Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Health care reform rally set for downtown Lawrence

January 26, 2010

Advertisement

The Kaw Valley MoveOn Council will be rallying for “real change” when it comes to health care reform.

The event will be at noon today - Jan. 26 - at Ninth and Massachusetts.

"We're here today to tell Democrats in Washington that it is time to deliver the bold change they promised," said Melody Henning, an organizer. "If they decide to back off of real health care reform now, they will have learned the absolutely wrong message from the defeat in Massachusetts. Democrats need to stand up for American families rather than caving to big insurance, Wall Street and other corporate interests."

The Kaw Valley Council is part of MoveOn.org, a grassroots national organization.

Comments

BigPrune 4 years, 11 months ago

Big Insurance will be getting even bigger and richer with the Democrats' plan. I'm sure George Soros won't be getting richer either (he's a billionaire financier WEIRDO who backs moveon).

Mixolydian 4 years, 11 months ago

"The Kaw Valley MoveOn Council"

I know better than to keep reading after the article started with that line.

But...I read on anyway to discover that they think the real reason Scott Brown won was because the voters in Massachusetts wanted the health insurance bills currently in the House or Senate......and the best way to get one of those bills was to vote for the guy who opposed them?

Right.

That's the message.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

Big government just sat back a watched the cost of insurance increase by 20%-25% ..... this is the republican plan aka change nothing. Meanwhile big government throws $1.2 trillion tax dollars to the industry.

CIGNA medical insurance CEO Edward Hanway knows and likes the Wall Street banker feel to the tune of a $73 million retirement bonus quite recently. Talk about handouts and those were $73 million health care dollars. Insurance premiums are paying back "like a busted slot machine".

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

This year medical insurance increased by 20%-25%.........

Did your paycheck increase 25%?

The medical insurance industry loves big government in a big $1.2 trillion dollar gravy train way.... talk about aristrocratic socialism......

The U.S. health care system is typically characterized as a largely private-sector system, so it may come as a surprise that more than 60% of the $2 trillion annual U.S. health care bill is paid through taxes, according to a 2002 analysis published in Health Affairs by Harvard Medical School associate professors Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein.

Tax dollars pay for Medicare and Medicaid, for the Veterans Administration and the Indian Health Service. Tax dollars pay for health coverage for federal, state, and municipal government employees and their families, as well as for many employees of private companies working on government contracts.

Less visible but no less important, the tax deduction for employer-paid health insurance, along with other health care-related tax deductions, also represents a form of government spending on health care.

It makes little difference whether the government gives taxpayers (or their employers) a deduction for their health care spending, on the one hand, or collects their taxes then pays for their health care, either directly or via a voucher, on the other.

Moreover, tax dollars also pay for critical elements of the health care system apart from direct care—Medicare funds much of the expensive equipment hospitals use, for instance, along with all medical residencies.

All told, then, tax dollars already pay for at least $1.2 trillion in annual U.S. health care expenses. Since federal, state, and local governments collected approximately $3.5 trillion in taxes of all kinds—income, sales, property, corporate—in 2006, that means that more than one third of the aggregate tax revenues collected in the United States that year went to pay for health care.

Recognizing these hidden costs that U.S. households pay for health care today makes it far easier to see how a universal single-payer system—with all of its obvious advantages—can cost most Americans less than the one we have today.

Medicare must exist in the fragmented world that is American health care—but no matter how creative the opponents of single-payer get, there is no way they can show convincingly how the administrative costs of a single-payer system could come close to the current level.

More on this matter: http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0508harrison.html

emptymind 4 years, 11 months ago

Insurance is for the rich who can afford to 'get a job with health insurance' Bankers and Insurance companies cripple the avg joe

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

How many ways does big corporate medical insurance find to pay for those very large retirement packages?

They come back to their clients again and again and again.

Here's how:

Health insurers have forced consumers to pay billions of dollars in medical bills that the insurers themselves should have paid, according to a report released yesterday by the staff of the Senate Commerce Committee. This Story

The report was part of a multi-pronged assault on the credibility of private insurers by Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.). It came at a time when Rockefeller, President Obama and others are seeking to offer a public alternative to private health plans as part of broad health-care reform legislation. Health insurers are doing everything they can to block the public option.

At a committee hearing yesterday, three health-care specialists testified that insurers go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for sick people, use deliberately incomprehensible documents to mislead consumers about their benefits, and sell "junk" policies that do not cover needed care. Rockefeller said he was exploring "why consumers get such a raw deal from their insurance companies."

The star witness at the hearing was a former public relations executive for major health insurers whose testimony boiled down to this: Don't trust the insurers.

"The industry and its backers are using fear tactics, as they did in 1994, to tar a transparent and accountable -- publicly accountable -- health-care option," said Wendell Potter, who until early last year was vice president for corporate communications at the big insurer Cigna.

Potter said he worries "that the industry's charm offensive, which is the most visible part of duplicitous and well-financed PR and lobbying campaigns, may well shape reform in a way that benefits Wall Street far more than average Americans."

Insurers make paperwork confusing because "they realize that people will just simply give up and not pursue it" if they think they have been shortchanged, Potter said.

More on this story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062401636.html

parrothead8 4 years, 11 months ago

justanothertroll (Anonymous) says… here's a novel idea, why don't you folks get jobs than you will have health insurance

I've got another novel idea: how about you get a clue and realize that every job doesn't come with health insurance, and that even people with jobs can't necessarily afford private health insurance?

homechanger 4 years, 11 months ago

I'm able to insure my family of 5 for 450.00 per month. bluecross great plan and i'm self employed. Sure we may have to budget for that and plan ahead a little but who wants the feds running your health care. the feds have screwed up about every program the feds have administered..

homechanger 4 years, 11 months ago

Also I can't wait to see the great unwashed protesting for free health care in the middle of the work day. That pretty much sums it up.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 11 months ago

Make sure you have the correct props and talking points before you show up.

jafs 4 years, 11 months ago

homechanger,

That sounds like a good plan - do you have preventive care and medication with it? Are the deductibles high/low?

What would it be for one person without kids?

phenommenom 4 years, 11 months ago

@ justanothertroll "here's a novel idea, why don't you folks get jobs than you will have health insurance and you won't have to keep asking for handouts. One piece of free advice, haircuts, showers, and clean clothes go a long way toward getting that job"

@homechanger "Also I can't wait to see the great unwashed protesting for free health care in the middle of the work day. That pretty much sums it up"

Sorry your so ignorant! Do you know how hard it is to get a job these days, even with a degree???? Really tho? It sucks that I was laid off....Rist can't even get a job to be a waver for Liberty; and even if I were to get that job do you really think that they will provide insurance???? Even when I did have insurance I still supported Healthcare Reform. Everybody deserves to have afforadable healthcare not just the white and wealthy! Dang small minded people and their stereotypes.....go and watch some more Glenn Beck! YUCK

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

Many of those who are tired of being robbed by the industry and will be standing on the street corners raising hell about the extreme cost of insurance do have insurance. Of course some are under insured like the greater majority of those in america who pay for some insurance = bake sale and/or bankruptcy candidates.

There is no such thing as free health care. BTW people wanting THEIR tax dollars to pay for THEIR medical coverage how in the world is that a handout? That's more like bringing THEIR tax dollars back home.

How much is anyone paying in deductibles? in addition to premiums? How much in co-pays? If one has a $3,000/$5,000/$8,000 deductible does anyone spend that much in a year? Why then do you pay for insurance? You are likely under insured.

Does your policy pay for unlimited cancer treatment cancer? or will you be cut off? $450 a month sounds like one of the under insured policies. Better read the policy very carefully otherwise a bake sale,selling your assets and/or bankruptcy may well be in your future.

The greater majority who file bankruptcy due to medical bills are the insured aka under insured.

Liberty275 4 years, 11 months ago

"Everybody deserves to have afforadable healthcare not just the white and wealthy!"

I think everyone deserves a race car and a bass boat. Maybe I should go out and protest the government for not giving me one of each.

homechanger 4 years, 11 months ago

Jafs we chose the affordablue plan. look it up on their website. we have been happy with bluecross in the past.

phenommenom 4 years, 11 months ago

So homechanger you hiring? Do you provide insurance for you employees?

jafs 4 years, 11 months ago

liberty,

It is simply silly to equate basic health care (a necessity) with luxuries like race cars and boats.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

"Jafs we chose the affordablue plan. look it up on their website. we have been happy with bluecross in the past. "

Does your policy pay for unlimited cancer treatment cancer? or will you be cut off? $450 a month sounds like one of the under insured policies. Better read the policy very carefully otherwise a bake sale,selling your assets and/or bankruptcy may well be in your future.

The greater majority who file bankruptcy due to medical bills are the insured aka under insured.

Does coverage provide the following 24/7 365 days year no matter what? no matter the cost?

  • long term care such that cancer would require

  • prescription drugs

  • hospital

  • surgical

  • outpatient services

  • primary and preventive care

  • emergency services

  • dental

  • mental health

  • home health

  • physical therapy

  • rehabilitation (including for substance abuse)

  • vision care

  • hearing services including hearing aids

  • chiropractic

  • durable medical equipment

  • palliative care

IF not how is that affordable?

phenommenom 4 years, 11 months ago

Liberty....now to protest the government because you want a race car and a boat is just dumb! Those are material things for pleasure, heatlh insurance is a necessity for a healthy life.

Liberty275 4 years, 11 months ago

"it is simply silly to equate basic health care (a necessity) with luxuries like race cars and boats."

A: I already have better than basic health insurance (and dental and vision) through work, so I'd rather have the goverment buy me a vette and a ranger. A protestin' I'm a goin!

B: How did modern humans live for 200,000 years without government-provided heathcare if it's a necessity?

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

It is the doctor,nurse,clinic or hospital that provide health care NOT the high profit medical insurance giants.

Why pay an insurance company for a service they don't provide? So they can provide for their CEO's,upper level management,bribe legislators and pay out dividends to shareholders?

Liberty275 4 years, 11 months ago

"Those are material things for pleasure, heatlh insurance is a necessity for a healthy life. "

Nobody, not even the government, owes you a healthy life. If that were the case, abortion would be illegal.

The people I work for and that provide me with almost a caddilac insurance plan don't owe me a healthy life. All they owe me is the insurance I work for.

Richard Payton 4 years, 11 months ago

Need insurance then support the government plan or big insurance plan? Both plans lack help for average Joe's. MoveON.org to Mexico or Canada then see if health care is any better.

Liberty275 4 years, 11 months ago

I'd also like to add that moveon is a CORPORATION. Which liberals among you shall sell out and rise up with an evil corporation and march on their behalf?

emptymind 4 years, 11 months ago

Liberty....humans didnt have the life expectancy 200,000 years ago we do today...get a grip Healthcare should be available to all humans...regardless When you wake up in the gutter and look up will you see a smile and a helping hand? or a boot gettin ready to kick you in your a** Its your choice

jafs 4 years, 11 months ago

liberty,

I didn't say "government heatlh care" I said "health care".

If you have a cadillac insurance plan funded by your employer, you are lucky. Many others aren't - unemployment is very high, and employers are cutting back on benefits.

Modern (?) humans have seen greatly improved life spans and quality of life as modern health care has improved. Before that, we lived shorter and sicker lives.

skinny 4 years, 11 months ago

Here is another idea, go to school, then get a job with benefits!!

You are not going to get free health care. You are going to pay for it like everyone else!!

Come on, get real!

Grundoon Luna 4 years, 11 months ago

parrothead8 (Anonymous) says…

justanothertroll (Anonymous) says… here's a novel idea, why don't you folks get jobs than you will have health insurance

I've got another novel idea: how about you get a clue and realize that every job doesn't come with health insurance, and that even people with jobs can't necessarily afford private health insurance?

Here's another novel idea: Employers offer heath insurance but it costs $700 a month for family coverage. Out of pocket expenses and copays on top of that mean big time unaffordability.

I'm thankful that I have a job where I can get coverage cheaper but even it's becoming unaffordable after the outrageous increases in copays and reduced coverage. I have to pull $3000 out of my behind due to increased premiums and previously covered medical expenses this year. I doubt I'm going to make that back-up in a $3000 raise this year. Keep drinkin' the Glenn Beck kool-aid you morons! I'll be at the rally on my lunch break! I already have a sign from when I was doing my one-woman protest from South Park to City Hall back in the Fall!

Liberty275 4 years, 11 months ago

"Liberty….humans didnt have the life expectancy 200,000 years ago we do today…get a grip"

You don't have a right to a "life expectancy". If you want one, you have to buy it, just like you have to buy race cars and bass boats. That's the grip.

If you and your corporate buddies want to go out and bang pans trying to get another handout, that's cool with me. obama already had his hand slapped for reaching too far into the cookie jar known as American's wallet, so he's going to ignore you anyway.

overthemoon 4 years, 11 months ago

The arguments against healthcare reform are all based on misinformation and distortion.

  1. For the majority of Americans, insurance reform will not be a 'handout'. It will provide them with assurance that their policies can not be cancelled nor the cost increase without cause at the whim of the insurance company stockholders.

  2. We are all paying for the care of the uninsured now. The cost of your insurance, whether basic or cadillac, reflects the cost of care provided to those who can not pay. Health care reform would get those costs out of your policy.

  3. For those who can not afford BASIC care, there will be subsidies. Again. you are paying for this care now, but at the 80% on the dollar rate insurance companies actually spend on health care.

  4. No one is suggesting that the government pay for health care for all. It is not a handout policy. It a regulation of the industry to reduce the percentage of health care costs in our economy.

  5. For those who can afford health insurance beyond basic coverage, more power to ya. What is intended with the reform is to get all Americans AFFORDABLE access to basic care, not free health care, not socialized health care, not extravagant health care.

Health Care Reform is a fundamental effort to fullfill our constitutional agreement to provide for the common good. It is what we do together to make America what we claim it is....a country of fairness and equal opportunity.

This is not about race boats, fancy houses or any of those inane arguments which speak to the selfishness and blindness of those who suggest there is any correlation between providing health care and consumerist greed.

Grundoon Luna 4 years, 11 months ago

Insurance was designed to protect "assets" should an unprobable even causes loss. When health insurance was initiated earlier in the 20th century as a perk employers could offer to attract and retain employees it was a mistake as it is probable that people will get sick. Since recent history now dictates that you can't get in to see a doctor because you have no insurance and are left only with the ER it effectively denies health care to those without insurance which is beyond wrong and a travesty of society. As we are in the age of employers reducing insurance coverage or eliminating it entirely individual responsibility or lack thereof doesn't even come in to play - and the narrow-minded schmucks crowing those without insurance have none because they are irresponsible don't know what they are taling about. You may very well have you own unpleasant comeupance and you would deserve such.

Any country that offers some form of universal coverage has better health care that we do in our country. Go find some Canadians, Britishers and Francs, among others who have experience in these types of systems and they will tell you. And I mean really talk to them, as I have, and not some hearsay BS your second cousin heard from a friend of a friend. You want to listen to the talking heads on Faux news, then stay uninformed.

BTW - No one is asking for free health care. We all know that it will have to be paid for and I would be happy to tell my insurer to pound sand. After my ex-husband abandoned us, my son and I were on Medicaid for a breif period and it sure as hell was better than the insurance coverage I have now that I pay through the nose for. If I have to give the gov't some money in return I'm fine with that.

Grundoon Luna 4 years, 11 months ago

Moocher: You must be suffering from rectal asphyxia. Either that or you can't read. You drove by an even that won't start for another 2 hours.

Jimo 4 years, 11 months ago

"How did modern humans live for 200,000 years without government-provided heathcare if it's a necessity?"

The didn't. They died, you moron.

zettapixel 4 years, 11 months ago

Healthcare_Moocher: Yes, the moochers would still bitch.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 11 months ago

I'm with Liberty275-- Gawd intended that the life of man be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, and we should all be equally spiteful of all our fellow travelers. It's a natural law, and it should apply especially to all you do-gooder socialists.

Have a miserable life, all of you. Gawd wants it that way.

gl0ck0wn3r 4 years, 11 months ago

"merrill (Anonymous) says…Many blah blah blah copypasta"

Richard, do you offer your employees health insurance?

alm77 4 years, 11 months ago

Most ironic statement of 2010 yet "Sorry your so ignorant!"
Oh, gee....

Flap Doodle 4 years, 11 months ago

If only somebody had copy/pasted enough posts about HR 676, we'd all have free candy & free unicorns & free health care.

vega 4 years, 11 months ago

barrypenders :"Health insurance was started because people wanted to gamble that they wouldn't have to pay for a doctor."

LOL, people PAY to insurance comps over time so that when they get sick insurance covers the expenses. This is the idea. But now it works like this: people are denied coverage or cannot afford high cost of payments, or insurance refuses to cover on the basis of preexisting conditions or whatever althoug insur. comp collected the money over years etc. The money insurance companies have is the money collected from the insured. Nobody is saying that heath care is free.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

It is the doctor,nurse,clinic or hospital that provide health care NOT the high profit medical insurance giants.

Why pay an insurance company for a service they don't provide? So they can provide for their CEO's,upper level management,bribe legislators and pay out dividends to shareholders?

Could it be that those who blindly support the industry are among the profiteers who would not want anyone to know?

The profiteers such as insurance executives,other insurance employees and shareholders? These do make up some of the tea baggers. Employees are encouraged to be tea baggers.

I for one do not believe employers should be forced to pay for medical insurance. There are trillions in taxes collected every year..... OUR MONEY. Let the tax dollars pay!

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

If one is paying large deductibles and co-pays PLUS premiums why purchase insurance?

Take for example $450 per month plus a $5000 deductible = $10,400 plus prescriptions and co-pays.

Why not put that $450 per month in an interest bearing investment = an annual $5400 investment to begin covering yourself? Now that is making money for oneself instead of shareholders and CEO's.

This way all of the money would go to the health care provider instead of shareholders,commissions,special interest campaigns and executives.

If a high profit insurance giant can force one to pay out $450 a month or more why can't one force oneself to pay out that monthly donation? to benefit oneself?

monkeyhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Why did it go from health care to health care insurance? Is that like global warming to climate change?

"Was the health care strategy written in prison?"

"Creamer resigned from Citizen Action/Illinois after the FBI began investigating him for bank fraud and tax evasion at Illinois Public Action. He was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to five months in federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, plus eleven months of house arrest.

While in prison—or “forced sabbatical,” he called it—Creamer wrote a lengthy political manual, Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win (Seven Locks Press, 2007).

The book was endorsed by leading Democrats and their allies, including SEIU boss Andy Stern—the most frequent visitor thus far to the Obama White House—and chief Obama strategist David Axelrod, who noted that Creamer’s tome “provides a blueprint for future victories.

n the book, Creamer draws lessons from decades of experience on the radical left, including the teachings of arch-radical Saul Alinsky, and several episodes from Rep. Schakowsky’s political career. He also lays out a “Progressive Agenda for Structural Change,” which includes a ten-point plan for foisting universal health care on the American people in 2009:

* “We must create a national consensus that health care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that right.”
* “We must create a national consensus that the health care system is in crisis.”
* “Our messaging program over the next two years should focus heavily on reducing the credibility of the health insurance industry and focusing on the failure of private health insurance.”
* “We need to systematically forge relationships with large sectors of the business/employer community.”
* “We need to convince political leaders that they owe their elections, at least in part, to the groundswell of support of [sic] universal health care, and that they face political peril if they fail to deliver on universal health care in 2009.”
* “We need not agree in advance on the components of a plan, but we must foster a process that can ultimately yield consensus.”
* “Over the next two years, we must design and organize a massive national field program.”
* “We must focus especially on the mobilization of the labor movement and the faith community.”
* “We must systematically leverage the connections and resources of a massive array of institutions and organizations of all types.”
* “To be successful, we must put in place commitments for hundreds of millions of dollars to be used to finance paid communications and mobilization once the battle is joined.”

Creamer adds: “To win we must not just generate understanding, but emotion—fear, revulsion, anger, disgust.” http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/07/was-democrats-health-care-strategy-written-in-federal-prison/#more-42174

Liberty275 4 years, 11 months ago

"The didn't. They died, you moron."

Everything dies. OTOH, the species, homo sapiens, continues to live despite 200,000 years of the government not providing heath care or life expectancy. Therefore, health care provided by the government is not a necessity, It isn't a right ensured by the constitution either.

"I'm with Liberty275— Gawd intended"

You can't be with me. God doesn't exist.

"that the life of man be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, "

Now that's not too bad a statement. I think life should be all the things you list unless the owner of the life in question makes it into something else. If it's raining outside, you'll find somewhere dry. If being poor is a horrendous life, you'll find a way of not being poor.

Do you honestly think I enjoy going to work at 7:30 am 5 days a week? Or that my wife does? Hint: we don't, but we don't want to be poor even more.

"and we should all be equally spiteful of all our fellow travelers.

I think we should be spiteful if we want to. I'm not so much spiteful as I don't believe I should share your burden. I will, however help my neighbor shoulder his burden because I know if I need his help, I only need to ask. That's how communities work.

"It's a natural law, and it should apply especially to all you do-gooder socialists.:"

Natural law (as applied by humans) only exists at the pointy end of a stick. Until you are poked, you aren't subject to it. It's true, I despise socialists because their philosophy is the same as the bottom feeder. It exist to benefit the lowest common denominator and it is paid for by those that aren't satisfied being the lowest common denominator. That isn't what makes America great.

"do-gooder socialists"

That's a euphemism for "thief". Nobody will stop you from doing good, in fact, everyone will praise you for helping others. You won't get such a nice reception though if you think you can satisfy your hero complex by making others pay for your charitable acts.

Liberty275 4 years, 11 months ago

"Why not put that $450 per month in an interest bearing investment = an annual $5400 investment to begin covering yourself? Now that is making money for oneself instead of shareholders and CEO's."

Google HSA.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 11 months ago

I say again, if only somebody had copy/pasted enough posts about HR 676, we'd all have free candy & free unicorns & free health care.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 11 months ago

"I think we should be spiteful if we want to. I'm not so much spiteful as I don't believe I should share your burden."

We all share each others' burdens. That's the history of the human race, although being spiteful and narrow-minded also has a long history-- one you carry on proudly, apparently.

Just because you think you're John Wayne, and that you did it all, all by yourself, doesn't make that delusion somehow factual.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

THE NEXT BATTLEGROUND FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM

Tuesday, January 26, 2010 | Posted by Jim Hightower

The Obamacans have spent a lot of their political capital during the past year to woo health insurance giants, drug companies, hospital chains, and other corporate chunks of what is called the health care "industry." The White House wanted the industry's support for its health care bill so badly that it compromised its own reform legislation into corporate mush, but at least the industry is now supporting Obama's bill. Or, is it?

While lobbying groups for these corporate interests do profess approval of the federal reform, these same interests have slipped into more than a dozen states to lay the political groundwork for gutting the implementation of any national law that Obama might get passed.

As usual, the industry's groundwork consists of throwing basketfuls of campaign cash at state legislators. Last year, drug companies alone poured $20 million into the coffers of state politicians, and it's estimated that industry-wide donations to state lawmakers this year will be well above $100 million – more than these corporate interests will spend on congressional races.

The state-level gut job is not a scattershot effort. It is being orchestrated by a network of corporate-funded think tanks, foundations, and front groups. The main legislative tool for blocking the federal reform is a state nullification idea that came out of the Goldwater Institute, a far-right-wing think tank in Arizona.

In turn, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate funded front group created specifically to influence state legislators, adopted the Goldwater idea last year and is shopping it around to various states – already the nullification scheme has been introduced in 15 states.

"At State Level, Health Lobby Fights Change," The New York Times, December 29, 2009.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

USE USA tax dollars to provide medical insurance for all under one umbrella. After all those tax dollars belong to we the taxpayer. It is one way to bring some of those trillions of tax dollars home. It is one way to create millions of jobs in the field of health care alone.

Taxpayers are investing in themselves with their tax dollars plus creating jobs and new wealth for the USA thus more new jobs.... aka the domino effect only we'd be building not crashing.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

While the insurance giants publicly claim to support reform to spruce up their image we can see by the numbers of health care dollars they spend on anti reform campaigns that they are lying.

Health Care for America NOW is said to be funded by the insurance industry to the tune of $40 million which in reality was more about confusing consumers. How is that?

There is a grass roots organization called Health Care NOW that has been organized for several years who only focus on the most efficient single payer system that excludes the insurance industry. Both names look so much alike except their focus is different.

When looking at the Hightower commentary plus this site http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/2009/10/bill_moyers_michael_winship_in.html#more

it gives a vague idea of how many health care dollars the industry is blowing to save their high profit gravy train.

Then there is the Wall Street banker level retirement bonus packages the medical insurance CEO's enjoy.

Yes it has been noted in the news that the industry is laundering $1.25 million health care dollars a day through the Chamber of Commerce to defeat reform and most certainly single payer national health insurance for all.

Remember on more thing. Your increase in premiums etc etc will reflect this reckless spending anti reform campaign.

Grundoon Luna 4 years, 11 months ago

To Troll, Skinny, Say That and Moocher:

News from the protest: Everyone there today was either

  • A full time worker with insurance coverage through their employer; or,
  • Worked their whole life, as professionals no less, then retired. So they have paid their dues and have medical coverage through Medicare and some also have a supplement; or,
  • a full time student with covereage on the student plan.

We are all responsible by your definition - as if it were valid - and are clean, well groomed and not a moocher among us. We just want all Americans to have access to affordable health care. If you don't believe me, watch us on the news tonight on KU's new broadcast on SNFLWR Ch 31.

In the meantime, why don't you go stick you ridiculous sterotypes somewhere.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

overthemoon (Anonymous) says…

"The arguments against healthcare reform are all based on misinformation and distortion."

Isn't it funny that the other guy's argument is always the one based on misinformation and distortion?

Your claim that the Democrats' 'reform' package is not the government paying for healthcare is misinformation and distortion.

The things you mention - such as the proposal that insurance can't be cancelled for illnesses (or denied for pre-existing illnesses) are good ideas, and everyone can get behind them - until you look at the whole picture. See, you can't make insurance companies pick up the cost of these people with expensive conditions without mandatory insurance coverage for everyone. And you can't force everyone to carry health insurance without government subsidies. So yes, expanding coverage to everyone most definitely IS done by means of a government handout.

"This is not about race boats, fancy houses or any of those inane arguments which speak to the selfishness and blindness of those who suggest there is any correlation between providing health care and consumerist greed."

Really?

How many times have you seen the cost of healthcare mentioned on this thread alone? How many times have you seen the word bankruptcy thrown around in the healthcare debate? It is precisely about consumerist greed - people don't want an unexpected medical expense to interfere with their possession of that new house, new car, and the boat on the lake.


whatthehell (Anonymous) says…

"The emergency services are so expensive that you would have to declare bankruptcy or make payments for a very long time."

And one more time, THAT is the problem. Whether we pay for it through insurance premiums, in our taxes, or out of pocket, it COSTS too much. The problem is the COST - not figuring out a way to get someone else to pay for it.


just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

"I'm with Liberty275— Gawd intended that the life of man be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, and we should all be equally spiteful of all our fellow travelers."

I'm with boohoohoohoozo - god intended that everyone should be equal, all living the same life of poverty and squalor, all equally miserable. Nicht wahr, Herr Klowne?

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

merrill (Anonymous) says…

"How much is anyone paying in deductibles? in addition to premiums? How much in co-pays? If one has a $3,000/$5,000/$8,000 deductible does anyone spend that much in a year? Why then do you pay for insurance? You are likely under insured."

Um, that would be the point, mertle. The purpose of insurance is not to pay for day-to-day expenses. Your car insurance doesn't pay for your gas and oil changes. Your homeowners insurance doesn't pay for painting the house or snow removal. If people carried health insurance only for the purpose insurance is intended for (i.e. unexpected catastrophic expenses), it would be affordable.


jafs (Anonymous) says…

"It is simply silly to equate basic health care (a necessity) with luxuries like race cars and boats."

It is simply silly to equate basic health care with health insurance.

By the way, jafs, food, clothing, shelter - those are necessities, too, arguably more critical than health care. Should we have insurance pay for those?


Azure_Attitude (Anonymous) says…

"I have to pull $3000 out of my behind due to increased premiums and previously covered medical expenses this year. I doubt I'm going to make that back-up in a $3000 raise this year. Keep drinkin' the Glenn Beck kool-aid you morons! I'll be at the rally on my lunch break!"

What flavor is your kool-aid, azure?

Do you think healthcare costs $12000 or so for a family? Do you have the faintest clue that a single ER visit for just one member of your family can cost that much? THAT is the problem, but you choose to remain clueless, and instead march around with your sign asking someone else to pay for it instead of even recognizing, let alone solving, the problem.

"Any country that offers some form of universal coverage has better health care that we do in our country. Go find some Canadians, Britishers and Francs, among others who have experience in these types of systems and they will tell you."

What's the cancer survival rate in those countries compared to ours, azure?

Not that those rates are a fair comparison - but neither are any of the measures you are using to call their systems 'better'. Lay off the MSNBC, and learn to tell the difference between the quality of health care and the costs of health insurance.

ilikestuff 4 years, 11 months ago

It's unbelievable how contentious this legislation is that if one party doesn't possess a super majority the legislation fails.

This legislation, what's known of it, isn't healthcare reform, it's government controlled access to healthcare. The cost to taxpayers will be/would be obscene while the entities like big pharma, AMA and even insurance will make a killing just as they are now.

Meanwhile, they've cleverly pitted the naive public against one another which doesn't realize this is a win-win situation for the healthcare industry and big government and an epic failure for American freedom and liberty.

I find it interesting that advocates keep referring to this as a "right' while those choosing not to partake will be jailed and/or fined. What other "right" are we fined or jailed for if not taking advantage of?

Seems more like a burden for taxpayers than anything else.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

@homechanger: "I'm able to insure my family of 5 for 450.00 per month. bluecross great plan and i'm self employed. "

I loved having Bluecross. I never had problems with them paying my claims. When I had my son he spent 10 days in the NICU for breathing issues. The doctors ordered various tests (to figure out what was going on) and I never had to fight Bluecross to pay anything. We now have CIGNA and well....let's just say I miss my old plan.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 11 months ago

We need free health care like Cuba! "Cuban authorities are investigating the deaths of 26 patients at a psychiatric hospital linked to a spell of unusually cold weather. Human rights activists blamed the deaths on negligence and the dilapidated state of the hospital. The health ministry said natural causes such as old age, respiratory problems and complications from chronic diseases contributed to the deaths. Cuba prides itself on its provision of free universal healthcare." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8462844.stm Free, but take your own blanket if you want to live.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

@porch I find it interesting that conservative nutcases think nothing of shooting a man in the center of his forehead while he's in his own church for “killing babies” yet will fight to the death giving access to the health care system to those whom health insurance companies won't write on in the first place.

The hypocrisy is staggering.


That is pretty broad. I don't think all or even most conservatives condone killing someone who believes differently than them. Just as most liberals don't condone damaging personal property because someone is wearing fur.

jafs 4 years, 11 months ago

nota,

I never equated health care with insurance - I'm not sure why you think I have.

jafs 4 years, 11 months ago

And, unless something is done to bring down the actual costs of health care (as you have pointed out many times), most of us can't afford to be without insurance, unfortunately.

ilikestuff 4 years, 11 months ago

Wow Porch dial down the rhetoric.

I whole-heartedly support the proposition that all US citizens have healthcare, I'm merely advocating that the same entities win regardless of whether the current healthcare paradigm continues or government-controlled access to healthcare is installed. Something different, something better than this extremely contentious legislation is required.

Directing your frustration at the likes of me, an anonymous poster helps assure that big business/big government win and we lose.

"The drug companies form the most powerful lobby in Washington," he said. "They never lose."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/04/nation/na-healthcare-pharma4

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

“They Dump the Sick to Satisfy Investors”:

Insurance Exec Turned Whistleblower Wendell Potter Speaks Out Against Healthcare Industry

As the debate over healthcare reform intensifies on Capitol Hill, we spend the hour with a former top insurance executive who’s now exposing the industry’s dirty secrets.

Wendell Potter once served as the head of corporate communications at CIGNA, one of the nation’s largest health insurance companies.

We speak to Potter about his own transformation from industry mouthpiece to whistleblower, the healthcare industry’s extensive PR and lobbying machine, the campaign to discredit Michael Moore’s film Sicko, and the insurance industry’s most pressing task: the fight against a public option, let alone a single-payer system.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/16/former_insurance_exec_wendell_porter

monkeyhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

  1. Tort reform

  2. Portability

  3. Government-run health clinics and hospitals for those who are not insured. This will take the burden away from ERs and will be funded by state/federal Medicaid and sliding scales.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

24/7 Pro Business Pro Consumer Health Care Coverage! YES!

Let ME pay for National Health Insurance with MY tax dollars for MY National Health insurance.

Here's the deal. National Health Insurance is not a free ride and never will be perhaps with few exceptions.

You see my tax dollars will pay for my portion therefore no one else would be paying for MY National Health Insurance coverage. A 3.3% payroll tax is doable.

However if you listen to some on this comment section,the republican party NOT and Max Baucus you would be led to believe that my tax dollars are not my tax dollars. How can that be?

The fact that National Health Insurance would come from the rather substantial tax dollar cookie jars simply means that no monthly or weekly deductions would come out of my pay check per se..

Since federal, state, and local governments collect trillions in taxes of all kinds—income, sales, property, corporate etc etc this is how medical bills would be paid as it is now.

You see as we speak the government tax dollars support medical insurance payments to the tune of at least $1.2 trillion which is quite a gravy train I'd say. Next year this will increase by changing nothing and not passing the National Health Insurance Act.

In essence MY tax dollar amount to pay MY portion of National Health Insurance would be about $2700 annually for the entire family.

What coverage would this buy the family:

long term care such that cancer demands prescription drugs hospital surgical outpatient services primary and preventive care emergency services dental mental health home health physical therapy rehabilitation (including for substance abuse) vision care hearing services including hearing aids chiropractic durable medical equipment * palliative care

A good deal that would free up more expendable cash to be spent elsewhere thus creating new jobs. Things like birthdays,christmas,home improvements,taking better care of my lover and investments would benefit.

Social Security and Medicare are two very smart insurance plans.

monkeyhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

merrill, you are so freaking easy:

"U. of C. shunning poor patients? HOSPITAL DISPUTE | Obama's wife, 3 aides tied to plan to free up space

Sen. Barack Obama's wife and three close advisers have been involved with a program at the University of Chicago Medical Center that steers patients who don't have private insurance -- primarily poor, black people -- to other health care facilities.

Michelle Obama -- currently on unpaid leave from her $317,000-a-year job as a vice president of the prestigious hospital -- helped create the program, which aims to find neighborhood doctors for low-income people who were flooding the emergency room for basic treatment. Hospital officials say such patients hinder their ability to focus on more critically ill patients in need of specialized care, such as cancer treatment and organ transplants.

Obama's top political strategist, David Axelrod, co-owns the firm, ASK Public Strategies, that was hired by the hospital last year to sell the program -- called the Urban Health Initiative -- to the community as a better alternative for poor patients. Obama's wife and Valerie Jarrett, an Obama friend and adviser who chairs the medical center's board, backed the Axelrod firm's hiring, hospital officials said. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1122691,CST-NWS-hosp23.article

jumpin_catfish 4 years, 11 months ago

It's simple Moveon, it's time for you and Obama to move on.

monkeyhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

"we're trying to fix"????? I'm sure you are a valuable player.

"Your post seems to be geared to attempting to claim that the University of Chicago Hospital violated EMTALA, which is patently false and dishonest." Because you say so?

The article is straight from the Chicago Sun Times. Did I miss the retraction?

Rage all you want - no more responses to you from me.

Oh yeah,

  1. Leave the rest of us the f alone.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

By JESSICA HODGSON

SAN FRANCISCO -- The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world's largest private philanthropy fund, sold off almost all of its pharmaceutical, biotechnology and health-care investments in the quarter ended June 30, according to a regulatory filing published Friday.

The Seattle-based charity endowment, set up by Microsoft Corp. founder Bill Gates and his wife, sold its total holding of 2.5 million shares in health-care giant Johnson & Johnson in the quarter, according to the filing.

The foundation also sold millions of shares in major drug makers, including 14.9 million shares in Schering-Plough Corp., almost 1 million shares in Eli Lilly & Co., 8.1 million shares in Merck & Co. and 3.7 million shares in Wyeth, over the same time period. The foundation no longer holds shares in any of those companies.

Among the other health and life sciences-related investments the foundation liquidated are Allos Therapeutics Inc., InterMune Inc., Auxilium Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc.

The only life science-related holding the foundation retains is a 3 million-share stake in Seattle Genetics Inc.

The foundation's decision to drastically reduce its exposure to health-related stocks is striking, as many of its charity grants have been disbursed to address developing country health issues. Its move comes against the background of anxiety among drugmakers and healthcare insurance firms about the potential impact of the Obama administration's proposed overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system, which could put pressure on prescription drug prices.

Why would anyone want to be invested in an industry that does this to its' shareholders?

Insurers Wrongfully Charging Consumers Billions http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062401636.html

Liberty275 4 years, 11 months ago

"Moveon attacks corporations and defends the middle class.

Moveon is a corporation.

I work for a different corporation. They give me money and provide my insurance. Moveon corporation just finds weak-minded sheeple to march about and whine about stuff but doesn't pay them money or give them insurance.

The corporation I work for does 1000 times more each week (plus insurance) for our middle class family than the moveon corporation. I know who I'm going to side with.

Bob Harvey 4 years, 11 months ago

This discussion goes back and forth and back and forth. One becomes afraid to get in the way of the blade of the pendulum and offer a thought for fear of being called names. Sad.

That being said allow me to venture into an area that I have some background and experience, albeit I offer my thoughts with some hesitation of being thought a whacked out right winger or some crazy left wing socialist.

Cost of Healthcare. Healthcare costs more in this country because we have more money. I just returned from a trip overseas and costs of just about everything are less than they are here....so what? We have more money here. Our houses are bigger. Our cars are bigger. Our food costs more. Our healthcare costs more. Cuba does have free healthcare but when weighed against the poverty in most other areas all I can offer is a "so what?".

Yes, we have turned over the payment of our healthcare to profit driven insurance companies. That is bad, in my opinion. My thought would be to restrict healthcare funding to only not for profit institutions where no one gets rich off of insurance premiums.

Rather than having a massive overhaul of the system I would think offering catastrophic coverage that would ease the risk of bankrupting families for healthcare costs would be helpful.

Insurance should be able to be purchased across state lines to promote competition amongst payors.

People in this country need to value health care. At the present time a great number of our fellow citizens do not. When a product or service is deemed "free" or a right it will automatically be abused. I oft use the expression, "who washes a rental car?".

Citizens of this country need to take more responsibility for their own health care. Obesity, smoking (a former smoker and no zealot) and other unhealthy habits continue because we have this crazy idea that its not our fault that we get sick.

Ok, I'm done.

gl0ck0wn3r 4 years, 11 months ago

SOUPCARE

Flanked by a woman in a chicken costume and armed with cans of soup, a dozen local workers and labor leaders gathered in Pottsville Monday to urge U.S. Rep. Tim Holden, D-17, to rethink his vote against the House health care reform bill.

"They always say chicken soup is the homeopathic cure for illness," Liz Bettinger, a legislative representative for United Steelworkers, said at the demonstration. "We just wanted to make sure Congressman Holden knew that chicken soup is not the answer for health care reform."

The event was held in conjunction with the national AFL-CIO, Bettinger said, and demonstrators passed cans of chicken soup out to passers-by outside Holden's city office at 101 N. Centre St. Demonstrators also held signs with phrases such as "guaranteed quality health care" and "health insurance reform '09: we want it!"

Although Holden supports health care reform, he was unhappy with the bill that passed through the House in early November and voted against it, a decision Bettinger said disappointed labor leaders.

Bettinger said she hoped the protest would encourage Holden to vote for the health care reform bill once it comes out of the Senate, should the unions throw their support behind it.

"He has another bite at the apple," he said.

In a telephone interview Monday, Holden said local residents he's spoken with are divided on health care and the demonstrators are not representative of everyone in his district.

"The Medicare cuts in the House bill would be devastating to providers," Holden said. "Furthermore, the public option will never make it through the U.S. Senate. I proved to be right about that."

Holden had predicted in November that the bill the Senate passed would be "very, very different" from the House bill. He had also said the bill was "not economical," and criticized plans to offset costs with Medicare and Medicaid cuts.

In a telephone interview Monday, John E. Simodejka, president/chief executive officer of Schuylkill Health, agreed with Holden's previous statements that Medicare cuts would be particularly tough on rural hospitals.

Rural areas get paid out different Medicare rates than urban areas, Simodejka said, and areas like Schuylkill County don't get paid close to what it costs them to provide care.

"Say you were a contractor, and someone said 'I want you to build this for me, I'll give you the material, but I'm going to pay you $2 an hour,' " Simodejka said. "Why would you do it for $2 an hour if it costs you $6, $8, or $20 an hour to pay your laborer?"

gl0ck0wn3r 4 years, 11 months ago

How To Copy and Paste healthcare stuff: Take your mouse, and place your cursor at the beginning of the text in the box below, then click and hold the left mouse button, while pulling your mouse over the text. This should highlight the text. Now release the left mouse button. Now, with the cursor over the highlighted text, right click the mouse for options, and select 'copy'. Now over the empty box below, right click your mouse again, and select 'paste' and you will have copied and pasted the text. :-)

face,it merrill, pastes things that do not add to the conversation

gl0ck0wn3r 4 years, 11 months ago

THIS MIGHT effect health care:

By Richard Heckler - Lawrence

January 12, 2010

To the editor:

Al Gore may not be the world’s foremost authority for he is not a scientist. So why keep bringing him up? People were claiming Gore invented the Internet, which he never claimed; as a senator he helped with legislation/funding on the issue.

Advertisement

Yes, Gore is making plenty of dough. Then again so is the Bush family on oil and weapons both polluting industries. EXXON-Mobil has been funding counter arguments which are easily challenged by the scientific community.

If some do not want to believe Gore, why believe any politician no matter which side? They are not scientists. Why not give Union of Concerned Scientists the benefit of the doubt? Here’s what that group said:

“Reducing oil dependence. Strengthening energy security. Creating jobs. Tackling global warming. Addressing air pollution. Improving our health. The United States has many reasons to make the transition to a clean energy economy. What we need is a comprehensive set of smart policies to jump-start this transition without delay and maximize the benefits to our environment and economy.

“Global warming is one of the most serious challenges facing us today. To protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations, we must reduce our emissions of heat-trapping gases by using the technology, know-how, and practical solutions already at our disposal.”

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

@porch

Since you've been on several anti-abortion threads, your position that you aren't aware conservatives are homicidal towards pro-choice advocates doesn't ring true, does it? I don't see any conservatives denouncing Operation Rescue.

What I said was.. most normal people who identify themselves as conservative don't necessarily condone killing someone with a different viewpoint. I find your statement about conservative nut cases supporting killing abortion doctors a fairly extreme portrayal of conservatives and most of those who may take issue with abortion.

I didn't think that was difficult to understand. However, you seem to be very extreme in your world view. You also seem to have a very difficult time when someone else does not see the world or an issue the way you see it.


"Since we don't have the best health care system in the world, why are conservatives fighting (for health insurance companies) to keep it that way? To answer Snap_Crackle_No_Pop's offering, a child has a better chance of surviving in Cuba than they do here. That's a fact."

I HIGHLY doubt a child in Cuba has a better chance of survival than they do here. In fact, I would like you to find solid references to support that statement.

And it depends on which conservatives you are talking about. If it is a congressman..well they were more than likely paid off by the insurance company. If it is your average American voter...they are probably too ticked off at the way Washington handles their tax money to support any kind of expansion of Government control/ cost increase.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

In addition..I think the underlying concern with many Americans isn't necessarily about health care..I think for many it is a mistrust of their government.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

Thanks Pleiku, you make some excellent points.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"Bottom line is that we have the most expensive health care system in the world and we can't even break the top thirty in outcomes."

Poor poochie. No matter how many times people have taken the time to explain it to him/her/it, he/she/it still does not understand what healthcare outcomes means.

"Notajayhawk is very “imaginative” with his income. I wouldn't trust him on anything. He spent over half of his income on cars, trips, toys, etc, all while his wife went without health insurance while pregnant, by choice."

Hmmm. Coming from the troll who earlier said "Why would you propagate lies?"

It'a amusing watching you resort to outright lies instead of your usual ignorant BS, poochie. Pretty much demonstrates how desperate you are.

And you even said "I think the rest of the forum can also see how you attempted to create a history which is patently false." That's rich. All my posts are still there for people to read, pooch. You know full well I specifically said my wife and I were insured when we had our children and made the decision to drop it afterward. You know full well you have no idea how much I make, you can't even get what I do for a living straight. It might have been worth pointing out your made-up BS a little more, had it been anyone else. But as nobody on these message boards has ever believed a single word that appears in your posts, you really aren't worth the effort.


jafs (Anonymous) says…

"I never equated health care with insurance - I'm not sure why you think I have."

The so-called reform package being proposed does nothing at all to address any problems with health CARE, only insurance.

"And, unless something is done to bring down the actual costs of health care (as you have pointed out many times), most of us can't afford to be without insurance, unfortunately."

A) That's the frikkin' problem. Regardless of how we pay for it, it costs too much.

B) If you can't afford to pay for your own healthcare out of pocket, who do you think is paying for it?

C) Third party payers - whether public or private - are the problem, not the solution to the problem.


merrill (Anonymous) says…

"Let ME pay for National Health Insurance with MY tax dollars for MY National Health insurance."

If YOU want to pay for YOUR health care, please, pretty please do so. If YOU are going to use YOUR money to pay for your own health care, you don't have any reason to mix your money with mine in the process, do you?

PosseComitatus 4 years, 11 months ago

Someone please tell me how this is a Federal issue. My health care is a business transaction between me and my doctor taking place within the state of Kansas. This isn't an interstate issue.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Oops, I almost forgot this:

26 January 2010 at 3:10 p.m. porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"Where are you reading that the health reform package is government controlled access to healthcare? That's a lie."

Let's review the video-tape, and see what the little porchfinkler has said before after the Senate screapped the public option in favor of private companies:

"Since the company that is providing the public option is the same company that provides the US Government with health insurance and is directly under the control of the Office of Personnel Management, I'd say it's close enough to government to count."

http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/liberty_one/2010/jan/13/has-stimulus-failed/#c1111825

"The private company (which furnishes the government with its health insurance) will not be allowed to deny coverage. It will have government mandated rules of business which will be very different from those that companies in private industry will have. Their “premiums” will be heavily controlled by regulation."

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/dec/08/no-crimes-acorn-videos-report-says/#c1073984

"The public option is being implemented through government legislation. The fact that the public option is being subcontracted through the private company that provides the senators and representatives with their “government health insurance” is irrelevant. It's still “the gubment”."

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/dec/08/no-crimes-acorn-videos-report-says/#c1074072

"Doesn't sound that way to me. The fact that a private company is implementing a government program to provide the public option doesn't mean the public option is not going to be there. The public option doesn't mean that the government has to do the actual work. It means the government mandates that the industry has to provide for those who don't have health insurance."

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/dec/08/no-crimes-acorn-videos-report-says/#c1073942

"In other words, this “private” company would not be allowed to make a profit and would operate under the Office of Personnel Management.

"Still want to claim that this “public option” isn't “gubment”, notajayhawk?

"(laughter)

"Seems to me that the Senate found a way of renaming the public option so that the holdouts could safely vote for it and go home to their constituencies."

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/dec/09/nation-sheep/#c1075331

So, pooch, when you want to keep your fantasy of the public option alive, the private insurers are the 'gubment' - but when you're trying to argue the reforms proposed aren't a government takeover, then it's "a lie" if someone suggests that's the goal of the reforms.

How do you buy hats, pooch, with your pointy head twisted into such a pretzel?

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"And you were saying??"

Well, porchfinkler, what I was saying was:

"I did carry health insurance when our last child was born. It made financial sense then, it doesn't now."

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jan/20/gops-brown-pulls-upset-win-mass-senate-race/#c1121536

There's the link you didn't put in, troll. Gee, wonder why? Because it shows what a lying porchfinkler you are?

And BTW, pooch - maybe you can point to any part of that passage you cited that says we were without insurance while she was pregnant?


"“I'm currently a licensed mental health professional” –- notajayhawk

...

"No, notajayhawk, I have no idea of what you do for a living. None at all."

Yes, pooch-head, I know what I said I do for a living. Unfortunately, this is what YOU said:

"A licensed mental health technician with four years of experience makes less than $35,000 a year."

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/jan/20/gops-brown-pulls-upset-win-mass-senate-race/#c1120019

There's more than a slight difference between a licensed professional and a technician - but as you've demonstrated over and over and over again that you are completely ignorant of anything having to do with healthcare, I wouldn't expect you to know that.

(laughter)

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"The public option is what America wants. Implementation of the public option is not a takeover of the health care system."

I'll just repeat a few of your own words from the comments I re-posted above:

“Since the company that is providing the public option is the same company that provides the US Government with health insurance and is directly under the control of the Office of Personnel Management, I'd say it's close enough to government to count.” - porchfinkler

"It's still “the gubment” - porchfinkler

"It means the government mandates that the industry has to provide for those who don't have health insurance.” - porchfinkler

"“Still want to claim that this “public option” isn't “gubment”, notajayhawk?" - porchfinkler

Talk of of both sides of your diaper much, troll?

"According to the United Nations Population Division…"

"According to our own CIA ..."

And as I've mentioned before, troll, if these were objective, measurable, verifiable numbers, how do you explain the fact that the UN and the CIA numbers are different? Are they using different forms of math? Does 2+2=4 at the UN but 2+2=4.375 at the CIA?

PosseComitatus 4 years, 11 months ago

Federal money flowing to the state of Kansas has no bearing on this issue.

This is not a Federal issue, it's a state issue. The state of Massachusetts has state wide health care, and many other states have bills in their legislatures. Health insurance is regulated at the state level and the transaction is local one. Lobby the state to adopt this plan. Heck it can be a city of Lawrence plan if you can muster the votes to get it approved.

If one is to expect a government service to be delivered to the people it has to be managed at the local level to be effective. The further you move yourself away from the source of power the less influence you have on it.

Another thing to really think about here is what just happened in the last week. The health bill stalled then the deficit was put in the spot light and the first thing to get the axe is domestic spending...

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

PosseComitatus (Anonymous) says…

"This is not a Federal issue, it's a state issue. ... Lobby the state to adopt this plan."

If you read another story in this very paper, about how Bert Nash is cutting back on their homeless MH program, you can see that even at the state and local level there are significant problems putting the government in charge of funding healthcare.

tbaker 4 years, 11 months ago

Tom - It slays me that Porch believes the anger American's are demonstrating is caused by the failure of a Obamacare. All the polling I've seen says healthcare is way down on the list after "jobs" and "the economy."

This MoveOn march is nothing more than a group therapy session for socialist liberals who cannot accept the fact the President is no longer in a position to ram-through their agenda. What other purpose could it possible serve?

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

It slays me that porch is able to find the button to turn on his computer.

jafs 4 years, 11 months ago

nota,

I agree that the costs of healthcare are a big problem. But, if it's not solved, most of us will need insurance since we can't afford to save enough to cover large unexpected expenses (and regular expenses like medication).

Since this is one of your main themes, what's your proposal to bring health care costs down?

And, you and porch should get a room, for goodness' sake.

jafs 4 years, 11 months ago

And, pleiku,

That may be part of the reason costs are high here, but I think it's been demonstrated that health care costs are rising faster than inflation and wage increases. Thus they are out of balance relative to those.

Flap Doodle 4 years, 11 months ago

Did both of the ususal suspects show up for the mass rally?

In other news: “Yesterday, Harry Reid signaled surrender on ObamaCare, seven long months after he and Nancy Pelosi promised to complete it in just six weeks — but did they give up in time? Rasmussen has put the opposition to the Democrats’ plan in double digits since fall, but Rasmussen polls likely voters. CNN’s latest poll of adults should have given Democrats their most sympathetic sample, but respondents give Reid, Pelosi, and Barack Obama even worse news on their attempt to overhaul the American health-care system: Only three in ten Americans say they want Congress to pass legislation similar to the health care reform bills that have already been approved by the House and Senate, according to a new national poll. A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey also indicates that nearly half the public, 48 percent, would like federal lawmakers to start work on an entirely new bill, and 21 percent feel Congress should stop working an any bills that would change the country’s health care system. … Fifty-eight percent of people questioned in the survey oppose the bills previously passed by the House and Senate, with 38 percent supporting that legislation….” http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/27/obamacare-now-20-points-down-in-cnn-poll/

jafs 4 years, 11 months ago

snap pop,

That's more a reflection of the corruption in Congress and the changes of the bill in order to get a majority vote than anything else.

Most people probably want something done to improve our health care and insurance systems. That's hard to do when elected officials are beholden to those interests.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

Porch Person-

I'll be honest. Half the time I don't pay much attention to what you post.

And sorry if I don't take arguments made by Michael Moore very seriously...

Those are interesting stats. However, they don't necessarily say how those numbers were collected or reported.. Did the CIA actually collect the data or are they going off the reports of the Cuban government? I know the UN posted some stats about longevity, however, the data they reported was just what Cuba reported to them. They had no objective way to verify what they were being told. In addition, if Cubans are reporting their own infant mortality rates..how exactly are they considering the criteria? From what I have read there are reports from people who lived in Cuba (and left) saying they were doing things to skew their numbers.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

jafs (Anonymous) says…

"Since this is one of your main themes, what's your proposal to bring health care costs down?"

Tort reform is a bigger issue than you think. It's not just the cost of litigation, which the left keeps saying is a minimal piece of the healthcare pie. There are all the settlements that are made out of court (most insurance companies will grant a small nuisance amount to make a case go away without litigation even with no merit), and the cost of malpractice insurance, which can cost thousands of dollars per week. And the shortages for some services because med students don't pursue high-rick specialty areas. But the bigger problem is the resultant unnecessary costs of expensive diagnostic tests and procedures. Some studies have shown that as much as 40% of our medical costs do nothing to improve our health. (Speaking from my own perspective, in 5-1/2 years of working in the ED of an acute-care psych facility, more than half of psychiatric hospitalizations are done out out of concern over being sued rather than for legitimate medical purposes.)

And there's more over-utilization that needs to be addressed. There are waaaay too many referrals to specialists. An example: A relative of mine had an infected small animal bite (it was an indoor domestic pet, there was no chance of rabies). The ER set her up with an appointment with an orthopedist three days later - and the orthopod said there was nothing he could do until the antibiotics were given a chance to run their course. She was supposed to go back - again, to the specialist - a week later for a second evaluation, to do nothing more than see if the swelling went down. Wouldn't it have made more sense to have a nurse look at it - after waiting for the antibiotics run the full course - and then, if necessary, refer to the specialist?

Some of our costs are higher because things cost more here. Doctors make twice what their counterparts elsewhere make. Drugs are expensive. On the other hand, we train the world's doctors, because ours are the best. And one reason we beat most of the world (or all of it) in cancer survival rates is because we have those medicines available.

[continued]

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

[continued]

And as I said before, third-party payers are the problem, not the solution. If health insurance was used only for what insurance was intended to be used for, to protect against financial risk from unexpected, catastrophic expenses (like that $100K heart surgery), instead of the routine expenses everyone has (the doctors' visits for a cold or cough), insurance would be affordable. And without third-party payers in the picture, Americans would have more incentive to be part of the cost-containing process through normal free-market mechanisms. They would have more incentive to patronize a doctor whose waiting room doesn't look like a country-club day spa, to question the need for a referral, to ask for a generic prescription, than they have when all it costs them is their premiums and a co-pay. Even in many emergent cases - wouldn't you travel to an emergency room in Topeka instead of going to LMH for, say, a cut requring stitches that you weren't going to bleed out from, if their hospital charged half as much? Even preventive care - so many 'reformers' claim that with insurance, people are more likely to see their doctor early on rather than wait until it becomes a case for the emergency room. But is that really the case? If people had to pick up those costs out of their own pockets, they might be more inclined miss an afternoon at work to see the doctor rather than risk that $12,000 ER bill.

I said way back when that Obama was, out of the Democratic contenders, the one I could live with because he at least paid lip service to bringing down costs. Unfortunately, that's all it turned out to be - lip service. All he's doing is trying to change the way we pay for it - and (once more) whether that's out of pocket, through premiums, or in taxes, one way or the other, we all still pay for it. If you need insurance to pay the medical bills, it means you're paying less than what that treatment cost - but someone is still paying the difference.

There are more ways to hold down costs, but one thing is certain - making the government responsible for handling the money is a bigger mistake than doing nothing at all, for a number of reasons. Look at the situation with Bert Nash:

What does that tell you about relying on the government to fund our healthcare? As I've asked, so many times before (and gotten no answer), if we use tax dollars to pay for our healthcare, what happens when those tax dollars dry up? Or even if political priorities change?

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Oh, I almost forgot - another proposal for helping more people afford healthcare. The disability system needs a major overhaul.

The 'reformers' always harp on insurance companies refusing to insure people - but they conveniently ignore the government propensity for doing exactly that. Something on the order of 80% of disability claims are rejected on application - despite the fact that most of those rejections are eventually approved. Of course, that's years later. And even more would be approved if people were capable and willing enough to continue jumping through all the hoops for three or four years - and if they lived that long. (The VA's numbers are similar, by the way.)

Those people would be eligible for Medicare and/or Medicaid if the disability determinations boards would stop putting up so many roadblocks. But they do, and why? Because, for one reason, even though there's not a profit incentive, they still have financial restraints just like private insurers do - except those restraints are even worse in the public sector. But also because there's a misguided philosophy of making the process intentionally difficult in order to weed out the freeloaders - which leaves those most in need and least capable of fighting the system to negotiate this almost impossible process.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"So you go back and forth between having insurance and refusing insurance “on principle”."

What part of “I did carry health insurance when our last child was born. It made financial sense then, it doesn't now.” is so difficult for your tiny brain to fathom, pooch? It's a pretty straightforward statement, and it seems you're the only one having difficulty grasping it. Nothing I have ever said, especially nothing in the straws you're grasping at, has ever disputed that simple statement.

"Insurance in the workplace is usually implemented during “open periods”. You can't just drop it and pick it up like a phone bill. Enroll and you're committed for a year. Unless you change jobs."

No kiddin'. Now, since you seem to be so omniscient - why don't you tell me when the open enrollment period is for my employer ? (Oh, that's right - you don't know who that is.) Or when my children were born? (Oops, you don't know that either.) Or whether I changed jobs before, during, or in between their births? (Hmmm - guess you don't know that, either.) Or, I suppose you could do something totally out of character and admit you don't have a single clue about what you've been blathering about - but then, nobody is holding their breath waiting for that to happen.

"So as a “licensed medical professional”, are you…."

Well, for a start, dolt, even though you put it in quotes, I didn't use the words "licensed medical professional," did I?

And why don't you go first, pooch? As a fast-food worker, are you a fryer, a grill cook, a counter person, or have you made it all the way up the ladder to the drive-through window?

"Being a CNA is a licensed occupation and being a CNA in a psych unit would qualify as “mental health professional”, technically."

And thank you, one more time, for demonstrating that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to healthcare (or any other topic).

Um, pooch?

"CNA" stands for "Certified Nurse Assistant." There is a difference between licensure and certification, pooch. CNAs are not considered to be licensed professionals.

Thanks for playing.

"Do you have any numbers that refute them?"

Since the two numbers you cited don't even agree with each other, clod, you've already refuted your own information by posting them both.

Again, thanks for playing. The audience got a lot of laughs.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

Porch, Michael Moore used the argument about Cuba in his health care movie. That is probably why you are even using it. Because once Michael Moore displayed the "wonder of the Cuban healthcare system" in "SICKO" it seemed every liberal media outlet latched on.

Actually, you did provide stats. However, I guess you didn't understand that I was questioning how they were collected/reported.

First, you have to ask. Were those reports just ones that were given to the CIA by the Cuban government? Or was the data independently and objectively collected and analyzed? Did you not understand this concern?

Their infant mortality rate may actually be blurred by the fact that that their abortion rate is 0.71 per live birth http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-cuba.html. Also, read this quote from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons,"Cuba claims to have an infant mortality rate slightly lower than the U.S. But upon further examination, this claim is quite misleading. The reality is that Cuban physicians are coerced into using extraordinary means to skew the infant mortality rate in return for financial incentives. "Life support may be artificially instituted and continued on an individual infant...to achieve a numerical goal in the infant mortality of a particular health sector or region."

if you look at the same report by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons they claim that Cuban children between the ages of one and four have 34% lower survival rate than children that same age in the US . The article also says that Cuban mothers are four time more likely to do in childbirth than their American counterparts.

http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nrcuba.htm http://www.haciendapub.com/article47.html

Anyway, interesting article refuting those statistics and I believe they make some valid points.

Have you ever taken a stats class? Just wondering....if so you would realize statistics are supposed to be scrutinized.

I'm not necessarily saying those stats are bogus, however, I do question them. I don't think Cuba's health care system can clearly be compared to US until we are able to get a real snapshot of what is going on there.

littlelody 4 years, 11 months ago

I have to say - thanks - to everyone who put on the rally for healthcare reform yesterday. I know you all are busy people. Taking time out of your lunch breaks, and finding the energy to organize and have a voice amongst this slew of ignorance is so appreciated! Join forces with others who are working with the same goals!
You are setting a fine example of how democracy can work for the people. You are all positively amazing. Never give up the work that you do!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kaw-Valley-MoveOn-Council/263770625067?ref=ts

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

littlelody (Anonymous) says…

"You are setting a fine example of how democracy can work for the people."

The voters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts provided a better example.


LoveThsLife (Anonymous) says…

"if you look at the same report by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons they claim that Cuban children between the ages of one and four have 34% lower survival rate than children that same age in the US ."

And subsequent age groups, judging by the fact that Cubans have a lower life expectancy.

Oh, wait - according to the United Nations, Cuba ranks 37th in life expectancy, just ahead of the United States at 38th. But - hmm, this is disturbing - according to the CIA's World Fact Book, Cuba actually ranks 38th, four places behind the United States in 34th. Now, how is it possible that something so measurable, verifiable, and objective would be reported so differently by poochie's two sources?

Incidentally, poochie has been citing infant mortality figures - pretty meaningless as his original statement was "To answer Snap_Crackle_No_Pop's offering, a child has a better chance of surviving in Cuba than they do here."

I guess we can add "child" and "infant" as two terms poochie can't tell the difference between.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"According to the United Nations, Cuba beats the United States in longevity too. Cuba comes in at #37 in longevity (78.3 years). The United States comes in at #38 (78.2 years)."

"According to our own CIA, Cuba comes in at #55 in longevity (77.45 years). The United States comes in at #50 (78.11 years)."

And it doesn't bother you at all that your two sources not only have different raw numbers, and not only different rankings, but that in one the US ranks higher and in the other lower? You keep posting numbers that validate LoveThsLife's point, i.e. that the numbers are at the least questionable.

Can you, or anyone for that matter, really be that dense?

Oh, wait, I guess you can:

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

"Certified Nurse “Aide” is a licensed profession in the State of Kansas. "

First, numbskull, there is a difference between a 'profession' and being 'a professional.' The fact that you make a living flipping burgers may be your profession, but it does not qualify you as a professional chef.

Second, dolt, the page you linked to clearly says "Occupations Credentialling", not "Professional Licensing".

Here - educate yourself, if you're capable of doing so:

http://www.certmedassistant.com/licensure-vs-certification.html

"What most people don't realize is that presently there are no licensure mandates for medical assistants in the USA; medical assistants in the USA are unlicensed health care professionals."

"Medical Assistant Certification is NOT Licensure"

"Medical assistant certification is an official document to confirm the named person therein has passed a standardized written test with a number of questions pertaining to specific areas in their field. This test is called the certification exam. If the applicant has passed the certification exam they usually receive a stamped document that shows the individual's name, profession, certificate number, date of birth, registration/certification status, professional school attended, professional examination results, and any conditions, or restrictions. This documentation is especially valuable during job applications and consideration for promotion."

Or even from wiki, which usually has little words even you can understand:

"The Nursing Assistant is an important member of the health care team who often holds a high level of experience and ability, but without qualification is unable to often perform some tasks due to issues of liability and legality."

By the way, did you happen to browse around the links on the page you linked to in your comment?

http://www.kdheks.gov/hoc/downloads/RecSearch_Update.pdf

https://www.ksnurseaidregistry.org/

You'll notice the words 'certificate' and 'certification' used instead of 'license' or 'licensure'. Although, for convenience sake, many people often refer to a certificate or registration as a 'license', they are not the same thing. For one thing, 'licensure' generally (although not always) allows independent practice, while 'certification' generally (again, not always) requires the person to work under the supervision of a professional (in the case of a CNA, that generally means a licensed nurse).

Again, thanks for playing.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"People use infant mortality rates for comparison under the assumption that children are precious and how a country treats its most precious demographic can be extrapolated to how it treats other demographics"

Oh, so your objective, measurable, verifiable rankings on "outcomes" is an "extrapolation" based on an "assumption" of what the population considers "precious".

Brilliant, child, just brilliant.

jafs 4 years, 11 months ago

Nota,

The danger of tort reform is that you then limit the ability of injured patients/families to demand accountability from doctors, etc.

I sort of agree that insurance should be used to cover unforeseeable expensive problems rather than basic health care. However, demand for health care is less flexible than many other items. When you're sick, you don't generally shop around. And, businesses can simply get together informally and agree not to undercharge each other too much.

And, I guess that proposal would require prohibiting health insurance except for catastrophic? Good luck with that one.

I agree, by the way, that Obama hasn't done enough to work on limiting costs.

The problem here, it seems to me, is that neither the private sector nor the public is good enough at dealing with health care. And yet, it is a necessity (if you want to live a healthy, long life).

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

jafs (Anonymous) says…

"The danger of tort reform is that you then limit the ability of injured patients/families to demand accountability from doctors, etc."

What do you want, everything??? :)

There's always going to be some trade offs, isn't there? And I'm not saying it has to be an absolute immunity, but something needs to be done to limit suits and encourage more treatment for the sake of health as opposed to for the sake of CYA.

Incidentally, North Kansas City Hospital, I have been told (by an attorney) has such an immunity, by virtue of being owned by the city. It is one of the best hospitals around, IMO, and pretty reasonable compared to some other area hospitals.

"However, demand for health care is less flexible than many other items. When you're sick, you don't generally shop around. And, businesses can simply get together informally and agree not to undercharge each other too much."

That's the same complaint I always hear about gas prices. It doesn't have to be completely flexible. The supply-and-demand curve is not based on all-or-nothing. Suppliers lower their prices as demand drops, not only after their business has been reduced to nothing. And yes, there could be some collusion - um, you think we don't have that now?

"And, I guess that proposal would require prohibiting health insurance except for catastrophic? Good luck with that one."

At the absolute least, any mandates for health insurance should be catastrophic-only.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

@Porch

"I like how you supply counterargument from a physicist..............."

Those articles actually point out concerns about Cuba's health care and also make claims that it isn't so great. In fact, it goes as far to say that Castro is doing things that are not medically ethical to manipulate numbers. It also claims that Cuban doctors are not well trained. Whether or not their claims are true or their concerns valid is actually anyone's guess. You see, no one actually knows what Cuban health care is like except Cubans, because there has been no objective data collected and analyzed.


"........... Castro keeps babies alive by treating them? Yep, that's obviously a bad thing..."


The accusation is he is keeping babies who are failing to thrive alive to manipulate his data. Who knows what this accusation really means. At it's worst it could mean some pretty horrific human rights violations are going on there for the sake of numbers.

" ...... you just offered an article where someone thinks that keeping babies alive is a bad thing."

Keeping babies alive is a good thing. However, keeping them alive for the sake of statistics is not a good thing. If this claim is true, it makes me wonder how well they are actually being taken care of. It is one thing to keep a child with fragile health alive, and it is quite another to meet their needs and make sure they have some kind of quality of life.


"Your article claims that Fidel Castro keeps babies alive to generate better numbers for comparison with other countries.......

According to the United Nations, Cuba beats the United States in longevity too. Cuba comes in at #37 in longevity (78.3 years). The United States comes in at #38 (78.2 years). According to our own CIA, Cuba comes in at #55 in longevity (77.45 years). The United States comes in at #50 (78.11 years)."


You still don't get it. I already talked about the United Nations a report you just quoted. The UN itself says they don't know how valid those numbers are. All they did was report what was given to them by Cuba. There has not been an objective data collection or analyses done on Cuban health care. To quote myself from earlier, "I'm not necessarily saying those stats are bogus, however, I do question them. I don't think Cuba's health care system can clearly be compared to the US until we are able to get a real snapshot of what is going on there."

jafs 4 years, 11 months ago

nota,

We seem to be converging a bit as we continue this discussion.

I agree we should have heatlh care decisions driven by good medicine, rather than other concerns.

It wasn't a complaint so much as a response to the idea of supply/demand operating with health care. The more inelastic a demand is, the less the supply/demand stuff operates.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

Nota,

It's nice to know someone understands my point.

I did like your ideas for health reform I think in many ways they are right on target.

A few years ago I watched an interview with John Mackey about how he is dealing with health with Whole Foods. I thought he had an interesting perspective on the subject.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html

I think my favorite part of this article is Margaret Thatcher's quote at the top.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

jafs (Anonymous) says…

"We seem to be converging a bit as we continue this discussion."

It is often the case that two people can discover they're standing on the same spot when they stop facing in opposite directions.


porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"Ok, so you didn't know that a CNA means “Certified Nurses Aide” in Kansas. You thought it was “Certified Nurses Assistant”. So you got the name wrong. Big deal. Doesn't mean you don't know what you're talking about."

So much for the pipedream of expecting you to educate yourself.

Had you bothered to read the sources I linked to, troll, you'd know that certified medical assistant is an occupation that covers several different job titles, such as certified nursing assistants (or aides if you're going to be pedantic, which as usual you are), certified medical assistants, home health aides, etc. From the wiki site I linked to (chosen because I'd hoped wiki wasn't too far beyond your level of functioning to understand): "The role is the same regardless of title or initials." I really don't care that you don't get it; I've made the attempt to educate away your ignorance, but you can't fix stupid, and it's obvious you're ignorant by choice, not circumstance.

Oh, and BTW, clod - you originally brought up the term "CNA" asking if it was my occupation.

I don't work in Kansas.

In the state where I work, "CNA" indeed DOES stand for "Certified Nurse Assistant".

"Wouldn't be because they provide patient care, would it?"

Again, your ignorance is hopeless, but for the benefit of those unfamiliar with your posts that might think you know what you're talking about, not everyone involved in patient care is licensed, dipstick. Your own source doesn't use the word licensed.

"Why don't you tell us again how you refuse health insurance “on principle” while you have health insurance while you spend half of your salary on things your occupation can't afford while everyone else is stupid."

Everyone else can read my posts, troll, and they stand without further explanation. Of course, everyone else can understand them. Too bad for you.

I'm not smarter than everyone else, pooch-head. But obviously I'm light years ahead of you. Not that that's saying very much ...

Take a quick look up the page, troll. Then skip around any of the other threads that have had the misfortune of being blighted by your posts. There is nobody here taking anything you say seriously, even the ones you try to kiss up to. You're really nothing but a very bad joke on these message boards, pooch.

Bob Harvey 4 years, 11 months ago

jafs (Anonymous) says…

And, pleiku,

That may be part of the reason costs are high here, but I think it's been demonstrated that health care costs are rising faster than inflation and wage increases. Thus they are out of balance relative to those.

Jafs, good point. I didn't mean my comment to state that it is only our standard of living that increases healthcare costs. Thanks for calling me on that. My point was that there are many reasons for our increasing healthcare costs. We seem to hear and read in these posts that if only this thing or that thing was changed the whole system would be better. I believe that we all play a role in the increased costs. We, as a country, abuse the system daily. The insurance industry takes their ridiculous part of the pie, the pharmaceutical industry theirs, the government rules and regulations take their toll, the legal field is not immune from snatching all they can from the system. Patients? Do they play a role in the increasing costs? Well, of course, why should they be innocent. We demand bypass surgeries for 85 year old patients, rather than being honest and saying, "it is not worth it"? We simply accept the fact that we have folks showing up in the ER 200 times a year with no intent on paying their bills.

My point. We all share in creating this chaos. If we are simply talking about providing basic health care to our population I would say our healthcare system is already prepared to do that. Problem comes when all the other players in the game up the ante.

Sadly, we as a country, are more interested in our i-pods, flat screens, big cars, cell phones and personal "bottom lines" than to give a rats patoot about taking care of ourselves. That, for some crazy reason, is the responsibility of someone else.

Ok, nuff said....perhaps.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"Why would you need to provide sources if you have firsthand knowledge of the difference between CNAs and medical assistants? "

The sources were for your benefit, as you were (as usual) wrong.

"They are two different occupations."

Um, no, essentially they are not. And one MORE time, from the wiki article I linked to above:

"In the United States, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), Patient Care Assistant (PCA), State Tested Nurse Aid (STNA) or Nursing Assistant-Registered (NA/R) is a person who assists individuals with healthcare needs (often called "patients", "clients", "service users") with activities of daily living (ADLs) and provide bedside care—including basic nursing procedures—all under the supervision of a Registered Nurse (RN) or Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) (Meyer)."

"The role is the same regardless of title or initials."

"You got busted not knowing that CNAs are licensed in the State of Kansas (and many other states)."

No, they are not. They are certified. It's the first word in their job title, pooch. There is a difference between licensed and certified. Your continuing to state otherwise does not make it true, and only proves what an imbecile you are.

"You got busted not knowing that CNAs differ from “medical assistants” as well as “physician's assistants”.

"Physicians assistants" are indeed very different from CNAs. But then, I never used those words, despite your usual ploy of putting it in quotes to make it look like I did. The usual tactics we've all come to expect from our little troll.

"Appealing to the mob for support"

I'm appealing to nobody, clueless one. I merely pointed out - yet again, as others have - that not a single person on these message boards has ever agreed with you.

"“We demand bypass surgeries for 85 year old patients, rather than being honest and saying, “it is not worth it”” –- notajayhawk"

"(laughter)"

"Now I know where “death panels” come from!! It isn't from the Democrats. It's on the conservative wish list!!"

Um, just one little problem, moron:

I'm not the one that said that.

Geez, troll, you can't even get THAT right, and you expect anyone takes you seriously?

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_person

"You've gone from “prove it” to “No one can possibly know, not even the United Nations and the CIA”."


Nothing that you have posted "proves" anything. The UN posted the official statistics of the Cuban government. Any thinking person would question the reliability of that data. Taking it for face value is just asinine.

As for the CIA data..I would like to know how it was collected and analyzed. Of course, you can't give me those answers because you don't know.

So comparing their health care to US health care without objectively collected data is just ludicrous.

Porch says, "But you uncritically accept the claim of nutcases who make unsubstantiated claims against Cuban health care outcomes!!"


Actually, I just gave you an opposing argument. There are issues with that data as well..how did they come to their conclusion? I just posted a few dissenting pieces. Would you like me to post more? They won't do a bit of good, because nothing "proves" what Cuban health care is really like.

Do you understand when I said “I'm not necessarily saying those stats (meaning your stats porch) are bogus, however, I do question them. I don't think Cuba's health care system can clearly be compared to the US until we are able to get a real snapshot of what is going on there.”???????????????????? In essence, at this point both arguments are pretty much level until there are some real studies done to prove otherwise.

Is it THAT difficult for you to understand?


Porch says,

"And the funny part about it is reading an anti-abortionist argue against keeping infants alive.

One doesn't read irony like that everyday."


Did you understand what I was talking about? Probably not.

You see Porch, I have worked in a long term pediatric care facility for children with profound to severe mental retardation. I know what it is like to care for infants and children with complex health histories. It takes a lot of work and determination, because many times those children can't communicate well. It is important to be attentive and have the resources not just to keep them alive but to make sure they are as physically comfortable as possible. Just keeping them alive for the sake of keeping them alive would be torture if they aren't adequately cared for.

I'm not sure why you find what I am saying amusing. Maybe you don't understand???

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

LoveThsLife (Anonymous) says…

"porch_person"

"I'm not sure why you find what I am saying amusing. Maybe you don't understand???"

Ding ding ding ding ding!

We have a winner, folks!

Liberty275 4 years, 11 months ago

“Global warming is one of the most serious challenges facing us today."

The only real challenge is in getting people to redistribute their wealth based on the global warming lie.

Jimo 4 years, 11 months ago

"Everything dies."

Oooh... who said that? Sounds too pithy for Hitler. Maybe Genghis Khan? Mao? Nero?

Nevertheless, it seems to sum up that your political philosophy is less libertarian than nihilistic.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Jimo (Anonymous) says…

"Oooh… who said that? Sounds too pithy for Hitler. Maybe Genghis Khan? Mao? Nero?"

Um - it was Liberty275, two days ago.

Please try to keep up.

ksugrad4KU 4 years, 11 months ago

I want to commend the Kaw Valley MoveOn Council for their Health Care Reform Rally. There are many Americans that are not blessed with good health and they should be able to get access to affordable health care. This is a serious matter that can ruin many families and their financial security. I admire Melody, the organizer, and the volunteers for their passion toward this cause. I think it is time that we, as US citizens, are open minded and respect our differences that we have with others even though they may vary. Changes defintely need to be made when it comes to health care. Some are not as blessed and I think it is okay to serve those that are less fortunate. The churches and charities can't do it all unfortunately.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

ksugrad4KU (Anonymous) says…

"There are many Americans that are not blessed with good health and they should be able to get access to affordable health care. "

I couldn't agree more.

What does that have to do with Congress screwing with health insurance?

ASBESTOS 4 years, 11 months ago

"The Kaw Valley Council is part of MoveOn.org, a grassroots national organization."

'Nuff said.

This is the purple koolaid drinkers gang.

They do not see the writing on the wall.

The "Health Care Reform" bill that this Democratic Senate and House wrote (4 or 5 times) is not what a majority of the American Citizens want. It does nothing to curb costs and nobody knows what is in it and it was written behind closed doors with Demorats and Lobbyists from the PharmaCos, Big Medicine, Insurance Companies, and AARP.

Everyone that touches this POS bill dies politically speaking.

Get a damn clue.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

Oh, goody - the troll is back. And he still hasn't learned anything, I see.

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"You asked for hard documentation of my claims (documentation easily found), documentation that you clearly were unaware of, despite “working in the field” and you got the information presented to you."

Pooch - for the love of whatever you find holy, if there's a single functioning brain cell left in that thick skull, stop and think for a second. I've asked you this question before and you've never even attempted an answer: How can the numbers you provided be considered "hard data" when the two sources you cited don't even agree with one another?

"CNAs are licensed in the State of Kansas with defined scopes of care, tests to pass, license numbers and everything. I've already supplied the site where the State of Kansas provides information on the occupation. http://www.kdheks.gov/hoc/cna.html. "

Yes, you did - the site that says "Occupations Credentialing" at the top, not "Professional Licensing." Can you read?

"“Q. Are Certified Nurses Aides (CNA’s) and Certified Medication Aides (CMA’s) licensed or certified through the Kansas State Board of Nursing? A. CNA and CMA certification is handled by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). For questions regarding CNA or CMA certification, contact KDHE at (785) 296-1240 or www.kdhe.state.ks.us/hoc/.” — "

Apparently the answer is no, you can not read. Either that, or you don't bother to read what you post. Then again, the most likely case is that you're too stupid to understand what you read, copy, and post.

[continued]

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

[continued]

Um, pooch, little one? In the question above, it reads "Are Certified Nurses Aides (CNA’s) and Certified Medication Aides (CMA’s) licensed or certified through the Kansas State Board of Nursing?"

"licensed or certified"

"or"

See, pooch, the question is asking if they are licensed OR certified. Licensed OR certified.

Licensed OR certified.

Starting to sink in, yet?

And the answer to the question, from your source, that you quoted?

"CNA and CMA certification is handled by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE)."

"CNA and CMA certification"

"certification"

See, pooch, it's right there in your own information from your own source - certified, not licensed.

That's certified, not licensed.

CNAs/CMAs can not administer any kind of medical care unless working under the direct supervision of a licensed professional. That's licensed professional.

Is any of this registering, little one?

You might also have noticed that the answer stated that CNAs are NOT credentialed by the Kansas State Board of Nursing.

Oh, and once again - you brought up CNAs asking if that was what I was - and, in case you missed it yet again,

I

don't

work

in

Kansas.

Registered Nurses hold professional licenses issues by their state's Nursing Board (or, in the case of the state where I work, the Division of Professional Registration). In Kansas, the applicable statute is 65-1115:

65-1115. Licensure of professional nurses; qualifications of applicants; examination; refresher course; renewal license; title and abbreviation; temporary permit; exempt license. (a) Qualifications of applicants. An applicant for a license to practice as a registered professional nurse shall: ...

Notice the words "licensed" and "professional" there, imbecile?

You might also be interested in 65-1165:

Chapter 65.--PUBLIC HEALTH Article 11.--REGULATION OF NURSING 65-1165. Supervision of delegated nursing procedures. (a) All nursing procedures, including but not limited to administration of medication, delegated by a licensed nurse to a designated unlicensed person shall be supervised. The degree of supervision required shall be determined by the licensed nurse after an assessment of appropriate factors which may include: ...

See, moron, they're talking about nursing aids/assistants. Those are the unlicensed persons who pass meds and so forth.

*Unlicensed person."

*Unlicensed."

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

"porch_person (Anonymous) says…

Still holding on to “No data is adequate to dispel my 'America is the best' prejudice...."


And you are stilling hold on to the fact that published statistics have to be true because they are statistics.

You never did answer my question about the CIA stats by the way...

Take a stats class and educate yourself porch...your critical thinking skills will blossom big time.

I never claimed that America's health care was the best, I did question your Cuban argument.


"Going to supply more “opposing argument” from nutcases?"


Actually Porch, one of the most outspoken critics is Dr. Hilda Morena, she was the former Chief Neurosurgeon in Cuba

Carlos Wotzkow is another critic. He is a Cuban exile and critic of Castro.

There are more, but I don't have time to list them all.

They don't seem to be part of the "conservative nutcase" movement that you describe.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

Porch says:

"Doesn't matter what documentation I presented to you. If 'merica wasn't “Numbah Won”, it's bogus."


Nice spelling porch...I prefer to spell it America and number one. Not necessarily, I am just stating that because Cuban numbers aren't reliable at this point. I wouldn't use Cuban statistics in comparison with US health care. In honesty, if you are going to debate health care I would point you to Canada or Britain...their statistics are easily verifiable.


"Such “objectivity” is inspiring. I especially liked the desire to withhold care of infants in Cuba so that Cuba's numbers wouldn't beat ours. That was particularly funny, coming from an anti-abortionist, especially an anti-abortionist who says she works in a long term care facility for peds. I guess infants become “less precious” in Communist countries with better outcomes and anti-abortionists become more ironic when political systems enter into the equation."


You again, don't understand. I never said they should withhold care. I was questioning the quality of care that was being given, especially if the drive was to make their statistics look good and not the care of the individual...as was claimed by the article. Something you don't seem to have the critical thinking skills to do.


"And here's another aspect of the argument that is hilarious. You claim that Cuba's numbers are bogus “just because” (you supply no reason other than innate deception) yet you provide no explanation for the thirty some other countries whose outcomes are better still.

Is every country that is performing better than we are lying about it or are you just being jingoistic?"


I don't find myself being "jingoistic" as you assert. I never claimed the United States has the best health care in the world. However, I have questioned your comparison to Cuban and US health care. Some countries that reported have more verifiable statistics, making it easier to compare their health care with the United States. While there can still be opposing argument from either side..it is a little bit more verifiable.

I find it interesting that you take statistics to be absolute truth.

So... if you read let's say, that one in four girls has an std...do you actually believe that if you group four girls together that one if them will have an std? Just wondering....

You know, Porch, since you are such a HUGE advocate of Cuban health care maybe you should move there. I am sure Castro would LOVE that and welcome you with open arms.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

whoops.. I didn't catch my typo before I published..

"And you are still holding on to the fact that published statistics have to be true because they are statistics."

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"You're one funny guy. You spend paragraphs trying to claim that “certified” is different from “licensed” and then you quote the State of Kansas using them interchangeably! "

Ah. I think we've discovered the problem.

You're illiterate.

Um, moron? It's a Q&A page. And since you obviously didn't look into where it came from, it's reprinted from the Nursing Board's website.

They don't use the terms interchangeably, dolt. The question asks if CNAs are licensed or certified, and the answer is that they're certified (and not by the Nursing Board). Um, dipstick? Why would the question even ask "licensed OR certified" if there wasn't a difference?

"You don't work in health care. If you were truly a “licensed mental health professional”, you would be interacting with physicians and implementing their orders."

Um, no, child. I have full privileges at the agency that employs me, no physician writes any "orders" for my patients unless they're med orders. As a licensed professional, not only do I not need a physicians signature on anything I do, but I co-sign the treatment plans and reviews of the unlicensed providers in our department. I have full, legal case responsibility for my patient load. Thanks once again for proving your ignorance of the field.

Oh, but wait - just when it seems you couldn't be more clueless:

"By the same argument, Registered Nurses aren't “licensed” because they work under Physicians!!"

Nurses work "under" physicians, pooch?

Tell you what - next time a licensed nurse is about to give you an injection, ask her/him which doctor he/she works "under". Ask right before they stick the needle in. Maybe you'll get the point.

Since it's evident (as if it wasn't already) that YOU "have absolutely no clue as to the organizational hierarchy of a health care facility", pooch-head, let me fill you in a little. The only way nurses work "under" a physician is in private practice where there is an employer-employee relationship. In a hospital setting, a licensed nurse answers to - in order - the charge nurse, the unit manager (who is almost always an RN or above), and the DON (who is always an RN or above).

I'd love to be there for your next emergency room visit when you spout off about nurses working "under" physicians! Something tells me we wouldn't be seeing a lot of (laughter) in the aftermath.

rhd99 4 years, 11 months ago

Hey, Kaw Valley MoveOn.org chapter members, here is a novel idea, move on & get a life. Why do I, a taxpayer need to support stinken individual mandates by a Congress full of HYPOCRITES who know nothing about our healthcare system!?

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"I just noted that the CIA and the United Nations report that Cuba has better health care outcomes than we do."

And I noted that the stats may be questionable. Something you seem to have a hard time wrapping your brain around.


"Do you have any “facts” of your own, LoveThsLife?.......I applied my “critical thinking skills”.

Here's another application of my “critical thinking skills”. You namedropped Dr. Hilda Morena and Carlos Wotzkow. You claim that Dr. Morena and Mr. Wotzkow are critics of Castro. You don't make any mention of the particulars of their criticism.."

The fact that you are too lazy to look anything they say up on your own shows your lack of critical thinking skills.

But here..this a website run by a Cuban exile named George Utset here is HIS opposing argument http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm

The only reason I am even giving you this link is because I really don't feel like typing up every criticism of Cuban health care. If you want to know the arguments..do the research.

” I never said they should withhold care. I was questioning the quality of care that was being given, especially if the drive was to make their statistics look good and not the care of the individual” – LoveThsLife

“Just keeping them alive for the sake of keeping them alive would be torture if they aren't adequately cared for.” – LoveThsLife

Key word there Porch "......if they aren't adequately cared for.”


“Life support may be artificially instituted and continued on an individual infant…to achieve a numerical goal in the infant mortality of a particular health sector or region.” – LoveThsLIfe

Yep Porch...your point being? I questioned the quality of care they received...refer to previous statements.

LoveThsLife 4 years, 11 months ago

Porch says:

"So Cuba is “skewing their numbers” by “keeping kids alive”. I got it. And if they “keep kids alive”, then that's wrong because they live in Cuba, where living is “torture”."

Actually they are usually trying to skew their numbers by aborting any fetus that looks like it could have a problem..look up Cuban abortion statistics or refer to the ones I posted earlier that you ignored....or you could just search out opposing argument to yours and look it all up yourself. Living in Cuba isn't necessarily torture, but depending on the quality of care an in need infant is receiving it could be.

"You're one dishonest anti-abortionist, aren't you?"

I don't think I am...but but by stating this I assume you have a different opinion.


"You didn't answer my question, LoveThsLife (not that I expected you to). What did you do in this “long term care pediatrics unit”? Was it at CMH?"

I was actually going to respond to this, but then I erased what I wrote. Because, my experience working with the kids that I did was really special to me and I had a lot of fun doing it. Quite frankly, I don't want to share with it you. My decision to do so is probably something you will mock and not understand, but to tell you the truth, I really couldn't care less.

Best wishes Porch..I totally disagree with you, but I'm not discussing this anymore....it's pretty much like beating a dead horse.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_troll (Ignoramus) says…

"What else can't you do?"

Fathom the boundless depths of your ignorance, for one.

"So you have no physician at all in charge of your patients? Someone has to write the med orders. You see, when you say that no one has to cosign your treatment plans and then say that a physician has to write the med orders, your claim that you run unsupervised is blown."

And thank you once again for demonstrating you know absolutely nothing about the provision of healthcare. Um, doofus? The treatment plan and physician's orders are not the same thing.

And, um, not all of my patients are on meds - and not all of those get them prescribed by one of our docs. Only the ones I refer to our med clinic do. And if I disagree with the care one of MY patients is receiving from one of our physicians, I refer him to another physician. I can do that, you see, as the primary on the case - the one with the legal case responsibility.

Again, thanks for playing.

This, as usual, has been pointless, pookie. Except, of course, to provide me with quite a few little gems to quote you on in future threads, in case there's anyone left that doesn't know what a complete moron you are. Again, pork_person, I never expected you to take my word for it, and you certainly don't have the guts to ask someone else - like a nurse, for instance. But if you are really dense enough to think that nurses do nothing at all but wait at the beck and call of physicians, I really encourage you to share that bit of insight next time you're the recipient of nursing care. Let us know how that works out for ya'.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) says…

"Notice how it said “unlicensed”?"

It's like trying to explain math to an earthworm, isn't it?

Well, except even an earthworm doesn't keep insisting he's right.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_troll (Ignoramus) says…

"Why would the State of Kansas make it a requirement that, at a minimum, you have your CNA before you can provide “direct care to patients”, as you have quoted? "

Well, troll, if you could read, you'd have your answer. Just because YOU added the word "before" to vertigo's citation doesn't make it real (except in your tiny little head).

"Unlicensed employees who provide direct individual care to residents"

"who provide direct individual care"

"provide"

That's a present tense verb, poochie. Present tense, not future tense. I does not say 'Unlicensed employees who [will] provide direct individual care to residents' or 'Unlicensed employees who [are about to] provide direct individual care to residents' or 'Unlicensed employees who[, after passing the certification exam,] provide direct individual care to residents.' It says "provide."

It's one thing when you don't understand things beyond your scope. It's another when your argument is based on an utter lack of the reading comprehension skills that a second-grader possesses.

"I find it funny (but not unexpected) that you attempt to promote yourself as “primary”, like you're leading a team of physicians."

Again, if you could read, you might have noticed I said most of my patients don't receive meds from one of our agency psychiatrists, so there's no physician assigned to their case at all. Medication services at our agency are adjunct services that patients are only eligible for if they are in other services.

"So when you “consult” with a real physician, can you countermand his orders, notajayhawk?"

If I "consult" with a physician it's to get their advice. If I refer the patient to that physician the doctor might, or might not, prescribe medications. If the patient then comes to me and says they don't like the medications because they make them somnambulant or nauseous or they make the person gain too much weight (why did you stop taking yours, BTW?), I can 1) consult with that physician to pass on the patient's concerns and investigate the feasibility of alternatives (such as a change in dosage or changing the medication itself), or, 2) if in my professional opinion I do not believe the patient's needs are being appropriately addressed by that physician, I can refer the patient elsewhere.

But then, if you can't understand the difference between certification and licensure, I don't know why I'd expect you to understand any of that.

"Plan of Care: patient to live with grandmother for awhile. refer to Dr. So and So for treatment of (bipolar / depression / substance abuse) Look familiar?"

Um, no. And it's likely nothing else you make up out of your tiny head would, either. Why? Was that supposed to be your imagined version of a treatment plan, or doctor's orders? Because it bears no resemblance to either.

Thanks yet AGAIN for demonstrating your ignorance of all things related to healthcare.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_troll (Ignoramus) says…

Oops, almost forgot:

"Plan of Care: patient to live with grandmother for awhile. refer to Dr. So and So for treatment of (bipolar / depression / substance abuse) Look familiar?"

Um, poochie?

Why would your "plan of care" include a referral to a physician if the "plan of care" was the same thing as physician's orders? If the physician was writing that, he wouldn't need to refer the patient to himself, would he?

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_troll (Ignoramus) says…

"You're not a physician. Try to avoid implying that you are one. Don't let one lie lead you into telling another."

Ahh, pooch has advanced to level 3 in the porchfinkler hierarchy - when it's obvious not only to the person he was arguing with that he's wrong, but to others who join in and confirm it, he starts lying and making things up.

"I'll bet the “psychiatrists” at your “agency” would not be amused at you representing that you are “primary” on any of the cases that your agency treats. You operate under those psychiatrists, you're not “primary”. They sign off (ultimately) on your work. "

Well, they wouldn't be very surprised, since they already know it. Our agency has over 400 employees, pooch, around half of which are clinical staff. The active patient load is in the thousands. There are three psychiatrists. Do you really think they "sign off" on several thousand patients, poochie?

And, um, pork_person?

In your travels around the internet trying to gather tidbits you don't understand to support your moronic and pathetic attempt at an 'argument', did you happen to notice that licensed counselors, licensed social workers, and licensed psychologists (among others) are able to practice independently? As in private practice, poochie?

What physician "signs off" on the treatment plans, what physician "supervises" those providers when they're in private practice, pooch?

Speaking of which, I don't know how I let this one get by:

"You might have an MSW, depending upon the State you're residing in, but you are “psychologist lite”."

And again pooch demonstrates he knows nothing about anything.

Poochie, little one? An MSW is not a professional credential and it does not give someone the right to practice. It's an academic degree. You still have to get your license to practice.

"To provide direct patient care, you have to be registered / certified / licensed. "

Yes, you do. Unfortunately, those three are not the same thing.

[continued]

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

[continued]

"You're confused. CNA's can “lose their license” through malpractice and misconduct. If that happens, they can't work as a CNA anymore. There was a case of a CNA who worked at a local nursing home who got caught stealing drugs from patients. LJ World reported it. "

And conveniently this is one of those times you forgot to link to the story, pooch?

You mean THIS CNA?

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/may/18/exnursinghome_worker_gets_jail_time_drug_theft/?city_local

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2006/apr/08/suspect_pleads_morphine_thefts/?city_local

Those appear to be all the stories in the LJW (at least they're the only ones that were returned in a search for her name). Which one said she lost her "license", pooch?

"To become a nurse, in many cases, you have to be a CNA first. Many schools require it either before admission or to be acquired during schooling and for good reason, which should be obvious."

Like I said, when your losing, badly, make something up.

Again, no link, troll? If "in many cases" this is true, it should be easy for you to find a nursing school that requires a CNA certificate as a condition for admission to the program.

"CNA's can't do as much as nurses but that doesn't mean they aren't “registered / certified / licensed”. "

Neither of us have said they aren't “registered / certified / licensed”, pookie. They most certainly are certified. They're just not licensed.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_troll (Ignoramus) says…

"You can go into private practice but ultimately, you're going to have to have a psychiatrist to write your scripts for you."

And, for what, the third time, pooch, most of my patents don't get meds from one of our agency physicians. Is whoever reads the big words to you having trouble lately? Or are you just stupider than usual (if that's possible)?

Wow, pooch got one right! (The odds were heavily in your favor.) Neosho actually does require prospective nursing students to complete a CNA course before admission! (Of course, the CNA courses at Neosho aren't provided in the nursing school, but whatever.)

I suppose you're right about it making sense - demonstrating the basic skills before entering the program - the same way one might be required to have passed a basic math course before entering an accounting program. As far as "nursing schools us[ing] the CNA as a benchmark of achievement", though:

"CNAs must also pass a state-administered test in which candidates demonstrate skills such as positioning a patient in bed, making an occupied bed or exhibiting proper handwashing techniques."

Wow!!!

What an achievement!!!!

By the way, pooch - is it your position that it's illegal to change a bed in Kansas without a license?

[continued]

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

[continued]

"CNAs are licensed to do what they do, they are certified to do what they do and they are registered to do what they do. If you have problems with synonyms, that's not my problem."

Well, you got two out of three right. And it's not a problem at all, pooch, as those three terms are not synonymous. No matter how many times you say it, it still won't be true.

From KDHE (the agency that credentials CNAs in Kansas, that you linked to yourself):

"Kansas law recognizes over 30 health occupational groups for which licensing, registration, or certification is provided. There are 11 regulatory bodies that issue credentials to those professions. Health Occupations Credentialing issues licenses to dietitians, speech-language pathologists, audiologists, and adult care home administrators. Certification programs administered by HOC include nurse aides, home health aides, and medication aides."

http://www.kdheks.gov/hoc/background.html

See, pooch - some professions get licenses. Others, including CNAs, get certifications.

Oh, and Registration isn't the same thing as licensure, either:

"(2) Registration is the appropriate level when statutory regulation under paragraph (a)(1) is not adequate to protect the public's health, safety or welfare and when registration will adequately protect the public health, safety or welfare by identifying practitioners who possess certain minimum occupational or professional skills so that members of the public may have a substantial basis for relying on the services of such practitioners. (3) Licensure is the appropriate level when statutory regulation under paragraph (a)(1) and registration under paragraph (a)(2) is not adequate to protect the public's health, safety or welfare and when the occupational or professional groups of health care personnel to be licensed perform functions not ordinarily performed by persons in other occupations or professions."

http://www.kdheks.gov/hoc/downloads/HOCA_Manual_and_board_list.pdf

How about this part from the Kansas Administrative Regulations for Certification of Nurse Aides:

"(h) "Licensed nursing experience" means experience as a registered nurse or licensed practical nurse."

http://www.kdheks.gov/hoc/regs/cna_regs.pdf

"I guess if we were in Florida, we wouldn't be having this “discussion”."

Well, first, we're not in Florida, are we?

And second, it's actually the Division of Medical Quality Assurance, Department of Health that certifies CNAs in Florida.

By the way, pooch - where was that link to the story you mentioned, where the LJW reported on a CNA losing her "license"?

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_person (Anonymous) says…

"CNA's are registered. You just provided the definition from the state of Kansas which described people who have to be registered as “practitioners” and having “occupations”. "

Um, yes.

Now it's your turn. Show us where the state of Kansas says they're "licensed", pooch.

What?

You mean you can't?

All this Googling, all this dissembling, and you can't find one mention - even from your own sources - that says CNAs are "licensed"?

You can't even find the LJW story - that YOU brought up - that says a CNA lost her "license"?

How odd, pooch.

Hey, you found a state that chooses to refer to "any permit, registration, certificate, or license, including a provisional license, issued by the department" as a "license" . (- Florida statutes 456.001.) A couple of things about that, pooch:

1) We're not in Florida. It's a common mistake idiots like you make.

2) Why would the state have to define that term to cover all those other terms if the terms were interchangeable, porkie?

Yes, I saw that, pooch. The licensing board in Florida does handle CNA certificates.

"Certificates."

Why don't you follow this link from that site, the info packet for CNAs:

http://www.doh.state.fl.us/mqa/cna/info_Brochure.pdf

"Florida Statute 456 regulates all health care practitioners, including CNAs. Florida Statute 464 regulates the certification, training, and discipline of CNAs. Florida Administrative Code 64B9-15 contains rules on CNAs." "The Certified Nursing Assistant Council provides recommendations on CNA training, testing and certification to the Florida Board of Nursing. In addition, the council develops rules to regulate CNAs in Florida and submits these to the Board for approval."

Did you happen to follow the link to the Nursing Board's license application page, pookie?

http://www.doh.state.fl.us/mqa/nursing/nur_applicant.html

If you had, you might find that the nursing board only accepts license applications for LPNs & RNs.

Now, from the website, it does mention that the state of Florida is switching over to licensure of CNAs, pooch. (Now, why would that switch be necessary if they were already licensed, poochie?) And if you review the requirements, you might just be able to figure out there is a lot of difference between the requirements for a CNA in the two states, and the duties they are allowed to perform. With the training they must complete (and renew) and the duties they perfom, a CNA in Florida should be licensed.

Kansas CNAs? Not so much.

[continued]

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

[continued]

"Are you going to tell them how “incredibly stupid” they are or are you going to hold that in until you get here? "

They're not incredibly stupid, though, porch_troll.. My patients have excuses for their cognitive deficits. It may be from a TBI, from some chemical imbalance, from some abnormality in one of the brain's structures, it could be many things. But they know that - they don't insist they're right in the face of overwhelming evidence. You, on the other hand, ARE stone-stupid, and apparently choose to remain that way. Others have tried to intervene, to tell you you're wrong, and it doesn't help. This is obviously beyond your comprehension.

But thank you, once again. I can't wait to resurrect these posts to show anyone that doesn't already know how you are absolutely clueless about the healthcare industry, if there's anyone left that doesn't already know that.

notajayhawk 4 years, 11 months ago

porch_troll (Ignoramus) says…

"Sucks when it's shown that CNA are licensed, isn't it?"

When did you show that, poochie? Still waiting for anything that says - as you originally claimed, porchfinkeler - that they're licensed in Kansas.

Like maybe the link to the story in the LJW about a CNA who lost her "license" for stealing drugs in a nursing home? Remember that, pooch?

Personally, I think it's great that the state of Florida chooses to license CNAs. More power to them. Kansas still doesn't. And neither does the state in which I work.

"I guess if the CNA in Florida can be artificially “redefined” as different from a CNA in Kansas, you can claim that you're still correct because a Florida CNA is “different”, even though your thesis is blown and you haven't a clue."

Let's see - in Florida, CNAs are required to, among other things, complete a certain amount of continuing education in between license renewals (a common requirement for licensure). In Kansas, to be eligible to renew their certification, a CNA has to have worked 8 hours in the past two years. Why, you're right, pooch, those requirements are almost identical!

"I like how you state that you're not in Kansas and in Kansas alternately as it suits you in argument. "

Um, dimbulb? I never said I wasn't in Kansas. I said I don't work in Kansas. Now, it probably wouldn't be worth your time traveling to another state to engage in your 'profession' as a fast-food worker (or do you prefer 'technician'?). But believe it or not, pookie - some people actually work in states other than where they live.

"Hell, a couple of days ago, you couldn't even get the name right. Now you're redefining CNAs from state to state. "

As you pointed out a couple of days ago, whinybrat, in Kansas the initials stand for Certified Nurses Aide. In Florida, it's Assistant. Or didn't you notice that?

You're never going to understand this, porkie. Other people besides myself have tried to explain it to you, and point out your mistakes, and the only thing you can come back with is 'I don't believe it' or some other three-year-old argument.

It will be endless fodder for (laughter) on other message boards, however.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.