spagetti and meatballs?
there was a doctor that was cheating on his wifey with the nurse he worked with. one day the nurse informed the doc. that she was pregnant. he said," go to france for 9 months or so.! i hav the exspenses. when u hav the babies send me a postcard that says spagetti."so 9months or so went by and the doc. came home to his wife. the wife said;"hey honey. u got a postcard from france." she handed it to him. he read it and fell straight to the floor. when the ambulance arrived they said," it seems he had a heart attack. was there anything that cud hav caused it?" the wife answered," well, he did read this postcard.". the postcard said, " spagetti,spagetti,spagetti, spagetti. two with meatballs and two with out." lol!!
Jokes & Riddles - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
ehhh. its funny.
2 :
Hi Mz, Lol Lol Lol Lol That would cause any man to have a heart attact. I enjoy your joke it made me laugh out loud. poppy1
3 :
goooooooooood 1 keep them coming
Read more discussion :
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
someone help me. please tell me you understand
someone help me. please tell me you understand?
Two years ago my dad was found to be dying of cancer. he was living in france with his new wife.myself and all my family flew over to be with him.when the hospital told us that the cancer was to agrresive. we took him back home to die.my dad was a big man not only in size but in personality and a character you would never forget once you had met him.to see him reduced to the size of a stick thin skelleton was heartbreaking.the nurse would come each day and give him morphine to help his pain.she told us that this could go on for weeks.to see him slowly lose his dignity each day was unbearable.after a long chat with my grandfather i got everyone to say goodbye to my dad and then had five minutes alone with him telling him how i loved him etc.then i gave him a lethal dose of morphine and he slowly slipped away.My dad would have done the same for me.I just cant stop thinking about this.
Family - 13 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It seems as though you hate to see your father suffer and thought that it would be the right thing to end his misery. Well there is no right and wrong about it as you did what you felt best at the moment. The reason why you cant stop thinking about it is because you are feeling guilty about what you did. Don't as it was the right thing. Rather let the person go than to see that person suffer for a long time. The only way you can get through this is too analyse why did it and you should be fine after that. Best of luck amigo and keep in contact as I would like to know how you are doing.
2 :
Oh my god! It's good that you eased his passing but you should have asked him first. I know he probably wanted that, but you should've talked to your family first. I'm sorry to hear that. : (
3 :
You shouldn't stop thinking about it. You should take a moment every day to think about it and congratulate yourself for having done a brave and loving thing. You should stop every day and say: "I'm a hero. I went out on a limb and risked everything to do the right thing.'' There's nothing to understand. Stop beating yourself up. You did right. I hope to God, if I'm ever in that situation, I have somebody around who loves me enough to be as strong as you were.
4 :
Take it as a lesson from life. Dust to dust, ashes to ashes. Te important thing is not what the others can think or say, but who you really feel about what happened. You're the only one who knows the situation from inside, and that makes you the only one to judge if it was the right thing to do. I personally agree with your decision, but I repeat: it doesn't matter what I think. You have to make peace with yourself. It was not an easy thing to go through, but hang on. Good luck.
5 :
I'D SAY I UNDERSTAND, BUT NO ONE WOULD REALLY UNDERSTAND UNLESS THEY WERE IN YOUR SITUATION. I THINK YOU ARE A VERY GOOD PERSON, TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS, B/C YOU PUT HIM OUT OF ALL THE MISERY AND PAIN. MYSELF, I DON'T THINK I WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. EVEN THOUGH I KNOW ITS SELFISH. I THINK YOU DID THE BEST THING, AND I KNOW IT HAD TO BE VERY HARD.
6 :
hiiiiiiiiiiii sweety pie i don't know wht to say but i can say that i am sorry to hear that
7 :
If I knew the answer to that...then I wouldn't be in the EXACT SAME BOAT. On June 23 of this year, I was left with the same decision you were, and I did the same thing you did. I knew my reasons at the time were flawless...or at least they seemed so at the time. And now, of course, the doubts have crept in and I'm in hell! No one around me understood why I did what I did. All I can tell you is this...be strong...God loves you...
8 :
thats completly understandalbe that you cant stop thinking about it in a normal case of loseing some one it takes a vary long time to stop thinking about that person but with the desion you had to make it is going to be extreamly hard for you you know my grandfather had a blood clot in his brain the doctor told my family that they could do surgery but that the odds where only 50/50 that he would make it out alive and if he did he would be brain dead not able to talk or move any part of his body that he would have to gethis nutirents from a iv i helped the family decide not doto the surgery he dies four hours later i know it can be hard but it will get easier it's been four years for me and every once in a while i still need to just sit down and cry for him you'l get through it you did the right thing it was only for his best
9 :
i understand what you did and i probably would have done the same thing but what you did was lawfully wrong in the laws eyes it could be looked at as murder but as long as you and your family are the only ones who know i wouldnt worry about it. as far as the depression you are certainly entitled to that and the guilt too as time goes by though youll get better and youll feel better about what you did and if the feelings get overwhelming go to a mental facility and seek help so you dont do something to yourself to overcome the guilt you feel
10 :
Yes, I understand.
11 :
I understand you been in a terrible situation. Hopefully you will get over it because your dad will want you to be happy again.
12 :
I know it is hard. I lost my dad to cancer too. It will get better with time. Your dad would not have wanted to suffer that way. He was with his loving family and now he is out of pain. He is OK now. Work on making yourself OK. Good luck and God bless you.
13 :
I'm so sorry for your loss, but you shouldn't feel guilty for loving your dad enough to ease his suffering. My grandma died of cancer and I know how bad it can get at the end, I would have done anything not to see her suffer the way she did. Just remember your dad is at peace now, free of pain. Grieve your loss, but don't blame yourself in any way. I wish you the best of luck and God bless.
Read more discussion :
Two years ago my dad was found to be dying of cancer. he was living in france with his new wife.myself and all my family flew over to be with him.when the hospital told us that the cancer was to agrresive. we took him back home to die.my dad was a big man not only in size but in personality and a character you would never forget once you had met him.to see him reduced to the size of a stick thin skelleton was heartbreaking.the nurse would come each day and give him morphine to help his pain.she told us that this could go on for weeks.to see him slowly lose his dignity each day was unbearable.after a long chat with my grandfather i got everyone to say goodbye to my dad and then had five minutes alone with him telling him how i loved him etc.then i gave him a lethal dose of morphine and he slowly slipped away.My dad would have done the same for me.I just cant stop thinking about this.
Family - 13 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It seems as though you hate to see your father suffer and thought that it would be the right thing to end his misery. Well there is no right and wrong about it as you did what you felt best at the moment. The reason why you cant stop thinking about it is because you are feeling guilty about what you did. Don't as it was the right thing. Rather let the person go than to see that person suffer for a long time. The only way you can get through this is too analyse why did it and you should be fine after that. Best of luck amigo and keep in contact as I would like to know how you are doing.
2 :
Oh my god! It's good that you eased his passing but you should have asked him first. I know he probably wanted that, but you should've talked to your family first. I'm sorry to hear that. : (
3 :
You shouldn't stop thinking about it. You should take a moment every day to think about it and congratulate yourself for having done a brave and loving thing. You should stop every day and say: "I'm a hero. I went out on a limb and risked everything to do the right thing.'' There's nothing to understand. Stop beating yourself up. You did right. I hope to God, if I'm ever in that situation, I have somebody around who loves me enough to be as strong as you were.
4 :
Take it as a lesson from life. Dust to dust, ashes to ashes. Te important thing is not what the others can think or say, but who you really feel about what happened. You're the only one who knows the situation from inside, and that makes you the only one to judge if it was the right thing to do. I personally agree with your decision, but I repeat: it doesn't matter what I think. You have to make peace with yourself. It was not an easy thing to go through, but hang on. Good luck.
5 :
I'D SAY I UNDERSTAND, BUT NO ONE WOULD REALLY UNDERSTAND UNLESS THEY WERE IN YOUR SITUATION. I THINK YOU ARE A VERY GOOD PERSON, TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS, B/C YOU PUT HIM OUT OF ALL THE MISERY AND PAIN. MYSELF, I DON'T THINK I WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. EVEN THOUGH I KNOW ITS SELFISH. I THINK YOU DID THE BEST THING, AND I KNOW IT HAD TO BE VERY HARD.
6 :
hiiiiiiiiiiii sweety pie i don't know wht to say but i can say that i am sorry to hear that
7 :
If I knew the answer to that...then I wouldn't be in the EXACT SAME BOAT. On June 23 of this year, I was left with the same decision you were, and I did the same thing you did. I knew my reasons at the time were flawless...or at least they seemed so at the time. And now, of course, the doubts have crept in and I'm in hell! No one around me understood why I did what I did. All I can tell you is this...be strong...God loves you...
8 :
thats completly understandalbe that you cant stop thinking about it in a normal case of loseing some one it takes a vary long time to stop thinking about that person but with the desion you had to make it is going to be extreamly hard for you you know my grandfather had a blood clot in his brain the doctor told my family that they could do surgery but that the odds where only 50/50 that he would make it out alive and if he did he would be brain dead not able to talk or move any part of his body that he would have to gethis nutirents from a iv i helped the family decide not doto the surgery he dies four hours later i know it can be hard but it will get easier it's been four years for me and every once in a while i still need to just sit down and cry for him you'l get through it you did the right thing it was only for his best
9 :
i understand what you did and i probably would have done the same thing but what you did was lawfully wrong in the laws eyes it could be looked at as murder but as long as you and your family are the only ones who know i wouldnt worry about it. as far as the depression you are certainly entitled to that and the guilt too as time goes by though youll get better and youll feel better about what you did and if the feelings get overwhelming go to a mental facility and seek help so you dont do something to yourself to overcome the guilt you feel
10 :
Yes, I understand.
11 :
I understand you been in a terrible situation. Hopefully you will get over it because your dad will want you to be happy again.
12 :
I know it is hard. I lost my dad to cancer too. It will get better with time. Your dad would not have wanted to suffer that way. He was with his loving family and now he is out of pain. He is OK now. Work on making yourself OK. Good luck and God bless you.
13 :
I'm so sorry for your loss, but you shouldn't feel guilty for loving your dad enough to ease his suffering. My grandma died of cancer and I know how bad it can get at the end, I would have done anything not to see her suffer the way she did. Just remember your dad is at peace now, free of pain. Grieve your loss, but don't blame yourself in any way. I wish you the best of luck and God bless.
Read more discussion :
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Choose the best one from each
Choose the best one from each?
Would you rather visit 1-Spain 2-Italy 3-France Favorite chocolate 1-milk 2-dark 3-white Best drink 1-wine 2-beer 3-soada Best state 1-NY 2-CA 3-TX Profession you would want 1-police officer 2-teacher 3-nurse Are you a 1-male 2-female Thanks
Words & Wordplay - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
2 2 1 3 1 1
Read more discussion :
Would you rather visit 1-Spain 2-Italy 3-France Favorite chocolate 1-milk 2-dark 3-white Best drink 1-wine 2-beer 3-soada Best state 1-NY 2-CA 3-TX Profession you would want 1-police officer 2-teacher 3-nurse Are you a 1-male 2-female Thanks
Words & Wordplay - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
2 2 1 3 1 1
Read more discussion :
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Any Mormons here listen to 'radical' music
Any Mormons here listen to 'radical' music?
Examples: Yes, Van der Graaf Generator, Skinny Puppy, Aphex Twin, King Crimson, Klaus Schulze, John Zorn, Coltrane & Davis, Nurse with Wound, Porcupine Tree, Sushi Club, Anime remixes, Zoviet France, Ligetti & Xenakis, etc
Religion & Spirituality - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I didn't know Skinny Puppy was considered "radical." I've been learning to DJ for the past few years, so what would I know..... *Not even LDS, just thought I'd answer. --Drum and Bass appeal to you at all?
2 :
I was brought up in the 80's and rock was known as backmasking devil music. I was taught to listent to mainly Mormon music, but I rebellled and got into Punk. Sex Pistols, Black flag, ect.
3 :
I've never considered Porcupine Tree or King Crimson radical bands. They're just Porogressive, or is that what makes them radical?
4 :
I'm LDS and I love NIN and love most "goth" music.
Read more discussion :
Examples: Yes, Van der Graaf Generator, Skinny Puppy, Aphex Twin, King Crimson, Klaus Schulze, John Zorn, Coltrane & Davis, Nurse with Wound, Porcupine Tree, Sushi Club, Anime remixes, Zoviet France, Ligetti & Xenakis, etc
Religion & Spirituality - 4 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I didn't know Skinny Puppy was considered "radical." I've been learning to DJ for the past few years, so what would I know..... *Not even LDS, just thought I'd answer. --Drum and Bass appeal to you at all?
2 :
I was brought up in the 80's and rock was known as backmasking devil music. I was taught to listent to mainly Mormon music, but I rebellled and got into Punk. Sex Pistols, Black flag, ect.
3 :
I've never considered Porcupine Tree or King Crimson radical bands. They're just Porogressive, or is that what makes them radical?
4 :
I'm LDS and I love NIN and love most "goth" music.
Read more discussion :
Sunday, November 28, 2010
How on Earth is Hannity saying this
How on Earth is Hannity saying this...?
On his show tonight (8/18) and I'm sure many other times, he said that every government form of healthcare has failed. He said its failed in Canada, Britain, and in France... First off, all three have different systems. Canada has a single payer system, in Britain, the government actually employs the doctors, nurses, etc. (not the case in Canada), and France has a mix of government run healthcare, but also has a large portion of private insurers. France strongly regulates the healthcare industry in pricing of meds, treatment, etc., even for private hospitals. The WHO, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the Commonwealth Fund have all stated that France has the best healthcare in the world! Every one of them has unequivocally said France has the best results with terminal illness, best access to treatment, and overall the best quality of care for their citizens... and they pay half of what we do!!! How can anyone believe Hannity and other conservatives when they say all of these programs are the same and all have failed? http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/10949-real-health-care-reform-universal-single-payer.html Give GENUINE answers. Not stupid name calling I would like to hear some real arguments on why Hannity is right. Everythings peachy: you said the Canadian system is not sustainable... what about ours????? And hannity is never wrong??? My goodness, trust yourself to think! He is wrong on this one. And my question was in regard to France in most part and how he made them out to be the same.
Politics - 18 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Hannity+Reality=Implosion.
2 :
EASY..it is the TRUTH! Get educated..... As President Obama and his Democrat-controlled Congress try to force healthcare reform on an American population largely pleased with the current system, our neighbors to the north are actually considering improving their structure by -- wait for it!!! -- welcoming additional competition from private insurers. I kid you not. Within hours of the Obama administration saying that it might consider a reform package without a government option, the Canadian Press inconveniently reported the following: Story Continues Below Ad ↓ The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it. Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made. "We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press. [...] [Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA] has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared." In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system. Oh my! Canada's government-run healthcare system is in a state of disarray, so much so that they're considering increasing competition by allowing folks to buy private insurance. That'll surely help Obama's cause! But here's the money quote: "(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig. "They have to look at the evidence that's being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada's doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you're getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do we do that and of course how do we pay for it." It's going to be absolutely delicious to see how this gets reported by Obama-loving media in the next 24 hours. Stay tuned. by the way...HANNITY IS NEVER WRONG...his facts are checked and double checked...it is COMBS who had nothing in his head.! And of course the libs don't like hearing the truth...that is the problem. If you don't live in their denial everything is a lie. The truth is...NOTHING this administration has said or done is TRUTH or a SUCCESS. NAME ONE!
3 :
They are failing... They're met w/ a cross-road b/c they can't stabilize the rapid increase in costs from people abusing the system: 1. Ration Care 2. Increase Taxes A. Canada injected hundreds of billions of dollars into their system last year to keep hospitals open -- they called it "stimulus". B. The UK is entertaining a two-tier system - NHS + HMO's. The HMO's cover the holes presented by NICE, the rationing board in the UK. C. Australia will be insolvent w/in 5 years. D. France -- Don't know...judging from the trend, I can imagine it's on its way to high costs and reduced quality if it's not already there. Domestically? 1. Medicare - 36 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. It currently pays hospitals 64% of their obligation -- you and I pick up the tab for the 36% shortfall. They're cutting that reimbursement rate by another 21% by the end of the year. Rations Care. 2. Medicaid - 35 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. 3. Medi-CAL - bankrupt 4. Oregon's System - bankrupt 5. Mass.'s System - bankrupt 6. Hawaii's System - bankrupt 7. TRIcare - Already being reformed (www. cbo. gov) 8. VAcare - hit and miss...I hear some good things but also hear about slow authorizations and amputations. Bureaucracies increase inefficiencies. Can the Government run a system? Yes. But not well -- they're all in the red or heading that way. If we're to reform, which 99.9999% of people think we should do now, we need to address costs first. The bills circulating in Congress don't do that. They're short-term solutions (patches) and it allows us to push this problem down the line to our kids. What are the unfunded liabilities for ANY of these programs? Nobody knows. We're all assuming a decision based on a 10-year estimate. Is that wise to make a long-term decision on a short-term estimate? Of course not. It'll essentially be our kids' Medicare/Medicaid/Medi-CAL/Soc. Security (13 trillion unfunded liabilities) etc. etc.. It's selfish and unethical to pass a program that will leverage our future, let alone our kids' future. We're already overextended.
4 :
Hannity works for the corporate machine and tows the party line as dictated by Rupert Murdoch who wants to throw American democracy off the rails.
5 :
Hannity rarely uses the facts. Unfortunately he is listened to way to often. If people would take the time, like you did, to check his facts they would stop paying attention to him and others like him (both Conservative and Liberal). Commentators are not known for their fact-checking abilities.
6 :
you don't need 5 answers.it's the truth,all you have to do is listen to the bbc and they talk about it all of the time.it is common knowledge.all you have to do is look and stay off those left wing websites.
7 :
I do agree with you. It is someone making money off of people who are dying for leadership wrapped around a flag that they know nothing about. It is the cruelest form of all tyranny and that is the deception of a group or culture for monetary gain. That is Hannity That is Rush That is Beck, but he is actually psychotic. That is even O'Reilly The truth will one day make us free and if 79% of fox viewers think that the government is setting up death panels you know that there are a lot of true, real life, idiots out there. That is my answer. Your assistant Great question.
8 :
Well if your source is the Atlantic Free Press, a self described "progressive" news website, no wonder you're confused. Ask anyone in the UK or Canada what they think about it and stop using things like the Atlantic Free Press to formulate your opinions.
9 :
He's trying to support his views...plain and simple. He's leaving out information because he either doesn't know it is does not feel it is important to his view. I'm inclined to believe that he doesn't understand the differences, but I only have my opinions to base that upon.
10 :
In all three cases... GOVERNMENT EMPLOYED officials have come to the Unites States for treatment... The most recent was Linda Stronach, former liberal member of the Canadian Parliament and Cabinet member...
11 :
For arguments sake lets forget about what Sean Hannity said for a second. We fought a war to gain our independence from Britain. We didn't like the way they did things we wanted to be independent from them. Why do you libs have the sudden urge to emulate them on everything?
12 :
I wonder if France spends money on $107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail. $1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck. $150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud. $84,000 to find out why people fall in love. $1 million to study why people don't ride bikes to work. $19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence. $144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws. Funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys. $219,000 to teach college students how to watch television. $2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe. $20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges. $160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest. $800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley. $100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft. $16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument. $1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument. $6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce. $10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull's potency. $100,000 to research soybean-based ink. $1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center. $57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two. When they stop ridiculous things like this, we'll talk.
13 :
Regarding France, didn't a whole bunch of seniors die a few years ago due to a heatwave and the fact that the whole country went on vacation for that month, leaving no doctors or nurses to handle the issue? They might only be best eleven months of the year. There are ongoing controversies about the effectiveness of the UK and Canadian systems. The reason that France pays half of what we do is because they basically steal from other countries who do proper research and development by regulating pricing. We pay for the R&D, France steals it by forcing companies to sell it at cost, or going generic. If every country follows this method, medical innovation would slow to a crawl.
14 :
If you really look into it you also see how all of those systems have gone way over budget and people's care is severely rationed. In Canada a person with cancer may have to wait up to 2 years or more for their first test to see if they have cancer (in the U.S. it could take 2-4 weeks for the same test). In that time they probably will die. There are just too many patients and not enough doctors because no one wants to be a doctor. It pays hardly anything considering the amount of schooling and skill it takes to be a doctor. All those systems take a really long time for care because of all the paper work ( paper work will always be there in any government run system) this all bogs down the system.
15 :
Because the systems in all those countries are on the brink of failure. All three governments are scrambling to save them..
16 :
why do you waste out time discribing there healthcare systems when they are ALL government run systems. How they are different is irrelivant. France, England and Canada are states. The United States is 50 states. National healthcare is not unconstitutional in those country's Why doesn't the EAU have national healthcare then? Why not worldwide healthcare? You just exposed that you dont listen to Hannity or else you would have anticipated my questions.
17 :
Hannity never lets facts get in the way.
18 :
reading all this is one reason i like fox. it's not perfect but close to it. in fact i have never heard anything that they couldn't back up but have heard a few people challenge what was said but all they have to do is email them for an explanation. i'll take fox
Read more discussion :
On his show tonight (8/18) and I'm sure many other times, he said that every government form of healthcare has failed. He said its failed in Canada, Britain, and in France... First off, all three have different systems. Canada has a single payer system, in Britain, the government actually employs the doctors, nurses, etc. (not the case in Canada), and France has a mix of government run healthcare, but also has a large portion of private insurers. France strongly regulates the healthcare industry in pricing of meds, treatment, etc., even for private hospitals. The WHO, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the Commonwealth Fund have all stated that France has the best healthcare in the world! Every one of them has unequivocally said France has the best results with terminal illness, best access to treatment, and overall the best quality of care for their citizens... and they pay half of what we do!!! How can anyone believe Hannity and other conservatives when they say all of these programs are the same and all have failed? http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/10949-real-health-care-reform-universal-single-payer.html Give GENUINE answers. Not stupid name calling I would like to hear some real arguments on why Hannity is right. Everythings peachy: you said the Canadian system is not sustainable... what about ours????? And hannity is never wrong??? My goodness, trust yourself to think! He is wrong on this one. And my question was in regard to France in most part and how he made them out to be the same.
Politics - 18 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Hannity+Reality=Implosion.
2 :
EASY..it is the TRUTH! Get educated..... As President Obama and his Democrat-controlled Congress try to force healthcare reform on an American population largely pleased with the current system, our neighbors to the north are actually considering improving their structure by -- wait for it!!! -- welcoming additional competition from private insurers. I kid you not. Within hours of the Obama administration saying that it might consider a reform package without a government option, the Canadian Press inconveniently reported the following: Story Continues Below Ad ↓ The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it. Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made. "We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press. [...] [Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA] has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared." In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system. Oh my! Canada's government-run healthcare system is in a state of disarray, so much so that they're considering increasing competition by allowing folks to buy private insurance. That'll surely help Obama's cause! But here's the money quote: "(Canadians) have to understand that the system that we have right now - if it keeps on going without change - is not sustainable," said Doig. "They have to look at the evidence that's being presented and will be presented at (the meeting) and realize what Canada's doctors are trying to tell you, that you can get better care than what you're getting and we all have to participate in the discussion around how do we do that and of course how do we pay for it." It's going to be absolutely delicious to see how this gets reported by Obama-loving media in the next 24 hours. Stay tuned. by the way...HANNITY IS NEVER WRONG...his facts are checked and double checked...it is COMBS who had nothing in his head.! And of course the libs don't like hearing the truth...that is the problem. If you don't live in their denial everything is a lie. The truth is...NOTHING this administration has said or done is TRUTH or a SUCCESS. NAME ONE!
3 :
They are failing... They're met w/ a cross-road b/c they can't stabilize the rapid increase in costs from people abusing the system: 1. Ration Care 2. Increase Taxes A. Canada injected hundreds of billions of dollars into their system last year to keep hospitals open -- they called it "stimulus". B. The UK is entertaining a two-tier system - NHS + HMO's. The HMO's cover the holes presented by NICE, the rationing board in the UK. C. Australia will be insolvent w/in 5 years. D. France -- Don't know...judging from the trend, I can imagine it's on its way to high costs and reduced quality if it's not already there. Domestically? 1. Medicare - 36 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. It currently pays hospitals 64% of their obligation -- you and I pick up the tab for the 36% shortfall. They're cutting that reimbursement rate by another 21% by the end of the year. Rations Care. 2. Medicaid - 35 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. 3. Medi-CAL - bankrupt 4. Oregon's System - bankrupt 5. Mass.'s System - bankrupt 6. Hawaii's System - bankrupt 7. TRIcare - Already being reformed (www. cbo. gov) 8. VAcare - hit and miss...I hear some good things but also hear about slow authorizations and amputations. Bureaucracies increase inefficiencies. Can the Government run a system? Yes. But not well -- they're all in the red or heading that way. If we're to reform, which 99.9999% of people think we should do now, we need to address costs first. The bills circulating in Congress don't do that. They're short-term solutions (patches) and it allows us to push this problem down the line to our kids. What are the unfunded liabilities for ANY of these programs? Nobody knows. We're all assuming a decision based on a 10-year estimate. Is that wise to make a long-term decision on a short-term estimate? Of course not. It'll essentially be our kids' Medicare/Medicaid/Medi-CAL/Soc. Security (13 trillion unfunded liabilities) etc. etc.. It's selfish and unethical to pass a program that will leverage our future, let alone our kids' future. We're already overextended.
4 :
Hannity works for the corporate machine and tows the party line as dictated by Rupert Murdoch who wants to throw American democracy off the rails.
5 :
Hannity rarely uses the facts. Unfortunately he is listened to way to often. If people would take the time, like you did, to check his facts they would stop paying attention to him and others like him (both Conservative and Liberal). Commentators are not known for their fact-checking abilities.
6 :
you don't need 5 answers.it's the truth,all you have to do is listen to the bbc and they talk about it all of the time.it is common knowledge.all you have to do is look and stay off those left wing websites.
7 :
I do agree with you. It is someone making money off of people who are dying for leadership wrapped around a flag that they know nothing about. It is the cruelest form of all tyranny and that is the deception of a group or culture for monetary gain. That is Hannity That is Rush That is Beck, but he is actually psychotic. That is even O'Reilly The truth will one day make us free and if 79% of fox viewers think that the government is setting up death panels you know that there are a lot of true, real life, idiots out there. That is my answer. Your assistant Great question.
8 :
Well if your source is the Atlantic Free Press, a self described "progressive" news website, no wonder you're confused. Ask anyone in the UK or Canada what they think about it and stop using things like the Atlantic Free Press to formulate your opinions.
9 :
He's trying to support his views...plain and simple. He's leaving out information because he either doesn't know it is does not feel it is important to his view. I'm inclined to believe that he doesn't understand the differences, but I only have my opinions to base that upon.
10 :
In all three cases... GOVERNMENT EMPLOYED officials have come to the Unites States for treatment... The most recent was Linda Stronach, former liberal member of the Canadian Parliament and Cabinet member...
11 :
For arguments sake lets forget about what Sean Hannity said for a second. We fought a war to gain our independence from Britain. We didn't like the way they did things we wanted to be independent from them. Why do you libs have the sudden urge to emulate them on everything?
12 :
I wonder if France spends money on $107,000 to study the sex life of the Japanese quail. $1.2 million to study the breeding habits of the woodchuck. $150,000 to study the Hatfield-McCoy feud. $84,000 to find out why people fall in love. $1 million to study why people don't ride bikes to work. $19 million to examine gas emissions from cow flatulence. $144,000 to see if pigeons follow human economic laws. Funds to study the cause of rudeness on tennis courts and examine smiling patterns in bowling alleys. $219,000 to teach college students how to watch television. $2 million to construct an ancient Hawaiian canoe. $20 million for a demonstration project to build wooden bridges. $160,000 to study if you can hex an opponent by drawing an X on his chest. $800,000 for a restroom on Mt. McKinley. $100,000 to study how to avoid falling spacecraft. $16,000 to study the operation of the komungo, a Korean stringed instrument. $1 million to preserve a sewer in Trenton, NJ, as a historic monument. $6,000 for a document on Worcestershire sauce. $10,000 to study the effect of naval communications on a bull's potency. $100,000 to research soybean-based ink. $1 million for a Seafood Consumer Center. $57,000 spent by the Executive Branch for gold-embossed playing cards on Air Force Two. When they stop ridiculous things like this, we'll talk.
13 :
Regarding France, didn't a whole bunch of seniors die a few years ago due to a heatwave and the fact that the whole country went on vacation for that month, leaving no doctors or nurses to handle the issue? They might only be best eleven months of the year. There are ongoing controversies about the effectiveness of the UK and Canadian systems. The reason that France pays half of what we do is because they basically steal from other countries who do proper research and development by regulating pricing. We pay for the R&D, France steals it by forcing companies to sell it at cost, or going generic. If every country follows this method, medical innovation would slow to a crawl.
14 :
If you really look into it you also see how all of those systems have gone way over budget and people's care is severely rationed. In Canada a person with cancer may have to wait up to 2 years or more for their first test to see if they have cancer (in the U.S. it could take 2-4 weeks for the same test). In that time they probably will die. There are just too many patients and not enough doctors because no one wants to be a doctor. It pays hardly anything considering the amount of schooling and skill it takes to be a doctor. All those systems take a really long time for care because of all the paper work ( paper work will always be there in any government run system) this all bogs down the system.
15 :
Because the systems in all those countries are on the brink of failure. All three governments are scrambling to save them..
16 :
why do you waste out time discribing there healthcare systems when they are ALL government run systems. How they are different is irrelivant. France, England and Canada are states. The United States is 50 states. National healthcare is not unconstitutional in those country's Why doesn't the EAU have national healthcare then? Why not worldwide healthcare? You just exposed that you dont listen to Hannity or else you would have anticipated my questions.
17 :
Hannity never lets facts get in the way.
18 :
reading all this is one reason i like fox. it's not perfect but close to it. in fact i have never heard anything that they couldn't back up but have heard a few people challenge what was said but all they have to do is email them for an explanation. i'll take fox
Read more discussion :
Sunday, November 14, 2010
History/Acting (Les Miserables) Question
History/Acting (Les Miserables) Question?
My director for our school musical, Les Miserables, has given me an assignment, along with four other girls. In the barricades scene in the show, the four girls and I are supposed to be acting as nurses. We know that when someone gets shot, we need to take care of them. But our director is looking for a little more depth than that. For anyone who has been in Les Miserables and has had my job in the barricades scene, can you give me any advice on what we should do when someone playing a student gets wounded? Also, I am opening this question to those who know anything about what nurses would do in a battle such as the one in the show. The battle takes place in 1832 in France, so that might help. What would a nurse do for a wounded soldier/student?
Theater & Acting - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Watch an old western, they show plenty of examples of people pretending to be shot and falling down dead. If you can get away with it, see if you can use an airsoft gun. They sting but it'll help the dramatics greatly. If a nurse was there, they'd be holding a gun. Battlefield medicine at the time was an afterthought, something you did when the battle was over. If you want to try it, have the nurse dragging off the wounded because medicine during a battle at that time was basically unheard of.
Read more discussion :
My director for our school musical, Les Miserables, has given me an assignment, along with four other girls. In the barricades scene in the show, the four girls and I are supposed to be acting as nurses. We know that when someone gets shot, we need to take care of them. But our director is looking for a little more depth than that. For anyone who has been in Les Miserables and has had my job in the barricades scene, can you give me any advice on what we should do when someone playing a student gets wounded? Also, I am opening this question to those who know anything about what nurses would do in a battle such as the one in the show. The battle takes place in 1832 in France, so that might help. What would a nurse do for a wounded soldier/student?
Theater & Acting - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Watch an old western, they show plenty of examples of people pretending to be shot and falling down dead. If you can get away with it, see if you can use an airsoft gun. They sting but it'll help the dramatics greatly. If a nurse was there, they'd be holding a gun. Battlefield medicine at the time was an afterthought, something you did when the battle was over. If you want to try it, have the nurse dragging off the wounded because medicine during a battle at that time was basically unheard of.
Read more discussion :
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Nurse in Continental Army 1775 Diary...events..help
Nurse in Continental Army 1775 Diary...events..help!?
I have been assigned a report for history & it is about 1775, [Rev.War] and I have to pretend to be a nurse in the Continental Army living through these events and have to make a diary describing all these events: 1. The Battles of Lexington & Concord 2. The Battle Of Bunker Hill 3. News of the Olive Branch Petition 4. News of The Declaration of Independence 5. Washington's crushing defeat in New York 6. Retreat across New Jersey 7. Victory at Trenton and Princeton 8. British capture Philadelphia 9. The Battle of Saratoga 10. France and Spain send help 11. Winter at Valley Forge 12. The Battle of Cowpens 13. The Battle of Yorktown 14. News of The Treaty of Paris Now, I'm begging [not asking for you to do my report!] that someone will help me by putting brief details describing EACH event so i know what i'm writing about in this diary. Thank you sooooooooooo much!!!! No links please, I just want somone to explain please!!! Thanks =D♥
History - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
'wikipedia'
2 :
I'll be glad to be of assistance, but when is the assignment due? profjohn48
3 :
The only thing that I can help you with is to get you in the right frame of reference. Women in the 18th century were not military or hospital "nurses" in the sense we know today. A nurse was the caregiver to someone else's infant. Women that helped give support to soldiers in those times were called "camp followers". In later wars that term came to mean the prostitutes that accompanied armies but in the 18th century it refered to any civilian male or female that helped the cause for love or profit. Women camp followers were almost always married in order to be respectable. If a husband died she went home or remarried immediately, usualy to a tentmate of her late husband. There were no single women allowed among the enlisted men. The only single woman that might be found in a camp or fort would be the sister,daughter,aunt or widowed mother of a high ranking officer. Female camp followers cooked,hauled water and wood,laundered clothing and foraged for food to support the efforts of the soldiers. On the battlefield they along with male camp followers (surgeons, merchants, tradesmen,scouts) bravely went about unarmed tending to the wounded, bringing water to the front lines, dragging the wounded (particularly their family members or friends) out of harm's way. The "nursing" done was cleaning and binding of wounds. Most women were handy with a needle and could stitch simple wounds.Larger wounds would be cauterized by burning with brand,hot tar or hot pitch. Antiseptics and antibiotics, in fact sanitation was unknown.Women and male surgeons washed and reused bandages. So take this scene set here and apply it to whatever battle you research.
Read more discussion :
I have been assigned a report for history & it is about 1775, [Rev.War] and I have to pretend to be a nurse in the Continental Army living through these events and have to make a diary describing all these events: 1. The Battles of Lexington & Concord 2. The Battle Of Bunker Hill 3. News of the Olive Branch Petition 4. News of The Declaration of Independence 5. Washington's crushing defeat in New York 6. Retreat across New Jersey 7. Victory at Trenton and Princeton 8. British capture Philadelphia 9. The Battle of Saratoga 10. France and Spain send help 11. Winter at Valley Forge 12. The Battle of Cowpens 13. The Battle of Yorktown 14. News of The Treaty of Paris Now, I'm begging [not asking for you to do my report!] that someone will help me by putting brief details describing EACH event so i know what i'm writing about in this diary. Thank you sooooooooooo much!!!! No links please, I just want somone to explain please!!! Thanks =D♥
History - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
'wikipedia'
2 :
I'll be glad to be of assistance, but when is the assignment due? profjohn48
3 :
The only thing that I can help you with is to get you in the right frame of reference. Women in the 18th century were not military or hospital "nurses" in the sense we know today. A nurse was the caregiver to someone else's infant. Women that helped give support to soldiers in those times were called "camp followers". In later wars that term came to mean the prostitutes that accompanied armies but in the 18th century it refered to any civilian male or female that helped the cause for love or profit. Women camp followers were almost always married in order to be respectable. If a husband died she went home or remarried immediately, usualy to a tentmate of her late husband. There were no single women allowed among the enlisted men. The only single woman that might be found in a camp or fort would be the sister,daughter,aunt or widowed mother of a high ranking officer. Female camp followers cooked,hauled water and wood,laundered clothing and foraged for food to support the efforts of the soldiers. On the battlefield they along with male camp followers (surgeons, merchants, tradesmen,scouts) bravely went about unarmed tending to the wounded, bringing water to the front lines, dragging the wounded (particularly their family members or friends) out of harm's way. The "nursing" done was cleaning and binding of wounds. Most women were handy with a needle and could stitch simple wounds.Larger wounds would be cauterized by burning with brand,hot tar or hot pitch. Antiseptics and antibiotics, in fact sanitation was unknown.Women and male surgeons washed and reused bandages. So take this scene set here and apply it to whatever battle you research.
Read more discussion :
Monday, November 1, 2010
Geriatric nurses please answer
Geriatric nurses please answer?
I want to go traveling a bit, but I am in my 90's. I intend visiting Britain, mainly London and also France, mainly the Northern part, and Holland, Belgium, Poland and Greece. The Embassy will not issue me with a valid Visa for travel unless I can produce a letter to say that I will have either a Geriatric nurse as companion or alternatively, that I have the names and addresses of geriatric nurses in all of these countries. I am really quite fit and do not think that I will need help with anything apart from baggage assistance like every other person, but all the same, please if you can, give names and addresses where I can find geriatric nurses in all or any of these countries as I am of the opinion that one single traveling companion will bore me and work up my annoyance something terrible.
Women's Health - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I do not know about geriatric nurse but if you are interested to get accompanied by doctor let me know.
Read more discussion :
I want to go traveling a bit, but I am in my 90's. I intend visiting Britain, mainly London and also France, mainly the Northern part, and Holland, Belgium, Poland and Greece. The Embassy will not issue me with a valid Visa for travel unless I can produce a letter to say that I will have either a Geriatric nurse as companion or alternatively, that I have the names and addresses of geriatric nurses in all of these countries. I am really quite fit and do not think that I will need help with anything apart from baggage assistance like every other person, but all the same, please if you can, give names and addresses where I can find geriatric nurses in all or any of these countries as I am of the opinion that one single traveling companion will bore me and work up my annoyance something terrible.
Women's Health - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I do not know about geriatric nurse but if you are interested to get accompanied by doctor let me know.
Read more discussion :
Thursday, October 28, 2010
How about this info/ What did Slick do about the killings on his watch
How about this info/ What did Slick do about the killings on his watch?
Best Answer - Chosen By You I am right there with you..But you can show your list to the apologist, moral equivalist fools and they'll will make an excuse for each and every one of those events you listed..PATHETIC, isnt it??? I call them USEFUL IDIOTS and here's the reason why: http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/pri... by the way, In my humble opinion; since we are talking about WW3 here, this list should include international acts of terror carried out by the so called religion of peace.. Here's my list... 1972 Munich Olympics Sep-5,1972 (Black September) 1976 Entebbe Hostage Crisis, June 27, 1976 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis, Nov. 4, 1979 444 days 1979 Grand Mosque Seizure, Nov 20,1979 1981 Assassination of Egyptian President, Oct 6,1981 1981 Attempted Assassination of Pope John Paul the Second 1982 Assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister, Sept 14, 1982 1983 Bombing of US Embassy in Beirut, April 18,1983 1983 Bombing of Marine Barracks, Beirut, Oct 23,1983 1984 Hezbollah Restaurant Bombing, April 12,1984 1985 Egyptian Airliner Hijacking, Nov 23,1985 1985 Rome Airport murders 1985 TWA Flight 847 hijacked, U.S. Navy diver murdered 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking, Homicidal maniac lived in saddams Iraq 1986 Aircraft Bombing in Greece, March 30, 1986 1988 Pan Am 747 Flight 103 Bombing, Lockerbie, 100's murdered 1988 Berlin Discotheque Bombing, Dec 21,1988 1990 A Muslim Named El Sayyid Nosair Murders Israeli Political activist Meir Kahane. Nov 1990 1992 Bombing in Israeli Embassy in Argentina, March 17,1992 1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr., April 14,1993 1993 First World Trade Center bombing, February 26th, 7 Killed, Hundreds injured, Billions 1994 Air France Hijacking, Dec 24,1994 1994 A Muslim Named Rashid Baz shoots at a van filled with Hasidic boys, on the Brooklyn bridge murdering one of them. FBI calls it "Road Rage". March 1, 1994 1995 Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan, Mar 8,1995 1995 Saudi Military Installation Attack, Nov 13, 1995 1995 Kashmiri Hostage taking, July 4,1995 1996 Khobar Towers attack 1996 Sudanese Missionaries Kidnapping, Aug 17,1996 1996 Paris Subway Explosion, Dec 3,1996 1997 At Empire State Building; Ali Abu Kamal shoots at tourists, kills one and wounds six before killing himself, Mayor Giuliani informs the public "he had many enemies in his mind".Feb 24,1997 1997 Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, Sept 4, 1997 1997 Yemeni Kidnappings, Oct 30,1997 1998 Somali Hostage taking crisis, April 15,1998 1998 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Peru, Jan 15, 1998 1998 U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 100's murdered 1998 U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 100's murdered 1999 Egypt Air flight 990's co-pilot crashes plane killing all 217 people on board, officials post no link to terrorism, even though the co-pilot is heard on black box tape exclaiming "I rely on Allah" 11 times as he crashed the plane.- Oct 1999 1999 Plot to blow up Space Needle (thwarted) 2000 USS Cole attacked,17 U.S.Navy sailors were murdered and 39 others were injured- October 2000-2003 Intifada against Israel - 1000's dead and injured 2000 Manila Bombing, Dec 30,2000 2001 4 Commercial airliners hijacked, 250+ murdered 2001 World Trade Center attacked, 2800+ murdered 2001 Flight 93 murders 2001 Pentagon attacked, 180+ murdered 2002 Los Angeles Airport; Hesham Mohamed Ali Hadayet shoots and kills 2 people, FBI begrudgingly admits this as a terrorist act after evidence reveals it to be. July 4, 2002 2002 Reporter Daniel Pearl, kidnapped and murdered 2002 Beltway Snipers, John Muhammad & Lee Malvo;converts to Islam,goes on a shooting spree killing 10 people.Oct 2002 2002 Philippines American missionary, Filipino nurse killed 2002 July 4, El Al attack Los Angeles LAX, several murdered 2002 Bali bombing - 200 dead, 300 injured 2002 Yemen, French Oil Tanker attacked 2002 Marines attacked / murdered in Kuwait 2002 Washington D.C. sniper 2002 Russian Theater attacked, 100+ dead 2002 Nigerian riots against Miss World Pageant, 200 dead, dozens injured 2002 Mombasa Hotel Attacked, 12 dead, dozens injured 2002 Israeli Boeing 757 attacked by missiles, fortunately no one injured 2002 August Hotel bombing in Jakarta, Indonesia. 12 dead, dozens injured. 2003 Russian concert bombing 2003 Mohahammad Ali Alayed Slashes the Throat of friend Ariel Sellouk (a jew) Alayed had broken off his friendship with Sellouk after he became a "more devout follower of Islam".Aug 2003 2003 Philippines airport and market bombing 2003 Foiled SAM plot in the USA 2003 UN Baghdad HQ Bombing 2003-04 Murders of coalition forces 2004 American contractors burned alive, dismembered, strung up on bridge 2004 Beheading of private US citizen Nick Berg 2004 Beheading of private US citizen Paul Johnson 2004 Beslan:Take over of Russian school.350+ dead,500+ injured.many are babies & small children Sep 5 2004 2004 Madrid Bombing. 200 Dead 2004 Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, brutally murdered by an angry Muslim on the streets of Amsterdam, he created the 10-minute movie Submission. The movie deals with the topic of violence against women in Islamic societies; telling the stories of four abused Muslim women. 2004 The Khobar assault; militants dressed in military-style uniforms opened fire inside two oil industry office compounds, then moved to an upscale residential area. They took 45 to 60 hostages.Twenty-two people were killed in the 25-hour rampage, almost all of them foreigners, including one American. 2005 London Bombing. 56 Dead 2005 Bali 25 Killed, 100 Wounded in Bali Explosions 2005 NALCHIK, Russia. Scores of Islamic militants killed at least 108 people. 2005 Iraq Insurgents Kill U.S. Hostage Ronald Schulz,40, an industrial electrician from Alaska 2006 a 22 year-old Iranian student named Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar drives his SUV onto the campus of the University of North Carolina deliberately trying to kill people and succeeding in injuring nine. After the incident, he seemed singularly pleased with himself, smiling and waving to crowds after a court appearance on Monday, at which he explained that he was “thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah.†2006 JAMMU, India - Islamic militants raided a village in Indian-controlled &killed 22 Hindus, lining them outside their homes and shooting them execution-style 2006 2 Somalis killed Radical Islamic militia fighters for watching World Cup-07-05 2006-July 11 INDIA- bombings of Bombay's rail network that killed at least 207 people and injured more than 700 others. Think about what Slick was doing while this crap was going on. The only thing they did was attack the branch Davidian Ranch and kill a bunch of women and children. He didn't do a damn thing about terrorism but put it out of his mind. You lefties need to sit down,shut up and watch a REAL MAN do his job. Hey LIBS the ?? was about Clinton not President Bush, Oh I forgot you can't answer a ??
Politics - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
interesting list, even the pope knows the value of their 'peacful' religion, now the liberals just have to learn that
2 :
Doesn't sound like a peaceful religion, and the people who support it should change things a bit.
3 :
I've always wondered where the ACLU was when the Waco thing happened. You're working way too hard for this forum, but I like your work.
4 :
what is Bush doing? going into Iraq? I guess your too stupid to know that IRAQ DIDN'T DO ANY OF THAT!... but hey... you keep thinking you're making a difference... see all the attacks you listed since 9-11? he's obviously doing such a great job! I'll sit down and watch a fool think he's doing some good... and watch fools support him that don't know any better... call me when you care about Osama again...
5 :
"slick Willie" Clinton did not do a MF thing about any of these terrorist attacks. Sunday, this SOB look like he was going to have a bloomin' stroke during that interview on FOX. Chris Wallace had that idiot going, but I wasn't able to watch all of it, but what I did see made my day.
6 :
how can a BJ from an ugly ho be more important than clinton pleasing himself while people were murdered. The new motto for clinton he got head while others were left for dead
7 :
Clinton had been in office 38 days when terrorists bombed the WTC ,his res ponce, he warned Americans against "overreacting" and in an MTV interview he described the bombing as the work of someone who "did something really stupid". The last act of terrorism came on 10-12-2000. USS Cole,17 American sailors were killed 39 others were wounded, Clinton's mouth came out strong "We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable" although he most likely would have had solid public support for strong military action,HE DID NOTHING! Defend that libs, defend a direct attack against our navy and the killing of US sailors and Clinton did NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!! He tried, he tried, HE LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Read more discussion :
Best Answer - Chosen By You I am right there with you..But you can show your list to the apologist, moral equivalist fools and they'll will make an excuse for each and every one of those events you listed..PATHETIC, isnt it??? I call them USEFUL IDIOTS and here's the reason why: http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/pri... by the way, In my humble opinion; since we are talking about WW3 here, this list should include international acts of terror carried out by the so called religion of peace.. Here's my list... 1972 Munich Olympics Sep-5,1972 (Black September) 1976 Entebbe Hostage Crisis, June 27, 1976 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis, Nov. 4, 1979 444 days 1979 Grand Mosque Seizure, Nov 20,1979 1981 Assassination of Egyptian President, Oct 6,1981 1981 Attempted Assassination of Pope John Paul the Second 1982 Assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister, Sept 14, 1982 1983 Bombing of US Embassy in Beirut, April 18,1983 1983 Bombing of Marine Barracks, Beirut, Oct 23,1983 1984 Hezbollah Restaurant Bombing, April 12,1984 1985 Egyptian Airliner Hijacking, Nov 23,1985 1985 Rome Airport murders 1985 TWA Flight 847 hijacked, U.S. Navy diver murdered 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking, Homicidal maniac lived in saddams Iraq 1986 Aircraft Bombing in Greece, March 30, 1986 1988 Pan Am 747 Flight 103 Bombing, Lockerbie, 100's murdered 1988 Berlin Discotheque Bombing, Dec 21,1988 1990 A Muslim Named El Sayyid Nosair Murders Israeli Political activist Meir Kahane. Nov 1990 1992 Bombing in Israeli Embassy in Argentina, March 17,1992 1993 Attempted Assassination of Pres. Bush Sr., April 14,1993 1993 First World Trade Center bombing, February 26th, 7 Killed, Hundreds injured, Billions 1994 Air France Hijacking, Dec 24,1994 1994 A Muslim Named Rashid Baz shoots at a van filled with Hasidic boys, on the Brooklyn bridge murdering one of them. FBI calls it "Road Rage". March 1, 1994 1995 Attack on US Diplomats in Pakistan, Mar 8,1995 1995 Saudi Military Installation Attack, Nov 13, 1995 1995 Kashmiri Hostage taking, July 4,1995 1996 Khobar Towers attack 1996 Sudanese Missionaries Kidnapping, Aug 17,1996 1996 Paris Subway Explosion, Dec 3,1996 1997 At Empire State Building; Ali Abu Kamal shoots at tourists, kills one and wounds six before killing himself, Mayor Giuliani informs the public "he had many enemies in his mind".Feb 24,1997 1997 Israeli Shopping Mall Bombing, Sept 4, 1997 1997 Yemeni Kidnappings, Oct 30,1997 1998 Somali Hostage taking crisis, April 15,1998 1998 U.S. Embassy Bombing in Peru, Jan 15, 1998 1998 U.S. Kenya Embassy blown up, 100's murdered 1998 U.S. Tanzania Embassy blown up, 100's murdered 1999 Egypt Air flight 990's co-pilot crashes plane killing all 217 people on board, officials post no link to terrorism, even though the co-pilot is heard on black box tape exclaiming "I rely on Allah" 11 times as he crashed the plane.- Oct 1999 1999 Plot to blow up Space Needle (thwarted) 2000 USS Cole attacked,17 U.S.Navy sailors were murdered and 39 others were injured- October 2000-2003 Intifada against Israel - 1000's dead and injured 2000 Manila Bombing, Dec 30,2000 2001 4 Commercial airliners hijacked, 250+ murdered 2001 World Trade Center attacked, 2800+ murdered 2001 Flight 93 murders 2001 Pentagon attacked, 180+ murdered 2002 Los Angeles Airport; Hesham Mohamed Ali Hadayet shoots and kills 2 people, FBI begrudgingly admits this as a terrorist act after evidence reveals it to be. July 4, 2002 2002 Reporter Daniel Pearl, kidnapped and murdered 2002 Beltway Snipers, John Muhammad & Lee Malvo;converts to Islam,goes on a shooting spree killing 10 people.Oct 2002 2002 Philippines American missionary, Filipino nurse killed 2002 July 4, El Al attack Los Angeles LAX, several murdered 2002 Bali bombing - 200 dead, 300 injured 2002 Yemen, French Oil Tanker attacked 2002 Marines attacked / murdered in Kuwait 2002 Washington D.C. sniper 2002 Russian Theater attacked, 100+ dead 2002 Nigerian riots against Miss World Pageant, 200 dead, dozens injured 2002 Mombasa Hotel Attacked, 12 dead, dozens injured 2002 Israeli Boeing 757 attacked by missiles, fortunately no one injured 2002 August Hotel bombing in Jakarta, Indonesia. 12 dead, dozens injured. 2003 Russian concert bombing 2003 Mohahammad Ali Alayed Slashes the Throat of friend Ariel Sellouk (a jew) Alayed had broken off his friendship with Sellouk after he became a "more devout follower of Islam".Aug 2003 2003 Philippines airport and market bombing 2003 Foiled SAM plot in the USA 2003 UN Baghdad HQ Bombing 2003-04 Murders of coalition forces 2004 American contractors burned alive, dismembered, strung up on bridge 2004 Beheading of private US citizen Nick Berg 2004 Beheading of private US citizen Paul Johnson 2004 Beslan:Take over of Russian school.350+ dead,500+ injured.many are babies & small children Sep 5 2004 2004 Madrid Bombing. 200 Dead 2004 Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, brutally murdered by an angry Muslim on the streets of Amsterdam, he created the 10-minute movie Submission. The movie deals with the topic of violence against women in Islamic societies; telling the stories of four abused Muslim women. 2004 The Khobar assault; militants dressed in military-style uniforms opened fire inside two oil industry office compounds, then moved to an upscale residential area. They took 45 to 60 hostages.Twenty-two people were killed in the 25-hour rampage, almost all of them foreigners, including one American. 2005 London Bombing. 56 Dead 2005 Bali 25 Killed, 100 Wounded in Bali Explosions 2005 NALCHIK, Russia. Scores of Islamic militants killed at least 108 people. 2005 Iraq Insurgents Kill U.S. Hostage Ronald Schulz,40, an industrial electrician from Alaska 2006 a 22 year-old Iranian student named Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar drives his SUV onto the campus of the University of North Carolina deliberately trying to kill people and succeeding in injuring nine. After the incident, he seemed singularly pleased with himself, smiling and waving to crowds after a court appearance on Monday, at which he explained that he was “thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah.†2006 JAMMU, India - Islamic militants raided a village in Indian-controlled &killed 22 Hindus, lining them outside their homes and shooting them execution-style 2006 2 Somalis killed Radical Islamic militia fighters for watching World Cup-07-05 2006-July 11 INDIA- bombings of Bombay's rail network that killed at least 207 people and injured more than 700 others. Think about what Slick was doing while this crap was going on. The only thing they did was attack the branch Davidian Ranch and kill a bunch of women and children. He didn't do a damn thing about terrorism but put it out of his mind. You lefties need to sit down,shut up and watch a REAL MAN do his job. Hey LIBS the ?? was about Clinton not President Bush, Oh I forgot you can't answer a ??
Politics - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
interesting list, even the pope knows the value of their 'peacful' religion, now the liberals just have to learn that
2 :
Doesn't sound like a peaceful religion, and the people who support it should change things a bit.
3 :
I've always wondered where the ACLU was when the Waco thing happened. You're working way too hard for this forum, but I like your work.
4 :
what is Bush doing? going into Iraq? I guess your too stupid to know that IRAQ DIDN'T DO ANY OF THAT!... but hey... you keep thinking you're making a difference... see all the attacks you listed since 9-11? he's obviously doing such a great job! I'll sit down and watch a fool think he's doing some good... and watch fools support him that don't know any better... call me when you care about Osama again...
5 :
"slick Willie" Clinton did not do a MF thing about any of these terrorist attacks. Sunday, this SOB look like he was going to have a bloomin' stroke during that interview on FOX. Chris Wallace had that idiot going, but I wasn't able to watch all of it, but what I did see made my day.
6 :
how can a BJ from an ugly ho be more important than clinton pleasing himself while people were murdered. The new motto for clinton he got head while others were left for dead
7 :
Clinton had been in office 38 days when terrorists bombed the WTC ,his res ponce, he warned Americans against "overreacting" and in an MTV interview he described the bombing as the work of someone who "did something really stupid". The last act of terrorism came on 10-12-2000. USS Cole,17 American sailors were killed 39 others were wounded, Clinton's mouth came out strong "We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable" although he most likely would have had solid public support for strong military action,HE DID NOTHING! Defend that libs, defend a direct attack against our navy and the killing of US sailors and Clinton did NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!! He tried, he tried, HE LIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Read more discussion :
Thursday, October 14, 2010
What should I do? I'm crazy about Catherine Deneuve. Don't want to do anything anymore.
What should I do? I'm crazy about Catherine Deneuve. Don't want to do anything anymore.
I think she's the greatest actor in the world. All I wanna do right now is watch her video flicks on youtube or elsewhere because we don't have French films here in the Phil. Anything that has to do with French reminds me of her. I've actually decided to learn French a month ago and I'm really serious. My biggest dream right now is to work in France. I think I have a shot since I'm a nurse but it will not be anytime soon. Ms. Deneuve is like 65 now but I don't see her with her age. I see her with her face when starred in Repulsion, I see her as Emilie in My Favorite Season and as Lea in Belle Maman. I think I'm going nuts. Nothing makes me happy anymore. It's like I wanna go straight to France. I'm different. I'm sad since I can't tell anyone about this. They'll think I'm "Buang" (crazy in bisaya). Do you think I'll meet her someday?
Celebrities - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
maybe if u play your cards right
2 :
She wants you to buy that cocco butter soap. Stock up man. She still gets a cut of the action. Or just mail her the money directly. Maybe she will call you -- collect.
3 :
It sounds as if you are really depressed and are directing your attention to someone who is not attainable. I think you should tell your parents or a counselor about your thoughts. They are not healthy. Sorry, to have to tell you that. Next.
Read more discussion :
I think she's the greatest actor in the world. All I wanna do right now is watch her video flicks on youtube or elsewhere because we don't have French films here in the Phil. Anything that has to do with French reminds me of her. I've actually decided to learn French a month ago and I'm really serious. My biggest dream right now is to work in France. I think I have a shot since I'm a nurse but it will not be anytime soon. Ms. Deneuve is like 65 now but I don't see her with her age. I see her with her face when starred in Repulsion, I see her as Emilie in My Favorite Season and as Lea in Belle Maman. I think I'm going nuts. Nothing makes me happy anymore. It's like I wanna go straight to France. I'm different. I'm sad since I can't tell anyone about this. They'll think I'm "Buang" (crazy in bisaya). Do you think I'll meet her someday?
Celebrities - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
maybe if u play your cards right
2 :
She wants you to buy that cocco butter soap. Stock up man. She still gets a cut of the action. Or just mail her the money directly. Maybe she will call you -- collect.
3 :
It sounds as if you are really depressed and are directing your attention to someone who is not attainable. I think you should tell your parents or a counselor about your thoughts. They are not healthy. Sorry, to have to tell you that. Next.
Read more discussion :
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Which is a better idea for a short story
Which is a better idea for a short story?
It has to be under 1500 words. 1. An old lady and an eighteen year old guy meet at a nursing home when the boy is doing community service to pay for something bad he did. He has a kid and his dreams of being a pilot are put on the back burner when he realizes that he must get a factory-level job in order to pay for his child. He feels hopeless. The old woman feel hopeless because her life is nearly over and she has no one. When she was younger, she too had a kid at a young age. They realize how much they have in common and become best friends, giving each other the strength they need to go on. 2. A journalist, Charlotte, from Cleveland, Ohio is working on an assignment in Sicily, Italy when she meets a man, Pascal, who works for the mafia. He offers her $10,000 dollars if she agrees to smuggle his drugs into France. She attempts to do so, but she is stopped before she even gets on the plane, though they haven't found the drugs yet. Pascal, being the con artist he is and having the connections he does, does his best to help himself and the journalist get out of their predicament before too much damage is done. Pascal and Charlotte fall in love somewhere in between. What do you think?? Which sounds more interesting?
Words & Wordplay - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Number one sounds way more interesting and the character development possibilities are endless. The second option sounds like a plot for a movie.
2 :
The first one sounds more appropriate for a short story =)
3 :
2 sounds more interesting #1 sounds too familiar to other story lines
4 :
Telling the idea is interesting for both but a lot of writers lose that when they actually do the story and it isn't as appealing as the ideas were. Keep that in mind when you pick whichever one. Both are ok.
5 :
The first one has more potential. The second one is just too like a TV show or something. Too much drama and plot, and not enough opportunity for character development like you have in number one.
6 :
it will depend on how the story is depicted. The first one can be beautiful. And the second one can be very pretty. it depends on what you do with them.
Read more discussion :
It has to be under 1500 words. 1. An old lady and an eighteen year old guy meet at a nursing home when the boy is doing community service to pay for something bad he did. He has a kid and his dreams of being a pilot are put on the back burner when he realizes that he must get a factory-level job in order to pay for his child. He feels hopeless. The old woman feel hopeless because her life is nearly over and she has no one. When she was younger, she too had a kid at a young age. They realize how much they have in common and become best friends, giving each other the strength they need to go on. 2. A journalist, Charlotte, from Cleveland, Ohio is working on an assignment in Sicily, Italy when she meets a man, Pascal, who works for the mafia. He offers her $10,000 dollars if she agrees to smuggle his drugs into France. She attempts to do so, but she is stopped before she even gets on the plane, though they haven't found the drugs yet. Pascal, being the con artist he is and having the connections he does, does his best to help himself and the journalist get out of their predicament before too much damage is done. Pascal and Charlotte fall in love somewhere in between. What do you think?? Which sounds more interesting?
Words & Wordplay - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Number one sounds way more interesting and the character development possibilities are endless. The second option sounds like a plot for a movie.
2 :
The first one sounds more appropriate for a short story =)
3 :
2 sounds more interesting #1 sounds too familiar to other story lines
4 :
Telling the idea is interesting for both but a lot of writers lose that when they actually do the story and it isn't as appealing as the ideas were. Keep that in mind when you pick whichever one. Both are ok.
5 :
The first one has more potential. The second one is just too like a TV show or something. Too much drama and plot, and not enough opportunity for character development like you have in number one.
6 :
it will depend on how the story is depicted. The first one can be beautiful. And the second one can be very pretty. it depends on what you do with them.
Read more discussion :
Friday, October 1, 2010
will my baby still remember me
will my baby still remember me?
hello( please read and SERIOUS answers only) my husband and i sent my daughter to stay with my inlaws in france back in march , my lil girl was 2 months old at the time. now she is do back home in about 2 weeks. she will 1 week short of 6 months old. we have had webcam communication with our daughter about 2 times a week ( due to time differences) she responds to my voice but she is usually looking at her surroundings. but i see how she is with my mother nlaw, and i am afraid that she will come back home and she will begin to cry for my mother in law, because she has spent almost 4 months with her and have been away from me for that long. i will be so devestated if that was to happen!!! i did not want to send her in the 1st place, i was in nursing school at the time and my husband was working, it was his decision to send her.. i think if i had no bond with my daughter i could not look my husband in the face anymore. please serious answers only. i am so nervous.
Newborn & Baby - 8 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
she is your doughter she will remember you
2 :
There's a chance your daughter wont remember you, but then there's a chance she might. Babies normally remember a person by the shape of their head and their smell. If you hold her close and let her get a good smell of you, and talk to her. She'll certainly remember your voice from when she was in the womb and on the phone.
3 :
As tough as this is going to sound--no, she probably won't remember you. She will be familiar with you because of your video chats, but since you are not caring for her most of the time, she will likely think of your mother-in-law as her mother. There is good news! Lots of times, babies aren't even adopted until they're 9 months old, or older. It might take some time, but they bond with their adoptive parents and grow up without remembering anything else. You will get that bond back with your baby in no time, it is not lost forever. Don't worry!
4 :
she will be fine. my friend left to kuwait when her baby was 4 months and was gone for a year and a half and her baby did great when she came home!
5 :
She probably will know who you are, but still might cry for your mother-in-law. Babies get attached very easily to whoever is with them the most. That seems like a very difficult situation to be in. Best of luck to you, but remember, it may have been your husband who thought this idea up but you must have had some say so in it. Don't push all the blame on him.
6 :
Of course she is going to cry, she will be in unfamiliar surroundings with unfamiliar people and it could take her some time to adapt. Newborns/infants don't have retention powers so she basically doesn't know who you are, she doesn't know that you are her mother. She doesn't know who you were prior to her going to your in laws and no she isn't going to remember you. Just like the next time she sees your in laws she really won't remember them. You ALLOWED your husband to make that decision for you to send your daughter away. That makes you as at much fault as he is. I was still in school when I had my daughter but I didn't send her away. I took a couple of months off of school then went back and retook the classes I missed and put her in day care when her and I were both ready, so she was with me every single day after my classes. I would never allow my husband to send my child away. Sorry but it isn't going to be happy times for awhile, that is a fact, your child is going to cry and scream and will probably have problems sleeping there is nothing you can do to make it go away. I'm just wondering how you can look yourself in the mirror.
7 :
Omg! I am sorry that u were not with your baby for so long! I could not have ever been away from my baby that long. She has never been away from me for more than two hours. That must have been so hard to miss all those little things in the development of your baby! I don't think anyone would have been ae to tear my baby from me for any reason!I don't think your baby will remember you but it doesn't matter because you will introduce yourself again and she will love you anyway.
8 :
well i think your baby will definitely remember you, but at first she will not remember you as her mother. since your MIL has been her primary caregiver since she was 2 months old, im sure she will think that your MIL is her mother. there will be tears when she leaves so prepare yourself for that. but it will be short lived. and dont feel bad. at my moms daycare, babies would cry when they had to go home because they were used to my mom caring for them. it will not take long to fix itself, though. in no time at all it will be like you never separated. dont beat yourself up when she cries for your MIL. its nothing personal, it is just how babies are. *EDIT- i also want to say that i would NEVER send my daughter away. i dont care what was going on. so i dont think you should solely blame your husband. you could have stopped that, even if it meant leaving him.
Read more discussion :
hello( please read and SERIOUS answers only) my husband and i sent my daughter to stay with my inlaws in france back in march , my lil girl was 2 months old at the time. now she is do back home in about 2 weeks. she will 1 week short of 6 months old. we have had webcam communication with our daughter about 2 times a week ( due to time differences) she responds to my voice but she is usually looking at her surroundings. but i see how she is with my mother nlaw, and i am afraid that she will come back home and she will begin to cry for my mother in law, because she has spent almost 4 months with her and have been away from me for that long. i will be so devestated if that was to happen!!! i did not want to send her in the 1st place, i was in nursing school at the time and my husband was working, it was his decision to send her.. i think if i had no bond with my daughter i could not look my husband in the face anymore. please serious answers only. i am so nervous.
Newborn & Baby - 8 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
she is your doughter she will remember you
2 :
There's a chance your daughter wont remember you, but then there's a chance she might. Babies normally remember a person by the shape of their head and their smell. If you hold her close and let her get a good smell of you, and talk to her. She'll certainly remember your voice from when she was in the womb and on the phone.
3 :
As tough as this is going to sound--no, she probably won't remember you. She will be familiar with you because of your video chats, but since you are not caring for her most of the time, she will likely think of your mother-in-law as her mother. There is good news! Lots of times, babies aren't even adopted until they're 9 months old, or older. It might take some time, but they bond with their adoptive parents and grow up without remembering anything else. You will get that bond back with your baby in no time, it is not lost forever. Don't worry!
4 :
she will be fine. my friend left to kuwait when her baby was 4 months and was gone for a year and a half and her baby did great when she came home!
5 :
She probably will know who you are, but still might cry for your mother-in-law. Babies get attached very easily to whoever is with them the most. That seems like a very difficult situation to be in. Best of luck to you, but remember, it may have been your husband who thought this idea up but you must have had some say so in it. Don't push all the blame on him.
6 :
Of course she is going to cry, she will be in unfamiliar surroundings with unfamiliar people and it could take her some time to adapt. Newborns/infants don't have retention powers so she basically doesn't know who you are, she doesn't know that you are her mother. She doesn't know who you were prior to her going to your in laws and no she isn't going to remember you. Just like the next time she sees your in laws she really won't remember them. You ALLOWED your husband to make that decision for you to send your daughter away. That makes you as at much fault as he is. I was still in school when I had my daughter but I didn't send her away. I took a couple of months off of school then went back and retook the classes I missed and put her in day care when her and I were both ready, so she was with me every single day after my classes. I would never allow my husband to send my child away. Sorry but it isn't going to be happy times for awhile, that is a fact, your child is going to cry and scream and will probably have problems sleeping there is nothing you can do to make it go away. I'm just wondering how you can look yourself in the mirror.
7 :
Omg! I am sorry that u were not with your baby for so long! I could not have ever been away from my baby that long. She has never been away from me for more than two hours. That must have been so hard to miss all those little things in the development of your baby! I don't think anyone would have been ae to tear my baby from me for any reason!I don't think your baby will remember you but it doesn't matter because you will introduce yourself again and she will love you anyway.
8 :
well i think your baby will definitely remember you, but at first she will not remember you as her mother. since your MIL has been her primary caregiver since she was 2 months old, im sure she will think that your MIL is her mother. there will be tears when she leaves so prepare yourself for that. but it will be short lived. and dont feel bad. at my moms daycare, babies would cry when they had to go home because they were used to my mom caring for them. it will not take long to fix itself, though. in no time at all it will be like you never separated. dont beat yourself up when she cries for your MIL. its nothing personal, it is just how babies are. *EDIT- i also want to say that i would NEVER send my daughter away. i dont care what was going on. so i dont think you should solely blame your husband. you could have stopped that, even if it meant leaving him.
Read more discussion :
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
jokes...Funny or Not
jokes...Funny or Not?
President George W. Bush decides it is time to do some public relations at a local Washington DC nursing home. The President begins his "tour" down the main hallway and passes by a little old man who doesn't seem to notice him. Sensing this, President Bush backtracks to the resident and asks, "Do you know who I am?" The little old man looks up from his walker and says, "No, but if you go to the front desk, they will tell you your name." A boy from France comes to America. He wants to learn some new words so he goes to the airport and learns "take off." Then he learnes "zebra" from the zoo and "baby" from the hospital. Then he goes home and says, ''Mommy, I learned new words today.'' She says, "Great, honey what did you learn?" He says, ''Takeoffzebrababy!''
Jokes & Riddles - 8 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
the first one is funny in a cute way. but funny! the second one is also funny, but really corny overall, they are both jokes that would be good ones to tell
2 :
That Joke was very funny. I give you a 10/10. Great joke.
3 :
I dont really like them if you have ever seen the show "Yo Momma" I think you would get booed I have heard better
4 :
GOOD JOKE THanks for the laugh
5 :
lol the 2nd one is hilarious!
6 :
The first one is really funny LOL. But i dont really like the 2nd one as much.
7 :
Weird!
8 :
both funny
Read more discussion :
President George W. Bush decides it is time to do some public relations at a local Washington DC nursing home. The President begins his "tour" down the main hallway and passes by a little old man who doesn't seem to notice him. Sensing this, President Bush backtracks to the resident and asks, "Do you know who I am?" The little old man looks up from his walker and says, "No, but if you go to the front desk, they will tell you your name." A boy from France comes to America. He wants to learn some new words so he goes to the airport and learns "take off." Then he learnes "zebra" from the zoo and "baby" from the hospital. Then he goes home and says, ''Mommy, I learned new words today.'' She says, "Great, honey what did you learn?" He says, ''Takeoffzebrababy!''
Jokes & Riddles - 8 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
the first one is funny in a cute way. but funny! the second one is also funny, but really corny overall, they are both jokes that would be good ones to tell
2 :
That Joke was very funny. I give you a 10/10. Great joke.
3 :
I dont really like them if you have ever seen the show "Yo Momma" I think you would get booed I have heard better
4 :
GOOD JOKE THanks for the laugh
5 :
lol the 2nd one is hilarious!
6 :
The first one is really funny LOL. But i dont really like the 2nd one as much.
7 :
Weird!
8 :
both funny
Read more discussion :
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
can i study to be a nurse
can i study to be a nurse?
now the question is can i study to become anurse or at least take the necesary clases in another country then finish in the u.s???fo example to become a nurse i need to take humanity clases.can i take that class (example)France then come and finish in the us???now another thing is that i do ot now french so....is there a way for me to study there in english but still be in france???
Studying Abroad - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
No.You would have to take the prerequisite classes in the same country.
Read more discussion :
now the question is can i study to become anurse or at least take the necesary clases in another country then finish in the u.s???fo example to become a nurse i need to take humanity clases.can i take that class (example)France then come and finish in the us???now another thing is that i do ot now french so....is there a way for me to study there in english but still be in france???
Studying Abroad - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
No.You would have to take the prerequisite classes in the same country.
Read more discussion :
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Why are some political parties and their followers like this
Why are some political parties and their followers like this?
Okay, I am not going to name the political party since they are known for reporting people who disagree with them. Anywho. I am a 30 year old man with two bachelors degrees, one in Nursing and the other in Health Administration and Policy, and a Masters degree in Anesthiology (sorry I still cant spell that word). I started college when I was 17 years old and was completely finished with everything by the time I was 25. I am now an Anaesthiologist working with one of the best cosmetic surgeons in the Washington DC area. I make $250,000 a year. I am also a married man since I was 24 and the proud father of 2 sets of twins. My wife is a private teacher for Autistic children and makes $75 an hour. We are both living the life of our dreams. Our childrens college is already pre-paid, our house will be paid off next year. We just feel so blessed. This summer my wife and I took our kids on a Disney world tour. We went to Disney in Florida, California, China, and France. We were both able to take a month off of work to make sure our kids have the time of their lives and to bring our family closer together. Now my problem is is that thereare certain people running for president and his followers who want to take that away from me and my family. They feel that even though I work hard for my money and where I am that I shouldn't have it. They feel I should be happy with $80000 a year and the rest should be given to the poor. They see vacations like the one my family and I took and say we should be happy with just going to Six Flags. Why do these people feel this way? Why do they feel that the wealthy should suffer for the poor? Why do they feel that I should give up most of my income in federal taxes so less educated people can live better lives? Can anyone explain this logic? please.
Other - Politics & Government - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
the candidate you are referring to just wants to lower tax cuts for the upper class not put more taxes on... he just feels that all classes should receive tax breaks relative to their income.... a rich person gets less tax breaks because it takes a smaller portion of his income to buy food.. gas...etc a lower class person must use a higher percentage of their income to pay for these every day items .... this is the principal behind a progressive tax system
2 :
Its just jealousy, plain and simple. People are too lazy to pursue an education or work at a career, and would rather have the govt. take care of them.
Read more discussion :
Okay, I am not going to name the political party since they are known for reporting people who disagree with them. Anywho. I am a 30 year old man with two bachelors degrees, one in Nursing and the other in Health Administration and Policy, and a Masters degree in Anesthiology (sorry I still cant spell that word). I started college when I was 17 years old and was completely finished with everything by the time I was 25. I am now an Anaesthiologist working with one of the best cosmetic surgeons in the Washington DC area. I make $250,000 a year. I am also a married man since I was 24 and the proud father of 2 sets of twins. My wife is a private teacher for Autistic children and makes $75 an hour. We are both living the life of our dreams. Our childrens college is already pre-paid, our house will be paid off next year. We just feel so blessed. This summer my wife and I took our kids on a Disney world tour. We went to Disney in Florida, California, China, and France. We were both able to take a month off of work to make sure our kids have the time of their lives and to bring our family closer together. Now my problem is is that thereare certain people running for president and his followers who want to take that away from me and my family. They feel that even though I work hard for my money and where I am that I shouldn't have it. They feel I should be happy with $80000 a year and the rest should be given to the poor. They see vacations like the one my family and I took and say we should be happy with just going to Six Flags. Why do these people feel this way? Why do they feel that the wealthy should suffer for the poor? Why do they feel that I should give up most of my income in federal taxes so less educated people can live better lives? Can anyone explain this logic? please.
Other - Politics & Government - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
the candidate you are referring to just wants to lower tax cuts for the upper class not put more taxes on... he just feels that all classes should receive tax breaks relative to their income.... a rich person gets less tax breaks because it takes a smaller portion of his income to buy food.. gas...etc a lower class person must use a higher percentage of their income to pay for these every day items .... this is the principal behind a progressive tax system
2 :
Its just jealousy, plain and simple. People are too lazy to pursue an education or work at a career, and would rather have the govt. take care of them.
Read more discussion :
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good. Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
History - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It sounds good, but the trouble is, when has the government ever done anything "for the common good"? These political parasites take care of themselves (as per congressional pensions and free heath care for congressmen) to the exclusion of everyone else.
2 :
Sorry, but I gave up half way through this question. Britain and Northern Ireland have a National Health Service which does work the majority of the time - although those that it has unfortunately failed - think differently. Our National Health Service is not free, we pay individually, a set amount to the Government depending upon what is earned. Neither the hospitals nor doctors/nursing staff within the NHS make profit because they are paid - by the hours they work they are underpaid. The doctors/nursing staff that have opted out of the NHS do make a profit charging what they like for any service they give. The group(s) of people that make the very large profits are the pharmaceutical companies that charge the NHS an extortionate sum for the medication that they supply. The people in the UK are largely more healthier than they ever were because of the NHS. Before it was inaugurated in 1947/1948 only the well to do could afford the doctors fees and because of poverty that abounded at that time, very many doctors treated their patients without charge. May I suggest you look up the facts on Wiki for the National Health Service and you will be able to judge for yourself whether it was the right was to go. The only people
Read more discussion :
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good. Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
History - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It sounds good, but the trouble is, when has the government ever done anything "for the common good"? These political parasites take care of themselves (as per congressional pensions and free heath care for congressmen) to the exclusion of everyone else.
2 :
Sorry, but I gave up half way through this question. Britain and Northern Ireland have a National Health Service which does work the majority of the time - although those that it has unfortunately failed - think differently. Our National Health Service is not free, we pay individually, a set amount to the Government depending upon what is earned. Neither the hospitals nor doctors/nursing staff within the NHS make profit because they are paid - by the hours they work they are underpaid. The doctors/nursing staff that have opted out of the NHS do make a profit charging what they like for any service they give. The group(s) of people that make the very large profits are the pharmaceutical companies that charge the NHS an extortionate sum for the medication that they supply. The people in the UK are largely more healthier than they ever were because of the NHS. Before it was inaugurated in 1947/1948 only the well to do could afford the doctors fees and because of poverty that abounded at that time, very many doctors treated their patients without charge. May I suggest you look up the facts on Wiki for the National Health Service and you will be able to judge for yourself whether it was the right was to go. The only people
Read more discussion :
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Please read this article that I found and argue your side
Please read this article that I found and argue your side.?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.
Men's Health - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Under capital, the motive is money. Unless we change our basic system, we cannot expect those in service industries to be different.
Read more discussion :
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good.
Men's Health - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Under capital, the motive is money. Unless we change our basic system, we cannot expect those in service industries to be different.
Read more discussion :
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Please read this article and argue your side. I have no opinion. Please help to clarify this confusing matter
Please read this article and argue your side. I have no opinion. Please help to clarify this confusing matter!?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good. Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
Current Events - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
In very few words, the bottom line is that we can't afford this health care bill. It is a lie that it will cost the country less money.
2 :
There is a lot of truth in this article. I too have friends in Canada, Norway, Sweden and England. They all work, have good jobs and would not dream of switching to our system. Do people really think we have a choice under our health care system? ..The only choice is how much money you can pay. HMO's have notoriously long wait times, multiple step approval and referral processes and they have been taken to task publicly for denying life saving procedures for patients. American are either to scared to lose what they have already (health coverage) or stand to lose monetarily (wealth investors in pharmaceutical and insurance companies)...Real change is still just dream because most Americans are to afraid to stand behind making a change.
Read more discussion :
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good. Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
Current Events - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
In very few words, the bottom line is that we can't afford this health care bill. It is a lie that it will cost the country less money.
2 :
There is a lot of truth in this article. I too have friends in Canada, Norway, Sweden and England. They all work, have good jobs and would not dream of switching to our system. Do people really think we have a choice under our health care system? ..The only choice is how much money you can pay. HMO's have notoriously long wait times, multiple step approval and referral processes and they have been taken to task publicly for denying life saving procedures for patients. American are either to scared to lose what they have already (health coverage) or stand to lose monetarily (wealth investors in pharmaceutical and insurance companies)...Real change is still just dream because most Americans are to afraid to stand behind making a change.
Read more discussion :
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good. Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
Government - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Sounds like a commie to me.
2 :
No he doesn't. For one thing there are plenty of other and better ways to measure the quality of health care than the way the WHO does it. One of those ways is to look at the outcome of people who do get sick. If you look at that data the conclusion is inescapable you've got a better chance of surviving in America than anywhere else. Does that mean we have the best health care, maybe but for sure it means that maybe those other programs are as good as claimed. The profit motive makes the consumer the king. Its why the cost of items that are produced in the free market go down and it forces manufacturers and distributors to meet consumer needs. Many grocery stores and gas stations are open 24 hrs a day, yet the post office is considering elimination of saturday delivery. The quality of cell phones and cell phone service has gone up while the cost has gone down. While the cost of postage is going up while service is being reduced, the cost of education is going up but I don't know anyone that says education is improving. Those who oppose the free market always like to through in the police and fire departments. But I say order a pizza and call 911 and see who gets there first the pizza or the police.
Read more discussion :
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good. Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
Government - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Sounds like a commie to me.
2 :
No he doesn't. For one thing there are plenty of other and better ways to measure the quality of health care than the way the WHO does it. One of those ways is to look at the outcome of people who do get sick. If you look at that data the conclusion is inescapable you've got a better chance of surviving in America than anywhere else. Does that mean we have the best health care, maybe but for sure it means that maybe those other programs are as good as claimed. The profit motive makes the consumer the king. Its why the cost of items that are produced in the free market go down and it forces manufacturers and distributors to meet consumer needs. Many grocery stores and gas stations are open 24 hrs a day, yet the post office is considering elimination of saturday delivery. The quality of cell phones and cell phone service has gone up while the cost has gone down. While the cost of postage is going up while service is being reduced, the cost of education is going up but I don't know anyone that says education is improving. Those who oppose the free market always like to through in the police and fire departments. But I say order a pizza and call 911 and see who gets there first the pizza or the police.
Read more discussion :
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Please read this article and argue your side. I have no opinion. Please help to clarify this confusing matter
Please read this article and argue your side. I have no opinion. Please help to clarify this confusing matter!?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good. Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
Politics - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Excellent article. Valid points. Important theme. Not ONE of the cons will read it. They are not the least interested in actually understanding the health care problem in America - they have feasted too long on a diet of soundbites and talking points. Even though doing so means that they are harming themselves, their loved ones, and their own family members. It's perverse.
2 :
i'm of the opinion that that was far too long and that the bits i did read were drearily poorly-written. i did, however, like the inclusion of the word 'hemorrhaging'
3 :
I agree. There is a reason for the Hippocratic Oath. The 'profit motive' is anti-thetical to the Hippocratic Oath. This is the fundamental problem with health care, not insurance companies or the malpractice lawsuits per say (they are 'instruments' of the fundamental problem)
4 :
Republicans could care less about this article, they just want more money for the giants of the insurance industry period.
5 :
Wow, he's right on the money. That's exactly how I feel about the every widening gap between rich and poor. Our republic is starting to come apart at the seams and we need to move away from strict ideology and look at reality. Thanks for posting this.
6 :
"America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent." In addition to this is the most important right accorded to the citizens of these countries: Every citizen is covered no matter how rich or poor, well or sick.
7 :
Interesting article. But it has holes. The US does not pay 17% in GDP it is only 5%. The US military that protects these other countries allowing them to put that money back into these health care systems. The US is the leader in development of cures and procedures for diseases and illnesses. If you are not profitable in medicine you will not have the funds to research new drugs and procedures to combat new illnesses. How much does it cost for a company to research a new drug to treat AIDS or Swine flu? The biggest problem in the US is preventative procedures. If you were to change the diet of the average American you would see the US leap beyond every country in the world. Our eating habits are the only reason we are behind in any category.
Read more discussion :
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good. Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
Politics - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Excellent article. Valid points. Important theme. Not ONE of the cons will read it. They are not the least interested in actually understanding the health care problem in America - they have feasted too long on a diet of soundbites and talking points. Even though doing so means that they are harming themselves, their loved ones, and their own family members. It's perverse.
2 :
i'm of the opinion that that was far too long and that the bits i did read were drearily poorly-written. i did, however, like the inclusion of the word 'hemorrhaging'
3 :
I agree. There is a reason for the Hippocratic Oath. The 'profit motive' is anti-thetical to the Hippocratic Oath. This is the fundamental problem with health care, not insurance companies or the malpractice lawsuits per say (they are 'instruments' of the fundamental problem)
4 :
Republicans could care less about this article, they just want more money for the giants of the insurance industry period.
5 :
Wow, he's right on the money. That's exactly how I feel about the every widening gap between rich and poor. Our republic is starting to come apart at the seams and we need to move away from strict ideology and look at reality. Thanks for posting this.
6 :
"America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent." In addition to this is the most important right accorded to the citizens of these countries: Every citizen is covered no matter how rich or poor, well or sick.
7 :
Interesting article. But it has holes. The US does not pay 17% in GDP it is only 5%. The US military that protects these other countries allowing them to put that money back into these health care systems. The US is the leader in development of cures and procedures for diseases and illnesses. If you are not profitable in medicine you will not have the funds to research new drugs and procedures to combat new illnesses. How much does it cost for a company to research a new drug to treat AIDS or Swine flu? The biggest problem in the US is preventative procedures. If you were to change the diet of the average American you would see the US leap beyond every country in the world. Our eating habits are the only reason we are behind in any category.
Read more discussion :
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right
Please read this article that I found and argue your side. Does this guy have it right?
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good. Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
Women's Health - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Very easy: he's wrong. People like this embrace but never admit to their desire to see confiscatory redistribution of all income in this country. This is just his wet dream to nationalize 15% of the economy.
Read more dsicussion :
For-profit health care hurts those who need it most by Hugh Curran There is much debate about health care yet little consideration for the ethical implications, especially the appropriateness of profit motives in the health care industry. Americans do not seek to make a profit from education (kindergarten to grade 12), fire or police departments, yet people seriously listen to “industry†lobbyists who believe this to be a right in health care. The philosopher Martin Buber defined “evil†as resulting from “indecision.†Where health care is involved there is a good deal of indecision, but this indecision is largely the result of disinformation by those who profit from health care. If we begin with the understanding that the health of the whole country contributes to the health of each of us, we can ask if private interests, wishing to maximize profit, should be the arbiters of the public good. They are investor-owned businesses that design health care systems that benefit their investors. From recent polls we know that two-thirds of the public would prefer a system with a public option. More than 60 percent of physicians wish for such a system. Unlike the propaganda of corporate representatives, a public option in health care would provide free choice of physicians for the patient. Lobbyists shamelessly portray the Canadian system in a negative light although I have yet to meet a Canadian who would be willing to adopt the American model. In fact, no country that has a public option would change to the American model for the simple reason that they know that a health care system based on profits would deny insurance to those who are most in need. According to the World Health Organization, the U.S. ranks low in two of three main categories associated with health care: preventive care and cost of care. It is true that in a couple of categories the U.S. excels, such as surgery and medical technology, but there are many other criteria for good health, especially in the area of preventive medicine. In France, whose general health care system is highly regarded throughout the world, providers satisfy the three categories: They provide easier access to medical facilities; life spans are longer; there is lower child mortality, and there is guaranteed health care from cradle to grave financed through tax revenues. The government’s role is to make sure that the whole population has access to care. It protects patients’ rights, helps to work out policy and is the responsible party where health safety is concerned. Despite this, it is not a single payer. America now pays out 17 percent of its gross national product on health while France, Canada and England pay less than 10 percent. The trillion-dollar additional cost that has been under discussion in Congress is based on a 10-year cycle that amounts to $200 billion per year. Compared to the trillion-dollar bailout of banking interests on Wall Street and the trillion-dollar war in Iraq and the continuing hemorrhaging of the auto industry, this is a reasonable amount. The real reason there are such vehement arguments over public options versus private plans does not involve which is superior but which approach has the most to lose. Large corporations, whether HMOs or pharmaceuticals, are intent on creating indecision and doubt in the minds of many Americans concerning universal health care. Most medical professionals, including the 3 million-member American Nursing Association and the American Medical Association, have endorsed health care plans with public options. But with all the lobbying taking place by corporate interests there is a real danger that the public option will be removed. This would be a major setback for both working and unemployed Americans. At this moment 14,000 people per day are losing their health care because of the current downturn in the economy. Democracy cannot long survive if the gaps between rich and poor continue to increase and continue shifting us toward a small wealthy minority and a disappearing middle class. Health care is the largest cause of bankruptcy among the elderly. It bleeds and depletes the resources of families even when one person suffers a serious accident or illness. Although we pay twice the amount per capita as do other developed countries, the results are that we are less healthy. Let us support a public option based on the common good. Hugh Curran of Surry is an adjunct professor in peace studies at the University of Maine. He previously was the director of a Down East homeless shelter.
Women's Health - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Very easy: he's wrong. People like this embrace but never admit to their desire to see confiscatory redistribution of all income in this country. This is just his wet dream to nationalize 15% of the economy.
Read more dsicussion :
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)