• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Here comes Nanny Edwards wearing a rubber glove

Red Robin

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I don't think the problem is so much who is paying for the insurance as it is the cost for whoever has to pay it. Our system has to be bleeding cash. When you have $2000/night hospital stays and $10 tylenols, you've got a problem that nobody can afford. I really think that if we stop the bleeding (no pun intended), health care costs will go down, employers will be able to offer insurance, and there will be one less thing that government can screw up.
Cap litigation and outlaw insurance and you'll see healthcare prices plummet like an anchor!
 

Cal

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
CattleArmy said:
Cal said:
We won't be trying something new. If you need to learn about government run healthcare and could use a refresher course in socialism all you need to do is take a day and go visit the Pine Ridge Hospital. Also, do you think the tax increase will be less than your health care premiums? I doubt it, but then you won't have a choice. A ranch or any business can only support a finite number of people at a given size or level of profitability, if that number is exceeded then an alternative needs to be found, as you have done. Isn't it sad that after 230 years we've reached the point that we think we either can't or won't provide for our own well being.

The people I know that utilize the pine ridge health care system are all the time telling how wonderful it is to get free health care.

I am providing for my own well being it's the reason I have the job in town. I just think it's time that every American has health care.

I have to agree cattlearmy-- as far as our Rez here....They not only have the two reservation hospitals and clinics, but they contract with Glasgow and Williston to provide any services they can't provide-- and if those can't handle it - Billings...

My wife has had 100's of patients that are IHS...

Like this OT?

http://www.kotaradio.com/NEWS/story.asp?id=4555

Dorgan calls Indian health services scandalous
8/17/2007 7

CROW AGENCY, Mont. (AP) - Senator Byron Dorgan says Indian
health services in the U.S. are scandalous. He says care is often
denied, unless life or limb is threatened.
The North Dakota Democrat chairs the Senate Indian Affairs
Committee, which held a hearing yesterday on Montana's Crow Indian
Reservation.
Witnesses testified of cancer victims who could not get a
diagnosis until it was too late for treatment; yearlong waits for
surgeries; and trauma victims turned away from tribal clinics not
equipped to handle their problems.
The committee also heard from officials of the Indian Health
Service. They said they make funding go as far as they can -- but
the budget regularly runs out halfway through the year. Pete Conway
is Billings area director of the Indian Health Service. He says
members of some tribes in the Dakotas get only 40 percent of the
health care funding they need.



(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cal said:
Oldtimer said:
CattleArmy said:
The people I know that utilize the pine ridge health care system are all the time telling how wonderful it is to get free health care.

I am providing for my own well being it's the reason I have the job in town. I just think it's time that every American has health care.

I have to agree cattlearmy-- as far as our Rez here....They not only have the two reservation hospitals and clinics, but they contract with Glasgow and Williston to provide any services they can't provide-- and if those can't handle it - Billings...

My wife has had 100's of patients that are IHS...

Like this OT?

http://www.kotaradio.com/NEWS/story.asp?id=4555

Dorgan calls Indian health services scandalous
8/17/2007 7

CROW AGENCY, Mont. (AP) - Senator Byron Dorgan says Indian
health services in the U.S. are scandalous. He says care is often
denied, unless life or limb is threatened.
The North Dakota Democrat chairs the Senate Indian Affairs
Committee, which held a hearing yesterday on Montana's Crow Indian
Reservation.
Witnesses testified of cancer victims who could not get a
diagnosis until it was too late for treatment; yearlong waits for
surgeries; and trauma victims turned away from tribal clinics not
equipped to handle their problems.
The committee also heard from officials of the Indian Health
Service. They said they make funding go as far as they can -- but
the budget regularly runs out halfway through the year. Pete Conway
is Billings area director of the Indian Health Service. He says
members of some tribes in the Dakotas get only 40 percent of the
health care funding they need.



(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Cal- I think a lot of it depends on region and reservation...I have no doubt Crow Agency has problems--they have had nothing but scandals, corruption, impeachments, etc etc--the whole reservation is a problem :shock: :roll: :wink: ... Probably on some others too-- But just like if you talk to Canadians-- some areas (Provinces) will tell you horror stories, while others praise their health insurance....

Have you ever heard of a tribe or reservation that thought they had enough of anything from the government? :???:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Sandhusker said:
I don't think the problem is so much who is paying for the insurance as it is the cost for whoever has to pay it. Our system has to be bleeding cash. When you have $2000/night hospital stays and $10 tylenols, you've got a problem that nobody can afford. I really think that if we stop the bleeding (no pun intended), health care costs will go down, employers will be able to offer insurance, and there will be one less thing that government can screw up.
Cap litigation and outlaw insurance and you'll see healthcare prices plummet like an anchor!

I think that's probably a good start.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Polls are starting to show that Edwards is the most electable of all candidates running!

------------------------------------------------


Despite the fact that President Bush is at record low levels of approval in many polls and the fact that Democrats lead generic trial heats for President and Congress, the individual head to head contest remain, by and large, close.

The data suggests that while Democrats enjoy a decided advantage going into campaign 2008, they by no means have the Presidential election locked up. Not by a long shot!

Looking at the Rasmussen trial heats between Senator Clinton and each of the leading Republican candidates, one finds that she trails Mayor Guiliani by a narrow 3% (well within the margin of error) and leads former Senator Fred Thompson by 4% (just outside the margin of error) and leads Senator John McCain by 2% (well within the margin of error as well). Her only substantial lead was 11% over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.


The Rasmussen data shows Senator John Edwards leading Mayor Guiliani by 8% and Senator McCain by 4%. Edwards held more substantial leads over former Senator Thompson (14%) and former Governor Romney (11%).


Senator Barack Obama was in a statistical tie with Mayor Guiliani (trailing by 1%) and held a narrow lead over former Senator Thompson (4%). His lead was wider, but still single digits over Senator McCain (6%) and former Governor Romney (9%).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/head_to_head_presidential_match_ups_remain_close
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large. Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. Our targets are established based upon survey interviews completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews). For the month of September, the targets are 36.5% Democrats, 31.9% Republican, and 31.6% unaffiliated. For the month of August, the targets were 36.1% Democrat, 31.3% Republican, and 32.6% Unaffiliated with Either Major Party (see party trends analysis and history). 30% of the nation Unaffiliated? Seems too high to me.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin said:
For the month of September, the targets are 36.5% Democrats, 31.9% Republican, and 31.6% unaffiliated. For the month of August, the targets were 36.1% Democrat, 31.3% Republican, and 32.6% Unaffiliated with Either Major Party (see party trends analysis and history). 30% of the nation Unaffiliated? Seems too high to me.

Looks like more and more folks are thinking the annointing of a single party is not the way--and voting for the individual rather than the R or the D behind their name....

I don't know about Rasmussen-but if you indicate you are an Independent- Zogby will ask which way you lean-R or D, C or L, or Libertarian......

While as of 2006 approximately 38% of Americans identify as independents in national polls, only 1 out of the 535 members of Congress, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, is Independent although Sanders does openly claim to be a Socialist. After losing the Democratic Primary in the state of Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman ran as an Independent and was elected by the state to continue to serve as Senator.

According to a September 3, 2006 Washington Post article, A Nation of Free Agents, by Marc Ambinder:

"Independent voters comprise about 10 percent of the electorate, but the percentage of persuadable independents has shot up to about 30 percent. In the 27 states that register voters by party, self-declared independents grew from 8 percent of the registered electorate in 1987 to 24 percent in 2004, according to political analyst Rhodes Cook. Consistently, about 30 percent of U.S. voters tell pollsters they don't belong to a party."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_(voter)
 

Goodpasture

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Cap litigation and outlaw insurance and you'll see healthcare prices plummet like an anchor!
Litigation and the insurance required to cover it is not the problem.....it may be part of it, but a minuscule part of it. If there is one overwhelming problem, it is the bureaucrats that gets between the doctor and the patient.

Remember there are two facets to medicine. One is basic health care. The other is egocentric. One is getting a kid with strep the antibiotics that will make him well or setting a broken bone. The other is silicone implants and tummy tucks and liposuction. When I talk about health care, it is the former I am talking about, not the delivery of botox.

One of the reasons the IHS works is that there is nothing between the doctor and patient. If the doctor determines that the patient needs a cat scan, he gets a cat scan. But the doctor doesn't order a cat scan so his partnership that owns the cat scan equipment can bill for additional services. I would go one step further.....just as it was when I was in the Navy, if you went to the base hospital, you accepted the risk of malpractice. You simply could not sue the base clinic for malpractice. If you could eliminate the profit motive from health care delivery, then the costs would plummet.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Goodpasture
just as it was when I was in the Navy, if you went to the base hospital, you accepted the risk of malpractice. You simply could not sue the base clinic for malpractice.

A 1950 Supreme Court ruling known as the “Feres doctrine” forbids active-duty people from suing the government for medical malpractice or almost any other reason.

While active-duty members cannot sue the government for malpractice, family members and retirees can sue for personal injury compensation in cases of medical malpractice or other negligence by a government employee.


I am not against a bad doctor getting sued when they deserve it.[

But then again when it comes to "supporting our troops",..they always seem to get the short end of the "laws",..."rights",..and treatment...
 

Latest posts

Top