Leaderboard

Since nobody else has started one, <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Myself, I was on Andrews at the time. My daughter had just been released from the hospital after having some pins inserted in a broken elbow after a playground accident. My wife was teaching at the nearby elementary school. Watching the tube that morning, I saw the breaking news...daughter asked, "What happened Daddy?" My answer: "Honey, you just saw the world change forever."

Personally, I oppose both the Republicans and Democrats on this. I think that if someone shows up at a hospital and is in desperate need of medical attention, they shouldn't have to show their papers or anything. Save their life, then figure out what to do. We all know that there is too much up-front paperwork involved in going to the emergency room. It would be nice if the life-saving portions happened first, and the paperwork (which should be minimized anyway) waits until the end.

I agree. But, consider that it is currently illegal to discriminate against them in healthcare. Before you suggest a "personal filter" keep in mind what I said before, I don't personally care. If they pay, I don't have a problem with them being insured. Healthcare is not the place to control immigration. But until the text of the law is changed, it says what it says. Regardless of the White House statements. Remember: the White House said no earmarks. Then he signed HR 1...which is nothing but earmarks. The White House said "no lobbyists." But they seem to have no problems signing waivers. And so on.

I think it was Will Rogers who said something like, if you listen to news sources you are misinformed. If you don't you are uninformed. I always liked that.

Well said JeffSjo...very well said.

Time Mag: The President's seemingly simple statement that "the reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally" is not hard to check. In the Senate Finance Committee's working framework for a health plan, which Obama's speech seemed most to mimic, there is the line, "No illegal immigrants will benefit from the health care tax credits." Similarly, the major health-care-reform bill to pass out of committee in the House, H.R. 3200, contains Section 246, which is called "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS." Some Republicans have claimed that these protections are too weak, since they do not require stringent eligibility checks that would prevent illegal immigrants from gaming the system. Time's reporting is also not hard to check. TITLE II--HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND RELATED PROVISIONS <h4>Subtitle A--Health Insurance Exchange Subtitle B--Public Health Insurance Option Subtitle C--Individual Affordability Credits </h4> SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States. "This subtitle" = Subtitle C. Individual Affordability Credits. (by the way, the underlining above is mine) On the other hand, check out Section 152 SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE. (a) In General- Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services. (b) Implementation- To implement the requirement set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act are provided (whether directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements) without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services. Note subparagraph (a), above. They may not discriminate against ANYBODY for any reason in providing health insurance or health care. (BTW, for the record, as long as my tax dollars aren't subsidizing it, I personally have no problem with anybody getting health insurance or receiving health care, regardless of their legal status. And, if my tax dollars are involved, I wouldn't have a problem with it either if the person or office receiving the tax dollars were obliged to report a suspected crime (being here illegally) just like they'd have to report any other suspected crime) So it sounds like Time is joining Mr. Obama in the "YOU LIE" column.

You use Wikipedia??? as a source and complain about the use of the Telegraph? Seriously.... First of all, the lawsuit was against New World Communications (d/b/a WTVT). Case # 98-CA-002439 filed in Hillsborough Circuit Court (FL). It was not filed against Fox News. I'm glad you think that Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have the time to monitor a story produced by a local affiliate, but reality says that this is highly unlikely. The case was filed by both Steve Wilson and Jane Akre. All of Wilson's claims were dismissed. All of Akre's claims were also dismissed. Here is some verbiage from the decision filed by the 2d District Court of Appeal in 2003 (it's a darned shame that whoever wrote the Wikipedia article couldn't take the time to link to the actual decision) In December 1996, WTVT hired the appellee, Jane Akre, and her husband, Steve Wilson, as a husband-and-wife investigative reporting team. Shortly after Akre and Wilson arrived at WTVT, they began working on a story about the use of synthetic bovine growth hormone ("BGH") in Florida dairy cattle. Their work on this story led to what could be characterized as an eight-month tug-of-war between the reporters and WTVT's management and lawyers over the content of the story. Each time the station asked Wilson and Akre to provide supporting documentation for statements in the story or to make changes in the content of the story, the reporters accused the station of attempting to distort the story to favor the manufacturer of BGH. In September 1997, WTVT notified Akre and Wilson that it was exercising its option to terminate their employment contracts without cause. Akre and Wilson responded in writing to WTVT threatening to file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") alleging that the station had "illegally" edited the still unfinished BGH report in violation of an FCC policy against federally licensed broadcasters deliberately distorting the news. The parties never resolved their differences regarding the content of the story, and consequently, the story never aired. In April 1998, Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging, among other things, claims under the whistle-blower's statute. Those claims alleged that their terminations had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC. Akre also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract. After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims. The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury. The jury rejected all of Akre's claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC. The jury awarded Akre $425,000 in damages. Of course, the user-developed article on Wikipedia didn't bother to include these portions of the court's decision. Based on the written decision of the court, the claim is laughable anyway. The station asked Akre and Wilson to substantiate their claims and Akre / Wilson respond by accusing the station of trying to distort the story. They are fired in 1997 and they respond by threatening to report the station to the FCC. Then they sue the station on the basis of a whistleblower law. Let's think about this a second. Here's the sequence (according to the court's decision): - They work on a story - Management asks them for documentary proof - They don't provide proof but, instead, accuse management of trying to distort their story - This goes back and forth a few times - They get canned - They threaten to report management to the FCC - They sue the station for a bunch of things, including whistleblower protection Just as an FYI, had they ACTUALLY reported the station to the FCC before they were fired or threatened to report the station to the FCC before they were fired, they might have a case about whistleblower protection. But they're fired and only then threaten to report the station. Whistleblower protection NEVER works that way. Ever. First, all claims made by Steve Wilson, Jane's husband were dismissed. Second, all claims made by Jane Akre were dismissed...except the whistleblower claim. What the whistleblower claim does is accuse the station for firing her because she threatened to go to the FCC. The jury was not asked to review the validity of the claim at all, just that she was was improperly fired because she threatened to file a complaint (though the chronology written into this decision does not indicate that this was, in fact, the order of events). Now, let's go back to the decision: While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matterthat Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. Translation: she didn't have a valid claim under the Florida whistle-blower law. Now let's skip down a little bit in the decision (you can read the whole thing by the link, which Wikipedia didn't provide but I did): The FCC has never published its news distortion policy as a regulation with definitive elements and defenses. Instead, the FCC has developed the policy through the adjudicatory process in decisions resolving challenges to broadcasters' licenses. The policy's roots can be traced to 1949 when the FCC first expressed its concern regarding deceptive news in very general terms stating that "[a] licensee would be abusing his position as a public trustee of these important means of mass communications were he to withhold from exp​ression over his facilities relevant news of facts concerning a controversy or to slant or distort the news." There are two points to get at here: 1) The Florida Appeals Court did not rule that it was OK for a news outlet to lie 2) They indicated that truth-telling was not a rule, regulation, or law. It was a factor that was developed as part of the requirement for license renewals. Back to the decision: It is undisputed that the FCC's news distortion policy has never been "adopted" as defined by section 120.54, Florida Statutes (1997). Translation: Akre's attorney did not attempt to argue this point. The bottom line: Wilson's case was dismissed out-of-hand at the county court level. Akre's case was dismissed at that level as well, except for whether the whistle-blower complaint stood. By the way, what were the counts? According to a website maintained by Wilson and Akre, here are the counts: Count 1) Breach of Contract: NEW WORLD, nonetheless suspended PLAINTIFFS' employment in violation of the employment Agreements, threatened to terminate the Employment Agreements immediately unless the PLAINTIFFS agreed to engage in activities, as described above, which they believed to be unethical and in violation of the Federal Communications Act, and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission. Count 2) Declaratory Judgment: PLAINTIFFS demand: a. A declaratory judgment construing the rights of the parties under the Employment Agreements. b. A declaration that requiring PLAINTIFFS to participate in the preparation and broadcast of the BGH news report containing false or misleading information is not a reasonable assignment of duties within the meaning of ¶1(B) of the Agreements; c. A declaration that the direction to the PLAINTIFFS that they participate in the preparation and broadcast of the BGH news report containing false or misleading information is not reasonable or valid and cannot predicate a charge of misconduct or insubordination within the meaning of ¶2(B)(i) or (ii) of the Employment Agreements; d. A declaration that, because the DEFENDANT breached the Employment Agreements, the provisions in ¶¶4, 5, 7(B) and © are void or voidable by the PLAINTIFFS; e. A declaration that notes, records, copies of tape recorded interviews and materials obtained from the public domain do not fall within the scope of ¶4(A) or 5 of the Employment Agreements; f. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Count 3: Whistle-blower Act Violation 68. At the time described herein, the actions of DEFENDANT and its agents, constituted violations of section 448.102, Fla. Stat., including, but not limited to: a. Taking retaliatory personnel action against PLAINTIFFS for disclosing violations of laws, rules, and regulations, including violations of the Federal Communications Act; and b. Taking retaliatory personnel action against PLAINTIFFS for their refusal to participate in the activities, policies and practices of DEFENDANT which were in violation of law, rules, and regulations, including violations of the Federal Communications Act Counts 1, 2, and 3 were all dismissed in Wilson's case by the trial court. Counts 1 and 2 were dismissed in Akre's case by the trial court. Count 3 was dismissed upon appeal. In other words, the substance of the matter, that they were ordered to knowingly put out a false report, was dismissed at the trial court level. Bottom line: Wikipedia is not a reliable source... Now, do you have any real evidence to back up your claim, or is it just that you don't like Fox's editorial position and, therefore, don't want to see it used?

Dear HCW, I've really enjoyed reading the historical facts that you have shared. And it seems that you have certainly done a good job of calling it as you see it, and I am certain that for you all that sharing was just the tip of the iceberg, so-to-speak. And even after your years closely associated with top TWI leadership it seems you have done a real good job of looking at things as they really were in spite of the many heart strings and warm feelings you must have made with many individuals over the years. But from my perspective looking back now it seems obvious that building on Wierwille's example much if not all of TWI's top leadership engaged in a somewhat systematic and years long system of sexual and mental abuse that were usually covered up with such simple platitudes as,"He/she just needs to toughen up to stand on God's word." And while such things can seem dumbfounding in that we actually bought them, I think it just goes to show how that the whole IDEA of "serving God" can actually be utilized to blind many eyes as to what is really going on in any given situation. Perhaps especially IMO in a case such as TWI where that covering up of Wierwilles' evils became doctrinal and control issues. Reading your posts, it has kind of saddened me to consider how VPW and others could keep at least somewhat of a veneer of normalcy going on, as evidenced to me by the mostly normal and even heartwarming interactions that you rightly recall. As someone who has been somewhat victimized by TWI style abuse and control it is very easy to relate to the ones who have had deep and long-lasting wounds from such behavior. And from my perspective using terms as "real jerk at times" when describing Wierwille vicious and aberant behavior, which was definitely in part because he was soooo F'in narcissistic, actually understates the kind of man that his nasty and destructive behavior came from. But I do definitely appreciate how well you have come to terms with TWI leadership behavior and your seemingly thorough recall of events and impressions as things sit right now. JEFF (edited for spelling)

And one more thing Tzaia, My boy is not in their clutches as things worked out. All it took for me to get that accomplished is to tell my divorce mediator exactly what they've done and said. But right after that particular mediation session was the only time my ex blatantly gave me the classic, "if I could kill you with my eyes it would be now" look. For me it was easy to get that done, but only after I started talking to folks about what happened.

Thank you for clarifying what I was saying: we are basically in agreement. As far as more of a burden of proof being on the alleged perpetrator, I'm cautious about agreeing with you, not that I'm in favor of the perpetrator, but that it's very difficult to prove a negative, particularly in a he-said, she-said type of argument with little or no physical evidence being available (as a lot of harassment suits are). During my time in the military and my time in the corporate world thereafter, I've had to take a whole lot of training on ethics subjects, to include sexual harassment. As a manager for a number of years (both military and civilian), I have learned to be extremely cautious that nothing I say or do could possibly be perceived as even approaching harassment, because of the already-existing "burden of proof" issues you mention. The basic assumption is where there's smoke, there's fire. And how the alleged victim feels about something is just as important as what actually happened. For example, if a female were to walk by your desk and look at your monitor and you had a picture of a scantily clad or nude woman on your monitor, you could be charged. Likewise, if a "victim" walked past a couple of people who were telling the wrong type of joke (not even realizing he/she was within earshot), both could be charged. Why? For creating a "hostile work environment." And that is considered a form of harassment nowadays. I'm not saying that it is uniformly the same standard everyplace, but in both companies where I've worked since retiring, and in the Air Force since about the 90s, that has been the standard. (I personally know a 26 year E-9 who was forcibly retired due to him having a huge catalog of jokes and not using adequate discretion as to when and within earshot of whom to recount them) As far as teachers and clergy, again, as far as accusations go, there is already a strong informal degree of guilt assumed when an accusation is made, due to the number of cases that have actually been dealt with. I actually sort of feel sorry for them, as this must change how they do their jobs significantly (I feel for the 98.4% who are good, honorable people whose ability to effectively do their jobs has been impacted by the 1.6% who have abused their positions -- stats are mine and are just for reference only). Take, for example, a clergywoman: dare she counsel a member of the opposite sex behind closed doors? What if the member of the opposite sex, upon receiving spiritual direction he does not wish to receive, decides to accuse the clergywoman of making an advance toward him? Or a teacher keeping a kid after school for tutoring? It's got to be in their minds, how do I protect myself...and that's got to make doing their jobs far more difficult. I could imagine that the same situation would exist with psychologists, as well. As far as the bad ones, they need to be caught, prosecuted, and removed from their positions. But I don't want to advocate lowering the bar for proof so much that good, honorable ones get swept away with the bad ones.

Not to derail (or anything like that), but I'm getting REALLY SICK AND TIRED of folks denigrating news sites that DON'T agree with their personal perspective on the world situation. I'm not singling you out Hap, but yours was the last post I read here about this, so I'm using it for convenience's sake. I see this as an "on-going problem". So what if someone gets "news" from a source you don't care for personally?? Debunk the info therein, rather than the site that offers it. If you can - - - great. If you can't, don't attack the news site rather than the content being offered. This should apply to both sides of the topic-at-hand: Poster A quotes from one news source ---- Posters B through (ad infinitum) ridicule Poster A for even subscribing to the views mentioned there. Before you know it, it's the veracity of the news source in question rather than the topic at hand, and any and all discussion about the "problem" grinds to a halt, while accusations of the source escalate. Too many are fixated on ridiculing another's source of info, and "dissing" (whichever) news network that info came from. Keep it up, eh? Sounds like all the old arguments revisited between Corps and Wow as to which was better and why, with neither faction listening to the other, each convinced they followed the "correct path" to "spirituality". Now - - - back to topic, if possible. :blink: <_< Oh - - - edited for speeling misteaks, in kase you wundered.

Roy- I hope you watch shows other than Fox now and then. It is amazing the different ideas that are on other networks.

Oh, and here are some tidbits from the "approved" UK news source (The Times): Fatal or serious NHS medication errors double in two years (Sep 7, 2009) Hundreds report poor care suffered by NHS patients (Aug 28, 2009) Shortage of NHS midwives is barrier to safety of mothers and babies (Aug 25, 2009) Nurses 'left elderly patients lying in urine' (Aug 27, 2009) <h1 class="heading"></h1>Elderly left at risk by NHS bidding wars to find cheapest care with reverse auctions (June 1, 2009) The NHS is enormous, expensive and still growing (Sep 3, 2009) NHS scandal: dying cancer victim was forced to pay (Jun 1, 2008) Life-saving cancer drugs 'kept from NHS patients by red tape' (Sep 20, 2005)<h1 class="heading"></h1> And my favourite (British spelling in honor of The Times): USA versus the NHS (Aug 16, 2009) When Bobbie Whiteman moved to the United States from Britain, she did not give medical insurance a thought. She had no cover for six months and it was only when she was offered a job at Variety, the Hollywood newspaper, that it became an issue. It was part of her salary package and she had to decide between several schemes the company had on offer. Seven years later, in 2007, the value of the scheme she chose became all too evident. Suffering from persistent backache – which doctors initially attributed to being “unfit” - she was given an MRI scan which showed she had a string of cancerous tumours down her back. Instead of heading for home and the National Health Service, she had treatment in America - and is glad she did. “Every time you go for any treatment here, they want to see your insurance card and check every detail they have about you and that is wearisome,” said Whiteman, 49. “But I’ve had some terrific treatment.” Little expense was spared in having the necessary scans, tests, radiation treatment and drugs. So far her cancer is stabilised: “There are all sorts of things you have to be aware of: some treatments you part-pay for and you have to choose a doctor who is approved by your insurer. But it’s not all about money here. The doctors are doctors - they really want to help you.” (snip) “Most doctors in Britain, if they’ve worked overseas, will admit that somewhere like America has the best of the best. What it doesn’t have is the breadth of coverage,” he said. “Ours is an equitable, morally cogent way of doing things. But looking at the amount and quality of research into my cancer, there was a clear difference between Britain and the United States.” Thanks to the vast sums poured into the US system, those Americans with insurance undergo more x-rays and other diagnostic tests than British patients, which appears to have some impressive spin-offs. America’s superior survival rate from prostate cancer – 92% after five years compared with 51% here – is probably down to diagnoses being made earlier. Indeed, in the United States the complaint is sometimes too much healthcare, not too little. “Overconsumption or overprovision of healthcare is a huge problem in the States,” said James Gubb, director of the health unit at Civitas, the British think tank. “You get paid in some cases for each x-ray you carry out or each operation and clearly, if that’s happening, then there’s a big incentive to overtreat. “There is unquestionably more of a sense of customer service in the States – that it is important to look after the patient as a customer and provide the services they want – than there is in the NHS.” (remainder snipped) Yup, I think we ought to switch to Obamacare...100% /s

So I guess now the standard is only a partisan paper published by Labour is an adequate British source. Got it. The quote said that no baby under 22 weeks should be resuscitated. With or without parents' request. Likewise, the only murder of a live baby is the murder in your own mind. Neither the Mail article nor the Telegraph article asserted that, nor did I in my initial comment. Some around here are probably capable of comprehending the difference between not resuscitating a patient and murdering a patient, regardless of age. In fact, the only quote that I made in this entire thread that came close to that was this one (from post #29) The rules that they will have to set up may or may not be like this one, where they just refuse to treat a 21-week gestation baby. Or the rules may be that they don't provide chemotherapy to a 90 year old with cancer. Or the rules may be that they won't treat a smoker for lung cancer or a drinker for cirrhosis of the liver. Regardless, they will have to put some kind of rule in place. Perhaps you can point out to me where I gave any indication of murdering patients, whether they be 21 week babies or 90 year old cancer patients. Actually, you are making my point (though I realize that this is the last thing you would ever want to do). Yes, patients get kicked out here. Through insurance company guidelines for a standard of care. I have personal, first-hand experience with this in fact. It will be worse once we go over to nationalized medicine. Why? Because they are doing nothing to fix the problem, they are just shifting who will be accountable to pay for the problem. "Oh, but Mark, the government will not allow insurance companies to force patients to be kicked out." OK, then that means that premiums will go up. "Oh, but Mark, no they won't. The government won't allow it." In which case the insurance companies will no longer do medical insurance. If you force somebody to lose money, they will not stay in a business. "Oh, but Mark, we need to be on single-payer anyway, so who cares if some money-hungry insurance company goes out of business?" In which case subsidies will have to go up. Meaning that either Geithner has to print more money (since China won't buy up all of our debt anymore), or taxes will go up, or your premiums to the single payer will go up. Allow me to let you in on a secret: I actually hope the health care plan goes through. The most radical possible version of it." Signed, The evil one.

By the way, P-Mosh, you should look up HR 1 section 804 (FEDERAL COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH) on http://thomas.loc.gov And in the appropriation part of the bill for HHS (Title VIII), you will see the following text: In addition, $400,000,000 shall be available for comparative effectiveness research to be allocated at the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services ('Secretary'): Provided, That the funding appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to accelerate the development and dissemination of research assessing the comparative effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies, through efforts that: (1) conduct, support, or synthesize research that compares the clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of items, services, and procedures that are used to prevent, diagnose, or treat diseases, disorders, and other health conditions; and (2) encourage the development and use of clinical registries, clinical data networks, and other forms of electronic health data that can be used to generate or obtain outcomes data In most cases, you will note that this will be a matter of saying: "Treatment 'A' works better than Treatment 'B'"...but they also can make a determination that "Treatment A" is just not cost effective in certain clinical situations (i.e., an old fart or a smoker) and shouldn't be done. Just like the Nuffeld Protocol described in the Telegraph article earlier. Or a slightly over-active government use of the Liverpool Care Pathway.

How about the Telegraph? That is a broadsheet, so it ought to satisfy even a news snob such as yourself. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics had stepped gingerly into an area which was already the topic of fierce debate. During a two-year inquiry, its working party took evidence not just from doctors and nurses in neonatal medicine, but from professors of philosophy, and religious leaders. But however carefully the debate was handled, the categorical nature of its final recommendations had an incendendiary effect. The guidelines were clear: no baby below 22 weeks gestation should be resuscitated. If a child was born between 22 and 23 weeks into pregnancy it should not be standard practice to offer medical intervention, which should only be given if parents requested it, and following a through discussion about the likely outcomes, the document said. Or how about this, from the Times, another broadsheet (different topic, same NHS) Almost 2,000 critically ill patients were discharged early from NHS intensive care units last year because of a shortage of beds, the Conservatives have claimed. Data from eight out of ten hospital trusts in England suggests that a further 20,000 patients had their discharge from intensive care delayed because there were no suitable beds in other wards to which they could be transferred. You can get mad all you want. Facts are facts. I hope the Telegraph is a good enough source to meet your high standards of journalism.

Roy, I'm terribly sorry that I didn't make myself adequately clear above. This did not happen in the USA. This happened in England. The point I was getting at was that in order to cut costs, some rules will have to be set up on what they will pay for and what they won't. Sometimes those rules might have to be rules that most of us don't understand or like. The rules that they will have to set up may or may not be like this one, where they just refuse to treat a 21-week gestation baby. Or the rules may be that they don't provide chemotherapy to a 90 year old with cancer. Or the rules may be that they won't treat a smoker for lung cancer or a drinker for cirrhosis of the liver. Regardless, they will have to put some kind of rule in place. Why do they have to put those kinds of rules in place? Well, take the example from the article I posted above. They say that only 16% of infants survive that are born after only 21 weeks of pregnancy. So they figure that it's just not cost effective to treat those babies when 84% of them will die anyway. They could make the same argument for providing some kind of treatments for old people or for people with bad habits like smoking, drinking, or being fat. They have to make some kind of rules on what they will pay for, otherwise, the costs will be totally out of control. Insurance companies do it right now. And the government will have to do it as well. I don't know what those rules will be nor does anybody else, but there will have to be rules, I can 100% guarantee that. But once again, this article shows an example of a rule that they have in place for the nationalized health care in England. Neither Obama nor any doctor in the US had anything to do with that baby dying.

Kit, What do you think about this: From today's (9/8) UK Mail: A young mother's premature baby died in her arms after doctors refused to help because it was born just before 22-week cut-off point for treatment. Sarah Capewell, 23, gave birth to her son Jayden when she was 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy. Although doctors refused to place the baby in intensive care, Jayden lived for two hours before he passed away at James Paget Hospital in Gorleston, Norfolk, last October. (snip) Miss Capewell, of Great Yarmouth, said: 'When I asked about my baby's human rights, the attitude of the doctors seemed to be that he did not have any. 'They said before 22 weeks he was just a foetus.' (snip) The medical guidance for NHS hospitals, limiting care of the most premature babies, was drawn up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in 2006. The guidelines are clear: no baby below 22 weeks gestation should be resuscitated. And, before anybody says anything, I realize that we are not in the UK and what is being proposed is not the NHS. However, when business rules are set up to control costs, they will make arbitrary decisions...if not an arbitrary decision like this one, some arbitrary decision that will upset somebody. Right now, there is a bogey man: the insurance companies. When the government-run "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" (HR 3200 Title 1 sec 123) makes its recommendation on coverages (sec 121), there may be some wailing and gnashing of teeth when the tough decisions have to be made.

There is a HUGE cultural difference between other countries and the US. I lived in Europe for 9 years (while stationed over there) -- I saw those differences first hand. There is no amount of law that can turn us into Europe, no matter how much a politician wants to do so. If, for no other reason, geography. This is changing somewhat, but traditionally, Europeans live in clusters (to include farmers). Whether those clusters are cities, towns, or farming villages. They might own land, upon which they could farm, but it is highly unusual to see a home placed on 5-6 acres of land (the exception being a baron or the like). Urban sprawl, like what we have in this country and have had since WWII, is a very recent phenomenon in most parts of the world. The clustered nature of living as they do allowed for the development of really effective mass transit systems...thus encouraging walking. The idea of park-and-ride is a fairly unique American attempt and, at least when I lived over in Europe, was unheard of (if you're going to drive to work, you just drive to work. If you're going to take transit, you take transit). So to adopt the walking culture like you accurately point out exists over there, we would really-and-truly have to change our culture to live in far denser housing in relatively self-contained clusters. One other thing is that Europeans are, even today, a lot more classist than they are over in this country. For example, at least up through the 80s in Germany, a person's class for life would basically be determined for them by the time they were in 5th grade. It would be at that time that they would be tracked into a college-preparatory curriculum, or schooling that would prepare them to enter a skilled trade or the arts, or a "practical" education that would prepare them to be a laborer. I don't know if that is the situation any more or not. When I lived in Italy, the situation was pretty much the same. I also understand that there is education tracking in the UK, as well (but I'm not sure exactly how it works over there). So it would be pre-determined whether or not you could go to college or not at an early age. For the most part, at that time, people lived within their class. As a result, the concept of "climbing" as we have over here and have had for ages, particularly since the 60s, did not exist (though I recognize that this has been changing in recent decades, as well). Food choices that we have as part of the American culture didn't really exist over in Europe because there wasn't the time pressure brought on by the idea of social climbing (with the extra hours and dual income families), along with transit times to take people out to the suburbs. In other words, to change our food and exercise habits, we would really need to make organic, integral changes in our entire culture. I don't see that happening any time soon. And I don't see it as something that will be forced by politicians, bureaucrats, or anthropologists.

Crazy stuff going on with my computer...I don't get all the posts until I reply...??? Anyway, this is not about healthcare or insurance companies in the US, BUT about the lifestyles of the countries in Oenophile's post. Thanks, Oenophile it got my chef thinging going.... The everyday life habits of Japan, France, Iceland, Australia and all mentioned are vewwy intewesting. Because of their life habits they are healthier people. Thus, less is spent on health care. Their life habits is their health care. The everyday diets of Europeans and Asians consist of what we Americans are warned not to eat...rice, pasta, meats, fried foods, butter, oils, and meat. Check out French Provencal cooking amongst the many other cooking habits of those countries mentioned. Other parts of the world don't eat garbage like we do. One interesting point is they don't consume sugar like we do. They grow and make what they eat for the most part. They exercise. They walk, they bicycle and then they walk and bicycle some more, just to get from one place to another. They don't drive to Mickie D's for lunch and then pick up KFC for the family dinner and then settle down in front of the boob tube. They don't hog out when they eat. I have a friend from Iceland. We were talking about food portions with another friend of mine and her husband who lived in Scotland for many years. He said in Iceland he and two other friends go out to a pub for lunch. They order lunch. No menu. You get what is for lunch. It was a sausage about 8 inches, 3 potatoes and a chunk of bread. That was split between the three of them. Friends from Scotland said Europeans would be shocked by the mega bars we have here. Friends from India are the healthiest folks I know.