things can get screwed up on a minor technicality--such as the president ordering justified wire taps. The columnist is right saying that the Americans won't support impeaching Bush for trying to fight terrorism. Oh the dems are scraping the bottom trying to persue this, and in the process they are only going to hurt themselves, because they will be viewed as being totally spineless on national security (which they are--this little stunt more thanproves it).
Again, the screw up here is letting the screwed up American legal system handle legal cases that are best served by military tribunals.
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
it handled *Plan A* (Iraq War). Manipulate the evidence until it fits your own agenda and then impose it on America. One doctor's personal religious views now control the FDA and every woman in America.
The Debate Over Plan B
Nov. 27, 2005 (CBS) When the “morning after pill,” also known as “Plan B,” was put on the market in 1999, it was described as an emergency contraceptive that prevents a pregnancy in cases of rape or accidents like condom breaks.
It is only available by prescription. But because women need to take it within 72 hours, the drug's manufacturer applied to the Food and Drug Administration two years ago for permission to sell Plan B over the counter.
The drug is considered totally safe, so the request was seen as a slam dunk. But then Plan B became the target of anti-abortion rights groups, and part of the wider controversy over whether religious beliefs are encroaching on scientific decision-making. 60 Minutes Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports.
Until last August, Dr. Susan Wood headed the FDA’s Office of Women’s Health and was one of the scientists inside the agency arguing that Plan B should be available without a prescription. “If it's safe, and it is, and effective, it's more effective the quicker you have it. This is why it needs to be over-the-counter,” she says.
“If you need it on Saturday morning, Monday morning is too late. Getting to a physician to get a prescription, getting that prescription to a pharmacy and getting it filled takes time, as we all know. Then what are you going to do?” says Wood.
That’s a question that a woman named Evelyn faced last year, when she was raped at a New York nightclub.
Evelyn, age 22 at the time, was rushed to St. Vincent’s hospital, the nearest emergency room.
She says the hospital did not offer her an emergency contraceptive.
“It was something that they were supposed to offer,” says Evelyn’s mother, Sandi. “In the situation as my daughter’s, as Evelyn’s situation, they were supposed to offer, you know, and let the person make the decision as to whether or not they wanted it. I didn’t know that it was optional.”
Sandi says she knew about a New York law that says all hospitals must offer rape victims emergency contraception like Plan B.
Sandi called the nurse who had treated Evelyn at St. Vincent’s. “I said, ‘Why did you not give it to her?’ And she very rudely said to me, ‘Well, we're a Catholic hospital. We don't do birth control.’ At which point, I told them what they could do with being a Catholic hospital and their views on birth control — I'd rather not say that on the air,” she recalls. “I was absolutely livid.”
Because of Evelyn's case, St. Vincent’s is under investigation by the state of New York. The hospital told 60 Minutes it is now complying with the law.
Evelyn finally got a prescription for Plan B, and took it 10 hours after the rape. Had she not gotten Plan B and had gotten pregnant, Evelyn says she would have had an abortion. “I'm glad that that didn't have to happen, I never had to experience that, she says.
The Catholic Church opposes Plan B not just because it’s birth control, but because it considers use of Plan B to be, in Cardinal Egan of New York’s words, “a chemical abortion.”
But Wood says this is not an abortion pill. “There is an abortion pill called RU-486, and this is not it,” she says. “An abortion pill interrupts an established pregnancy. This product is contraception. It does not interrupt an established pregnancy.”
She says even if you took it and were already pregnant, it would not end the pregnancy. “The only connection this product has with abortion is that it can prevent them by preventing an unintended pregnancy,” says Wood.
There is some debate about that interpretation. Most of the time, Plan B works by stopping ovulation so that a pregnancy cannot occur. In a small percentage of cases, when a woman is ovulating on the day she has unprotected sex, a fertilized egg could form. In that case, Plan B might prevent the egg from implanting in her uterus.
While most doctors do not consider that an abortion, anti-abortion-rights doctors do, such as David Hager, a gynecologist from Lexington, Ky., who won’t prescribe Plan B for his own patients.
“One of the mechanisms of action can be to inhibit implantation, which means that it may act as an abortifacient,” says Dr. Hager. He says abortifacient means it causes an abortion and that this medication may act to inhibit implantation.
In 2002, Dr. Hager got a call from the Bush White House asking him to serve on the FDA advisory committee charged with reviewing Plan B’s over-the-counter application along with two other anti-abortion-rights physicians. But when Hager argued against Plan B at committee meetings, he didn’t talk about abortion.
“I was concerned about 10, 11, 12-year-old girls buying this product,” says Hager.
He raised moral questions. “I’m not in favor of promotion of a product that would increase sexual activity among teenagers,” he says.
Hager speculated about an increase in sexually-transmitted diseases. “I’m saying that it is possible that with the use of Plan B the individual may put herself at greater risk,” he says.
But the advisory panel reviewed 40 studies that refuted his objections and showed that Plan B does not lead to more cases of sexually transmitted disease, or more risky sexual behavior.
Even Dr. Hager admits Plan B is totally safe. The FDA says there have been no deaths, no heart attacks, no strokes and no evidence of misuse or abuse.
But, he says, one of his major concerns is that young women wouldn’t go to their doctors if such a drug were readily available.
“If we approve this for over-the-counter sale, then what is that going to do as far as what I call access to medical care for younger adolescent women?” Hager asks.
Wood disputes that view. “Is this cutting the doctor out? Would it cut out their relationship? Well, in fact, I think there’s strong argument that the physicians themselves want this product to be over the counter.”
Wood says the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Medical Association have all endorsed making this product available over the counter. That includes pediatrics, meaning younger girls.
If Plan B is sold over the counter anyone — any age — could buy it easily in a drugstore, like cough syrup or bubble bath. A big part of this issue is whether pharmacies will stock it. What if they refuse to carry Plan B?
In a survey of drugstores in Kentucky, Dr. Hager’s home state, the American Civil Liberties Union found that most pharmacies didn’t carry Plan B; 83 of them said they would even refuse to order it for women with prescriptions. These include Wal-Mart, which has a nationwide policy against dispensing Plan B.
The American Civil Liberties Union got a prescription for a woman named Fran, and sent her to five pharmacies undercover. 60 Minutes went along with a hidden camera to see what would happen.
Only one pharmacy, Kmart, had Plan B in stock; another drug store offered to order it, but the pharmacist told Fran it would take several days before they could possibly get it.
Remember, it has to be taken within 72 hours.
At another store, Fran was turned down by a pharmacist who explained that she believes it’s an abortion pill. “The morning after pill is after you have that fertilized egg, and that is a baby. You are not allowing it to implant. So it is considered abortive,” the pharmacist said.
The next day, Fran and 60 Minutes went back to that pharmacy together and found the same pharmacist.
“Anyone can walk in off the street and we can refuse to fill a prescription,” the pharmacists said. Asked whether a prescription could be refused on religious grounds, the pharmacists said, “On any grounds. Personal preference. Any reason, we can refuse to fill a prescription.”
But the Kentucky state pharmacy board told 60 Minutes that pharmacists must have a professional medical reason, not simply a personal preference, to turn away a prescription for Plan B or anything else.
The pharmacy did offer birth control but the pharmacist did not consider Plan B birth control.
So, with Plan B mired in the abortion debate, the FDA advisory committee took its vote on recommending whether it should be sold over the counter.
Dr. Hager voted “no.” But his colleagues on the committee rejected his arguments, voting 23 to four in favor of offering the drug over the counter.
Such a lop-sided vote should have meant the application would sail through. But then the saga of Plan B took a strange turn.
Dr. Hager says someone at the FDA — he won’t say who — asked him to write a “minority report” in which he asked for more studies and more data on the use of Plan B by young girls.
A few months later something totally unexpected happened: The FDA ignored the committee’s overwhelming vote and rejected the proposal to sell Plan B over the counter, citing the very concerns in Hager’s report.
Some people believe Hager raised these objections because of his religious beliefs, but that’s something he denies. “The religious aspect did not enter into that decision for me,” he says.
But in to a speech he gave to a Christian college, he seemed to admit his role was all about religion. “God has used me to stand in the breach for the cause of the kingdom,” Hager said at the time.
He was talking about Plan B.
“I argued it from a scientific perspective. And God took that information and He used it through this minority report to influence a decision. You don't have to wave your bible to have an effect as a Christian in the public arena,” says Hager.
Hager says he did not mean to suggest that God wanted Plan B to fail, and that he was His instrument. “I thought that God used me, He'd used my individual gifts of, whatever, in an individual way to be able to express my opinion.”
But with the speech, Hager may have fueled the fire of those who say that all he did was try to cloak religious beliefs in scientific language.
“If the idea in the population of this country is that a person can’t be a person of faith and also be a person of science, I strongly disagree with that,” says Hager.
Should agencies like the FDA be completely divorced from the debates that go on in society?
“Again, the question the agency has to deal with is, is it safe? And is it safe for teens? Yes, it is,” says Wood. “Have we asked that question about other contraceptive methods? Are we going to label, take condoms behind the counter? Make them prescription? I don't think we should.
“I think most Americans would like to leave those decisions as private decisions, and decisions within the family.”
Plan B’s manufacturer, Barr Pharmaceuticals, submitted a new application to the FDA with an age cut-off, so that girls 16 and younger would still need a prescription to get the drug. This seemed to address Hager’s objections and those of the anti-abortion rights lobby.
But last August, then-FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford surprised just about everyone when he announced that the agency had postponed a decision on the new application for what could be months or years. He took the unprecedented step of overruling his own scientific staff.
“I think the Plan B decision to cut the scientists out is sort of a poster child of this concern about science and politics,” says Wood.
She’s talking about fears that religious forces are hijacking government decision-making. Wood was so outraged by the FDA postponement that she promptly resigned as director of the Office of Women’s Health in protest.
“What I saw was the science being ignored. That the scientific and medical staff (was) being cut out of decision making,” says Wood.
In fact, according to a government investigation, top FDA officials had decided to reject Plan B’s over the counter application months before the scientific staff completed its review.
Was there pressure from the White House? The investigators said they couldn’t find out because e-mails and documents relating to the matter were destroyed.
As for Plan B as an over-the-counter drug, nobody knows when a decision on that will be made.
My feeling? Obama states he wants to start from the poor upward. Not the other way around like it has been for quite awhile. That to me does not necessarily mean just in America, but around the world by taking the poorest countries and working upward so America's pay wages and everything else will be so low and comparable to the poorest countries. After all, we are now connected together.
Cannot wait to see what will happen with the Swine flu this fall with the second wave and what it will do to the economy of all the countries combined at once.
Any child born to American parents is an American -
I am sorry, but I respectfully disagree with you - any child born to American parents is an American even if they are born overseas. The birth has to be registered with the United States, but they are still an American even if they are born in the foreign hospital.
I have 2 cousins who were born in Japan and they have no problems at all being "American".
typo - meant cite things as hoax, not "site" things
Just thought I'd correct that before I get pummeled by the people who want to believe snopes is a truthful organization.
LEGAL
SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE DEMMIE!And yet it is still legal....
@@
abortion will always be, whether legal or not
What these anti pro choice people dont seem to realize is, termination of pregnancy will continue whether it is legal or not. The only difference is it will go underground, performed by people who are not licensed and the rich women, they will just make an appointment in a progressive not backward country like America and have their abortion. Essentially women will be baby makers for the government, their bodies controlled by the government. What it comes down to is..the neocons need to mind their own business.
Legal or not, there will always be abortions.
Abortions will always be performed whether they are legal or not. When I was in college, abortion was illegal. Several students became pregnant and had illegal abortions by back-alley butchers, and they almost died from hemorrhage and infection. Others tried to abort their pregnancies with wire hangers, knitting needles, and other drastic measures. I would much rather have legal abortions performed by licensed physicians than force young women to resort to barbaric procedures to terminate their pregnancies.
Legal yes, moral no. n/m
x
Its not a legal issue
its a mental issue. Supreme Court does not rule in that arena.
it's not stealing - it's legal!
They are not married so they qualify for the earned income credit on their taxes even though they pay nothing in. It is based on how many children you have and your income.
It's been there forever! My sister gets upwards of $6000 a year every year and has for as long as I can remember; of course, when the children hit 17 or 18, that is gone, but for now it is like an extra $500 or $600 a month in income if you spread it out.
I don't know if the law changed, but the mother is also in Mexico. Don't know if she went voluntarily or if she was deported, too. If she went voluntarily, then I feel she really didn't put her children first.
Like I said in my earlier post, I think the children should have gone with them even though they are American citizens. Why let the eldest take care of the younger ones, I think ages 15 and 11.
Now here again, I believe in God, but I also respect the fact that there are other Americans who do not. Isn't that one of the primary reasons we fought so hard for indepence? The freedom to choose our religion or not to choose any religion?
Separation of church and state. It boggles my mind that this basic, simple premise somehow is so complicated.
The Pledge did not even contain the words, under God until some time in the 1950s. The Pledge was ammended to include them. The founding fathers did not write those words.
Believing in God should not be a qualification for being an American. Including the words, under God, if one does not believe in God, prohibits them from reciting The Pledge. They don't want to have to leave the room or be silent. They want to pledge their allegiance to their country, but for those words.
It has nothing to do with Americans excluding God. It's just the right of all Americans to practice their religion of choice or no religion.
Proclaiming one's belief in God can be exhibited in so many more meaningful ways than insisting that 2 words be included in The Pledge.
I agree. Women will have them - legal or not
Although I don't think I would ever consider abortion personally and am also sickened by people who have them over and over again (get your tubes tied darn it!!!), I believe women will have them regardless of if they are legal or not, so I think it is much safer if they remain legal.
I also think the woman should have the choice of what to do with something that is actually inside of her body. She is the one ultimately 100% responsible for the medical bills due to the pregnancy, the emotional toll and physical risks of the pregnancy, and the child's well being afterwards. The man can get off scott free if he wants and skip from job to job to avoid paying child support, so it should definitely be up to the woman.
I also find it odd that many pro-life Republicans are so adamant that each baby have a chance to be born, but yet if that baby is born to a lower-class mother many (not all) don't want a dime of their money to go to help that baby with healthcare costs or any other costs that could help the child after it's actually born. Where is the deep concern for the children that are actually living?
Though the thought of abortion is definitely disturbing to me, I do not believe at less than 3 months old a baby's nerves are developed enough to feel pain as they are aborted, but I know for a fact many children in the USA are being abused and neglected on a daily basis because they were unwanted, and my heart breaks for them. There are over 100,000 foster kids in the USA right now that need good homes and more resources, and I think our focus should be on helping these children first. My sister has 2 amazing foster kids, and I really wish the anti-abortion activists would focus on fostering or helping the kids that are here now instead of focusing so much on fetuses that are inside of other women's bodies, and therefore really none of their business in my personal opinion. (I know some do foster and volunteer, but I have a sneaking suspicion that not all of them do!)
I don't understand your question, sorry....if I don't want him controlling my health care why would I want him deciding if an abortion should be legal? I don't want him controlling my health care, and the Supreme Court already decided (unconstitutionally I might add) that abortion is legal. THIS was about INFANTICIDE. Killing a living breathing infant outside and separate from the mother by denying it medical care. Abortion is horrific enough, but that is out and out negligent homicide, and he voted FOR it. That tells me all I need to know about Barack Obama and how he cares about people.
I read your "document". Very legal-looking and all,
How exactly do you know that's legitimate? Did you see the official hard-copy? Likely not. I could have typed something like that myself, and so could you, or any other person who owns a PC. Even a photo of a 'hard copy' posted on the internet can't be automatically assumed to be valid. You do know, don't you, that most of what you read and hear on the internet is suspect in its validity, and nearly impossible to prove? The internet has more urban myths, fantasies and lies floating around on it than Carter's has little pills. So you have to be very careful about making decisions and judgements based on what you find here, and even more careful about what you say.
Anyway, it's a nice-looking document, but again, I could produce something exactly like that with ANYone's name on it, and post it on an internet in a matter of minutes.
Real 'truth' is something that's actually very, very difficult to find under the best of circumstances, and your chances of finding any during an election year?
Pretty much zip.
If Obama is not legal, he is not doing our country
nm
You can go to school as a legal resident
& don't have to become a citizen. Being adopted by someone doesn't imply that you automatically have that person's citizenship.
I lived in a country that doesn't recognize dual citizenship. I could have gotten a residence visa (work visa would have been possible, but more difficult), but I worked legally and went to school without either of these things. I married a Dutch national and did not give up my U.S. citizenship, but if I had (I was 19 at the time) I could have requested that my U.S. citizenship be reinstated when I turned 21.
The concentration camps were legal, too.
Your argument doesn't hold any water. Just because someone's allowed to murder one type of human being and not another does not make either right or just.
And, FYI, killing an adult with cancer is NOT illegal, so you need to check your facts.
If Joe Legal is married and has 2 children
and 2 parents, whom he probably supports, why else did you mention this, anyways, Joe Legal does NOT pay 30% taxes.
After I read this statement, I did NOT continue to read your rant.
Does Joe Legal not get any of his medical expenses paid by the government or his employer? ANY, AT ALL ?
So what? All legal votes, we are not Iran....nm
nm
Yes, it does, as well as the VA system. (sm)
The VA system used to be pretty decent, but during the Bush regime, it became a terrible place for our brave veterans to go for healthcare. If one president can destroy it, maybe another can restore it.
VA system..
was not pretty decent pre-Bush. My husband is a vet. We had used VA services on a couple of occasions way before Bush. He is a Vietnam era vet and we used those services when he got home in 1973. It was AWFUL. Just AWFUL. We chose to pay for his care at other hospitals rather than subject him to horrors of the VA system. Sorry, but you can't blame Bush for everything.
Someone in our family an immigrant?? - LEGAL IMMIGRANTS!
x
If she had the proper and legal authority to fire him --
then why didn't she just do it instead of them telling the other guy to do it - then there would not be a problem.
Also, this inquiry was started before she was running for the VP slot - so it was not something they cooked up to get her after she got picked by McCain.
how about legal!!/common sense test...
x
I didn't say it was correct, legal, or moral.
And the WMDs didn't have anything to do with it, although you'll never convince me that Sadaam didn't have the capability for such - he'd used them in the past to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people.
Correct, legal, moral or whatever, if you're in line with a terrorist group, like many sent to these places were, then you have no rights. Plain and simple.
I just feel that we've gotten too far from 9/11 and remembering what that day was like and all those people killed. It seems like now we care more about the "rights" of those involved in terrorist activites than those innocent people who died that day. Maybe that's why we're such an easy target.
He has no legal recourse to "recall" bonuses.
Unfortunately, because these are private companies, they have contracts with the CEOs and they are absolutely within their rights to honor those contracts. However, if Obama can find a loophole to keep them from getting paid, then we'll see what happens then.
This is why the government shoulder NEVER get involved in private businesses. Once they start handing on money, they think they own private businesses and dictate everything to them, so now we are caught in a catch 22 so to speak; government has no business in private businesses but yet they have given private businesses OUR money with NO stipulations beforehand and are now "surprised" the bonsues will continue?! Pleeeze!!!
That is what your state is supposed to be responsible for.....not our government.
We have a geothermal system
and it saves us so much money. We have a decent sized home too. We used to live in an old farm house that was half the size and we used natural gas to heat the place....holy crap.....I truly don't think we could afford to live in that old farm house now because of the price of gas and how much it took to heat that old place. Our new home is twice as big and our geothermal is a heck of a lot cheaper. Definitely worth it if you ask me. Honestly, as our system is now, there is no
reason for anyone to be homeless. Before you tell me, I understand about mental illness and all, and, perhaps, those people are not making a choice, but anyone without enough money to afford a home can get one through our current welfare system--they must only ask.
I would think that with a punch system you
wouldn't have front and back pages, but separate pages. If they are front and back, they would have to be spaced so that could not happen IF punched correctly.
If we can restructure the tax system, you would have your wish..............sm
The corporate giants right now have so many legal tax loopholes, which their pricey lawyers handle so efficiently for them, that if they shouldered most of the tax burden, instead of the middle class, then they WOULD be giving billions to the government, and we would not be in such a mess, although there are many other factors and that is much too simplistic. But honestly, no one wants to tackle this subject, becaue where do the politicians get most of their $$$ for campaigning????? You know!
First of all, I never implied that there should be only one system s/m
this is just another example of you guys taking words and twisting them into something sinister. Obviously you didn't listen to the President's speech last night. He made it very clear he wants to get rid of the the banks' dependence on the government and allow them to run once again independently. YOU DON'T LISTEN! And did I say I did not want democracy? NO!! What I am talking about that the way the GOP is now is going down the toilet. They need to update their philosophies to correlate with the 21st century instead of the 19th century. A poster on here a couple of days ago made a statement about the Republicans allowing the Evangelicals run the party -- that is what is killing it and will continue a slow demise if that is allowed to continue to happen. You people are in total denial about what is really happening to your own party, except for the few people who don't have their heads up their behinds and are trying to distance themselves from that extremist faction, which unfortunately, seems to be very prevalent on this board..
Charles Fried, a conservative legal scholar, Harvard professor and former solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan, has asked to be removed from McCain’s list of advisers and thrown his support behind the Democratic presidential nominee.
I don't expect anyone to quit taking their legal deductions and I don't see how his taking those deductions can be construed as his not having to pay more taxes. The amount you owe comes off the adjusted amount and that will still be the same after he itemizes - just the percentage paid against that amount will change.
I do not follow the 'party' system. sm
Consider myself true conservative (not Republican or a religious zealot), libertarian. Colbert shoved the truth in the face of power, media & government. Somebody needs to do it. The mainstream media does not have the guts to really put the truth in Bush's face. They are afraid of him, just like the rest of the world and America. Definitely something wrong with that.
Draft System To Be Tested...sm
Military Draft System to be Tested
Body: Associated Press | December 22, 2006
WASHINGTON - The Selective Service System is planning a comprehensive test of the military draft machinery, which hasn't been run since 1998.
The agency is not gearing up for a draft, an agency official said Thursday. The test itself would not likely occur until 2009.
Meanwhile, the secretary for Veterans Affairs said that society would benefit if the U.S. were to bring back the draft and that it shouldn't have any loopholes for anyone who is called to serve. VA Secretary Jim Nicholson later issued a statement saying he does not support reinstituting a draft.
The Selective Service readiness exercise would test the system that randomly chooses draftees by birth date and the network of appeals boards that decide how to deal with conscientious objectors and others who want to delay reporting for duty, said Scott Campbell, Selective Service director for operations and chief information officer.
We're kind of like a fire extinguisher. We sit on a shelf until needed, Campbell said. Everyone fears our machine for some reason. Our machine, unless the president and Congress get together and say, 'Turn the machine on' ... we're still on the shelf.
The administration has for years forcefully opposed bringing back the draft, and the White House said Thursday that its position had not changed.
A day earlier, President Bush said he is considering sending more troops to Iraq and has asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to look into adding more troops to the nearly 1.4 million uniformed personnel on active duty.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, increasing the Army by 40,000 troops would cost as much as $2.6 billion the first year and $4 billion after that. Service officials have said the Army wants to increase its force by 20,000 to 30,000 soldiers and the Marine Corps would like 5,000 more troops.
The unpopular war in Iraq, where more than 2,950 American troops have already died, complicates the task of finding more recruits and retaining current troops - to meet its recruitment goals in recent years, the Army has accepted recruits with lower aptitude test scores.
In remarks to reporters in New York, Nicholson recalled his own experience as a company commander in an infantry unit that brought together soldiers of different backgrounds and education levels. He said the draft does bring people from all quarters of our society together in the common purpose of serving.
Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat who has said minorities and the poor share an unfair burden of the war, plans to introduce a bill next year to reinstate the draft.
House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi has said that reinstating the draft would not be high on the Democratic-led Congress' priority list, and the White House said Thursday that no draft proposal is being considered.
Planning for the Selective Service exercise, called the Area Office Mobilization Prototype Exercise, is slated to begin in June or July of next year for a 2009 test. Campbell said budget cuts could force the agency to cancel the test, which he said should take place every three years but hasn't because of funding constraints.
Hearst Newspapers first reported the planned test for a story sent to its subscribers for weekend use.
The military drafted people during the Civil War and both world wars and between 1948 and 1973. An agency independent of the Defense Department, the Selective Service System was reincorporated in 1980 to maintain a registry of 18-year-old men, but call-ups have not occurred since the Vietnam War.
What do you think?
OMG! (lol!) In the public school system,
Thanks for a good laugh!
The local hospital uses a system like this
but it's just a matter of time until they will invest in the additional equipment so they no longer need any MTs. I forgot about all the file clerks, etc. in medical records whose jobs have already been cut. Lordy!!! What on earth are we all gonna do when they "save money" by taking away ALL our jobs.
I work on an EMR system for a hospital.
It has an interface where the physicians dictate and we transcribe. The report is then uploaded for physician review and signature. After being signed, the report is electronically filed in the patient's record. The patient records are stored electronically and are easily accessed by staff from any the hospitals within our healthcare system. At least in an acute care setting, the system has not replaced MT's but rather reduced the staffing in the in Medical Records.
Yes, there are people who abuse the system, but...
you can't apply that to everyone on welfare. There are a lot of good people who don't abuse the system who have to be on welfare.
That's not how the voucher system works.
You don't send your kid to a "voucher school." You get a tax credit to help offset the cost of private school. Because, guess what, THEY'RE BETTER! They're actually held accountable. In high schools here in Florida, you don't even need a teaching degree! You just have to have gotten a BA in something. Anything. That's effing pathetic. My daughter's BIOLOGY teacher was a TAX ACCOUNTANT, who did little more than pop video tapes into the TV set so the kids would leave her alone so she could eat her box of Slim Fast bars and read Soap Opera Digest. THAT'S the public school system, and it stinks to high heaven.
People who protest against vouchers do so because it suits their political agenda, NOT because they are thinking about what's best for the kids.
"Voucher programs have also inspired enormous opposition, primarily from the education establishment and on the political Left. Union officials and public educators tend to see vouchers as a threat because they empower parents rather than school boards to decide where a child goes to school. The Left views vouchers as the conservatives’ way of introducing competition into public education as a whole, and as a means of promoting the privatization such programs as Social Security and replacing many others with free market initiatives. In addition, since most (85 percent) of the private voucher schools serving low-income students are religious (and mostly Catholic), vouchers inspire stiff resistance from those who believe in a strict separation of church and state. " ~ from http://stats.org/stories/2008/tes_scores_vouchers_oct20_08.html
marks the location of current message within thread
