Healthcare cause and effect?
- Thread starter greg334
- Start date
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Well there was the news a while back that the Mayo Clinic in Arizona was already stopping taking Medicare clients and last week Walgreens in Washington state will no longer take NEW Medicaid clients.....so yea it is going to happen, as will higher prices for prescriptions, medical care, out of pocket expenses for seniors, loss of procedures because of less coverage and then you will have the doctors that will simply stop seeing medicare clients......
Hey...Elections have consquences.....hows the "hope and change" workin for you now......
Hey...Elections have consquences.....hows the "hope and change" workin for you now......
Since no one can say for any certainly how this is going to all wash down....nothing has changed from my point...at this exact time. Not to say it won't or by how much...but then again I have a much different view from my perspective...
This is far from a done deal...so this endless speculation is well...just that.
This is far from a done deal...so this endless speculation is well...just that.
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Huhhh the 2 items i listed above are not "speculation", they are done deals...and more will happen....
Oh and wasn't it the state of Arizona that just told the fed gov they were no longer taking care of children under the SCHIP program, they can't afford to continue to lose money on it with the fed reimbursment not being enough to cover cost.....then add the unemployment nimber and the loss of state income taxes.......it is going to get really ugly longgggg before it gets better....i believe i heard yesterday the the FED U-6 unemployment and under-employed is up to just over 20%....up from 19.6%....
Oh and wasn't it the state of Arizona that just told the fed gov they were no longer taking care of children under the SCHIP program, they can't afford to continue to lose money on it with the fed reimbursment not being enough to cover cost.....then add the unemployment nimber and the loss of state income taxes.......it is going to get really ugly longgggg before it gets better....i believe i heard yesterday the the FED U-6 unemployment and under-employed is up to just over 20%....up from 19.6%....
Last edited:
I am taking the old American way out...
It hasn't hit my wallet yet..so I don't care...
I'll post a news story that will really turn your crank...
It hasn't hit my wallet yet..so I don't care...
I'll post a news story that will really turn your crank...
Just for Chef.....
Barack Obama has done more than salvage his presidency by winning the vote for his hard-fought health care reform. He has also reminded Americans – and, by extension, Canadians – that leaders are "capable of doing big things" when they dare to advocate progressive change.
True, Obama's political triumph is not yet complete, despite Sunday's historic 219-212 House vote. The Republicans, some of whom called the Obama's health care reform package "socialist," are threatening to contest it in court. The Democrats also have a sales job to do before November's midterm elections. But the Republicans have discredited themselves with their obstructionism, wild talk of "freedom dying" and fear-mongering about "death panels."
Obama has not only buoyed Democrats but also raised the bar by putting his presidency on the line for a principle. He prevailed by staking out a bold, activist agenda for the people, when others urged caution and retreat. "I will not accept the status quo," he told Congress last summer when his reform was in trouble. He proved that the Big Idea still has traction, that there can be reward in reaching high.
That is something progressive Canadian politicians, including Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff can usefully ponder, as they wrestle with problems here at home. Dealing with such issues as child poverty, joblessness, employment insurance, pension reform and climate change calls for more than tinkering at the margins. The Liberals' Canada at 150 think tank in Montreal this coming weekend is a chance to revitalize liberalism with bold, paradigm-shifting ideas.
It shouldn't be too hard to challenge Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative small-bore, small-government focus.
Of course, Obama has delivered nothing like Canadian-style medicare with its universal coverage. Rather, he is reforming a $2.5 trillion, hodge-podge system that relies on private insurance. Still, his is an historic achievement, ranking with such popular programs as Social Security in 1935 and public health insurance for the elderly in 1965.
The Obama plan requires individuals to buy private health insurance and expands government Medicaid for the poor. By the end of the decade, roughly 95 per cent of Americans will be covered, including 32 million now uninsured. Workers who lose their jobs will no longer forfeit coverage. Insurers will no longer be able to impose massive premium hikes, deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, or arbitrarily limit payouts. Washington even expects to save money, in part by imposing new taxes on the wealthy.
Obama richly deserves this triumph. He roused himself to fight the good fight, forcefully reminded Americans of what was at stake, and rallied his weak-kneed party. He dared, and the nation stands to gain.
Barack Obama has done more than salvage his presidency by winning the vote for his hard-fought health care reform. He has also reminded Americans – and, by extension, Canadians – that leaders are "capable of doing big things" when they dare to advocate progressive change.
True, Obama's political triumph is not yet complete, despite Sunday's historic 219-212 House vote. The Republicans, some of whom called the Obama's health care reform package "socialist," are threatening to contest it in court. The Democrats also have a sales job to do before November's midterm elections. But the Republicans have discredited themselves with their obstructionism, wild talk of "freedom dying" and fear-mongering about "death panels."
Obama has not only buoyed Democrats but also raised the bar by putting his presidency on the line for a principle. He prevailed by staking out a bold, activist agenda for the people, when others urged caution and retreat. "I will not accept the status quo," he told Congress last summer when his reform was in trouble. He proved that the Big Idea still has traction, that there can be reward in reaching high.
That is something progressive Canadian politicians, including Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff can usefully ponder, as they wrestle with problems here at home. Dealing with such issues as child poverty, joblessness, employment insurance, pension reform and climate change calls for more than tinkering at the margins. The Liberals' Canada at 150 think tank in Montreal this coming weekend is a chance to revitalize liberalism with bold, paradigm-shifting ideas.
It shouldn't be too hard to challenge Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative small-bore, small-government focus.
Of course, Obama has delivered nothing like Canadian-style medicare with its universal coverage. Rather, he is reforming a $2.5 trillion, hodge-podge system that relies on private insurance. Still, his is an historic achievement, ranking with such popular programs as Social Security in 1935 and public health insurance for the elderly in 1965.
The Obama plan requires individuals to buy private health insurance and expands government Medicaid for the poor. By the end of the decade, roughly 95 per cent of Americans will be covered, including 32 million now uninsured. Workers who lose their jobs will no longer forfeit coverage. Insurers will no longer be able to impose massive premium hikes, deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, or arbitrarily limit payouts. Washington even expects to save money, in part by imposing new taxes on the wealthy.
Obama richly deserves this triumph. He roused himself to fight the good fight, forcefully reminded Americans of what was at stake, and rallied his weak-kneed party. He dared, and the nation stands to gain.
Kinda true
A constitutional monarchy is a form of government in which a monarch acts as head of state within the perimeters of a written (i.e., codified), unwritten (i.e., uncodified) or blended constitution. It differs from absolute monarchy in that an absolute monarch serves as the sole source of political power in the state and is not legally bound by any constitution.
with The Crown acting as a symbolic or ceremonial executive.
Contemporary constitutional monarchies include
Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Belize, Cambodia, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Jordan, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Morocco, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Thailand and United Kingdom.
Last edited:
Interesting factoid:
As originally conceived, a constitutional monarch was quite a powerful figure, head of the executive branch even though his or her power was limited by the constitution and the elected parliament.
Some of the framers of the US Constitution may have conceived of the president as being an elected constitutional monarch, as the term was understood in their time, following Montesquieu's account of the separation of powers
As originally conceived, a constitutional monarch was quite a powerful figure, head of the executive branch even though his or her power was limited by the constitution and the elected parliament.
Some of the framers of the US Constitution may have conceived of the president as being an elected constitutional monarch, as the term was understood in their time, following Montesquieu's account of the separation of powers
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
I disagree with the article from the 1st sentense,,,he didn't save anything and all he showed was the he and the dems in office have nothing but contempt for the people of the country....oh and the only ones that will gain anything when this goes into affect are those that will continue to suck off the givernment teet....those that pay taxes will simply be paying for their own coverage and that of those that are "entitled" to then knew found "right".....
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
OVM,
Kinda of true?
So it isn't like the neighbor to the south.
So here is another thing I find odd, Canada has a senate that seems to represent of all things the provinces?
What does that mean?
These are appointments through the General Governor - hence the Queen - right?
Kinda of true?
So it isn't like the neighbor to the south.
So here is another thing I find odd, Canada has a senate that seems to represent of all things the provinces?
What does that mean?
These are appointments through the General Governor - hence the Queen - right?
The way the appointments are done is just protocol/courtesy...the PM actually decides who sits in the Senate...usually almost always patronage appointment...that is why there is a movement to abolish the Senate...and have an elected Senate...
to your Senate question:
Members of the Senate, whose seats are apportioned on a regional basis,
Last edited:
Yeah it would be from one angle...but it's the appointment by ruling party....there is NO vetting process...one person picks period....so it goes by patronage...
I disagree with the article from the 1st sentense,,,he didn't save anything and all he showed was the he and the dems in office have nothing but contempt for the people of the country....oh and the only ones that will gain anything when this goes into affect are those that will continue to suck off the givernment teet....those that pay taxes will simply be paying for their own coverage and that of those that are "entitled" to then knew found "right".....
I just wanted you to have a snicker...
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Hey i keep "Snickers" in the refrig and eat them every day!!!
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well what do you think we pretty much have now?
The senate is elected without the people understanding of who the senators actually represent, most of the time it is their own interest, not the interest of the people who elect them or the interest of the state they hail from. This leaves the states without any representation of any sorts and adds one more step away from states sovereignty.
From what I am understanding, the senator has to be qualified through a similar measure as in england, instead of peerage it is property (or that is how I was told). By being appointed, the provinces seem to be represented because they are not truly sovereign like our states but rather part of the crown, hence the senators represent the crown's interest indirectly.