NY Times Strands
- Steely_D - May 17, 2024 - 1:51pm
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- ScottFromWyoming - May 17, 2024 - 1:43pm
Wordle - daily game
- Steely_D - May 17, 2024 - 1:33pm
USA! USA! USA!
- Beaker - May 17, 2024 - 1:28pm
NYTimes Connections
- maryte - May 17, 2024 - 12:52pm
Name My Band
- Isabeau - May 17, 2024 - 10:56am
Israel
- R_P - May 17, 2024 - 10:16am
DIY
- black321 - May 17, 2024 - 9:16am
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests
- black321 - May 17, 2024 - 9:14am
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- Isabeau - May 17, 2024 - 9:02am
Other Medical Stuff
- Isabeau - May 17, 2024 - 9:00am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Isabeau - May 17, 2024 - 8:44am
Mixtape Culture Club
- miamizsun - May 17, 2024 - 6:24am
Radio Paradise Comments
- sunybuny - May 17, 2024 - 5:15am
Today in History
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 17, 2024 - 3:57am
TV shows you watch
- Steely_D - May 17, 2024 - 3:14am
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- ScottN - May 16, 2024 - 7:00pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- RPnate1 - May 16, 2024 - 3:33pm
Your Local News
- Proclivities - May 16, 2024 - 12:51pm
Alexa Show
- thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 12:15pm
What can you hear right now?
- thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 11:00am
Things You Thought Today
- thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 10:25am
Joe Biden
- Steely_D - May 16, 2024 - 1:02am
Climate Change
- R_P - May 15, 2024 - 9:38pm
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc.
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2024 - 4:13pm
how do you feel right now?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2024 - 4:10pm
China
- R_P - May 15, 2024 - 1:40pm
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 12:38pm
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 11:50am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 11:48am
Science is bullsh*t
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 11:44am
NASA & other news from space
- Beaker - May 15, 2024 - 9:29am
Artificial Intelligence
- thisbody - May 15, 2024 - 8:25am
Human Rights (Can Science Point The Way)
- miamizsun - May 15, 2024 - 5:50am
Play the Blues
- Steely_D - May 15, 2024 - 1:50am
Music library
- mbellenberg - May 15, 2024 - 1:01am
Animal Resistance
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:37pm
2024 Elections!
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:00pm
Fascism In America
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 4:27pm
punk? hip-hop? metal? noise? garage?
- thisbody - May 14, 2024 - 1:27pm
The Obituary Page
- thisbody - May 14, 2024 - 12:41pm
Social Media Are Changing Everything
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 8:08am
Internet connection
- ai63 - May 14, 2024 - 7:53am
Congress
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:22pm
Ukraine
- R_P - May 13, 2024 - 5:50pm
What The Hell Buddy?
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 1:25pm
Surfing!
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 13, 2024 - 1:21pm
Bad Poetry
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 11:38am
What Did You See Today?
- kurtster - May 13, 2024 - 10:35am
See This Film
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:35am
Podcast recommendations???
- ColdMiser - May 13, 2024 - 7:50am
News of the Weird
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 5:05am
Trump
- Steely_D - May 12, 2024 - 3:35pm
Those Lovable Policemen
- R_P - May 12, 2024 - 11:31am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - May 12, 2024 - 9:16am
The All-Things Beatles Forum
- Steely_D - May 12, 2024 - 9:04am
Baseball, anyone?
- Red_Dragon - May 12, 2024 - 6:52am
Poetry Forum
- ScottN - May 12, 2024 - 6:32am
Beer
- ScottFromWyoming - May 10, 2024 - 8:58pm
It's the economy stupid.
- thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 3:21pm
Oh dear god, BEES!
- R_P - May 10, 2024 - 3:11pm
Tornado!
- miamizsun - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
The 1960s
- kcar - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
Marko Haavisto & Poutahaukat
- thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 7:57am
Living in America
- Proclivities - May 10, 2024 - 6:45am
Virginia News
- Red_Dragon - May 10, 2024 - 5:42am
Outstanding Covers
- Steely_D - May 10, 2024 - 12:56am
Democratic Party
- R_P - May 9, 2024 - 3:06pm
RP on HomePod mini
- RPnate1 - May 9, 2024 - 10:52am
Interesting Words
- Proclivities - May 9, 2024 - 10:22am
Breaking News
- maryte - May 9, 2024 - 7:17am
Guns
- Red_Dragon - May 9, 2024 - 6:16am
Spambags on RP
- Steely_D - May 8, 2024 - 2:30pm
Suggestion for new RP Channel: Modern / Family
- Ruuddie - May 8, 2024 - 11:46am
Gaming, Shopping, and More? Samsung's Metaverse Plans for...
- alexhoxdson - May 8, 2024 - 7:00am
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
OBAMACARE
|
Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 62, 63, 64 Next |
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 17, 2021 - 4:12pm |
|
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Jun 17, 2021 - 2:52pm |
|
Steely_D wrote:Thank goodness. The idea that the GOP is so obsessed with preventing Obama from having any success that they want to take away the health care that so many Americans depend on - without ever proposing a replacement during the former administration's four year run - makes me think that the party isn't just clumsy and unfocused, but actually cruel and elitist. Fuck them and their short-term, self-serving incompetence.
+1
|
|
Steely_D
Location: Biscayne Bay Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 17, 2021 - 12:37pm |
|
Thank goodness. The idea that the GOP is so obsessed with preventing Obama from having any success that they want to take away the health care that so many Americans depend on - without ever proposing a replacement during the former administration's four year run - makes me think that the party isn't just clumsy and unfocused, but actually cruel and elitist. Fuck them and their short-term, self-serving incompetence.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Jun 17, 2021 - 11:06am |
|
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Mar 26, 2019 - 7:28am |
|
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Aug 6, 2017 - 4:46pm |
|
MrsHobieJoe wrote: This isn't correct by the way. The justice system in the uk and the NHS are independent of each other. There are non NHS providers in the uk too btw (although many people only access care via the NHS). It's not a medical point, it's that the court looks after the interest of the child first and effectively takes precedence over the parents.
I can understand that many people would find that the higher standing of the court in this case difficult and that's the point you should be taking up, not the healthcare. Personally I've always found it a bit high handed for the courts to prevent people accessing last resort care for children overseas (even though the courts usually make a rational decision and always place the interests of the kid first) and I'd lean towards more latitude in situations like this.
Yes, I did lump the justice system and the NHS together. Please correct me if I'm wrong about the following. The UK justice system is forced to take the position it has because the UK signed onto the UN treaty in question, Convention on the Rights of the Child. In that capacity it forces the NHS to defer to the courts over the parents. The court prohibited any medical treatment or second opinion outside the NHS. Only after a struggle in court was the doctor from the US with the experimental treatment given access to CG, but only after it was decidedly too late to consider that alternative as too much time had passed to even consider it viable anymore. The window of opportunity had closed because of the time spent in court fighting for access to other medical care.
If true it paints the UK NHS as a closed system, at least for children to date, and medical care outside of the NHS but within the UK itself is unaccessable. That would in essence make it a sole payer, again for at least children, so far.
|
|
Red_Dragon
Location: Dumbf*ckistan
|
Posted:
Aug 5, 2017 - 8:50pm |
|
MrsHobieJoe wrote: This isn't correct by the way. The justice system in the uk and the NHS are independent of each other. There are non NHS providers in the uk too btw (although many people only access care via the NHS). It's not a medical point, it's that the court looks after the interest of the child first and effectively takes precedence over the parents.
I can understand that many people would find that the higher standing of the court in this case difficult and that's the point you should be taking up, not the healthcare. Personally I've always found it a bit high handed for the courts to prevent people accessing last resort care for children overseas (even though the courts usually make a rational decision and always place the interests of the kid first) and I'd lean towards more latitude in situations like this.
Thank you.
|
|
MrsHobieJoe
Location: somewhere in Europe Gender:
|
Posted:
Aug 5, 2017 - 8:48pm |
|
kurtster wrote: What you may appear to be missing in the Charlie Gard case is that the UK HC system in place is denying him access to any other medical care other than itself. It is acting as the medical judge and jury over what is appropriate and allowable and usurping parental rights to have the ultimate decision making role with their own flesh and blood. It is denying the family access to a second opinion, something that we take for granted and is encouraged here in the US. It is also keeping CG from even leaving the country. That the NHS in the UK is the sole provider of care as in single payer, single provider makes this scenario reality. That is what the objection is based upon and also that the UK signed on to a UN treaty that gives their NHS this authority. The USA is the only country that has not ratified this treaty and I agree with the non ratification as it gives up our national sovereignty on this issue permanently and irrevocably.
You have long argued with me about how the UN cannot take any sovereignty away from the USA. And I have argued that they can and will given the opportunity. This is a case where they would accomplish that and take away not only our sovereignty but also take away the rights of a parent over their minor children. A bureaucrat will have more power over a child than their parent because of the goals of the UN and those who seek a single payer system in the USA.
This isn't correct by the way. The justice system in the uk and the NHS are independent of each other. There are non NHS providers in the uk too btw (although many people only access care via the NHS). It's not a medical point, it's that the court looks after the interest of the child first and effectively takes precedence over the parents. I can understand that many people would find that the higher standing of the court in this case difficult and that's the point you should be taking up, not the healthcare. Personally I've always found it a bit high handed for the courts to prevent people accessing last resort care for children overseas (even though the courts usually make a rational decision and always place the interests of the kid first) and I'd lean towards more latitude in situations like this.
|
|
maryte
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
|
Posted:
Jul 31, 2017 - 12:10pm |
|
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
Location: Powell Gender:
|
Posted:
Jul 31, 2017 - 8:37am |
|
|
|
ScottFromWyoming
Location: Powell Gender:
|
Posted:
Jul 28, 2017 - 9:02pm |
|
kurtster wrote:What you may appear to be missing in the Charlie Gard case is that the UK HC system in place is denying him access to any other medical care other than itself. It is acting as the medical judge and jury over what is appropriate and allowable and usurping parental rights to have the ultimate decision making role with their own flesh and blood. It is denying the family access to a second opinion, something that we take for granted and is encouraged here in the US. It is also keeping CG from even leaving the country. That the NHS in the UK is the sole provider of care as in single payer, single provider makes this scenario reality. That is what the objection is based upon and also that the UK signed on to a UN treaty that gives their NHS this authority. The USA is the only country that has not ratified this treaty and I agree with the non ratification as it gives up our national sovereignty on this issue permanently and irrevocably.
You have long argued with me about how the UN cannot take any sovereignty away from the USA. And I have argued that they can and will given the opportunity. This is a case where they would accomplish that and take away not only our sovereignty but also take away the rights of a parent over their minor children. A bureaucrat will have more power over a child than their parent because of the goals of the UN and those who seek a single payer system in the USA. Your argument has no concern for the welfare of the child. This sort of case happens, maybe not frequently, but decisions like these are made every day. By insurance, by family, by doctors: keep on life support, pull the plug, DNR, Christian Science... the same circumstances might be handled differently by different families and medical facilities but you cannot say the decision is strictly due to some uncaring system. This one has always been about what's best for the patient. But really the outrage is that you're so afraid this rare scenario might happen that you're willing to let millions suffer the fate of having to skip that checkup, ignore those chest pains, and wind up in the ER without any way to pay.
|
|
BlueHeronDruid
Location: Заебани сме луѓе
|
Posted:
Jul 28, 2017 - 8:43pm |
|
kurtster wrote: What you may appear to be missing in the Charlie Gard case is that the UK HC system in place is denying him access to any other medical care other than itself. It is acting as the medical judge and jury over what is appropriate and allowable and usurping parental rights to have the ultimate decision making role with their own flesh and blood. It is denying the family access to a second opinion, something that we take for granted and is encouraged here in the US. It is also keeping CG from even leaving the country. That the NHS in the UK is the sole provider of care as in single payer, single provider makes this scenario reality. That is what the objection is based upon and also that the UK signed on to a UN treaty that gives their NHS this authority. The USA is the only country that has not ratified this treaty and I agree with the non ratification as it gives up our national sovereignty on this issue permanently and irrevocably.
This is more about the courts than the Health Service. You might enjoy this read. "The entire highly experienced UK team, all those who provided second opinions and the consultant instructed by the parents all agreed that further treatment would be futile – meaning it would be pointless or of no effective benefit. 1" Also, "The clinician in the US who is offering the treatment agrees that the experimental treatment will not reverse the brain damage that has already occurred."
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Jul 28, 2017 - 5:00pm |
|
steeler wrote:The opposition to a single-payer system (nationalized medicine) is mired in (1) those who benefit from a system that distinguishes between winners and losers, and want to continue so benefitting, and (2) those who have been duped, mostly by those in category No. 1, into believing that they will not just be inconvenienced by such a system, but adversely impacted by it, and/or that it somehow runs contrary to fundamental American values/ principles. Take the very recent, tragic case of Charlie Gard, which has been cited by those against a single-payer system as a cautionary tale of what could happen to each of us if we were to be imprisoned by a single-payer system. First of all, even if I were buying into all that those citing the Gard case were stating about that case and a single—payer system — which I am not — it would still constitute a case occurring on the margins — the far margins, at that. But here is the point I want to make about that: there are many, many individuals — children and adults — in the U.S. now, under our current system, who cannot get to the "first- class" medical providers who may have a remedy for their medical condition. It happens every day. Not everyone can be treated at the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, or Johns Hopkins, to name a few. There are innumerable stories of folk who were told by their regular providers that there was nothing that could be done for them unless they could get into some of the clinical trials going on at the more elite institutions; many times, one does not even get that latter advice, just the former. There are those who always can gain access to the elite care and there are those who, through a lot of diligence and some luck, manage to do so. Those are the winners. They are not the majority — not even close. So, this notion that under our present system, anyone can choose which medical providers he or she wants to treat them is a canard, a hollow "right." A system in which one has to be his or her own strong advocate, or have someone who can do so for them, to get the care that is needed is one that is seriously flawed. Yet we hear that all the time — you have to advocate to get the care you need . What an indictment! A system that awards winners, and places the losers in a game of health care roulette, is inherently unfair. *rant off* What you may appear to be missing in the Charlie Gard case is that the UK HC system in place is denying him access to any other medical care other than itself. It is acting as the medical judge and jury over what is appropriate and allowable and usurping parental rights to have the ultimate decision making role with their own flesh and blood. It is denying the family access to a second opinion, something that we take for granted and is encouraged here in the US. It is also keeping CG from even leaving the country. That the NHS in the UK is the sole provider of care as in single payer, single provider makes this scenario reality. That is what the objection is based upon and also that the UK signed on to a UN treaty that gives their NHS this authority. The USA is the only country that has not ratified this treaty and I agree with the non ratification as it gives up our national sovereignty on this issue permanently and irrevocably. You have long argued with me about how the UN cannot take any sovereignty away from the USA. And I have argued that they can and will given the opportunity. This is a case where they would accomplish that and take away not only our sovereignty but also take away the rights of a parent over their minor children. A bureaucrat will have more power over a child than their parent because of the goals of the UN and those who seek a single payer system in the USA.
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Jul 28, 2017 - 12:56pm |
|
black321 wrote: I'm not clear on your last point, as i think with any system, the individual has to be their strongest advocate...but too the point of using these extreme outlier events in single payer systems as a reason to support a system that excludes tens of millions from basic care is absurd. the fact is, we all need and will eventually receive some form of healthcare. So lets get everyone in the pool participating, and leave only the financing part up to the government. Stripping out all the middle men in the payment/claims processing will recapture profits and create efficiencies, and having everyone in the pool will better diversify risk and create more stability over what will need to be paid. Yes, the fact that millions are without basic care is the biggest indictment, and, I agree, does put the lie to those who cite to outlier cases as reason for not instituting a single-payer system. I was talking about people who are in the system and that, even among those, there are winners and losers. What I mean by the comment regarding being an advocate is that, in my view, health care should not follow a capitalist model. That someone is not as adept at maneuvering through the system should not relegate them to a lesser standard of care. Health care should not be based on merit. That is my point.
|
|
black321
Location: An earth without maps Gender:
|
Posted:
Jul 28, 2017 - 12:28pm |
|
steeler wrote:The opposition to a single-payer system (nationalized medicine) is mired in (1) those who benefit from a system that distinguishes between winners and losers, and want to continue so benefitting, and (2) those who have been duped, mostly by those in category No. 1, into believing that they will not just be inconvenienced by such a system, but adversely impacted by it, and/or that it somehow runs contrary to fundamental American values/ principles. Take the very recent, tragic case of Charlie Gard, which has been cited by those against a single-payer system as a cautionary tale of what could happen to each of us if we were to be imprisoned by a single-payer system. First of all, even if I were buying into all that those citing the Gard case were stating about that case and a single—payer system — which I am not — it would still constitute a case occurring on the margins — the far margins, at that. But here is the point I want to make about that: there are many, many individuals — children and adults — in the U.S. now, under our current system, who cannot get to the "first- class" medical providers who may have a remedy for their medical condition. It happens every day. Not everyone can be treated at the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, or Johns Hopkins, to name a few. There are innumerable stories of folk who were told by their regular providers that there was nothing that could be done for them unless they could get into some of the clinical trials going on at the more elite institutions; many times, one does not even get that latter advice, just the former. There are those who always can gain access to the elite care and there are those who, through a lot of diligence and some luck, manage to do so. Those are the winners. They are not the majority — not even close. So, this notion that under our present system, anyone can choose which medical providers he or she wants to treat them is a canard, a hollow "right." A system in which one has to be his or her own strong advocate, or have someone who can do so for them, to get the care that is needed is one that is seriously flawed. Yet we hear that all the time — you have to advocate to get the care you need . A system that awards winners, and places the losers in a game of health care roulette, is inherently unfair. *rant off* I'm not clear on your last point, as i think with any system, the individual has to be their strongest advocate...but too the point of using these extreme outlier events in single payer systems as a reason to support a system that excludes tens of millions from basic care is absurd. the fact is, we all need and will eventually receive some form of healthcare. So lets get everyone in the pool participating, and leave only the financing part up to the government. Stripping out all the middle men in the payment/claims processing will recapture profits and create efficiencies, and having everyone in the pool will better diversify risk and create more stability over what will need to be paid.
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Jul 28, 2017 - 11:54am |
|
The opposition to a single-payer system (nationalized medicine) is mired in (1) those who benefit from a system that distinguishes between winners and losers, and want to continue so benefitting, and (2) those who have been duped, mostly by those in category No. 1, into believing that they will not just be inconvenienced by such a system, but adversely impacted by it, and/or that it somehow runs contrary to fundamental American values/ principles. Take the very recent, tragic case of Charlie Gard, which has been cited by those against a single-payer system as a cautionary tale of what could happen to each of us if we were to be imprisoned by a single-payer system. First of all, even if I were buying into all that those citing the Gard case were stating about that case and a single—payer system — which I am not — it would still constitute a case occurring on the margins — the far margins, at that. But here is the point I want to make about that: there are many, many individuals — children and adults — in the U.S. now, under our current system, who cannot get to the "first- class" medical providers who may have a remedy for their medical condition. It happens every day. Not everyone can be treated at the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, or Johns Hopkins, to name a few. There are innumerable stories of folk who were told by their regular providers that there was nothing that could be done for them unless they could get into some of the clinical trials going on at the more elite institutions; many times, one does not even get that latter advice, just the former. There are those who always can gain access to the elite care and there are those who, through a lot of diligence and some luck, manage to do so. Those are the winners. They are not the majority — not even close. So, this notion that under our present system, anyone can choose which medical providers he or she wants to treat them is a canard, a hollow "right." A system in which one has to be his or her own strong advocate, or have someone who can do so for them, to get the care that is needed is one that is seriously flawed. Yet we hear that all the time — you have to advocate to get the care you need . What an indictment! A system that awards winners, and places the losers in a game of health care roulette, is inherently unfair. *rant off* .
|
|
maryte
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
|
Posted:
Jul 28, 2017 - 6:59am |
|
meower wrote:We had an M&M (morbidity and mortality) conference yesterday on a 15 year old who suicided in May. In then end, the child's access to mental health care (denial by her insurance company for the service that she really needed) was seen as a primary causal factor. It was the epitome of the need for a single payer system. It's simply Not OK that a child died of suicide due to a lack of access to needed support.
I agree with you but, unfortunately, far too many people consider that Someone Else's Problem and not worth paying for. Hell, I generally don't like people, but even I recognize the value (on so very many levels) of living in a cooperative society.
|
|
meower
Location: i believe, i believe, it's silly, but I believe Gender:
|
Posted:
Jul 28, 2017 - 6:34am |
|
We had an M&M (morbidity and mortality) conference yesterday on a 15 year old who suicided in May. In then end, the child's access to mental health care (denial by her insurance company for the service that she really needed) was seen as a primary causal factor. It was the epitome of the need for a single payer system. It's simply Not OK that a child died of suicide due to a lack of access to needed support.
|
|
black321
Location: An earth without maps Gender:
|
Posted:
Jul 28, 2017 - 6:27am |
|
miamizsun wrote:good news and bad news the bad news is that the affordable care act is anything but (force and coercion = horrible economic distortions) just the latest iteration of political stupidity (this would include the gop's flavor too) it is crushing the stuffing right out of the middle class via reality versus political rhetoric even the nyt times and wsj are admitting as much listen to the daily today (premiums for the working folks has gone through the roof in spite of political promises) our politicians couldn't build a solution to a problem if our lives depended on it the good news is that eventually the credit card will max out and we will hit bottom at that point we will have an opportunity to take the chains off build something that works breach the fortress as they say i have a dream - mlk Im not because it still involves too many middlemen - insurers and PBMs. But in truth, it needs a few more years to build scale...meaning, get everyone, including healthy folks who one day will be sick, in the pool and diversify the risk, reduce volatility and things should begin to stabilize.
|
|
miamizsun
Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP) Gender:
|
Posted:
Jul 28, 2017 - 5:24am |
|
good news and bad news the bad news is that the affordable care act is anything but (force and coercion = horrible economic distortions) just the latest iteration of political stupidity (this would include the gop's flavor too) it is crushing the stuffing right out of the middle class via reality versus political rhetoric even the nyt times and wsj are admitting as much listen to the daily today (premiums for the working folks has gone through the roof in spite of political promises) our politicians couldn't build a solution to a problem if our lives depended on it the good news is that eventually the credit card will max out and we will hit bottom at that point we will have an opportunity to take the chains off build something that works breach the fortress as they say i have a dream - mlk
|
|
|