Oh Bomb Us declares swine flu emergency (Federal power grab, you know.)
Stormin Mormon
VERY severely edited. And some snarky
comments dropped in for good measure.
Read full article at link.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091024/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_swine_flu
http://tinyurl.com/yl6qekx
President Barack Obama declared the flu
outbreak a national emergency, giving his health
chief the power to let hospitals move emergency
rooms offsite to speed treatment and protect
noninfected patients.
(Like some unelected bureaucrat in Washingmachine
DC knows how to run emergency rooms, and
doctors don't.)
The declaration, signed Friday night, comes with the
disease more prevalent than ever and production
delays of the vaccine.
Health authorities say more than 1,000 people in
the United States, including almost 100 children,
have died from the strain of flu known as H1N1,
and 46 states have widespread flu activity.
Administration officials said the declaration was
a pre-emptive move designed to make decisions
easier when they need to be made. Officials said
the move was not in response to any single
development.
(Besides, we wanted the power anyhow.)
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen
Sebelius now has authority to bypass federal
rules when opening alternative care sites, such
as offsite hospital centers at schools or community
centers if hospitals seek permission.
(Oh, yeah, now we're above the law.)
Some hospitals have opened drive-thrus and drive-up
tent clinics to screen and treat swine flu patients. The
idea is to keep infectious people out of regular
emergency rooms and away from other sick patients.
(Did they have federal permission? Got to get
permission before making any decisions!)
Hospitals could modify patient rules - for example,
requiring them to give less information during a
hectic time - to quicken access to treatment, with
government approval, under the declaration.
(That's more like it. Have the government workers
make decisions for your doctors. Like in countries
with socialized medicine.)
It also addresses a financial question for hospitals -
reimbursement for treating people at sites not
typically approved. For instance, federal rules do
not allow hospitals to put up treatment tents more
than 250 yards away from the doors; if the tents
are 300 yards or more away, typically federal
dollars won't go to pay for treatment.
Administration officials said those rules might
not make sense while fighting the swine flu,
especially if the best piece of pavement is in
the middle of a parking lot and some medical
centers already are putting in place parts of
their emergency plans.
The national emergency declaration was the
second of two steps needed to give Sebelius
extraordinary powers during a crisis.
(That's how Hitler came to power. Extra power
in time of crisis.)
On April 26, the administration declared swine
flu a public health emergency, allowing the
shipment of roughly 12 million doses of flu-fighting
medications from a federal stockpile to states
in case they eventually needed them. At the time,
there were 20 confirmed cases in the U.S. of
people recovering easily. There was no vaccine
against swine flu, but the CDC had taken the
initial step necessary for producing one.
"As a nation, we have prepared at all levels of
government, and as individuals and communities,
taking unprecedented steps to counter the
emerging pandemic," Obama wrote in Saturday's
declaration.
He said the pandemic keeps evolving, the rates of
illness are rising rapidly in many areas and there's
a potential "to overburden health care resources."
"Many millions" of Americans have had swine flu
so far, according to an estimate that CDC Director
Dr. Thomas Frieden gave Friday. The government
doesn't test everyone to confirm swine flu so it
doesn't have an exact count. He also said there
have been more than 20,000 hospitalizations.
___
On the Net:
CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/update.htm
Government's flu site: http://www.flu.gov/
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
vaughn
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hc1ibd$e6g$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091024/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_swine_flu
> http://tinyurl.com/yl6qekx
>
> President Barack Obama declared the flu
> outbreak a national emergency,
Your point?
I don't know about yours, but my health department is doing a crappy job.
Because of that, there is a significant chance of unnecessary deaths. Obama
has not yet been put in charge of local health departments.
Vaughn
Vaughn
Steven Bornfeld
> VERY severely edited. And some snarky
> comments dropped in for good measure.
>
You can take the threat of disaster seriously, or you can have a
response like Katrina.
I hope we can all make snarky comments when this is over.
Steve
Stormin Mormon
freedoms.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Steven Bornfeld" <dentalt...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
news:LuSdndyZ95Gs5XnX...@earthlink.com...
vaughn
>I hope "taking it seriously" doesn't mean a major loss of
> freedoms.
I believe that you are an advocate of the political party that brought us
the so called "Patriot Act"?? The same political party that changed the law
so that we can't go abroad without first obtaining a government-issued
document?? The same political party whose administration illegally spied on
its citizens?? ...and imprisoned citizens for years without charges or
trials??
...and then you have the temerity to somehow connect the current party's
attempts to contain a flu outbreak with "loss of freedoms"? Kind of
one-sided thinking ain't it?
Sorry about the political rant, but getting back to teeth (or at least
public health) the government actually has wide authority when it comes to
public health, but has been very shy about using it in recent generations,
so we tend to forget. The AIDS epidemic could have been contained by
isolating a relatively few citizens, something the government clearly has
the right to do. They choose not to, for reasons that are still beyond me.
As a result, thousands died and $ billions have been spent.
I live less than a mile from the nation's last TB sanitarium. There are
people locked up in there. The government has the power to do that, powers
that go back to English common law. I could go on about public health, but
it would be better if you did some reading. Start here (probably in your
public library) :
http://www.amazon.com/Plagues-Politics-United-States-Service/dp/0465057799
Vaughn
Stormin Mormon
political conservative. Aside from the tea party attendees,
there are very few conservatives left any more. Ronald
Reagan tried his best, he may have been the last one. That
said, much of your post is quite incorrect. Lets hope we
still have dentists after the public option "needs to be
triggered" or some such wording.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"vaughn" <vaughnsimo...@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote in
message news:hc54ut$ljp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Stormin Mormon
Department of Snarky Comments doesn't lock us all away.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Steven Bornfeld" <dentalt...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
news:LuSdndyZ95Gs5XnX...@earthlink.com...
vaughn
> Lets hope we
> still have dentists after the public option "needs to be
> triggered" or some such wording.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the "public option" insurance plan is just as
unlikely to include real dentistry coverage as any other health insurance
plan. I doubt tht it will impact dentistry in any real way.
Vaughn
Steven Bornfeld
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but the "public option" insurance plan is just as
> unlikely to include real dentistry coverage as any other health insurance
> plan. I doubt tht it will impact dentistry in any real way.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
>
>
I've heard nothing about any public option mentioning dentistry. Oh,
and not in any private option either. We're pretty low on the totem pole.
Steve
Dave King
For once that will be a good thing ;)
>
>
>
Stormin Mormon
But, watch. Dental will be next.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"vaughn" <vaughnsimo...@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote in
message news:hc7fgt$e97$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
vaughn
> Might be the only good thing about the socialist take over.
Obama will no more lead a socialist takeover than Bush led a fascist
takeover.
> But, watch. Dental will be next.
Unlikely.
Just like too many others of your political persuasion, you seem to argue
against medical reform using misinformation that you make up on the spot.
"Death squads" anyone?
Vaughn
Stormin Mormon
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote
in message
news:hc9odq$3dq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Might be the only good thing about the socialist take
> over.
Obama will no more lead a socialist takeover than Bush led a
fascist
takeover.
CY: I sure hope you are correct.
> But, watch. Dental will be next.
Unlikely.
Just like too many others of your political persuasion, you
seem to argue
against medical reform using misinformation that you make up
on the spot.
"Death squads" anyone?
CY: As a political conservative, I do try to be as factual
as possible. I've noticed liberals making up stuff, though.
vaughn
>
> CY: As a political conservative, I do try to be as factual
> as possible.
scare mongering statement: " Lets hope we
still have dentists after the public option "needs to be triggered" or some
such wording."
>I've noticed liberals making up stuff, though.
Oh? Do you suppose it was liberals who made up the "death squads" and other
health care fear mongering we have been subjected to?
Vaughn
Jan
<snip spam>
Simplicio
wrote:
> "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hc5et5$lk3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > Lets hope we
> > still have dentists after the public option "needs to be
> > triggered" or some such wording.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but the "public option" insurance plan is just as
> unlikely to include real dentistry coverage as any other health insurance
> plan. I doubt tht it will impact dentistry in any real way.
You are correct that the Feds have had a hands off attitude toward
dentistry. It is mindboggling what organized dentistry get's away
with. Perhaps Stormin Mormon is correct, the public option could
create increased scrutiny and regulation of dentistry.
Simplicio
wrote:
No need to be modest. I think the public option should realize the
importance of denistry and it's regulation! Of course one thing the
Feds will have to determine is the safety of dental materials the
governement pays for.
Simplicio
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:22:09 -0400, "vaughn"
>
> >> But, watch. Dental will be next.
>
> >Unlikely.
>
>
> >Just like too many others of your political persuasion, you seem to argue
> >against medical reform using misinformation that you make up on the spot.
> >"Death squads" anyone?
>
It's probably 10,00000 pages long.
> From: dict.org
> 3 definitions found for fascism
>
> From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :
>
> fascism \fasc"ism\ (f[a^]sh"[i^]z'm) n.
> 1. a political theory advocating an authoritarian
> hierarchical government; -- opposed to democracy and
> liberalism.
> [WordNet 1.5]
Would you call the New Deal fascist? Would you call Roosevelt fascist?
>
> 2. an authoritarian system of government under absolute
> control of a single dictator, allowing no political
> opposition, forcibly suppressing dissent
Does this sound familiar? If your not for war you don't support the
troops?
> and rigidly
> controlling most industrial and economic activities.
Such a definition get's turned upside down when it is the industrial
complex which runs society. This is the problem we have now.
Obama cannot be taking over, because the government has "sold out" to
the industrial complex. In the last 30 years there were three
forces, the middle class, the government and the industrial/business
complex. I will admit that it could happen that the only remaining
groups with any power are the government and the industrial/business
complex, but then it is only a matter of time before the government
and the industrial/business complex become the same institution (if
they are not already). I do not believe that it is Obama's intention
however to have the government take, over, but his options are much
more limited, than say in the 70's when there was strong government
regulation of business/industry and strong enforcement of antitrust
laws by the government.
>
> 3. Specifically, the Fascist movement led by Benito Mussolini
> in Italy from 1922 to 1943.
>
What is a hedge fund?
>
> From Wiki:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
>
> Fascism, pronounced /'fæ??z?m/, is an extremist political ideology
> that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian
> nationalism[1][2][3][4] with a corporatist economic system,
What is a hedge fund?
[5] and
> whereby only the strong
> can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in
> conflict against the weak.[11]
>
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
See above
> 1 definition found for nazi
>
> From WordNet (r) 2.0 :
>
> Nazi
> adj 1: relating to or consistent with or typical of the
> ideology
Remember that Obama is a member of a minority. It's in his best
interests to make sure that the government cannot supress minorities.
Yes, I've compared Bush to Hitler. Interestingly Hitler viewed himself
as a member of the majority, but was not himself German.
vaughn
"New B." <new...@bix.nex> wrote in message
news:45mme5502cildfcd7...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:22:09 -0400, "vaughn"
>
>>Just like too many others of your political persuasion, you seem to argue
>>against medical reform using misinformation that you make up on the spot.
>>"Death squads" anyone?
>
Yes I have, and there are still no "government death panels" in it. The concept
is still a lie. A lie is still a damn lie even when you wrap it up in a veneer
of political rhetoric. In fact, the current Health Care Reform proposal is
mostly about folks less than 65 and therefore has little to do with "end of
life" issues. Those issues have been faced for years in the Medicare system,
and the bill proposes few changes there. (You know; Medicare. That
government-ran, single payer, socialized medicine plan that enjoys over an 80%
satisfaction index?)
I guess you are talking about the Medicare pay code they are adding to allow a
doctor to be paid for providing "end of life" counseling. "The provision allows
Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the
complex and painful decisions families face when a loved one is approaching
death. The legislation would allow Medicare to pay for a counseling session
with a doctor or clinical professional once every five years. The bill calls for
such sessions to be "completely" voluntary, and prohibits the encouragement or
promotion of suicide or assisted suicide." No "death panels" there! The only
folks who could see "death panels" in something like that must be tinfoil
hat-wearing paranoids, or damn liars who wish to obstruct any meaningful dialog
on any real issues at any cost.
So why are conservatives so intent on distracting the conversation away from the
important parts of the plan? Honestly! I really wish that both sides of the
political spectrum would engage in an honest debate and both work to solve what
is now an unsustainable health care system. If they could manage that, I would
not care who got the credit. I just know that health care insurance is (by far)
my largest expense. I *can't wait* for Medicare to "kick in" for me and
Margaret. My biggest disapointment for 2009 is the low quality of the debate
concerning our health care system. Hell, for a while there we even had troops
of brainwashed folks organized for the express purpose of attending public
meetings to attempt to *stop* the debate.
But if you insist on pretending to believe in death panels, then read on. I
will give you death panels!
There is certainly room for disagreement, but I would much rather have a
government "death panel" deciding my fate than a corporate "death panel". The
government panel would be governed by Administrative Law (thus, a meaningful
appeal process). All of its procedures and regulations would have to conform to
underlying law and could not be changed without public comment. Further, if
folks did not feel that they were fairly treated by their government "death
panel", they could apply pressure to their elected representatives (political
pressure) for change. Of course, these government "death panels" would be
subject to "government in the sunshine laws" and therefore to full exposure by
the media. Every internal memo and e-mail would be a public document!
On the other hand, the corporate "death panel" could be isolated from the
political system, have no real appeal process, could operate in secret, could
change the rules as necessary, and could be relied upon to be 100% profit
motivated.
If you think that "corporate death panel" is too wild a concept, then I invite
you to look into the Medicare "Advantage" HMO plans that were set up by the Bush
administration for the purpose of inducing our parents to sign away their
Medicare health care rights in favor of corporate-ran HMO managed care. Any HMO
managed care plan is simply health care rationing by another name. The HMO can
make treatment decisions, can tinker with its drug formulary if it includes drug
benefits, and otherwise do pretty much what it wants, even if those decisions
result in the certain death of their customers.
Yes that is exactly right! The same folks who are now lying about "Government
Death Panels" have already set into operation "Corporate Death Panels" for our
parents, (and they are waiting for you and me to get a bit older...)
> If you got this far, thanks for reading. Now to my points.
>
> On the above cited definitions, are you willing to enter into a civil
> debate
Dictionaries at 50 yards! Thanks, but I am going to respectfully decline a
fight over which of us can look up the definition that most supports our
personal view of the world. Nobody's opinion will be changed, and it would be a
distraction from the part of this thread that really interests me; the health
care debate..
Regards,
Vaughn
Dartos
> Yes I have, and there are still no "government death panels" in it.
Hey guys, let's all relax a little.
I think both sides in the government are missing the big picture.
Medical costs and treatments have gone crazy over the last 20 years.
Can't deny that.
A lot of this is because of new technology, new drugs, and then there
are the unrealistic demands of the general population, and the greed of
big business in the health care industry. Of course we shouldn't forget
the over regulation by government and the ridiculous malpractice awards
either.
It's a big, complicated mess. Lots of powerful interests have their
fingers in the pie and are going to fight to keep their profits.
Different groups are forming loose alliances deflecting blame and
promising results to protect their own interests. Most of the
government intrusion is being directed by people who don't really
understand health care in the first place. That doesn't help.
Much of the vocal 'patient side' of the issue claim health care to
be a basic right (though not listed in the Consitution) and should
be delivered 'free' and unrestricted to all citizens (or maybe even
*residents*). They also don't seem to consider that much of the
health care dollars are spent due to patient abuse of their own bodies.
Insurance, regulation, and litigation have greatly increased the cost
for the *administration* of health care which is really a huge waste
of money with little benefit to patient care.
Is any government plan really going to address all or most of these
issues? Probably not. Is it going to create a new level of
administrative beaurocracy with millions of wasted dollars? Yep.
Who will have to pay or it? US taxpayers.
IMO, any government plan is likely to be a bad one. Yet things are
already messed up. Catch 22.
D
Dave King
<vaughnsimo...@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote:
>
>"New B." <new...@bix.nex> wrote in message
>news:45mme5502cildfcd7...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:22:09 -0400, "vaughn"
>> <vaughnsimo...@gmail.FAKE.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Just like too many others of your political persuasion, you seem to argue
>>>against medical reform using misinformation that you make up on the spot.
>>>"Death squads" anyone?
>>
>> Checked the consolidated 'pelosi' house bill yet ?
>
>Yes I have, and there are still no "government death panels" in it. The concept
>is still a lie. A lie is still a damn lie even when you wrap it up in a veneer
>of political rhetoric. In fact, the current Health Care Reform proposal is
>mostly about folks less than 65 and therefore has little to do with "end of
>life" issues. Those issues have been faced for years in the Medicare system,
>and the bill proposes few changes there. (You know; Medicare. That
>government-ran, single payer, socialized medicine plan that enjoys over an 80%
>satisfaction index?)
The question of satisfaction is an interesting one. Taken from the
patient perspective it sounds so promising. Taken from the provider
perspective means costs are seldom covered and an entirely different
satisfaction index.
Amatus Cremona
insurance plan.
--
::::
Amatus Cremona
;;;;;;
"Dartos" <tuthj...@myturbonet.com> wrote in message
news:1257423...@news.newsville.com...
x
> I kind of would like to see them discuss a government provided malpractice
> insurance plan.
>
convince on that one, it would be the lawyers...and they are generally
the ones who get to write our new laws.
Translation 1: "good luck!".
Translation 2: "It ain't gunna happen".
Vaughn (on the road so using the crappy Google interface)