Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Bill might want to check Urban Legend next time.

Posted By: Lydia on 2006-09-07
In Reply to: Some one stop this woman from shoe shopping and spinning...sm - Democrat

Claim:   Condoleezza Rice was upbraided by a shopper for buying expensive shoes just after Hurricane Katrina.

Status:   Undetermined.

Example:   [Collected via e-mail, 2005]






Is it true that shortly after Hurrican Katrina, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was seen buying thousands of dollars worth of shoes in an upscale Manhattan shoe store; and that the Secretary was accosted by an angry customer for doing so?

Origins:   The rumor about Dr. Condoleeza Rice, the U.S. Secretary of State, going on a shoe-shopping spree while on vacation in New York immediately after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast has appeared on some gossip sites and was reported by the New York Daily News:
Yesterday, Rice went shopping at Ferragamo on Fifth Ave. According to the Web site www.Gawker.com, the 50-year-old bought several thousand dollars' worth of shoes at the pricey leather-goods boutique.

A fellow shopper shouted, How dare you shop for shoes while thousands are dying and homeless! — presumably referring to Louisiana and Mississippi.

The woman expressing her First Amendment rights was promptly removed from the store. A Ferragamo store manager confirmed to us that Rice did shop there yesterday, but refused to answer questions about whether the protester was removed, and whether by his own security or the Secret Service.
We don't know how much truth there is to this rumor, but it has undoubtedly spread because it expresses a fiddling while Rome burns frustration many Americans have felt at the federal government's slow response in providing aid to victims of the disastrous damage and flooding in New Orleans and other parts of the Gulf Coast caused by Hurricane Katrina.

As many other readers have pointed out, although one might direct criticism towards government officials such as the President of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Under Secretary of Homeland Security for Emergency Preparedness and Response for failing to coordinate adequate response to large-scale emergencies within the U.S., such efforts are largely outside the purview of the Secretary of State. Dr. Rice's primary duties are advising the President in the determination and execution of U.S. foreign policy, conducting negotiations with foreign representatives, and providing instructions to U.S. ministers and consuls abroad, little of which directly bears on coordinating disaster relief within the U.S.

The implication embedded with this rumor is that if Dr. Rice had only been shopping for sensible shoes (instead of expensive leather ones), that would have been acceptable — a point that indicates there's perhaps more political subtext to this piece, especially since the purported outraged comments came from a fellow shopper.

Last updated:   2 September 2005


The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/katrina/politics/rice.asp




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Firefighters Associatio: Giuliani - Urban Legend.
See link.
If you will check on that DEREGULATING bill you are talking about....
yes, Phil Gramm helped write it, but it passed with a 90-something majority in a DEMOCRATIC congress and was signed into law by BILL CLINTON. Ahem. Yeah...that was certainly "worser."
Check the threads below....all you all the time....
such class.
Time for a reality check

I keep seeing posts telling us to "drop ridiculous charges", etc about Obama's b/c.  You may not realize this yet, but we are just MTs here voicing our opinion that we do not believe the b/c issue has been resolved (because it hasn't) and that we are glad there are others (judges, lawyers, politicians, etc) who are suing and taking this to the supreme court.  However to tell us to "drop the charges" is just too silly.  We're not the ones who are going to courts, only voicing our opinions.  And last I knew that is what this site is for. 


I see many posts with interesting articles written by jounalists and people who have been involved in the case since it all began (and even people outside the country), and those posts are met with such replies all screaming how any article that is posted is not a "credible source".  I saw someone give news headlines and was told "show us a credible source".  Yet time and time again those same people will come back and cite pro-Obama sites like Factcheck.org, PolitiFact, Huffington Post, etc as credible sources (I even saw someone state Obama's own website as a credible source - had to laugh at that one).  


People from all over the country (and the world) are writing articles about this.  That means there is something to it.  People who are journalists, lawyers, etc, are not going to write articles based on nothing.  If it was all based on nothing we'd be seeing more lawsuits filed against the people writing the articles. 


On this board I see that the people who want the issue resolved and are looking forward to hearing what the supreme courts have to say, and the outcome of all the other numerous lawsuits are doing just that and voicing their opinions.  No need to treat them with disrespect.  You can post your own post on why you believe what you do.  We are all entitled to our opinions, and I enjoy reading the articles.


So let me just say once more....people on this board - we are just MT'sn not the actual people going to the courts suing Obama, hence we have no "charges to drop".  We leave that to more capable hands.  We are voicing our opinions here and will continue to do so until the issue has been resolved.  Don't tell us it has been resolved otherwise there would be no court cases out there.


Lets all wait and see.  And as my grandma used to say to me when I was little "Stop being so silly, you silly goose you".


He also took the time to stop by Bill Clinton's
fundraiser or some such for his foundation or charity group. I guess he wasn't in that big of a hurry to get back to DC.
He did it again..Children's health care bill vetoed a second time

Bush vetoes children's health bill a second time


Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:11pm EST

 












Email | Print |
| Reprints | Single Page |

Recommend (2)

[-] Text [+]







Photo



1 of 1Full Size




 







Featured Broker sponsored link










By Caren Bohan


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Wednesday vetoed a bill expanding a popular children's health-care program for a second time, angering Democrats who are locked in a fight with the administration over the budget and spending.


Pushed by the Democratic-led Congress but also supported by many Republicans, the bill was aimed at providing health insurance to about 10 million children in low- and moderate-income families. Taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products would have been increased to pay for the aid.


Bush vetoed an earlier version of the bill in October but Congress quickly passed another one that included some changes but not enough to satisfy the White House concerns.


"Because the Congress has chosen to send me an essentially identical bill that has the same problems as the flawed bill I previously vetoed, I must veto this legislation too," Bush wrote in a message to the House of Representatives.


The fight between Congress and the White House over the health bill is one in a series of clashes over spending that have arisen this year.


Bush has said the funding level sought by the Democrats for the health program would have expanded it beyond its original intent of covering poor children and marked a step toward government-run health care.


Democrats say the additional money is needed to help families who cannot afford to buy private health insurance but who earn too much to qualify for the Medicaid health care program for the poor.


"This is indeed a sad action for him to take, because so many children in our country need access to quality health care," House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, told reporters.


The bill would have provided $60 billion in funding for the children's health program over five years, compared with the current $25 billion five-year funding level.


The tobacco tax increase would raise the levy on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack.


House Democratic leaders said they will not try to override the veto right away and would vote on a bill to ensure the more than six million kids now in the program can stay enrolled.


(Editing by Todd Eastham)


(Additional reporting by Donna Smith and Richard Cowan)




that is an urban

myth, but it makes you feel superior so please continue to believe it.  Hill and Bill certainly wouldn't care.


 


Did anybody every tell you that urban myth
su
Yes, you are a legend

Exposed urban myth. nm
.
Obsessing on you!!! LOLOLOLOL!!! Oh my, someone is a legend in their own mind!
too good!
New Evil Hippie Spitter Legend

Article about the guy who got spat on at the peace demonstration.


http://thepeacetrain.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=216


Funny, I never heard of her or the interview. I think she's a legend in her own mind.

You have to check and double check every single thing they say. They're not capable of telling t
truth about anything.  It's getting very boring and tedious to read their crap.  Why won't they stay on their own board like they tell us to do?
When Bill Clinton was in office, OHHH you better believe Bill and Carter have had..sm
their day of mudslinging matches, at the pleasure of a many conservatives. So, no there's not a double standard here.
Bill Maher Takes On Bill O'Reilly

BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the "Personal Story" segment tonight, political humorist Bill Maher (search), he has a new book out called "New Rules: Polite Musings from a Timid Observer." Of course, Mr. Maher is about as polite as I am and as timid as Dracula. He joins us now from Los Angeles.


You know, you've had some celebrities on your HBO show, "Real Time," which begins again on Friday, talking about policy and war on terror and stuff like that. I get the feeling they don't know very much, but you do. So I'd like to make Bill Maher, right now, the terror czar. Bill Maher, the terror czar. Could be a series.


How would you fight this War on Terror? How would you fight it?


BILL MAHER, HOST, HBO'S "REAL TIME": I think the first and most important thing is to get the politics out of the War on Terror. You know, maybe I'm a cockeyed optimist, Bill, maybe I'm naive, but I thought that 9/11 was such a jarring event that nobody would dare return to business as usual on that one subject after that.


But of course, we found out that nothing could be further from the truth. And your president, my president too, but the one you voted for...


O'REILLY: You don't know that. Were you looking over my shoulder there? I could have voted for Nader. I could have voted for Kerry, but Kerry wouldn't come on the program, so I wouldn't vote. But I could have gone for Ralph. Ralph's a friend of mine.


MAHER: Yes. Anyway, I said the guy you voted for, President Bush, you know, how come this guy, who was supposed to be such a kick-and-take- names kind of guy, how come he has not been able to get the politics out of this?


You know, as a guy who's been accused of treason, I'll tell you what real treason is: Treason is when legislators vote against homeland security measures because it goes against the wishes of their political or financial backers. Treason is the fact that, as a terrorist, you could still buy a gun in this country because the NRA (search) lobby is so strong.


O'REILLY: OK. But you're getting into the political, and I agree with you. I think that the country should be united in trying to seek out and kill terrorists, who would kill us.


But I'd like to have some concrete things that you, Bill Maher, the terror czar — and take this seriously, this could be a series — what would you do?


All right, so you've got bin Laden. You've got Al Qaeda (search). You've got a bunch of other lower-level terrorist groups. What do you do to neutralize them?


MAHER: OK. Well, first of all, you discounted my answer, which is get the politics out, but OK.


O'REILLY: Well, assume you can do that. They're gone.


MAHER: We'll let that go. Keep going. I wouldn't worry that much about bin Laden. I mean, capturing bin Laden at this point, it doesn't really matter whether he's dead or alive. He's already Tupac to the people who care about him and work for him. Capturing bin Laden, killing him would be like when Ray Kroc died, how much that affected McDonald's.


O'REILLY: It would be a morale booster. But I understand. You're not going to send...


MAHER: A morale booster, right. Well, we've had plenty of morale boosting. We've had plenty of window dressing. What we need is concrete action.


In the book I wrote before this one about terrorism, I suggested that we have a Secret Service for the people. I said whenever the president goes anywhere, he has very high-level, intelligent detectives who look around at a crowd. They know what they're looking for. They're highly paid. They're highly trained.


We don't have that in this country. We should have that. We should have a cadre of 10,000 highly trained people who would guard all public events, bus stations, train stations, airports — and stop with this nonsense that this robotic sort of window dressing...


O'REILLY: OK, so you would create a homeland security office that was basically a security firm for major targets and things like that. It's not a bad idea. Costs a lot of money. Costs a lot of money. It's not a bad idea.


MAHER: Costs a lot of money compared to what? If you paid 10,000 people a salary of $100,000 a year, that would, I think, cost $10 billion or something. That's nothing. There's that much pork in the transportation bill before you get...


O'REILLY: Yes, 10,000 wouldn't do it, but I get your drift.


MAHER: Whatever it costs.


O’REILLY: You would create a super-security apparatus. OK, that's not bad. That's not bad. How about overseas now?


MAHER: What we need to do is what I call get Israeli about this. Because the Israelis are not afraid of profiling. The Israelis are not afraid to bury politics in the greater cause of protecting their nation. We don't act that way. You know, I'm afraid 9/11 really changed nothing.


O'REILLY: Boy, your ACLU (search) pals aren't going to like that. You're going to lose your membership card there.


MAHER: I'm not a member of the ACLU.


O'REILLY: Oh, sure you are, just like I voted for Bush. You're a member of the ACLU. I can see the card right in your pocket there.


MAHER: Bill, I'm not a joiner. I'm not a joiner. I don't like organizations.


O'REILLY: They won't have you, Maher, let's be honest about that. All right, now, in your book, which is very amusing, by the way — if you want a few laughs buy Maher's book.


MAHER: Thank you.


O'REILLY: You take some shots at FOX News, which is your wont, and I just want to know why you think we're so fabulously successful here.


MAHER: Well, I think that question has been answered many times. It's because the conservative viewer in this country, or on radio the conservative listener, is very predictable. They like to hear what they like to hear. They like to hear it over and over again.


O'REILLY: All the surveys show that the viewers are all over the map. They're not conservative in a big bloc. Some of them are moderate. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them are Moroccans. I mean, they're everywhere. That's your analysis? That just the conservatives watch us?


MAHER: Well, I think mostly the conservatives do watch you. That's not to take anything away from what you guys have achieved over there. It's a very well-produced broadcast, and they have excellent personalities like yourself, Bill. Who could resist watching you when you get home from work at night?


O'REILLY: Whoopi Goldberg, maybe? I don't know.


MAHER: Yes.


O'REILLY: Anyone who doesn't watch here is misguided. We identify them as such.


But look, I think there's more to it than — you're in TV. You know the ratings game. I mean, if you don't provide a product that is satisfying people, no matter what your ideology, they tell you to take a hike.


There's a guy over at MSNBC. He's a very conservative guy. He was hired and nobody's watching him. They hire liberals. Nobody watches them. Air America (search). Nobody's listening to it.


I mean, there's got to be a reason why we're No. 1, a punch line for you, and No. 2, you know, becoming the most powerful news network in the world.


MAHER: Well, I think, as I say, it's a well-produced product. You know, your program moves along, always at a clip that never seems to bore. You know, you move along to the next topic, the next guest. It never sort of drags. I don't think a lot of people know how to produce that stuff that way.


O'REILLY: All right. It's bells and whistles and my charming personality. That's what I thought it was.


Last thing: You know, one thing I like about Maher is he's not a hypocrite. He drives a little hybrid vehicle. Right? You putter around there. Does it have training wheels? What's it like?


MAHER: Actually, I had the Prius hybrid for three years. I was one of the first ones to get it right after 9/11. And I traded it in a few months ago for the Lexus hybrid.


O'REILLY: I think we should all cut back on our energy consumption, and I think we should all get these hybrids as fast as we can.


Hey, Bill, always nice to see you. Thanks very much. Good luck with the season on the TV show.


MAHER: Continued success there, Mr. No. 1.


O'REILLY: All right. Thank you.


Watch "The O'Reilly Factor" weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the "Radio Factor!"


Content and Programming Copyright 2005 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2005 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.


Bill Clinton and his ties to India (yes, Bill),...
and China (yes, Bill) sent a lot of our jobs their way. Google it some time. Even I was amazed.

Look, it is simple economics. The big bad corporations everyone hates...first of all, it is not 5 or 6 rich guys and that's it. They employee thousands of people just like us...and when the government puts those huge taxes on them, if they want to stay in business, they are forced to move offshore. Higher taxes are responsible for more jobs going overseas than "greed." The DNC has told its members for years that "corporations" and "the rich" are the cause of all their problems and they have bought that Marxist rhetoric hook, line, and sinker. Corporations are not the cause of ill in this country. They are the backbone of the economy in this country. That is simple economics 101. And I am certainly not rich...and I certainly am not on the upper echelon of a corporation, but I do understand reality and I understand how the economy works. Yes, there is wrongdoing by some upper level folks in corporations. There is wrongdoing in the government. Where there is power, there will be wrongdoing. But for every Enron there are thousands of other good, solid companies that employ thousands of Americans, but the DNC does not share the success stories, because it does not promote their agenda. In order to control people they want them beholden to government and hating free enterprise. They want big government, total power, and control. And following Alinksy's program...you have to instill class warfare. You have to make corporations the enemy. You have to make classes envy the next rung up. Classic Marxist socialism. It is being played out in this country every day.

It is just that some of us have not bought the myth and jumped on the socialism train.
Did you read the bill? It was a regulatory reform bill...
asking them to regulate, not de-regulate. But Democrats blocked it...no wonder. Fannie was greasing a lot of Democratic palms...and Frederick Raines, the Dem CEO at the time...was in the Clinton administration. They were taking care of their own...and we are paying for it.
if abe is on the $5 bill & george is on the $1 bill, what is Obama on?
****censored****
Yep, but it was straight time. No time and a half
DHL is GERMAN OWNED.  And, company was located on Snotsdale, I mean Scottsdale, AZ which means.  Labor laws in Arizona suck.  Right to work state.  Basically a company can do whatever they want to do with you and if you do not like it, then quit and find another job.
LOL, yes, be sure to check with gt before you believe anything. She knows it all.
x
I will check
I honestly dont remember..I will check the history in my computer and see if I can find it..It could have been on Huffington or Crooks and Liars, one of the news sites I frequent..but it was from a newspaper, an article they had posted on their site..I will look this weekend.  Dont jump at me..I do not want the president of the USA to be drinking again..I think if it is true it is sad and tragic for him both personally and professionally.
check this out
Check out http://groups.msn/home.  They have lots of political groups, without censorship!
Check this out PK.sm
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PressRelease_2Jul2006.html
Thank you VERY much! I shall check it out.
I commend you for the volunteer work also. It might drive me nuts to know more about the dirt in politics than what is already obvious...

thanks again :-)
check out wnd.com
xxx
check your
facts instead of making things up.  I do not mean the National Enquirer or Faux News. Karl Rove's people are advising McCain.  That is why you see the silliness of celebrity ads and ads about people when Obama was 8 years old.  At first, he tried to run on his own charisma and could get no attention -- all was focused on the charismatic young man from Chicago.  Rove's people came in and started the negative ads.  And McCain went right along with them. . ..
Thanks. I will check it out :) nm
nm
would you check it for me --

its seems to excite you.  Me, not so much.


 


check this out

You can see plenty on michaesavage.com. I tried to copy/paste it, but this is all that transferred.


Piggy pols in hog heaven with pork-packed pact (New York Post) Congressional deal-brokers slopped a mess of pork into the $700 billion rescue bill passed by the Senate last night - including a tax break for makers of kids' wooden arrows ... Top 10 tax sweeteners in the bailout bill (Taxpayers for Common Sense) The "Transportation fringe benefit to bicycle commuters" allows employers to provide a benefit for costs associated with bicycle commuting ...


Check this out
Awhile back my husband and I were picking up rocks off our property.  I said, "I'm so bone tired I can't hit another dick!"  Of course I meant to say that "I can't hit another lick."  My husband is still laughing.  So..........was I bone tired or not?  Certainly I knew what I meant to say but it didn't just come out just right.
You check it out..............sm
This same blog post can be found all over the internet, so it is not from just "some obscure web page." Look for yourself.

The only hole around here is going to be the one this whole nation finds itself in if Obama is elected.
you can check these, there are several others
http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=h57H_7i3GLE&feature=related
Check this out and see what you think...

This is a video of T. Boone Pickens on the daily show.  If you don't like Jon Stewart, don't let that discourage you from checking this out.  Pickens is talking about the energy plan he has been promoting.


go to:   http://www.thedailyshow.com/


In the middle of the page is the video section.  Go under that to the "coming up next" box and pick T. Boone Pickens.


Sorry about the round about directions, but I couldn't find the interview anywhere else.


Maybe you should check yours.
November 5, Israeal kills 6 in raid. Israel has continued its crippling blockade and never complied with the original condition of the truce that the blockade be lifted.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians


What I want to know is, how is this check
is supposed to be the tax cut he promised to 95% of the taxpayers. Now, that does not mean you have to pay INCOME taxes to get an income tax break, that would be if you pay any kind of taxes, sales tax, property tax, etc. If the government just sends me a check for $1000, this is my tax CUT, right? Now, I am supposed to take this money and spend it to stimulate the economy, right? Well, the check everyone got last year, mine and DHs went straight to the IRS, we never saw it. I expect the same thing to happen with this new one and I will still be paying the same tax rate as ever, until it is increased again. Where is my tax CUT? How many other *middle-income* folks do you think had this same situation?
BUT you won't get it in a check.
It's a payroll tax cut. It will show up in your pay. How much more can you do with $13 a week. That's what it comes out to for this year.
Check this out....(sm)

It's an older article, but the facts remain the same.


France's model healthcare system





MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.


Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.


The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.


An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.


That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.


Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.


Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.


It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.


Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?


National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.


Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.


French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.


The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?


Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.


American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.


Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine.


Paul V. Dutton is associate professor of history at Northern Arizona University and author of "Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the United States and France," which will be published in September. "


Check this out....(sm)

It's an older article, but the facts remain the same.


France's model healthcare system





MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.


Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.


The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.


An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.


That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.


Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.


Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.


It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.


Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?


National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.


Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.


French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.


The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?


Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.


American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.


Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine.


Paul V. Dutton is associate professor of history at Northern Arizona University and author of "Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the United States and France," which will be published in September. "


Check this out....(sm)

Watch this video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4EWB0Wc4wQ


Then watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHHH3VBjSws&feature=related


And then watch this video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/29506332#29506332


 


Check this out.............. sm

Since when does the POTUS bow to a foreign potentate?  This man really has no clue............... Or does he?  Be sure to read the article as well. 






 


You might want to check again.
It might have been JTBB and me that you saw.
tnx will have to check those out.
Pretty hooked right now on 590klbj.com out of austin 5:30 a.m. to 10, one man always the voice of reason standing between the retired ex-cop and the I would swear has a gray ponytail liberal, but I notice even in the last couple of years he coming over to the dark side more and more. Ed and Sgt. Sam can flat get into it sometimes. I am actually listening to radio much more than TV, like hearing what the guy on the street has to say and you just don't get much of that on TV.
oh no Mr Bill

The communists are coming!!!!!!


 


Can you say BILL C-L-I-N-T-O-N???? He
xx
I will try this once more....this is a bill
put forth by a VERY unpopular REPUBLICAN president. All we hear ad nauseam from the Obama campaign is McCain is another Bush, we can't afford more Bush, heck, Pelosi said the same darned thing in her little speech before the vote blew up. The Democrats do NOT want to be identified as voting in the majority, against the Republicans, WITH Bush, to pass the bill because if they did, and it does not work, they will be forever identified with voting WITH Bush. Political suicide. Surely you can see that.

What I am saying is, Obama is a far left socialist and the party has become the majority far left socialist. So they will SUPPORT his agenda, and they have the majority in congress to back it up. Surely you can see that they will vote FOR Obama's agenda. You cannot honestly sit there and tell me that you think enough Democrats would vote against him to stop something he wants? You really think that??
I second that bill!

There was a bill that they both
worked on together.  John McCain's people called Obama's people.  It was not the other way around.
But you know something, Bill still came out
smelling like a rose, after all that, didn’t he? A much admired man, makes $$$$ for speeches, welcomed here at home and around the world. Oh, the 2nd Mr. Bush could only wish for so much.
This bill
is a slippery slope and doesn't deserve the slightest considersation. All people should be protected from criminal or harmful behavior. If a homosexual or pedophile deserves protection from someone, doesn't the child or even an adult who may be raped because of a deviants "sexual orientation" deserve the same protection? Having a so-called "sexual orientation" does not give you the right to act on that "orientation" simply because you can't control your "urges." This bill gives deviants free range to imbibe in their "deviant urges" without consequences. Why any president would consider such an atrocity is beyond me. If Obama signs this bill, the damage done will be on his loony head.
check article above
Well, we might just get an investigation into the Downing Street Memos after all and then when it is proven that Bush contrived this war and lied for this war, you can post here that yes Bush is a liar.  I refer you to the above post about the Downing Street Memos above.  Interesting article.  States finally a republican is wanting an investigation into the Downing Street Memos, as so far it has only been democrats asking for an investigation.