D
DeSanto
Guest
I see
- Status
I
ishii
Guest
That should be told to the Obama campaign - Reid saying “I have a source that proves Romney did not pay taxes” where is his source and proof? Democrat campaign add saying Romney is responsible for the death of a women - who got cancer 7 years after Romney left Bain capital. Then the ad says “Romney doesn’t care about her dying” Biden saying that the Romney will have “y’all back in chains” to black audience. Shameless. etc. etc.
Frankly its about time to ask the Democrat catholic posters on these forums - at long last, have you no sense of decency at all? How can you defend the shameless exploiting of a women’s death to score cheap political points, outright lies. What happened to the 9th commandment? I mean, is protecting the right of a mother to snuff out her child really worth this? (what happened to the 6th commandment?)
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
Exactly. It is the view, apparently of Democrat catholics such that when challenged with the pro-death platform of the Democrat party - euthenasia, abortion, etc. they answer: " but the Democrat party is for school lunches for kids! and gay marriage! " They are blind to their party’s pro-death policies. They love liberalism more than they love the unborn.
Ishii
meltzerboy
New member
The opposing argument is that food stamps are a government entitlement (that is, a socialist evil), which fosters dependency and poverty since it is so much easier to receive help from the government than to help oneself. At the same time, entitlements drain the economy and deprive people of their human dignity. Therefore, instead of dispensing food stamps, Obama should have required people to find new jobs or retrain for them, however long that might take. In the meantime, they should make due with whatever finances they have left or borrow money from their relatives or friends to tide them over until they find a job. After all, we live in a capitalist economy and we have an American pioneer tradition of rugged individualism. Conservatives, did I get it right (and Right)?
I
ishii
Guest
The only way for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Spot on with the exception that there need to be safety net programs for the truely destitute, those unable to care for themselves and have no family or support structure. These programs should be temporary and facilitated at the level most proximal to the one in need.
D
DeSanto
Guest
you asked why food stamp recipients increased. Not why is there a food stamp program.
meltzerboy
New member
D
DeSanto
Guest
L
LisaA
Guest
True, unnecessary medical tests are often the result of a complex diagnosis where tests are run to prove or disprove their initial diagnosis. The problem with calling them “unnecessary tests” is that hindsight is 20/20. The test rules out a particular issue…is it “unnecessary” because it didn’t prove definitive? The reality is that doctors don’t order extra tests for fun and money. The doctor doesn’t make any more money ordering multiple tests since the samples are sent to big commercial labs. He gets paid for one blood draw if done in his office and then the samples go off to LabCorp or one of the other biggies which bills separately.
The other reason for “unnecessary tests” is defensive medicine. Say a doctor sees a patient and he thinks it might be X or Y. He can order a battery of tests to narrow it down although perhaps the patient would have been just as well cared for by his initial diagnosis. OTOH with our litigious society and trial lawyers trolling the waters, if by chance he MISSES something that would have been found by a test, he can be sued. Again the doctor doesn’t make anything more by ordering more tests but he may save his practice.
Onto the “Single Medical Record.” Sounds great right? A doc just needs to plug in a patient’s ID number and voila! He can see everything from the baby’s circumcision to his prostate cancer treatment. Not so great is the reality that this opens up a patients ENTIRE medical history to anyone able to get in. That means any office worker in any doctor’s office or hospital or anyone able to hack in. Data can be lost, compromised, or manipulated and the patient is none the wiser. These new systems are incredibly expensive. Our hospital has spent MILLIONS on software plus much more training people. And to what purpose? Perhaps a bit more streamlined than having Mrs Jones’ doc send his chart or the pertinent material. But I would be that in no way does this make practicing medicine any less expensive and it doesn’t do a THING to improve the patient’s outcome.
As I said, the whole Obamacare focus was bureaucracies for bureaucrats. The laws were written by those who may understand IT but they do not understand medicine. Imagine the billions now invested in this system…it would treat a LOT of indigent patients.
Lisa
R
RACJ
Guest
Code:
Yes, to a large extent, high joblessness IS Obama's fault. We have shut down refineries, oil rigs, coal plants, won't start new nuclear plants or explore for oil most anywhere on gov't lands. Notice that as soon as Bernanke prints more money or some company reports better than expected earnings, and stocks go up, the price of oil skyrockets. We are at the mercy of foreign powers; thus there will NEVER be a recovery under a socialist government that discourages fossil fuels.
As far as Congressional cooperation, you do know that Dems had BOTH houses in Obama's first two years, and now they control the Senate. This Senate hasn't submitted a budget in over a thousand days, so there is absolutely nothing to discuss. All Harry Reid and the Dems want to do is demagogue and demonize Republicans, while offering nothing of their own.
BTW, the REAL unemployment rate is above 12%. This president has been a disaster, and I think that people know it, though some try to lie to themselves and others. :shrug: Rob
C
CMatt25
Guest
In addition to all of this, corporations are sitting on huge profits. And the wealthy so called job producers who received their tax cuts haven’t created the jobs we were led to believe they would and that we are always told they will. Or they add to their wealth by forcing one employee to take on another’s job. Lay off the other person. Cut benefits. You know the so called “trickle down” theory. It’s just when they won’t spend enough of their resources to create jobs, it’s not jobs that are trickling down upon the masses of people beneath them.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Meltzer, I’m hoping we never see the light of day when Medicare is ended and Ryan’s voucher program is put in its place. But you are right the near seniors indeed would be severely hit. Like you if it were up to me, I’d go with single payer as well.
S
starryheart
Guest
P
Pork_Roll
Guest
Why can’t the GOP agree to cut welfare, the federal workforce (not just salaries), and defense spending, before cutting social security and welfare benefits? This seems much more sensible to me and more “catholic” than funding our military industrial complex at the expense of medicare and social security.
Ayn Rand was an anti-catholic economist if there ever was one. She was so anti-catholic that she wrote against catholic social teaching. Basically, here economic views were evil. She represented Mordor in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle Earth or Gordon Gekko in Wall Street (but not as cool). I hope Ryan has disavowed himself completely from her writings and has turned to papal encyclicals on social doctrine and GKC for inspiring his economic views.
Ayn Rand was an anti-catholic economist if there ever was one. She was so anti-catholic that she wrote against catholic social teaching. Basically, here economic views were evil. She represented Mordor in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle Earth or Gordon Gekko in Wall Street (but not as cool). I hope Ryan has disavowed himself completely from her writings and has turned to papal encyclicals on social doctrine and GKC for inspiring his economic views.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
One of the few areas about which I agree with you wholeheartedly. I wrote a similar post to this on either this or another thread in the last couple of days.
The most recent excuse that the corporations have given for not creating jobs with their newer tax cuts (which, yes, they promised they would do) is that they’re still insecure about the economy. Hmmm.
meltzerboy
New member
I don’t believe it’s a waste of time considering Ryan’s initial budget proposal, which did not offer seniors Medicare as an option, since this gives us a good idea of his thinking. This is why I am able to infer that Ryan would in fact prefer a voucher system for the purpose of replacing Medicare altogether rather than for making Medicare more solvent. Insofar as Romney’s plan, why should we believe Romney will not be persuaded by his running mate to adopt the latter’s plan? After all, Ryan is supposedly the expert in this area. Besides, Romney is quite fickle, to put it mildly, with respect to his own beliefs and choices on a variety of issues.
I
ishii
Guest
You criticize so-called “trickle down” theory, but with the modern Obama/Democrat welfare state you get trickle down charity which empowers bureaucrats, politicians, and increases dependency. But atleast it makes certain liberals*** feel*** they are living out the ideals in the gospel by supporting wealth redistribution. Maybe wealthy/corporations are “sitting on their profits” because they fear that Obama administration will, if it wins, begin acting on its anti-business philosophy that it has espoused in non-teleprompter, unguarded speeches: “we need to spread the wealth around” “you didn’t build this business” etc.
How about the stimulus package, Cmatt. Wasn’t it supposed to spur economic growth and reduce unemployment? What happened? Obama doesn’t know the first thing about what causes economic growth and business to flourish - please tell me what in his life experience would give him a clue about how the economy and business works? Community organizing? Harvard Law School? He is a committed ideologue - and so are his defenders on these forums.
Ishii
I
ishii
Guest
I think a more likely answer is they’re unsure of what the policy will be in the future and they’re waiting. Businesses need stability, not one policy one year and a different policy the next, and so on. If they are going to make decisions that are long-term committments then they need to be reasonably sure of the govt. policies - tax rates, regulation, etc. (healthcare policy, eg.!) over the next few years. If they are unsure, they will be very conservative and won’t expand or open that factory, e.g. Seems pretty simple to me. Read Amity Schlaes’ The Forgotten Man in which she demonstrates how the private sector didn’t expand in the 30’s during the Great Depression partly due to apprehension about FDR’s unpredictable policies and endless tinkering. Schlaes has written for New Yorker and New Republic - just in case you’re afraid she’s just another right-wing blogger. If you were a business owner and you thought that Obama was about to drive us over the fiscal cliff would you expand your business?
amazon.com/The-Forgotten-Man-History-Depression/dp/0066211700
Ishii
meltzerboy
New member
Yes, I am aware of the concept of differential diagnosis in medicine in which several diseases may have overlapping symptoms, and sometimes this is a valid reason for more tests. However, extra tests are also often performed apart from this situation, sometimes due to fear of litigation, as you mentioned, but also due to the demands of the insurance companies.
I maintain that a single medical record is worth the cost and would indeed improve the efficiency of medical care and, consequently, the patient’s outcome. This record might even be the domain of the physician’s administrative assistant rather than the physician by means of a coordinated division of labor. The current piecemeal chart method means extra paper work and is more prone to human error as well as mis-diagnosis due to the physician’s not having the complete history of the patient’s treatment. Hacking may be a problem and must be safeguarded against as much as possible; but at least it is less likely that vital information will be missing.
- Status