Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Bob O
Is this you? Claim Profile »
4 weeks ago
in Every Man A Giant: Playing The Race Card on Every Man A Giant
Just wondering if you have any intention of updating this post now that it has been found that she made this same statement, or versions thereof, 9 different times between 1994 - 2003. She is definitely racist and is focused on gender politics. She's not the right choice for SCOTUS.
1 reply
2 months ago
in I'm mentally ill, and I still haven't shot anyone: Columbine 10 Years Later on kath.A.rine
You're siding with the terrorists on this one? You really are insane aren't ya. If the so-called Arab-Americans were really concerned - they would cooperate with authorities - but they aren't - so screw them all. They aren't Americans in my book then.
Those scumbags at Columbine got exactly what they needed...and it wasn't a damned hug.
Those scumbags at Columbine got exactly what they needed...and it wasn't a damned hug.
1 reply
Katharine
As always, I am more than willing to have a civil discussion with anyone who does or does not disagree or agree with me, but if you are disrespectful in your communication, I will disengage. So I'm disengaging. Have a good evening.
3 months ago
in The pope should be prosecuted on You Must be Kidding
Hello Francois. I'm a Catholic and am at odds with my church on this issue as it pertains to AIDS/HIV. As you know from previous discussions, I'm also a Public Health student at this time. While abstinence is really the only way to stop this spread - the fact is that it is not a viable solution. At the same time, simply distributing condoms is not a viable solution either. There should be some type of health education process that goes along with this distribution. I did not find that anywhere in your discussion if that is occurring. But - I will agree with the title of this post - he's out of touch with reality when it comes to this health issue.
1 reply
franv
Hi Bobo,
Well, what do you know, I never thought we would agree on any given issue.
I certainly agree that distribution of preservatives is not enough by a far cry but it certainly is a good start.
I don't know either whether education is part of the pope's agenda. I understand he states that we should have a "responsible and moral attitude towards sex" which I agree with of course, if accompanied by condoms.
Well, what do you know, I never thought we would agree on any given issue.
I certainly agree that distribution of preservatives is not enough by a far cry but it certainly is a good start.
I don't know either whether education is part of the pope's agenda. I understand he states that we should have a "responsible and moral attitude towards sex" which I agree with of course, if accompanied by condoms.
3 months ago
in What hippocratic oath? on You Must be Kidding
Hi Fran - actually - in my job - I am a patient advocate. Most large providers have patient advocates that work within the company to help ensure patients get the best of care.
Regarding lawyers - here in the U.S. - if you have a case - attorney's won't charge up front. They get their fees after you win. If you lose - they still don't charge anything.
I understand what you are talking about with regards to your American friend who had to argue with an insurance company regarding medical necessity. "Medical necessity" has been determined by our government and Medicare. If an insurance company denies a claim or service due to the service not being medically necessary - it's because the government has made that decision. Private insurance companies follow medicare guidelines. This is one of those areas where social medicine has already crept in to the system. Believe me, physicians AND insurance companies don't like it when the government tells them how to run their business.
You don't need thousands of dollars to seek treatment here in the U.S. - I live in Florida where we have a lot of Canadian vacationers and those who live here seasonally. Are you saying that every one of those people have 10's of thousands of dollars available to spend? My understanding is that most of them have purchased private health insurance for when they are here.
Regarding those who don't have money - we also have the Medicaid, Healthy Kids, and SCHIP programs in all of the states. Not only that - for those individuals who don't qualify for the above - we still have free public health clinics. These are forms of socialized health insurance (other than the public health clinics) - but - they have access to the same physicians as those with regular insurance. The medicaid program doesn't pay the physician much - but - they follow the same payor guidelines determined by Medicare as Medicaid is part of the Medicare program and both are run by CMS.
Most of the horror stories that you hear up there are over exaggerations of the truth. Sure, we do have SOME people who have gone in to debt because of their medical bills - but - these were people who did not have insurance. Also, in most cases, hospitals have indigent care available and write off a lot of those bills. People who are placed in collections over medical bills really don't need to sweat it since it doesn't hold much weight at all when reported to credit bureaus. Those people haven't learned where to find all the resources.
Additionally, all of the major pharmaceutical companies have set up programs for people to get many of their major meds for free if they absolutely need to have them and there is no way for them to pay them.
You aren't getting the full story of the way our system works and all the ways that the disadvantaged have for getting access to the care they need. There is a reason why many are in an uproar here about Universal Healthcare - and its not just the insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, rich people and physicians complaining about it. I am by no means rich or have several thousands of dollars laying around. But, I do know exactly how both the private and public sectors of health work and I know that socialized medicine is controlled by the government and is based on a system of rationing. I don't want to see my healthcare being rationed by the government.
I'm sure you heard in the news today that England has now decided they can't afford to pay for lifesaving cancer drugs. Many individuals stricken with cancer in England now will die because the government decided they can't afford it. I don't want to see that happening here.
Regarding lawyers - here in the U.S. - if you have a case - attorney's won't charge up front. They get their fees after you win. If you lose - they still don't charge anything.
I understand what you are talking about with regards to your American friend who had to argue with an insurance company regarding medical necessity. "Medical necessity" has been determined by our government and Medicare. If an insurance company denies a claim or service due to the service not being medically necessary - it's because the government has made that decision. Private insurance companies follow medicare guidelines. This is one of those areas where social medicine has already crept in to the system. Believe me, physicians AND insurance companies don't like it when the government tells them how to run their business.
You don't need thousands of dollars to seek treatment here in the U.S. - I live in Florida where we have a lot of Canadian vacationers and those who live here seasonally. Are you saying that every one of those people have 10's of thousands of dollars available to spend? My understanding is that most of them have purchased private health insurance for when they are here.
Regarding those who don't have money - we also have the Medicaid, Healthy Kids, and SCHIP programs in all of the states. Not only that - for those individuals who don't qualify for the above - we still have free public health clinics. These are forms of socialized health insurance (other than the public health clinics) - but - they have access to the same physicians as those with regular insurance. The medicaid program doesn't pay the physician much - but - they follow the same payor guidelines determined by Medicare as Medicaid is part of the Medicare program and both are run by CMS.
Most of the horror stories that you hear up there are over exaggerations of the truth. Sure, we do have SOME people who have gone in to debt because of their medical bills - but - these were people who did not have insurance. Also, in most cases, hospitals have indigent care available and write off a lot of those bills. People who are placed in collections over medical bills really don't need to sweat it since it doesn't hold much weight at all when reported to credit bureaus. Those people haven't learned where to find all the resources.
Additionally, all of the major pharmaceutical companies have set up programs for people to get many of their major meds for free if they absolutely need to have them and there is no way for them to pay them.
You aren't getting the full story of the way our system works and all the ways that the disadvantaged have for getting access to the care they need. There is a reason why many are in an uproar here about Universal Healthcare - and its not just the insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, rich people and physicians complaining about it. I am by no means rich or have several thousands of dollars laying around. But, I do know exactly how both the private and public sectors of health work and I know that socialized medicine is controlled by the government and is based on a system of rationing. I don't want to see my healthcare being rationed by the government.
I'm sure you heard in the news today that England has now decided they can't afford to pay for lifesaving cancer drugs. Many individuals stricken with cancer in England now will die because the government decided they can't afford it. I don't want to see that happening here.
1 reply
franv
Hi bobo,
First of all thanks for your comments, they are appreciated as they are well structured and they provide for interesting argumentation.
I must say you have me at a disadvantage since as previously stated I don't have personal experience of heath care in your country.
But..
You say you're a patient advocate. I presumed you are paid by the provider... Hardly a neutral approach to a given patient's problems, no?
As for lawyers, yes they will take a case without charging up front...if they think they have a chance of winning. And in most cases of this type, they are going against big machines that have almost unlimited means at their disposal.
I talked about my friends, I'm sure you've seen Sicko by Michael Moore. So you're saying that the case of the guy who could only have 1 or 2 cut fingers sown back instead of the 5 is a lie? Or the cases of those people that were taken to Cuba only to realize that medication they couldn't afford in the States were only a few cents in Cuba. Is that a fabrication as well?
But more generally for me one aspect is difficult to believe: private companies are there to make money, generate profits, not for the better wellbeing of the people. Yes insurance subscribers have paid for the services but the goal of the companies is to keep those patients paying a maximum to them and giving back the less possible (maximize profits and minimize costs.)
I may be naive, but in my eyes health care should be for the wellbeing of the people, not for the generation of profits. Yes this care has a cost, no way around that, but that cost should be managed by an organization that is not there to make money.
Socialized systems have their drawbacks, as the problem with the English one you're referring to. But from what I know of German, French, English and other health systems around the planet, I would prefer those to yours.
First of all thanks for your comments, they are appreciated as they are well structured and they provide for interesting argumentation.
I must say you have me at a disadvantage since as previously stated I don't have personal experience of heath care in your country.
But..
You say you're a patient advocate. I presumed you are paid by the provider... Hardly a neutral approach to a given patient's problems, no?
As for lawyers, yes they will take a case without charging up front...if they think they have a chance of winning. And in most cases of this type, they are going against big machines that have almost unlimited means at their disposal.
I talked about my friends, I'm sure you've seen Sicko by Michael Moore. So you're saying that the case of the guy who could only have 1 or 2 cut fingers sown back instead of the 5 is a lie? Or the cases of those people that were taken to Cuba only to realize that medication they couldn't afford in the States were only a few cents in Cuba. Is that a fabrication as well?
But more generally for me one aspect is difficult to believe: private companies are there to make money, generate profits, not for the better wellbeing of the people. Yes insurance subscribers have paid for the services but the goal of the companies is to keep those patients paying a maximum to them and giving back the less possible (maximize profits and minimize costs.)
I may be naive, but in my eyes health care should be for the wellbeing of the people, not for the generation of profits. Yes this care has a cost, no way around that, but that cost should be managed by an organization that is not there to make money.
Socialized systems have their drawbacks, as the problem with the English one you're referring to. But from what I know of German, French, English and other health systems around the planet, I would prefer those to yours.
3 months ago
in What hippocratic oath? on You Must be Kidding
I have some insider information for you - I've been on the private side of health care for 18 years here in the U.S. ranging from working for insurance companies, laboratory companies, consulting firms, and now in one of the largest primary care practices in my state. Here in the U.S. physicians are paid according to the level of service they provide that includes the amount of time spent, a complete review of all of your systems (heart, lungs, eyes, etc.), and medical decision making complexity. Before you even get to see the physician you are seen either by an nurse, nurse's assistant, or medical assistant that does all the triage (blood pressure, temperature, pulse, etc.). Insurance companies, employers, and the federal government conduct regular audits of the claims that are being submitted to ensure they are being paid at the appropriate level.
Regarding the pharmaceutical reps - the U.S. has laws now that specifically prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers and reps from providing any form of incentive to get the physicians to prescribe them. All prescriptions are tied to a physician's DEA number. If any of the pharmaceuticals are harmful to a patient - it can be tied back to the physician who prescribed them which increases a physician's liability. Physician's here are more incentivized to have a clear understanding of what is in the drugs, what they're intended to treat, and any contraindications.
Despite what liberals and Obama are saying here - the U.S. has the best and most sophisticated healthcare system in the world. Socialized medicine will severely harm our healthcare in this country. People come from all around the world seeking treatment because they can't get treated in their own countries. I hope that socialized medicine NEVER comes to this country. If it does - the rest of the world will be screwed as well.
Also - despite what you have heard - insurance companies do not dictate what treatments the patients receive. It may have been that way in the past - but - with the way litigation works in this country these days - the shift has been to let the physicians make the decisions and order the tests that are required. Insurance companies are at just as much risk now if there is an adverse event because of a poor decision on their part.
I find it very unfortunate that your wife had such a problem. That never would have happened if she was being treated in the U.S.
Regarding the pharmaceutical reps - the U.S. has laws now that specifically prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers and reps from providing any form of incentive to get the physicians to prescribe them. All prescriptions are tied to a physician's DEA number. If any of the pharmaceuticals are harmful to a patient - it can be tied back to the physician who prescribed them which increases a physician's liability. Physician's here are more incentivized to have a clear understanding of what is in the drugs, what they're intended to treat, and any contraindications.
Despite what liberals and Obama are saying here - the U.S. has the best and most sophisticated healthcare system in the world. Socialized medicine will severely harm our healthcare in this country. People come from all around the world seeking treatment because they can't get treated in their own countries. I hope that socialized medicine NEVER comes to this country. If it does - the rest of the world will be screwed as well.
Also - despite what you have heard - insurance companies do not dictate what treatments the patients receive. It may have been that way in the past - but - with the way litigation works in this country these days - the shift has been to let the physicians make the decisions and order the tests that are required. Insurance companies are at just as much risk now if there is an adverse event because of a poor decision on their part.
I find it very unfortunate that your wife had such a problem. That never would have happened if she was being treated in the U.S.
1 reply
franv
I believe what you say is true, if you have a lot of money.
When you say people come from all over the world to get treated in the States it's true, but those are for the most part rich people.
What happens to those who don't have ten of thousands to pay for proper health care?
As for insurance companies I can't speak from personal experience because I've never been treated in the States. But I do have friends who live there and have been treated. And I hear horror stories on how they had to bargain and yell at their insurance company because these companies wouldn't deemed those tests unnecessary. And yes there is a litigation process but again, for that you need money, lawyers are not free of charge.
And also, you comment on health care from the inside, as a worker, pardon me for saying so, but that's not from the point of view of the patient.
Coming back to my first point, if you have money you can always buy the best, including health care.
The problem is when you don't have that much. Which is the case of a good part of the polulation. What about them? Do they get the best?
When you say people come from all over the world to get treated in the States it's true, but those are for the most part rich people.
What happens to those who don't have ten of thousands to pay for proper health care?
As for insurance companies I can't speak from personal experience because I've never been treated in the States. But I do have friends who live there and have been treated. And I hear horror stories on how they had to bargain and yell at their insurance company because these companies wouldn't deemed those tests unnecessary. And yes there is a litigation process but again, for that you need money, lawyers are not free of charge.
And also, you comment on health care from the inside, as a worker, pardon me for saying so, but that's not from the point of view of the patient.
Coming back to my first point, if you have money you can always buy the best, including health care.
The problem is when you don't have that much. Which is the case of a good part of the polulation. What about them? Do they get the best?
6 months ago
in Women Who Have Abortions Suffer Long-Term Mental Health Issues: FALSE! on Menstrual Poetry
Skyewriter - actually, I purposely chose to stay away from those foreign studies and only included the American studies. Also, I was not implying that ALL abortions result in mental health issues including depression. The fact is that Holly's post is attempting to state there is NO mental health issues associated with abortion and the person she cites tries to state there are no available studies when indeed there have been hundreds of studies meaning plenty of available data. The fact is, there are mental health consequences and it would be foolish to say there aren't. The studies I cited did not use the word "may" except in the opening of the abstracts. The conclusions were there was a significant association that does show that some women will experience depression and other mental health issues post-abortion.
While I am personally opposed to abortion - I am at least reasonable enough to realize there are laws on the books that allow it and I personally am not going to attempt to convince someone otherwise. But, in the same token, I like to believe I am a proponent for providing a voice to the unborn - someone needs to be there for them.
Sure, it may be a woman's body and her right to choose - but - what about the child inside of her? Shouldn't there be somebody to advocate on behalf of that living child?
And...I'm surprised that you know I'm a Ph.D. candidate. I guess you've actually creeped through my blog in the past then! :)
To answer the question for Stacy - PAS still has not been proven as a valid condition yet. The details of PAS encompass a lot more than what has actually been documented as proven post-abortion conditions. PAS is a "catchall" right now and is still being studied. But, there are other proven conditions such as depression. Depression is but one condition in the PAS catchall.
While I am personally opposed to abortion - I am at least reasonable enough to realize there are laws on the books that allow it and I personally am not going to attempt to convince someone otherwise. But, in the same token, I like to believe I am a proponent for providing a voice to the unborn - someone needs to be there for them.
Sure, it may be a woman's body and her right to choose - but - what about the child inside of her? Shouldn't there be somebody to advocate on behalf of that living child?
And...I'm surprised that you know I'm a Ph.D. candidate. I guess you've actually creeped through my blog in the past then! :)
To answer the question for Stacy - PAS still has not been proven as a valid condition yet. The details of PAS encompass a lot more than what has actually been documented as proven post-abortion conditions. PAS is a "catchall" right now and is still being studied. But, there are other proven conditions such as depression. Depression is but one condition in the PAS catchall.
1 reply
skyewriter
Emily, I am so sorry for your ordeal and hope that things will get better soon. Are there groups you can contact for support close to home? I know Ireland has strict laws about abortion and the groups might be underground. I hope you don't feel so alone; I'm glad you posted here.
The Bobo: thank you for being one of the MOST civilized pro-lifers I have ever come across. And, that's saying a lot b/c I have come across a lot of them. I was referring to myself as the Ph.D. candidate, but it's a funny coincidence that you are also (good luck to you if you are on the job market, too). Academics are so polite in unknown company, huh? Nice to have crossed paths (and I will check out your blog and try to be civil when I disagree with you :)
The Bobo: thank you for being one of the MOST civilized pro-lifers I have ever come across. And, that's saying a lot b/c I have come across a lot of them. I was referring to myself as the Ph.D. candidate, but it's a funny coincidence that you are also (good luck to you if you are on the job market, too). Academics are so polite in unknown company, huh? Nice to have crossed paths (and I will check out your blog and try to be civil when I disagree with you :)
point each time. I have a better idea. Every time you use the 2001 "wise
Latina woman" quote also mention this quote from a speech given by Sotomayor
in the same year: "It is very important when you judge to recognize that you
have to be impartial. I have to unhook myself from my emotional responses
and try to stay within my unemotional objective persona. that process can be
weight at times." Oh, and you might try focusing on her actual opinions and
decisions rather than a single quote from a speech.