Nelson credited Nebraska's governor for giving him the idea to lobby for the government preference, Nebraska's governor assailed the payoff:
"Nebraskans did not ask for a special deal, only a fair deal," Heineman said in a statement Sunday. In response, Nelson fired off a letter Sunday to Heineman saying he's prepared to ask that the provision covering Nebraska's Medicaid share "be removed from the amendment in conference, if it is your desire."
2. New England's Special Syrup. Vermont and Massachusetts will get similar (though less generous) special treatment by the feds in covering Medicaid expansion costs. Combined with Nebraska's tab, the exclusive clique's payoffs will cost taxpayers $1.2 billion over 10 years. At least.
3. Corruptocrat Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd's Christmas wish: Hospital helper. He's plunging in the polls and in need of a little bacon to bring home.
A $100 million item for construction of a university hospital was inserted in the Senate health care bill at the request of Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who faces a difficult re-election campaign, his office said Sunday night. The legislation leaves it up to the Health and Human Services Department to decide where the money should be spent, although spokesman Bryan DeAngelis said Dodd hopes to claim it for the University of Connecticut. The provision is included in a 383-page series of changes to the health care bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., outlined Saturday. ...The one sought by Dodd provides $100 million for "a health care facility that provides research, inpatient tertiary care, or outpatient clinical services." It must be affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in the United States "that contains a State's sole public academic medical and dental school." The money can cover a maximum of 40 percent of the facility's construction costs.
4. "Some insurers are more equal than others" tax exemption. The WSJ reports that nonprofit insurance companies will be exempt from a new, nearly $7 billion tax to pay for Demcare. Democrat Sens. Ben "Blank Check" Nelson and Carl Levin of Michigan pushed hard for the tax exemption, which will exempt insurers in their states.
5. The Frontier freebie. Several lucky states will see an increase in Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors, the NYT reports, — "where at least 50 percent of the counties are 'frontier counties,' defined as those having a population density less than six people per square mile. And which are the lucky states? The bill gives no clue. But the Congressional Budget Office has determined that Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming meet the criteria."
6. More Democrat hospital bennies. Also via NYT: "Another provision of the bill would increase Medicare payments to certain "low-volume hospitals" treating limited numbers of Medicare patients. Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa and chairman of the Senate health committee, said this 'important fix' would help midsize Iowa hospitals in Grinnell, Keokuk and Spirit Lake. Another item in Mr. Reid's package specifies the data that Medicare officials should use in adjusting payments to hospitals to reflect local wage levels. The officials can use certain new data only if it produces a higher index and therefore higher Medicare payments for these hospitals. Senate Democrats said this provision would benefit hospitals in Connecticut and Michigan."
7. Bernie Sanders' socialized medicine sop. He wanted a public option. Instead, he got socialized medicine satellite clinics funded to the tune of at least $10 billion. In his remarks early this morning before the cloture vote, he gloated about the funding as a crucial step toward universal care. Via the Burlington Free Press:
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., scored a big victory, too, with the inclusion in the amendment package of $10 billion to expand community health centers across the country — including at least two more in Vermont.
"We are talking about a revolution in primary care here," Sanders said. Funding community health centers in an additional 10,000 communities would extend primary care to 25 million more Americans. The $10 billion, added at Sanders' request, would also ensure there would be medical professionals to provide primary care by expanding the National Health Service Corps by an additional 20,000 slots. Doctors, dentists, nurses and other medical professionals who agree to work in areas where there are limited medical services get help paying off their school loans. The House version of the health care reform bill contains $14 billion for these initiatives. Sanders said he was hopeful the final amount, which will be hammered out in negotiations between the House and Senate, would be closer to $14 billion.
Vermont has 8 community health centers and 40 satellite offices. "New funding would make it likely centers could be opened in Addison and Bennington counties," Sanders' home state paper reports.
8. Fla.-Pa.-NY Protectionism. Via Politico: "Three states – Pennsylvania, New York and Florida – all won protections for their Medicare Advantage beneficiaries at a time when the program is facing cuts nationwide."
And you know there are many more untold payoffs — paid by stealing your money — yet to be stuffed into this bureaucratic monstrosity.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/21/cash-for-cloture-demcare-bribe-list-pt-ii/
It seems like all we ever hear is them talking about spending more money that we do not even have! I want to hear them talking about taking extreme steps towards getting government spending reduced.
Quote from: fullarmor2 on December 23, 2009, 05:21:20 PM
It seems like all we ever hear is them talking about spending more money that we do not even have! I want to hear them talking about taking extreme steps towards getting government spending reduced.
Run for office and then you can talk about it yourself. :Sparkletooth:
www.goooh.com
I place the economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers...We must make our choice between Economy and Liberty, or profusion and servitude.--Thomas Jefferson
Know the TRUTH about the Government Health Care Bill H.R.3200 - Key Points
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBaSP31Be8
This is an older version of the bill as it is dated August 11, 2009, but it gives a flavor about what one might expect to find in a 2700 page senate bill which is almost twice as long as the Russian novel War and Peace.
Whatever the agenda is here, it is way beyond the scope of healthcare. It shows the direction those creating this legislation wish to move the country, even if they have to do it in tiny increments now that the 'Massachusetts miracle' has stopped the runaway super majority in the house and senate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nEoW-P81-0
"The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance."
--Thomas Jefferson
33And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.
34Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.
--Genesis 25