Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Jodith
Is this you? Claim Profile »
5 months ago
in Introducing ‘Sketch War’ on Chuck Westbrook's Blog
Sorry, Chuck, I tried to follow this one, but the most recent entry is just too much. It's insulting the disabled and fat people. I was enjoying it up to this point, but I had to unsubscribe after that post.
1 reply
Chuck
I'm sorry about that, Jodith. I hope you'll rejoin us next Monday with the new blog.
9 months ago
in Doctor, Doctor, Gimme The News on OMYWORD! Did I Say That?
I'm like you, I cough all the time, mostly due to allergies. But it drives my husband crazy. He always wants me to go to the doctor for every cough.
1 reply
Omyword!
I'm glad to hear I'm not alone. And I'm sure it's not fun to be around coughing all the time. It would be great to find a solution, but I haven't found one yet.
1 year ago
in Democrats versus Republicans on Musings è¿é
By saying we need to get rid of insurance companies, I'm saying we need a single payer system.
And again, you're going off with the "get them a job so they'll have health care" and that doesn't solve the problem. People can be employed and not have health care and not be able to afford it no matter how cheap it is.
If you are employed making a poverty level wage, you are barely going to be able to put a roof over your head and food on the table. That's why they call it poverty. Where are you going to get the extra money to pay for even cheap healthcare? How are you going to get vaccinations for your kids or yearly checkups or antibiotics for infections? Are you going to choose to not pay your rent and become homeless? Are you not going to eat this week? Which one of your kids do you starve so the rest can have health care?
It may seem like I'm being melodramatic, but I'm truly not. These are the kinds of decisions that face the working poor every day in America. If you don't make enough money to just live on, things like health care become optional until your too sick to be able to get by with an inexpensive office visit.
The death rate from treatable cancers is much higher for those living in poverty (note that I did not say unemployed) than for any one else. It's because these people can't afford to go to a doctor until it's too late. They are just barely ekeing out a survival. And there's millions of them out there. The working poor. They get up every day and work their asses off, often at multiple jobs, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. It's not about getting them jobs. They have jobs. It's about providing them something that their jobs won't provide for them.
And again, you're going off with the "get them a job so they'll have health care" and that doesn't solve the problem. People can be employed and not have health care and not be able to afford it no matter how cheap it is.
If you are employed making a poverty level wage, you are barely going to be able to put a roof over your head and food on the table. That's why they call it poverty. Where are you going to get the extra money to pay for even cheap healthcare? How are you going to get vaccinations for your kids or yearly checkups or antibiotics for infections? Are you going to choose to not pay your rent and become homeless? Are you not going to eat this week? Which one of your kids do you starve so the rest can have health care?
It may seem like I'm being melodramatic, but I'm truly not. These are the kinds of decisions that face the working poor every day in America. If you don't make enough money to just live on, things like health care become optional until your too sick to be able to get by with an inexpensive office visit.
The death rate from treatable cancers is much higher for those living in poverty (note that I did not say unemployed) than for any one else. It's because these people can't afford to go to a doctor until it's too late. They are just barely ekeing out a survival. And there's millions of them out there. The working poor. They get up every day and work their asses off, often at multiple jobs, just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. It's not about getting them jobs. They have jobs. It's about providing them something that their jobs won't provide for them.
1 reply
eyespi20
"People can be employed and not have health care and not be able to afford it no matter how cheap it is."
And why are you assuming that "Mandatory Health Insurance" is going to be free? Or not have co-payments? Or not have spending limits? But if it's MANDATORY, they'll go to jail if they choose to feed their family over paying the premiums. Like that's going to help?
I'm calling for lower HEALTH COSTS OVERALL. Putting the burden of health care expense where it's controlled -- at the doctor/hospital/drug company level. Not adding bureaucratic costs to take away what money is available to go towards this end which is what I believe will be a by-product of this scheme.
"Where are you going to get the extra money to pay for even cheap healthcare? How are you going to get vaccinations for your kids or yearly checkups or antibiotics for infections? Are you going to choose to not pay your rent and become homeless? Are you not going to eat this week? Which one of your kids do you starve so the rest can have health care?"
There are already programs in place to help the poor get vaccinations for their children. Again, why do you assume this mandatory health insurance plan is going to be affordable for people at this level? Why do you assume there will be no costs associated with it? Why do you assume it's going to be a cure-all for the situation these families currently find themselves in?
"It may seem like I'm being melodramatic, but I'm truly not. These are the kinds of decisions that face the working poor every day in America. If you don't make enough money to just live on, things like health care become optional until your too sick to be able to get by with an inexpensive office visit."
No, I don't think you're being melodramatic -- you're passionate about helping the poor and there's nothing to be ashamed of in that. I'm truly not trying to "cut the poor out" of getting help where they need it. I'm trying to get people to think out of the box -- to go to the root of where costs can be controlled and where help -- lasting help -- can be provided to those in need. We are not on opposite sides of this fence -- we are just at opposite ends of a solution.
And why are you assuming that "Mandatory Health Insurance" is going to be free? Or not have co-payments? Or not have spending limits? But if it's MANDATORY, they'll go to jail if they choose to feed their family over paying the premiums. Like that's going to help?
I'm calling for lower HEALTH COSTS OVERALL. Putting the burden of health care expense where it's controlled -- at the doctor/hospital/drug company level. Not adding bureaucratic costs to take away what money is available to go towards this end which is what I believe will be a by-product of this scheme.
"Where are you going to get the extra money to pay for even cheap healthcare? How are you going to get vaccinations for your kids or yearly checkups or antibiotics for infections? Are you going to choose to not pay your rent and become homeless? Are you not going to eat this week? Which one of your kids do you starve so the rest can have health care?"
There are already programs in place to help the poor get vaccinations for their children. Again, why do you assume this mandatory health insurance plan is going to be affordable for people at this level? Why do you assume there will be no costs associated with it? Why do you assume it's going to be a cure-all for the situation these families currently find themselves in?
"It may seem like I'm being melodramatic, but I'm truly not. These are the kinds of decisions that face the working poor every day in America. If you don't make enough money to just live on, things like health care become optional until your too sick to be able to get by with an inexpensive office visit."
No, I don't think you're being melodramatic -- you're passionate about helping the poor and there's nothing to be ashamed of in that. I'm truly not trying to "cut the poor out" of getting help where they need it. I'm trying to get people to think out of the box -- to go to the root of where costs can be controlled and where help -- lasting help -- can be provided to those in need. We are not on opposite sides of this fence -- we are just at opposite ends of a solution.
1 year ago
in Democrats versus Republicans on Musings è¿é
If people can't afford health insurance, how do you expect them to be able to afford to pay directly for health care, even if you can bring the costs down? If a child needs an appendectomy, how would a parent making minimum wage afford to pay for surgery and hospitialization? How does someone who is chronically ill pay for multiple medications, even cheap ones, when they are on disability?
And what you said was, "GIVE THESE PEOPLE JOBS SO THEY CAN GET THEIR OWN INSURANCE for crying out loud." I pointed out that many of these people already have jobs. Jobs aren't the point. The problem is that their jobs don't come with insurance and they can't afford private insurance. If you're on welfare, no problem becauase you probably qualify for medicaid. It's the working poor that need the help so desperately, and that is who universal health care is aimed at.
One thing we can do immediately to help bring down health care costs is to eliminate insurance companies. It takes so many people to manage insurance billing. That's a huge cost for medical care right there. And, of course, the majority of those insurance companies are for-profit, so we're also paying the cost of the money right into their stock holders pockets. Not to mention the stockholders of all of those for-profit hospitals and clinics out there...and there's a lot more of them than you would think.
Take the bureaucracy out of health care, which is mostly caused by the insurance companies, put everything under one payer so all rules are the same, and you take a big chunk out of the cost of health care.
And what you said was, "GIVE THESE PEOPLE JOBS SO THEY CAN GET THEIR OWN INSURANCE for crying out loud." I pointed out that many of these people already have jobs. Jobs aren't the point. The problem is that their jobs don't come with insurance and they can't afford private insurance. If you're on welfare, no problem becauase you probably qualify for medicaid. It's the working poor that need the help so desperately, and that is who universal health care is aimed at.
One thing we can do immediately to help bring down health care costs is to eliminate insurance companies. It takes so many people to manage insurance billing. That's a huge cost for medical care right there. And, of course, the majority of those insurance companies are for-profit, so we're also paying the cost of the money right into their stock holders pockets. Not to mention the stockholders of all of those for-profit hospitals and clinics out there...and there's a lot more of them than you would think.
Take the bureaucracy out of health care, which is mostly caused by the insurance companies, put everything under one payer so all rules are the same, and you take a big chunk out of the cost of health care.
1 reply
eyespi20
You say: "One thing we can do immediately to help bring down health care costs is to eliminate insurance companies"
I think that's what I'm saying -- no insurance. Insurance is a bottomless pit of red tape, a minefield of inefficiency and a potential death trap for some who's coverage is not adequate enough for their needs.
Start by controlling health care costs, provide low cost health care for the indigent, poor and chronically ill (working or not) and help those who are unemployed become employable.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I want the battle cry to be "affordable health care" not "mandatory health insurance"
M
I think that's what I'm saying -- no insurance. Insurance is a bottomless pit of red tape, a minefield of inefficiency and a potential death trap for some who's coverage is not adequate enough for their needs.
Start by controlling health care costs, provide low cost health care for the indigent, poor and chronically ill (working or not) and help those who are unemployed become employable.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I want the battle cry to be "affordable health care" not "mandatory health insurance"
M
1 year ago
in Democrats versus Republicans on Musings è¿é
Do you have any concept of how many employers do not offer health insurance? You've always had health insurance...well bully for you. There are hundreds of thousands of people (at least) that work who do not receive health insurance through their jobs, and for the most part, they don't make enough money to be able to buy private health insurance. And, of course, if they have health problems to start with or have a child with health problems, they often can't get anything but catastrophic coverage, and that at and extremely high price.
I would go into business for myself, except that I can't afford the health insurance. I have chronic health issues, so no private insurer will cover me. I'm forced to work at jobs I hate in order to maintain my health insurance. And I'm lucky enough to have skills that can demand a job that provides health insurance. Think about all the janitors and food service workers and others like them who make minimum wage and don't get health insurance through their jobs. It's not that they don't work. Hell, I'm willing to be they work harder than either of us do. Do they not deserve to have health insurance?
I would go into business for myself, except that I can't afford the health insurance. I have chronic health issues, so no private insurer will cover me. I'm forced to work at jobs I hate in order to maintain my health insurance. And I'm lucky enough to have skills that can demand a job that provides health insurance. Think about all the janitors and food service workers and others like them who make minimum wage and don't get health insurance through their jobs. It's not that they don't work. Hell, I'm willing to be they work harder than either of us do. Do they not deserve to have health insurance?
1 reply
eyespi20
Of course they deserve to have health insurance -- I don't think I ever said they didn't -- but wouldn't it be better if they were able to just afford to GO to the doctor or hospital and not have to deal with an insurance company?
Getting health care COSTS under control is something I think would be far more beneficial to poor and underprivileged and chronically ill people.
Insurance (to me) means bureaucratic red tape, limits in care you can receive and then that word MANDATORY just raises my hackles -- sorry.
M
Getting health care COSTS under control is something I think would be far more beneficial to poor and underprivileged and chronically ill people.
Insurance (to me) means bureaucratic red tape, limits in care you can receive and then that word MANDATORY just raises my hackles -- sorry.
M
1 year ago
in Who should be in-charge of the money Husband or wife? on clickdtalk
Pffft...and what business does a man have with his wife's/girlfriend's money?
My opinion is that whoever handles money the best should be the one who handles the money. If it's her, then she should. If it's him, then he should.
My dad couldn't handle money to save his life, so my mom took care of all the finances. I, however, take after my father, so my husband is the one who handles the bills and the money. *looks askance at Dave* And just for your information...*I'm* the one who brings home the bacon. The husband stays home and takes care of things. We both do what we do best for our home and relationship and this works best for us.
My opinion is that whoever handles money the best should be the one who handles the money. If it's her, then she should. If it's him, then he should.
My dad couldn't handle money to save his life, so my mom took care of all the finances. I, however, take after my father, so my husband is the one who handles the bills and the money. *looks askance at Dave* And just for your information...*I'm* the one who brings home the bacon. The husband stays home and takes care of things. We both do what we do best for our home and relationship and this works best for us.
1 reply
dave
I don't recall anywhere in my comment that the wife or girlfriend has to hand over her money to the husband. Read properly before getting your back up and accusing, Re-read my comment, It states that a man is responsible for the bills in the household. I also commented that the woman should help financially. If the woman is working then obviously she will be responsible for paying the bills.
1 year ago
in On The Wards » Blog Archive » Image of A True Airhead (Pneumocephalus) on On The Wards
I have to admit, pneumocephalus is something I have never even thought about existing before. Hydrocephalous and of course bleeds in the brain. But air just kind of blows my mind.
1 reply
free online games
The benefits of early identification of diabetes and treating to reduce its cardiovascular consequences outweigh the minimal risks of screening-related anxiety
