Subscribe & Support This Site!
consumer hair removal forum
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
Hop To:
#80923 - 12/10/10 05:11 PM Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
Originally Posted By: cheshirecat
I know this issue needs to be addressed. I'm in a difficult predicament as I have been referred for treatment at the hospital on the NHS so do not have the option to shop around. The NHS will only cover one half hour session each week on the face (chin, moustache and sides) presumably until the hair is gone. I have been for approximately 6 sessions and have never achieved full clearance (currently just working on the chin as this is the major problem area) in one session due to there being too many hairs for half an hour's work.


This is why a majority of Americans do not want to give up their freedoms to a porky, socialist government that fails in the end when it runs out of money. I feel sorry for you even though it's "free" hair removal on their terms.


Edited by James W. Walker VII (12/22/10 12:11 PM)
Edit Reason: This needed to be broken away from the original thread, as it is pages of off topic discussion
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
Sponsored Links
#80924 - 12/10/10 05:22 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: ]
James W. Walker VII Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 06/03/02
Posts: 8055
Loc: Buffalo NY, & Traveling the US...
Don't start me to talking political, but come on, the government never runs out of money. They just run out of room in the arbitrarily funded budget. It is like when you tell your kid you don't have any money for that new $60 video game. You have $500 in your pocket, but even if you have already paid all your bills, you are not willing to budget $60 for that useless waste of funds. The kid seethes in his seat as he watches you buy some $100 item that HE thinks is unnecessary (like concert tickets) and wonders how you can justify buying that but not "his" video game.

Governments operate by taking more and more from you, while giving as little as they can back.
_________________________
http://www.executiveclearance.com/beforeandafter.html
Setting a goal is not the main thing. It is deciding how you will go about achieving it and staying with that plan. --- Tom Landry
Has this site helped you? Pay it forward. Donate to keep HairTell & Hairfacts Online at http://www.hairfacts.com/feedback/support-this-site/

Top
#80929 - 12/10/10 11:01 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: James W. Walker VII]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
Dee, they have the option to pay out of their pocket in the UK just like Americans do. Americans wouldn't be giving anything up. They'd simply be gaining an option on top of the one they already have.

And James, government doesn't have any stake in keeping more of anything. Corporations are the ones who have to show profit every quarter to their shareholders. Insurance companies can't show profit unless they don't pay for some of your expenses or raise your premiums.

Top
#80930 - 12/10/10 11:22 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: LAgirl]
James W. Walker VII Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 06/03/02
Posts: 8055
Loc: Buffalo NY, & Traveling the US...
The stake that governments have in taking more from you, and giving you less in return is in service to the betterment of the corporations whose boards of directors, and stake holders control both. When ever corporations want something they should not have, they simply have government mandate it. If you want to know who controls the government, just find out who controls the banks (and cross reference that list with who controls the corporations for overlap).

The new governor elect of New York State ran on his record as attorney general. He said he had spent his time fighting fraud. Strange thing he did nothing about banks beginning the policy of charging check cashing fees up to $20 to people looking to cash checks drawn on their bank, even though this is technically breech of promise to the account holder who wrote the check. Things that make you go, "hmmm."
_________________________
http://www.executiveclearance.com/beforeandafter.html
Setting a goal is not the main thing. It is deciding how you will go about achieving it and staying with that plan. --- Tom Landry
Has this site helped you? Pay it forward. Donate to keep HairTell & Hairfacts Online at http://www.hairfacts.com/feedback/support-this-site/

Top
#80932 - 12/11/10 02:13 AM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: James W. Walker VII]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
Do yourself a favor LAgirl and go see "Inside Job". Hopefully, it is still playing in NYC. This is a big boys world with government, academia (Columbia and Harvard especially) and bankers screwing all of us "little people" and we taxpayers are expected to bail them out while they walk away richer with no accountability or stain.

Socialism eventually fails because you run out of other peoples money. When freebies or subsidies are cut, then you have anarchy. Charles and Camilla got a taste of that yesterday.

May I ask the poster why she has to go to an NHS approved hospital. Why can't you just pay out of pocket for any or as many electrologists you want to???
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81010 - 12/14/10 10:53 AM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: ]
cheshirecat Offline
Contributor

Registered: 08/16/10
Posts: 38
Loc: Manchester, UK
OK so I am going for my weekly appointment today and intend to discuss this with her as diplomatically as possible. If the issue is down to the fact the settings are too low I will ask her to increase them as she sees fit (there shouldn't be an issue in trying this as I haven't had a bad reaction on the current settings). If I'm feeling brave enough I may explain that those insertions which are deeper/held in longer seem to work best, although I do think this may come across as patronising and would be nervous about telling her how to do her own job! (James for this reason although I am grateful for your kind offer to potentially help her with my case I don't think this is something she herself would appreciate).

The machine she uses is a silhouette but I'm not sure which model (will have a nosey today) in conjunction with a large magnifying glass with light.

I won't get in to the debate about healthcare provision in the US/UK except to say I am glad there is at least a 'free' option there for me as I do not earn enough (currently studying and working only part time) to be able to fund this myself from a private provider.

I shall report back later on how this session went. Fingers crossed for an improvement...


_________________________
F:28
2005-07 x12 IPL treatments to chin, neck, upper lip, chest & stomach - temporary reduction only in body areas all grew back in months.
2010-2013 50+ hours electrolysis (diathermy) to chin, neck, upper lip, side burns - 95% complete..few more to go on chin only.
2011-13 12 hours electrolysis to chest & stomach 99% complete
2013 electrolysis to Bikini area & legs started

Top
#81016 - 12/14/10 04:32 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: cheshirecat]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
Originally Posted By: cheshirecat

I won't get in to the debate about healthcare provision in the US/UK except to say I am glad there is at least a 'free' option there for me as I do not earn enough (currently studying and working only part time) to be able to fund this myself from a private provider.

I shall report back later on how this session went. Fingers crossed for an improvement...




Noted and well said. Just hope that austerity measures being taken now does not find it's way into the NHS to cut electrolysis care for patients like you who need care, but can not afford it at this time. I see the students are not happy about the tuition increases, but I don't think electrolysis clients would be in the streets jabbing Charles and Camilla if their benefits were taken away. Electrolysis clients are much more kinder than students. (Just a light-hearted joke everyone - calm down)

If she has a Silhouet-Tone VMC model, that is awesome, but any epilator will affect hair growing tissue if used correctly and skillfully. Good luck to you cheshirecat.
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81019 - 12/14/10 04:46 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
James, banks are private corporations too who also have to show a profit. What you're really talking about is lobbiests (those people are who paid by these corporations to schmooze government members to vote in those corporations' favor), which is a separate issue altogether. What you should really be promoting is getting rid of the entire lobbying system, not the government, and I would be with you on that front. The purpose of the government as it stands in the US is to act on behalf and in the interest of the people, not corporations. The fact that lobbies exist doesn't take away from that intended purpose. And banks that were partly responsible for getting us into this mess did so because lobbiest prevented the government from establishing rules that they had to play by. You should be FOR the government restricting banks from playing the betting game without any rules.

Dee, there is only one group that's out to "screw the little people" as you put it - the Republican Party that stands for corporate interests. The opposite that you claim is just a bunch of Fox News propoganda to rally people to think that trickle-down economics works (that entire channel was created for this purpose and it's been working well for Murdoch). The fact that it hasn't worked in the last 10 years should tell you that much. The entire goal of the Republican Party has been to convince those "little people" that giving tax breaks and other benefits to corporations is in the "little people's" best interests.

Throwing out that "scary" word "socialism" like it's some type of a bad thing that US has avoided thus far is another one of Fox News illogical tricks. Socialism is quite prevalent in the US already - unless you're against and want to abolish all of Social Security, Medicare, FDA, all organizations in charge or transportation and roads, the police force, firefighters, public schools, and thousands of other government-funded and managed operations, it's ridiculous to even bring it up.



The poster doesn't HAVE to go anywhere. They have a choice to go somewhere free and somewhere not free, and they're choosing the free option given their circumstances. Americans in that situation have to live with their hair.

Top
#81020 - 12/14/10 05:02 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: LAgirl]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: Rule #13 Isolate and demonize. Fox News must be getting too close to the truth because rule #13 is used quite vociferously against Fox News and their ratings keep soaring. Hmm, interesting.

Edit: And don't be ridiculous and dramatic about abolishing police and fire fighters and such. That shows your anger and everyone knows that is too draconian. Yes, we have socialism here in many forms, thus the push back from people like me. It doesn't work because it is not sustainable.



Edited by dfahey (12/14/10 05:34 PM)
Edit Reason: more thoughts - sorry!
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81021 - 12/14/10 05:27 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
I'm not angry - you probably know my straightforward writing style by now. Fox News is entertaining, actually. Glenn Beck is quite a riot after a few drinks. And I brought it up because you are quoting them. Does that make me a radical? What am I radical about? Being radical is proposing to abolish the government altogether as James seems to suggest. All I did is demonstrate that your statements are not logical.

I brought up fire fighters and police to make an obvious point. There is no logical or rational reason to claim that that type of socialism is fine and the one concerning healthcare isn't. The way our system is set up currently is to encourage insurance companies to get out of paying as many claims as possible so they can make the most profit (their goal and commitment to shareholders as publicly traded corporations). I've worked for publicly traded companies all of my life so far. I know what we're being asked to do. Working for yourselves may have isolated you from that.

Top
#81022 - 12/14/10 05:49 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: LAgirl]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
We're out of money. The stimulus didn't work. Jobs are not being created and the bloated government wants to keep spending on entitlements when there are fewer people and businesses paying taxes. I can add and subtract. This isn't working. I can observe the boarded up businesses and houses. States are bankrupt. I don't need Fox News or Glenn Beck to point out the obvious. Blaming corporations makes you feel good, but it won't solve the debt and deficit. I can't be indoctrinated and you seem to suggest that I have been. Little do you know. I feel sorry for Obama because this job is too big for him. He didn't have a deep resume to begin with. He looks sick and thin. I hope Papa Clinton can help him through this difficult time. We need a leader with sound principles on how businesses work to create jobs and how government creates an environment so a business can thrive to sustain those jobs or will look like Europe very soon. That about sums it up. If you would care to take this outside and spare the posters here, I'm happy to do this in private. smile

Edit: please go see "Inside Job". You, too, James. I am not isolated because I work for myself. Please don't be condescending. My personal hobby is all about gathering information and then the hard part is trying to decide if the information is true.

LYATANYCDAI! (Love ya, and there ain't nothing you can do about it!) Mmmmmm!!
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81023 - 12/14/10 06:16 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
Actually, economists who actually have the tools to calculate these things indicated that the stimulus did work: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/economy/17leonhardt.html

Also "the government" is not some singular person who "wants" to do things. In the US, it's comprised of two parties: one with mostly corporate interests (under the pretense of being for "freedom" and other big meaningless words) and one with mostly people's interests (with faults, but nevertheless). So, what "the government" gets done depends on who has a majority when both parties are voting. And what issues get to voting point depends on what lobbiests schmoozed who the hardest - see my problem with lobbying above.

We got into this deficit mess by things that the Republican Party and corporations did (1. wars 2. banks betting without restrictions 3. Bush tax cuts.) You seem to ignore that part and still want to follow their "solutions" to the mess they created.

Are you also supporting the extension of Bush tax cuts given your worry about the deficit? That's what the Republicans are busy passing right now - they even refused the 9/11 health bill to achieve this. Is worrying about giving 3% tax cuts for the richest and addiing estate tax cuts on top of those the right thing to do given this deficit you're talking about?

I'm not playing the blame game. I'm pointing out that the people you're aligning your views with got you into this mess in the first place and they don't seem to be worried about fixing things given their actions (not words). The only thing the other side has been trying to do is get us out of it. Some things have worked, others haven't. Obama is giving in way too much to make a difference. It's laughable at this point. One thing is clear though - the side that got us into this deficit mess is still only worrying about tax breaks for the richest as seen from their latest demands.

Top
#81028 - 12/14/10 07:11 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: LAgirl]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
I don't have to be an economist to know that numbers can mean whatever you want them to mean. My neighbors and friends have no jobs and the last source of information about such that I would trust is THE NEW YORK TIMES. Thanks anyway.

We have a spending problem - not a tax problem. There are no Bush tax cuts. The rates are staying the same as they have been for 10 years. The government spends too much. They are wasteful and corrupt with our hard earned money. Guess what? You can tax every "rich" person 100%, take away their homes, cars, businesses, shoes, toothpaste, flat screen TV, dog, cat, jewelry, etc. and that still would not pay down the deficient and debt. It is really that bad. Do you know that we really owe more than 13 trillion dollars? With unfunded promises made for pensions, social security, Medicaid and Medicare alone, the number is believed to be more like 60 trillion dollars, plus or minus. In the state of Ohio alone, the State Teachers Retirement System is 40 BILLION dollars underfunded and the state is in debt 8 Billion dollars. Better than California, Illinois and New York, but still dismal. This can not be fixed by taxing the "rich" only. When you tax the "rich" job creation is affected.

The democratic party has become the party of class warfare - a very, very dangerous way to govern. Can you define who the "rich" are? I heard there are 375,000 millionaires in the United States. If you have a million dollars, do you feel rich if you live in New York City with a small business and you are filing on an individual tax form? Do you think it is fair to tax a dead person after they already paid taxes on that money while they were still alive? Do you pay more taxes than is asked of you, LA girl? Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Obama, Barbara Boxer, Charlie Rangel (whoops, he's a tax cheat), Tim Geitner (whoops, he's another tax cheat, too), you and all the other "rich" people in Congress and Hollywood can give the government more of their own money by going to www.treasury.gov . I say, let's just have a website with all the people like you and them clamoring that the "rich" should pay more, showing that they have indeed paid more. Let's see a list, with proof, that they have written checks beyond what is required. It has to be at least 3% more of their income or more! Come on now! They won't miss it!

I don't align with only one group of politicians or TV news entities - I align with principles that support the freedoms outlined to us in The Constitution and if the talking heads or politicians, no matter if they are "D's" or "R's" support the principles of The Constitution that protect individual property rights, labor and such, they have my loyalty.

Okay, so who do you define as the "rich" and do you donate more money to the US government than is required of you? Let me be clear, I'm not talking about "donating" a lousy $15 bucks extra. I'm taking percentages. Do you know the percentage of Americans that are not required to pay federal income taxes? Do you know what percentage of taxes the top 10% of income tax payers pay? People should be thanking them everyday for their contributions. Where do you think money comes from to fund government? I am curious to understand your disdain for the "rich", however that may be defined.

You can private message me with your thoughts.
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81029 - 12/14/10 07:49 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
You should actually read the article. From your response, it's obvious you haven't. You did indicate a desire for knowledge. It's not done by Fox News, so it's not one-sided by any means.

If rates are staying the same as they have been for 10 years when Bush was in office and implemented them, then they're Bush cuts. They didn't help our economy in the last 10 years. Why should they be extended when we have a deficit? And overall, our taxes are at an all-time low anyway, which may not be the best idea when we have a huge deficit, don't you think?

The Republican Party is always talking about cutting spending. They just have a hard time actually pointing out where exactly we should cut. What specific items do you propose we cut from the budget? No politician can ever answer that question.

To fund that "underfunded retirement system" you mentioned, they'd need to take away some of your income too. That's how those "socialist" programs get "funded". And those unemployed teachers in Ohio who you may know also get paid by those taxes others pay to the government. If they take away some of that "spending", they'll take away some of those other government jobs your luckier friends are still enjoying a paycheck from.

No one is wasteful with your money. I'm assuming you're not in the top 3% that's benefitting from these cuts (that's who's getting breaks right now, so obviously I'm talking about them), so it's not your money. Your interests should lie with your income bracket. It can't be both since financial benefits for those 3% have nothing to do with your personal financial well-being.

And I never said we should take away money from the rich so I have no idea why you're attacking me for it. I make good money, so it's not in my best interests either. What I don't agree with is extending these cuts in our current economic situation when there is no indication they helped the economy in the last 10 years.

People with your views were screaming for no regulations on the banks because trickle-down economics works so well and big bad government is trying to stop it. If there was gov't regulation, we would have saved a lot of money that's now part of that deficit. Then they rallied for Bush tax cuts, which took away spending money, but they forgot to cut spending to compensate for it. Instead, they started two wars to add to the spending. And here we are asking to extend the cuts even though we still haven't cut any spending to compensate. that should show you that your people aren't interested in the well-being of this country. They're only concerned with the paybacks to the interests they have alignments with (banks, corporations and their owners who are of course in the top 3%, oil and weapons companies, etc).

Top
#81042 - 12/15/10 03:57 AM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: LAgirl]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
I did read the article. I said I don't trust the NY Times. I have good reasons for saying that.

Tax cuts have worked every time they have been tried. The Bush cuts brought 15% more revenue into the IRS. I can source that for you, too. The problem is government spending. They just can't control themselves, dems and repubs alike, when they get that money. The tax cuts helped the economy grow by 4% and then the crooks in congress spend 8% more. How much of my money do they want? Let's see. I pay federal taxes, state taxes, county taxes, city taxes, school tax, social security taxes, medicare/medicaid taxes, alternative minimum taxes, property taxes, sales tax, gas tax, cell phone tax, telephone federal excise tax, telephone federal universal service fee tax, telephone federal, state and local surcharge tax, telephone minimum usage surcharge tax,vehicle license registration tax, vehicle sales tax, workers compensation tax, utility taxes, cable taxes, blow my nose taxes, dog license tax, inventory tax, liquor tax, and I will have to pay taxes on money I leave after I'm dead for which I already paid taxes on when I was alive. That's not all! I then have to pay an accountant because the tax codes and forms are too overwhelming to understand. Now, I am told that they need more money when I already pay over 50% of the money I earned honestly, by removing hair. How much do they want from me?

I don't know what country you think you live in, but I can tell you that the government does waste and corrupt just about everything they touch. California's pensions are unfunded by 59 Billion dollars. Illinois pension's unfunded by 54 billion dollars. Cities are barely holding all - running out of money. Big government, big labor and big business and the poor get the money and then keep telling me to get my wallet out because I am lucky or just plain greedy. The harder I work, the luckier I get! It's unfair, it's unsustainable and it will all crash. I guarantee you that if they got even 3% more of my money, it would not go to pay down the deficit and debt.

Spending cuts: Here's a solution - Cutting 10% across the board - no exceptions and a national sales tax is one of the better ideas that I have heard.

All the pension funds are underfunded and ALL will have to take a hit meaning big governemnt,big labor and teachers. No exemptions. No sacred cows. I did nothing to screw that up, but I will have to pay the price.


You say,

"No one is wasteful with your money. I'm assuming you're not in the top 3% that's benefitting from these cuts (that's who's getting breaks right now, so obviously I'm talking about them), so it's not your money. Your interests should lie with your income bracket. It can't be both since financial benefits for those 3% have nothing to do with your personal financial well-being."

The people above me are the job creators, small businesses and the givers to charity. They should not be demonized and weakened. We clearly need them. I do care about their financial well-being and their incentive to keep productive because we need them to work and pay taxes.

You said, "Is worrying about giving 3% tax cuts for the richest and addiing estate tax cuts on top of those the right thing to do given this deficit you're talking about? "

And now you say,
"And I never said we should take away money from the rich so I have no idea why you're attacking me for it. I make good money, so it's not in my best interests either. What I don't agree with is extending these cuts in our current economic situation when there is no indication they helped the economy in the last 10 years".

Hey! You don't tax people in a severe recession on any level. I didn't go to Harvard or Columbia like our genius president, but I know this economic concept well. I graduated from the University of Common Sense. "O" reluctantly NOW understands the same concept and that is why there is tax cut chaos with his dems who want to let the tax "cuts" expire for the "rich". Oh, and thanks for not answering my questions on just who the rich are? Convenient.

You said, "People with your views were screaming for no regulations on the banks because trickle-down economics works so well and big bad government is trying to stop it. If there was gov't regulation, we would have saved a lot of money that's now part of that deficit. Th they rallied for Bush tax cuts, which took away spending money, but they forgot to cut spending to compensate for it. Instead, they started two wars to add to the spending. And here we are asking to extend the cuts even though we still haven't cut any spending to compensate. that should show you that your people aren't interested in the well-being of this country. They're only concerned with the paybacks to the interests they have alignments with (banks, corporations and their owners who are of course in the top 3%, oil and weapons companies, etc)."

I've heard those talking points many times. Big yawn. You sound desperate now. How do you know what my views are on regulations and trickle down? I never told you. I think you are out of control and grappling for anything to yap on about. I think you are profiling me. I think I would like to hear you say you are going to write a big fat check to the IRS to help pay down the deficit because you have a great job with big money and you can afford to give up 3% more of your income. Come on, you can start a revolution here, maybe get your own website, get on Chris Matthews Show and send a tingle down his leg for paying more than you have to to the federal government.


LAgirl, you can private message me if you want for further discussion. I never run out of words.



_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81051 - 12/15/10 02:12 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: ]
James W. Walker VII Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 06/03/02
Posts: 8055
Loc: Buffalo NY, & Traveling the US...
Since I missed a lot of this discussion, I want to clarify somethings. I know this has been total thread jacking, but before we end this, I figure I should say this, since my position has been misunderstood.

LAgirl:
Being radical is proposing to abolish the government altogether as James seems to suggest. All I did is demonstrate that your statements are not logical.

I brought up fire fighters and police to make an obvious point. There is no logical or rational reason to claim that that type of socialism is fine and the one concerning healthcare isn't. The way our system is set up currently is to encourage insurance companies to get out of paying as many claims as possible so they can make the most profit (their goal and commitment to shareholders as publicly traded corporations). I've worked for publicly traded companies all of my life so far. I know what we're being asked to do. Working for yourselves may have isolated you from that.

James:
Mr. Walker may appear to be radical, and depending upon one's definition of the word, he is just that, while other definitions leave him to be not radical at all. Although it may appear that James is an Anarchist, the truth is closer to Jeffersonian limited government powers. The nation founded by the Articles of Association, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and The Constitution is one where the sovereignty of the individual is sacred, as is that of the cities, the states, and finally, the place of the federal government is that of agent for the previously mentioned entities. To have a strong centralized government debilitating the powers of the people, the cities and the states and rationing out services, benefits, and projecting power both internally and externally is diametrically opposed to the idea of what this nation was founded upon. Both Jefferson and Franklin cautioned that it may be necessary to rebel against the government about every 20 years, in order to halt the typical march towards totalitarianism that magnetically draws governments to seize more power, and enfeeble its citizens.

The so-called two party system in the US is a Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumber system designed to fraction the voters, while keeping new parties incapable of competing with the establishment. Don't believe it, just run for a position, any position, and see how the system cheats you out of your just position on the ballot.

Although I would love to talk about how the the Democratic-Republicans (often called Republicans for short at the time), fractured leaving the Democratic Party on one side and The Whig Party on the other. I would also like to dig into history to discuss how the opposition having abandoned the term Republican, The Republican Party of today was founded in 1854 to continue the policies of the Whig party, but I will shut up on that too. I will only say that when I say that the so-called two party system is really two parts of the same coin, there is more than one historically accurate way to argue that point, and the funniest to me is that they really were once, by all accounts, a single party.

As for the national debt, President Andrew Jackson solved it, and we could do the same solution with just $144,000,000 and about six weeks worth of paperwork to revert to the constitutionally and financially sound monetary policy of that time, which had lasted up until the end of the administration of Pres. James Buchanan

To avoid a long twisting discussion on things, I will say that when discussing government, follow the money, and follow the power. If you find the direction the money is flowing, you will also find the source of the power, and the targets for enfeeblement, and destruction.

The founding fathers of the US believed that the government should fear the people, not the people fearing the government. While the governemt is supposed to be the contractual agent of the collective will of the people, this government is serving the interests of the enemies of the people it is honor bound to represent. This is one reason that strong federal government was discouraged, because while it is easy to know if a local law represents the collective will and interests of the people, this nation is too vast for the average person to have a feel for the collective will of the population, even if it is easier to see where the best service of the national interests may be. The more self sufficient we are, the more sovereign we can be, and that is why the government pushes a web of evern more complex interconnectivity, so that it can remotely fluctuate access, and output, and the prices of the same, and all without the people being able to see the sources of these mechinations.

I hope this clears things up a bit.
_________________________
http://www.executiveclearance.com/beforeandafter.html
Setting a goal is not the main thing. It is deciding how you will go about achieving it and staying with that plan. --- Tom Landry
Has this site helped you? Pay it forward. Donate to keep HairTell & Hairfacts Online at http://www.hairfacts.com/feedback/support-this-site/

Top
#81053 - 12/15/10 04:21 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: James W. Walker VII]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
Yes, IT IS BETTER FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO FEAR THE PEOPLE THAN THE PEOPLE TO FEAR THE GOVERNMENT.

Yes, FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL - ALWAYS. GO see "Inside Job".

NO, to creeping SOCIALISM. We are not Europe and we do not want to be like Europe, but it may be too late.

No, TO THIS MASSIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING. I agree with the people who say this administration is following the Cloward-Piven strategy of overburdening the entitlement system to collapse the economy.






_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81056 - 12/15/10 05:14 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
Originally Posted By: dfahey
I did read the article. I said I don't trust the NY Times. I have good reasons for saying that.


There is nothing in there to trust or not to trust. The article provides facts. You can take those facts and apply logic, and come up with a conclusion. You don't have to take anyone else's conclusion, though theirs is logical and makes sense. You're biased before even opening it, so it prevents you from seeing that. Or you refuse to actually think things through due to your biases. It's hard to tell.

Originally Posted By: dfahey
Tax cuts have worked every time they have been tried. The bUsh cuts brought 15% more revenue into the IRS. I can source that for you, too.


Yes, let's see a source on how the Bush tax cuts helped the economy. It doesn't actually exist. You're trying to speak in general. Unfortunately, real life doesn't work like that. We had those cuts for 10 years and we've had the worst economy in dozens of years in those 10 years. Prior to the cuts we had a much better economy. That's an undisputable fact, even by you. So by your logic, "enough tax money" is probably closer to those previous rates.

Originally Posted By: dfahey
The problem is government spending. They just can't control themselves, dems and repubs alike, when they get that money. How much of my money do they want? How much do they want from me?


All other modern countries pay a lot more than we do. Public services cost a lot. Social Security and Medicare costs some. A huge portion of your tax dollars is supporting the wars that you probably supported. Everything else is miniscule in comparison, so cutting 10% there is going to have a huge impact on services and gov't jobs without much return: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm
http://www.federalbudget.com/

Originally Posted By: dfahey
I don't know what country you think you live in, but I can tell you that the government does waste and corrupt just about everything they touch. This needs to be cleaned up. Big government, big labor and big business and the poor get the money and then keep telling me to get my wallet out because I am lucky or just plain greedy. The harder I work, the luckier I get! It's unfair and it's unsustainable. I guarantee you that if they got even 3% more of my money, it would not go to pay down the deficit and debt. Never has and never will.


No one is suggesting that all government institutions are run in the most efficient manner. In fact, pretty much everyone agrees that they're not. But that doesn't mean they have too much money. It mostly means it's not allocated properly - why teachers get crap pay and there is a lack of them in general, especially good ones, for example (see Waiting for Superman documentary). That said, no one is asking for more of YOUR taxes. In fact, both of the last two presidents gave back taxes to people in your income bracket. So I don't know what you're complaining about when it comes to your hard-earned money.

Originally Posted By: dfahey
Spending cuts: Here's a solution - Cutting 10% across the board - no exceptions and a national sales tax is one of the better ideas that I have heard.


That's not a solution. I'm not asking for how much money to cut. I'm asking which specific PROGRAMS we should cut. Huge difference. Should we cut 10% of the police force in Columbus, Ohio in the worst neighborhood there? That would be a part of your current proposal. Or should we cut 10% of the Social Security budget, which means it will be even more underfunded for future generations? Coming up with abstract ideas is easy, but making practical decisions isn't.

Originally Posted By: dfahey
The people above me are the job creators, small businesses and the givers to charity.


This is called trickle-down economics. So I'm not sure why you're stating that I'm making up your opinions. You're stating them yourself. I'm going by exactly what you yourself are saying.

Originally Posted By: dfahey
Oh, and thanks for not answering my questions on just who the rich are? Convenient.


Of course I did. I said it was top 3%. I wasn't talkigng about "the rich" as a general term anyway. I was always talkign specifically about those who got the tax cuts because that was the topic.


Originally Posted By: dfahey
I've heard those talking points many times, almost on a daily basis. Yawn. You sound desperate now. How do you know what my views are on regulations and trickle down? I never told you. I think you are out of control and grappling for anything to yap on about. I think you are profiling me. I think I would like to hear you say you are going to write a big fat check to the IRS to help pay down the deficit because you have a great job with big money and you can afford to give up 3% more of your income. Come on, you can start a revolution here, maybe get your own website, get on Chris Matthews Show and send a tingle down his leg for paying more than you have to to the federal government.


This is all non-answers. What I provided aren't "talking points". I'm not a politician. I gave you facts and you choose to ignore them because it's easier to just be mad at the entire "big government" like it's some one big entity and a big bad bully with goals and desires to bankrupt you. It's non-logic. And really elementary thinking in "good and bad" terms instead of facts. We're not talking about a childen's book here.

And once again, you sounds silly mentioning "socialism" unless you're against all the government services we already have in place and want them all abolished. As I already explained, ALL of those services you enjoy are SOCIALISM.

You should really make it to Europe sometime. I've lived there and I can tell you that people are generally much happier, spend a lot more time with their families because they get more vacation time and consider it an important part of a balanced life (because it is), and aren't constantly worried about being in debt for the rest of their lives if something unfortunate beyond their control happens to them (and interestingly enough, they're still not living beyond their means on credit like many Americans). Oh yeah, and they can remove their hair for free as you can tell from the story of the person in this thread.

Top
#81057 - 12/15/10 05:35 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: LAgirl]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
James, no rational people are fearing the government. It's just the brainwashing the Tea Party, Fox News and other promoters of propoganda are putting forward. If you think you're living in anything close to a totalitarian regime, you're dillusional. The only people who believe that are those who haven't been that many places or seen how other people live and how other places function, and just blindly listen to propoganda. Propoganda like that is what helped create and sustain communist, nationalistic and totalitarian regimes btw. So that's who you should really fear.

And we actually agree on both the ridiculousness of a two-party system and lobbiests (what you really mean by "control of the government"). However, I am thinking practically on how to get positive things done given the current situation that's not so easy to change, and both of you seem to want to just find abd demonize one entity of some sort to blame for all the problems.

Top
#81069 - 12/16/10 01:06 AM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: LAgirl]
James W. Walker VII Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 06/03/02
Posts: 8055
Loc: Buffalo NY, & Traveling the US...
Ok, once again, we have found common ground LAgirl. It is nice when that happens.

From the perspective of 1776, we are in a totalitarian utopia. From the perspective of the year 2010, we know it can get MUCH WORSE. It is a matter of perspective. How many government owned cameras photographed you today, while your cell phone both informed on your movements, via GPS, and your voice calls, text messages, and emails are monitored and stored? Jeffersonians would argue the government has no business having this information, or the power to do any of this.

I feel a song coming on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnhDIGTldho&feature=related
_________________________
http://www.executiveclearance.com/beforeandafter.html
Setting a goal is not the main thing. It is deciding how you will go about achieving it and staying with that plan. --- Tom Landry
Has this site helped you? Pay it forward. Donate to keep HairTell & Hairfacts Online at http://www.hairfacts.com/feedback/support-this-site/

Top
#81070 - 12/16/10 04:36 AM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: LAgirl]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
James, can we rename this thread, 'Plucking the American Taxpayer' ?

I feel like I'm conversing with a belligerent 14 year old Paris Hilton who lives on a very generous trust fund along with a very generous paycheck who has no idea of what is going on in the world, let alone her own country. Again, LAgirl we have a SPENDING problem NOT a taxing problem. Socialism is here and thus the push back. Our system is crashing because of out of control entitlements. I am not talking about fire and police. You are being ridiculous with those examples and you know it. We don't want the inevitable strife that the French, Greeks, Irish, English, oh heck, all of Europe, has brought upon themselves with their generous socialistic policies. Limited government works to keep a nation working and thriving. We have had that before before government got too big. Bloated government, which we have now, gives us the SOCIALISTIC dark clouds that reasonable people know will eventually fail. So, don't try to dress it up and tell me I'm benefiting now from something false and meaningless like SOCIALISM that will always run out of money. I fully expect you not to read this. I'm ready for your next set of talking points smile


In regard to the Bush tax cuts you want sources, then I give you sources:

[Source #1] : http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/ten-myths-about-the-bush-tax-cuts#_ftn4

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that this is exactly what happened (see Table 3):
GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.

Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.
The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.
The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.[16]

Click on the link above to see the tables and read more myths.


[Source#2]

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/26712.html

In case the link gets lost, here is a full read:

September 16, 2010

Five Myths about the Bush Tax Cuts

by Gerald Prante and William Ahern

This op-ed was published in the Fiscal Times on Sept 15, 2010.

Myth on the Left: The Bush tax cuts were only for the rich.

For the past ten years, Democrats have convinced a large fraction of the public that the tax cuts only benefited high-income people. The talking point has been repeated so often that it seems as if it must be true. But it never was. Everyone saved, and if all the tax cuts expire at the end of this year, everyone will pay.

The quickest way to prove this point is to compare the official "score" of the president's tax proposal—letting the Bush tax cuts expire only for high-income people raises $630 billion over 10 years—with the official score for letting all the tax cuts expire, which raises $3 trillion over 10 years.

That means some pieces did benefit those at the top of the income spectrum: changes to itemized deductions and the estate tax, and the rate cuts on high wages, dividends and capital gains. And measured in nominal dollars, a high-income taxpayer saved more than a low- or middle-income taxpayer.

Nevertheless, the Bush tax cuts sent trillions of dollars in tax relief to those beneath the president's so-called middle-class cutoff of $200,000, and when the tax cuts are measured as a percentage of their income, or as a percentage of their previous tax payments, the Bush tax cuts provided comparable benefits to all income levels.

The most damaging result of this myth is that Democratic Party spokespeople have convinced much of the electorate that all government funding needs can be solved by just raising taxes on the rich; a dangerous misconception, especially as our nation moves ever closer to a fiscal cliff whose avoidance will require hard choices on spending and taxes that hit all Americans.

Myth on the Right: The Bush tax cuts caused revenues to go up.
Republican spokespeople and other tax-cut enthusiasts have asserted that the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 actually increased revenue. They often point to rising revenues from 2004 through 2007 following the tax cuts in May 2003. Unfortunately, as any Economics 101 student will tell you, correlation doesn't prove causation. Yes, revenue did rise, but we have to answer the question: Would it have risen anyway?

We can never be absolutely sure how the economy would have reacted if the tax cut legislation had failed for some reason in 2001 and 2003, but the consensus among experts is that the economy would have grown in the mid-2000s with or without the Bush tax cuts. That doesn't mean the tax cuts had no feedback effect at all—people reported more taxable income than they would have—but those beneficial effects were not so great that the tax cuts could have "paid for themselves."

The most damaging result of this myth is that Republican lawmakers feel less pressure to propose spending cuts. Why bother when cutting a tax rate will raise more revenue?

Myth on the Left: The Bush tax cuts caused the financial crisis and/or the recession.
Many Democratic leaders like to paint with a broad brush when it comes to the economic policies of the previous administration. They blame the real estate bubble, the financial meltdown and the recession on Bush administration policies generally, and then conveniently lump the Bush tax cuts in as part of the cause. As in the Republican myth above, this is a failure to distinguish correlation from causation. No authority on the economy would say that the banking crisis and the recession could have been averted by holding off on tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

If one seeks to fix blame on the Bush administration, it's more honest and productive to focus on the administration's regulations (or lack thereof) pertaining to housing and banking, although even there, the Bush policies were more like a continuation of policies that go back decades.

Myth on the Right: President Obama is proposing the largest tax increase in U.S. history.
As part of their election strategy, Republican spokespeople are pretending that President Obama favors allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire for all taxpayers. Often that expiration is called the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Both charges are false.

In his budget, President Obama proposes extending the tax cuts for taxpayers earning less than $250,000 for married couples ($200,000 for singles). When confronted with this documentary proof, some on the right respond that the President had two years to address this expiring tax cuts issue but chose not to do so because he actually wants them all to expire. But by the same argument, Republicans could be accused of preaching spending restraint when they have no intention of cutting spending.

So is Obama's actual tax plan—to allow tax cuts to expire for high-income people—a historically huge tax hike? No: At $630 billion over 10 years (0.4 percent of GDP), the Obama proposal raises less revenue than many past tax enactments when measured as a share of the economy. If Congress ignores the President's request and allows all of the tax cuts to expire, will that be the largest tax hike in U.S. history? Such historical comparisons are fraught with technical difficulties, but as a percentage of GDP, total expiration would indeed be historically massive, probably bigger than any tax hikes except two enacted during World War II.

But is allowing a scheduled expiration to take place even a "tax increase" at all? All of the big tax increases in history have required explicit action by Congress. In this case, the "tax increase" was set in law by Congress in 2001 as part of the tax cut due to Senate reconciliation rules. By traditional "current law" comparisons, the Obama budget proposes a historically large tax cut, not a tax hike at all, because it raises less revenue than current law would.

On the other hand, even the president calls his plan a tax hike. That's because his budget team adopted a "current policy" baseline. Instead of comparing its proposals to current law (the expiration), he compares it to what the policy was last year. By this measure, the Obama proposal to let high-income tax rates go up is a $630 billion tax increase over ten years, and that is significant but not huge, historically speaking. This is mostly a matter of semantics.

A Bipartisan Myth: Tax changes we like are "tax reform."
Democratic partisans might say that the few provisions of the Bush tax cuts they supported in 2001 constituted "tax reform" because the dictionary defines "reform" as an amendment that improves some law or policy. The Democratic favorites 9 years ago were the establishment of a 10-percent tax bracket for the first few thousand dollars of taxable income, the doubling of the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000; and expansion of the earned income credit for couples.

Republican partisans say any tax cut is "tax reform" - that's the basic principle advocated by the Americans for Tax Reform. And some academics on the right say that the true tax-reform provisions from the Bush era were the 2003 cuts to the dividend and capital gains tax rates because those reduced the double taxation of capital income.

However, "tax reform" has a more specific meaning in tax policy, expressed in the mantra "broad base, low rate." True, the Bush tax cuts lowered rates, but they narrowed the base instead of broadening it. That is, instead of exposing previously untaxed income to taxation so that the system would be fairer, and rates could be lowered even more, the Bush tax cuts exempted even more income from taxation.

In 2005, the Bush team finally got around to fundamental tax reform, calling together a group of scholars. They published two smart tax reform proposals that would have lowered tax rates and broadened the tax base, but like the recommendations of almost every tax reform commission since 1986, the year of the last true tax reform, they were ignored by those in power. If by some movie magic, Congress could have enacted in 2001 either of the two plans proposed by the 2005 commission, the nation's economy and tax system would be much better off.

Gerald Prante, Ph.D, is senior economist and Bill Ahern director of policy and communications at the Tax Foundation.




Next....... Congress spends too much.


The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.
Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998-2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.

[Source #2]: [4] See Brian M. Riedl, "Federal Spending: By the Numbers," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 989, February 6, 2006
The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre-tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit-a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 billion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.

[Source]: Congressional Budget Office, "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2001–2010," January 2000, p. xvi, Summary Table 2, at www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/18xx/doc1820/e&b0100.pdf (January 16, 2007). The January 2000 baseline pro­jected that 2006 tax revenues would reach $2,465 billion, and they instead reached $2,407 billion. The same baseline projected that 2006 spending would reach $2,140 billion, and it actually totaled $2,654 billion. WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM!


Next........

The Republican majortiy congress from 2001-2006 along with the Democratic majority congress from 2006 to present cannot stop this insane spending:


"The FY2006 budget numbers are mixed signs of good fiscal policy. The huge revenue gains of 11.8 percent on the tax side of the ledger show the pro-growth impact of lower tax rates. The spending side of the ledger disappoints as spending jumped by 7.4 percent. This increase in spending does not bode well given the need to reform entitlement spending to prevent a deeply worrying burden of government. With the entitlement challenge on the horizon, there is all the more reason to ensure that pro-growth tax policies are kept in place."

Source:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports...nding-Increases




Next.......

Regarding how wonderful and beautiful everything is in Europe and how we should emulate their type of socialism, a prediction for us.........



[Source] http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/11890.pdf

"If the United States is saddled with a French-sized
government, it will inevitably suffer from Frenchstyle economic stagnation. This means higher unemployment, lower living standards, and a loss of
upward mobility. The economic malaise in Europe is
tragic, but the dark cloud could have a silver lining if
policymakers learn the right lesson and protect
Americans from that fate by reducing the burden of
government—both today and in the future."

Oh, the French citizens have a lovely life, until SOCIALISM can't fulfill all the goodies that was promised to them even with higher taxes...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...nt-2110305.html

Full read below in case link is lost.......

By John Lichfield in Paris
Tuesday, 19 October 2010

Riot police charge at student demonstrators in Lyon yesterday

A menacing new spectre hung over the French pension reform dispute yesterday – the threat of a re-run of the multi-racial suburban riots of five years ago.

As petrol shortages spread and the country braced for a new day of strikes and marches today, there were violent incidents and clashes between police and youths in a dozen cities and suburbs around France.

Although the incidents occurred on the fringes of demonstrations by Lycée (sixth-form) students, most of the violence came from roaming groups of hooded youths who were not directly involved in the protests against pension reform. Cars were turned over or burned and shops looted and smashed in Nanterre, west of Paris, and in Saint Denis, north of the capital, which was the starting point of the riots of October and November 2005.

There were also violent incidents on the edges of student demonstrations in other Paris suburbs and in Lyon, Rouen, Roubaix and Nantes. In all cases, both police and student leaders blamed independent, mobile, racially-mixed groups of casseurs – or "vandals" – who were not part of the pension protests themselves. Their motives were unclear, but similar violence by disaffected youths has erupted on the edges of other peaceful student protests in France in recent years.

Police responded with tear gas and rubber bullets and arrested almost 200 young people in more than a dozen incidents across the country. The government – already facing a disruptive pension reform protest by unions and Lycée students – will be desperate to avoid the kind of violent police response which could touch off more serious rioting in the tense multi-racial suburbs of French cities.

Yesterday's incidents, though none very serious in themselves, added to the sense of a nation spiralling into a multi-layered crisis. Over 3,000 – out of 13,000 – French petrol stations ran out of fuel yesterday after panic-buying by motorists intensified. Eleven out of 12 petrol refineries remained on strike. Flying pickets blocked a score of petrol distribution depots. Others were opened up by police.

A chain of pickets defeated attempts by the authorities to reopen a refinery at Grandpuits, east of Paris. Key employees were ordered to return to work under the threat of legal action but pickets from the refinery and other industries blocked entrances to the site.

There were also sporadic blockages and go-slows by small convoys of lorries on the principal French motorways.

All of these actions are part of an "unofficial" second front opened by militant union branches against President Nicolas Sarkozy's plans to raise the minimum retirement age to 62 by 2018. At least 3,000,000 people are expected to join demonstrations today, and many public sector workers to stop work for 24 hours, in a sixth union "day of action" in seven weeks.

The more moderate union federations want to continue their soft or "political" strategy of one-day protests to build public anger against Mr Sarkozy. They hope that that this will help to oust him in 2012. A centre-left president and government could then reverse the reform. But the moderate national union leadership fears that the harder-line, confrontational strategy of more militant unions branches could anger public opinion and present Mr Sarkozy with a moral victory.


Next...... Jolly old England


[Source] :


http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/the-uk-budget-cuts-lessons-for-the-united-states

U.S. and U.K. Need a Pro-Defense and Pro-Growth Agenda
The British government’s spending review offers important lessons for the U.S., both good and bad. The U.K.’s aggressive plan, which calls for cuts to many government programs, offers a strong model for America to follow. Indeed, Washington will need to be equally aggressive and even more comprehensive to get federal spending under control, with one exception—defense spending. Defense spending is true mandatory spending as it is driven by each country’s respective need to address existing and emerging security threats, none of which are abating.
Reducing budget deficits is far more difficult without the revenues that flow from a strong economy. Thus, Osborne’s proposal to cut the corporate income tax rate from 28 percent to 24 percent is right on target and offers a good model for the U.S., which has a debilitating second-highest corporate income tax rate in the industrialized world.
But Britain needs to do more. To truly succeed, the proposed U.K. cuts must be matched by a strong pro-growth, pro-enterprise agenda designed to spur the creation of private sector jobs, reduce red tape for businesses, attract greater foreign investment, and maintain the city of London as a leading global financial center. Cameron should reverse the increase in capital gains tax, bring down the top rate marginal individual income tax rate from its current level of 50 percent, and resist the growing wave of European Union financial regulations, which threaten the competitiveness of the city.
Nile Gardiner, Ph.D. , is Director of, and Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow, in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, and J. D. Foster, Ph.D., is Norman B. Ture Senior Fellow in the Economics of Fiscal Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

ahhhh! What a peaceful SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY IN THE U.K... mmmm. Go ahead and watch the happy students riot as Charles and Camilla head off to the opera.... Watch this before the link disappears.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/slideshow/uk-tuition-fee-protests-12355630

Oh, and the people in Cuba and North Korea are thriving as well.

We don't want this crap here. If you want full blown SOCIALISM, then go back and live in Europe. I don't think you will find it happy place today, as you found it when you lived there. The European governments understand what has to be done and they are trying to turn it around with their austerity programs and God BLESS them for their new found pragmatism. The American socialist democratic party wing doesn't get it yet or else they are doing the Cloward-Piven plan to purposely collapse the economic system. James, you are lucky that you live in Buffalo. At least you have a shorter distance to travel to Canada when economic collapse and chaos happens.

We just had an election and the clear message was STOP THE SPENDING and focus on the deficit.

_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81072 - 12/16/10 12:22 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: ]
TommyW Offline
Major Contributor

Registered: 07/28/08
Posts: 87
Loc: Wilmington, OH - USA
My question is: Will our government's new healthcare plan cover hair removal? wink


Edited by TommyW (12/16/10 12:23 PM)

Top
#81073 - 12/16/10 12:32 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: TommyW]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
HA! You're a funny guy! I think we are more likely to hear that the NHS has to drop hair removal because the system is over burdened.

Obama Care, the 2,200 page law that was crammed down our throats because we are too stupid to know what is good for us and we will eventually like it in the end, stand by. This ain't over yet. There are much better ways to reform health care that doesn't involve the all powerful centralized government plot.
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81076 - 12/16/10 01:27 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: ]
TommyW Offline
Major Contributor

Registered: 07/28/08
Posts: 87
Loc: Wilmington, OH - USA
This has truly been an enjoyable read. Surely not what I expected when I opened this thread.

Hope all is well with you Dee. Be careful driving out there today! The roads are a mess down here in Wilmington.

Top
#81077 - 12/16/10 02:42 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: TommyW]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
Hijacking a thread is not what I like to do, but I am passionate about my liberty and the US Constitution. Not totally libertarian like James, but maybe I'll get there. grin This thread may become a longer thread than the 'Men shaving legs' thread.

Thanks, Tommy. It is snowing pretty steadily here as well, but I love it! Just put on my MUCK boots and I'm out of here with my list.
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81079 - 12/16/10 06:43 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
It's probably time to end this pointless discussion as it seems you refuse to provide specific solutions and prefer to scream abstract ideas and paste information that BOTH of us already know.

The fact that you choose to compare me to Paris Hilton when I present you with logical information shows that you don't actually have any solutions or meaningful points to offer, and are instead simply resorting to baseless namecalling. (In case you care to know, I've worked since I was 14, have never gotten a financial hand from my parents for anything (much less a trust fund) and haven't lived at home since I was 18, have a degree from a top 20 university, paid for college myself (work and scholarships), have lived in 3 countries (one what you would call socialist and another you'd call communist), have traveled to 40+ countries, speak 3 languages, and have worked for large publicly-traded corporations all my life.)

As you can see, I have the education and actual hands-on experience to understand and analyze everything I'm talking about. I suspect you do not and you clearly showcase it by your seeming lack of knowledge of the most basic concepts.

I'll leave you with two of the same points you're still ignoring:

- The police example is not stupid. The fact that you don't seem to understand that the police force managed by the government and 100% paid for by taxpayers IS socialiam tells me that you may not understand what socialism even means. And you don't seem to understand that if you cut spending and take away 10% of that police budget, some policemen will have to be let go. So that would be a direct result of your "10% spending cut everywhere" proposal.

- You still didn't provide a list of specific programs we need to cut to cut spending. Taking away 10% of the budget for programs means something will have to be cut and some people will have to be let go resulting in higher unemployment. We could have cut most of the spending by not starting 2 wars. Of course, that wasn't in Cheney's and Bush's best personal financial interests. Wars don't pay for themselves. Tax rates are the same while we're spending trillions on wars. http://costofwar.com/

p.s. I'm not even a democrat or a liberal as you seem to suggest. I don't identify with anything, but if I had to, it would probably be a mix of Libertarian and Democrat. I take parts of both that make logical sense. Most people who can actually think and analyze for themselves don't fit into a specific bucket.

Top
#81086 - 12/16/10 08:18 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: LAgirl]
toeman Offline
Top 20 Contributor

Registered: 01/27/09
Posts: 232
Loc: The Netherlands
I see some rediculously stereotyping words about Europe....It is so rediculous sometimes that it almost makes me laugh because it shows such a lack of knowledge and nuance....
However it also angers me inside, we could do exactly the same about the U.S.
And believe me, the U.S. haven't been what you call an example anymore for a long long time....

But the Socialist crap that is also being used in the U.S. for everything that shows a liiiiitle bit of government intervention is just plain rediculous.
You want socialism? Look at Eastern Europe of 70 years ago.
But in present day Western Europe there is absolutely NOTHING that even comes close to socialism....

No, Europe shifted to a new rediculous paradigm called Capitalism and extreme liberalism making the poor get even less and the rich get richer. Throwing us into a financial crisis and letting the poor pay for the mistakes of the big boys (Banks etc.).

No necessary healthcare is good you say? Here EVERYONE gets the best possible treatment in our top hospitals, regardless of race, gender, income....In America, the great big example of the world, people can forget about proper health care if they do not hold an insurance and do not have a lot of income....

But I told myself not to get into this discussion actually, as I cannot stand the simplistic views of other about Europe throwing in words like socialism....Socialism, even the word is non-existent in Europe and in the U.S. they call about everything Socialism....It's a fashion-word.
If one watches FOX you'll even hear a duck's fart being called socialism....

Come on....Know your history....I know a lot of people in the U.S. don't even know where Belgium or Holland are situated let alone that they speak a second language or can judge about socialism in Europe....

Sorry nothing personal, just had to get out some frustration....

Top
#81088 - 12/16/10 08:35 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: toeman]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
Amen. The problem with most Americans is that they live in a box and are quite happy with it.

Top
#81094 - 12/16/10 11:12 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: toeman]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
A couple of responses to you Toeman - We have federal laws that say no one can be turned away if they need medical or surgical care. We have a heart. If you have no insurance and you are sick, you still get respectful, excellent care regardless of gender, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race. Several of my family members donate their time to give pro bono care. You are mistaken about people not getting proper health care if they don't have insurance. You would have been more correct in saying that others who have insurance pay for the uninsured and that is the problem we are grappling with today. Another challenge: Many who are not documented American citizens use our health care system. Again, we have a heart. Unlike your country, where the immigration laws are probably stricter than ours, this may not be a problem. What are the immigration laws like in Belgium / Holland? Our system is over burdened and the future looks dim if we don't work on this. The American people should guide policy and polls say that we need reforms - not this drastic overhaul that was crammed down out throats without time for thoughtful bipartisan debate. We never had the chance to be represented. Everything moved so fast. We were told that we would know what was in the bill AFTER the bill was passed. It was rushed and pushed through so fast that people became uneasy ans suspicious about many aspects. We'll get it right. We are working on it. It is not a done deal. Some of our representatives are listening now.

Next point...
I agree with you on the big boys, meaning government officials, investment bankers, big business and some in academia. If you can get a copy or go and see the documentary, 'INSIDE JOB' about the financial meltdown, please do. This problem started in America and then involved Europe. I am so furious. The same crooks that were in the Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II administrations are now in the Obama adminstration!!!! They screwed everything up and they are still in power!? Others that left the political scene go back to become President of Harvard or get a severance package of 300 million dollars and they get to keep their private jets, helicopters, 15,000 square foot homes! There is no accountability or stain for these liars and crooks. There is no punishment. They just walk away after pooping on all of us. What the H...!

As far as socialism goes, are you not a socialist democracy? Why do you seem ashamed of the word socialism? What is extreme liberalism? I'm not sure I can discuss this further without understanding more.

Capitalism works when it is not corrupted by power mad politicians, investment bankers and big business. They are all very good friends, you know. The example of the big boys in the documentary mentioned above is the star number one example. It is not perfect, but it is better than what I see now happening in Europe where the entitlement system that as been called Socialism by many, maybe not you, has overburdened the structure, thus the austerity programs and thus the rioting in certain countries. Have you seen the rioting in Greece, France and the UK? What is your view on why that is happening? I feel certain that the same thing will happen here because we have many entitlements, too, that have grown beyond what we can afford. When you interfer with the freebies that were promised to people - they don't like it very much.

Lastly, I AGREE with you on this language and geography stuff. You made me laugh a little because if you know who the comedian Jay Leno is, well some nights he has this segment on his show called, "Jaywalking". He takes a microphone and asks simple questions of random people on the street about American History and Geography, usually. It is unbelievable how many people don't know who the first President of the United States was or who the Vice President of the United States is now. Geography questions are even worse and I am too embarrassed to give you examples of those. I am proud to say that I can answer any question that Jay asks and I know many other Americans can, too, so were not all dumb over here.

Thank you for coming in to express your thoughts. People that live in democracies like we do have that precious freedom. Can you answer the above questions though. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81097 - 12/16/10 11:39 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
Dee, you seriously need to do some reading

- Immigration laws in the US are much stricter than those in Europe.

- Yes, anyone can get healthcare, at a hospital only, here in the US even if they don't have money. Except, then they are still served with an enormous bill that they will never be able to pay off in full. There are only a few free public hospitals and the wait to get care there even in the emergency room is days long - people have died waiting to see someone.

- Government members are elected by voters. Yes, some will be corrupt (mostly because they're paid off by corporate interests - so technically, it's still the fault of corporations because they seek out ways to bribe gov't members to get what they want). It's unavoidable in any institution or company. Corporations' only concern is with making money. They don't have any other loyalties to the people or anyone else and will do whatever is necessary to make the most money at whatever cost if there is no government to set rules.

- You still don't really understand what socialism means. No one is "ashamed" or afraid of that word except you. You need to stop watching Fox News. We already explained multiple times that the US has a ton of socialism and it's unavoidable because there will always be services that need to be provided by the government because they're too expensive for individuals to pay for themselves. That's all that word means.

- Capitalism always breeds corruption by its nature. That's why we have and need a government to set rules and regulations.

- Americans are not all dumb, but compared to an average European, they're a lot dumber. It mostly has to do with a sense of entitlement, teaching to have baseless pride from a young age, and the lack of a good public education system.

Top
#81099 - 12/16/10 11:48 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: LAgirl]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
LAgirl said: It's probably time to end this pointless discussion as it seems you refuse to provide specific solutions and prefer to scream abstract ideas and paste information that BOTH of us already know. You didn't already know about the results of the Bush tax cuts. You asked me to show you data and I did. Go back and review your own words.

LAgirl said: The fact that you choose to compare me to Paris Hilton when I present you with logical information shows that you don't actually have any solutions or meaningful points to offer, and are instead simply resorting to baseless namecalling. (In case you care to know, I've worked since I was 14, have never gotten a financial hand from my parents for anything (much less a trust fund) and haven't lived at home since I was 18, have a degree from a top 20 university, paid for college myself (work and scholarships), have lived in 3 countries (one what you would call socialist and another you'd call communist), have traveled to 40+ countries, speak 3 languages, and have worked for large publicly-traded corporations all my life.) You didn't have to divulge your personal credentials. Matters none to me. It's about your words and thoughts in the here and now.

Lagirl said: As you can see, I have the education and actual hands-on experience to understand and analyze everything I'm talking about. I suspect you do not and you clearly showcase it by your seeming lack of knowledge of the most basic concepts. Thanks, Paris, you are sooooooo special!

LAgirl said: I'll leave you with two of the same points you're still ignoring: "Yes, M'aam!" (salute and bow)"

- The police example is not stupid. The fact that you don't seem to understand that the police force managed by the government and 100% paid for by taxpayers IS socialiam tells me that you may not understand what socialism even means. And you don't seem to understand that if you cut spending and take away 10% of that police budget, some policemen will have to be let go. So that would be a direct result of your "10% spending cut everywhere" proposal. I believe in limited government. This qualifies. I adore police officers and actually enjoy paying tax money for their brave service. Same adoration, X 100 for our dear military women and men.

LAgirl said:- You still didn't provide a list of specific programs we need to cut to cut spending. Taking away 10% of the budget for programs means something will have to be cut and some people will have to be let go resulting in higher unemployment. We could have cut most of the spending by not starting 2 wars. Of course, that wasn't in Cheney's and Bush's best personal financial interests. Wars don't pay for themselves. Tax rates are the same while we're spending trillions on wars. http://costofwar.com/ I talk to people that matter on managing the budget and taxes and you don't qualify. The people that matter are my representatives to the United States Congress and my local and state representatives, whether they agree or disagree. I know how to reach them by phone and e-mail.

LAgirl said: p.s. I'm not even a democrat or a liberal as you seem to suggest. I don't identify with anything, but if I had to, it would probably be a mix of Libertarian and Democrat. I take parts of both that make logical sense. Most people who can actually think and analyze for themselves don't fit into a specific bucket. Well.......I don't really care where you fit. It's none of my business. Want to know what bucket I fit in?! I am an American and I value my freedom of speech, property rights, labor and the US Constitution. Oh, you forgot to add that you are a profiler in addition to being a libertarian and democrat.




* I deleted words that I no longer felt were honest.
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81106 - 12/17/10 06:24 AM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: LAgirl]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
Lagirl said:

"Dee, you seriously need to do some reading

- Immigration laws in the US are much stricter than those in Europe.

- Yes, anyone can get healthcare, at a hospital only, here in the US even if they don't have money. Except, then they are still served with an enormous bill that they will never be able to pay off in full. There are only a few free public hospitals and the wait to get care there even in the emergency room is days long - people have died waiting to see someone.

- Government members are elected by voters. Yes, some will be corrupt (mostly because they're paid off by corporate interests - so technically, it's still the fault of corporations because they seek out ways to bribe gov't members to get what they want). It's unavoidable in any institution or company. Corporations' only concern is with making money. They don't have any other loyalties to the people or anyone else and will do whatever is necessary to make the most money at whatever cost if there is no government to set rules.

- You still don't really understand what socialism means. No one is "ashamed" or afraid of that word except you. You need to stop watching Fox News. We already explained multiple times that the US has a ton of socialism and it's unavoidable because there will always be services that need to be provided by the government because they're too expensive for individuals to pay for themselves. That's all that word means.

- Capitalism always breeds corruption by its nature. That's why we have and need a government to set rules and regulations.

- Americans are not all dumb, but compared to an average European, they're a lot dumber. It mostly has to do with a sense of entitlement, teaching to have baseless pride from a young age, and the lack of a good public education system."
End Quote
________________________________________________________

My response:

I feel very embarrassed for you. When you go off on your self-righteous rants, you are telling more about yourself than anyone needs to know. Your ego mania and obnoxiousness far exceeds your elitist Berkeley education, which actually indoctrinated you well in regard to flawed analysis about what truly uplifts people and gives them the gift of self-esteem and opportunity so they don't have to be so dependent on government help from cradle to grave.
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81113 - 12/17/10 03:50 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
Your comments are laughable, Dee. You are basically using Fox News tactics instead of actually providing solutions to the issues. You provide nothing and instead resort to baseless personal attacks. It's like debating with a 5-year-old.

Everyone is for "limited government". This is a clear example of how you don't really understand what the issues are and how to solve them. The issue has always been where that limit is.

I'm not elitist. Universities teach to analyze (I would assume you would know this if you have taken classes at any accredited institution). Indoctrination is what you get at church and on Fox News because they're not interested in you questioning things. Calling people names is just what uneducated people like to scream back when they realize they don't actually know much and don't have answers to specific questions. They like to scream abstract things that don't actually mean anything. Once again, tactic of a 5-year-old.

As we can see, you still cannot provide even one example of a program that we should cut with your tax cuts. And, of course, you completely ignore the fact that the war you likely supported is a huge reason that we're in debt now. Once again, tax rates are the same, but we've been paying for war for years now. Wars don't pay for themselves. If you were pro-war, you should have offered to increase your own tax rate to cover the expense. Instead you're screaming that your taxes are too high while we have the lowest tax rates ever.

It's a fact that an average American is dumber, not my personal opinion. Take a look at how the US education system compares to the rest of the modern world. And take a look at standardized test scores. We're very close to the bottom. The sad part is that many Americans are quite happy being ignorant. Educated people understand that the more you learn, the more you realize how much you don't really know.

p.s. All modern countries have their issues. Europe is not perfect. Of course, you scream about Europe, but people are actually happy there overall. Americans aren't. That should tell you something. (And you may want to get out of the box and go there sometimes and actually talk to people about how they feel, instead of just reading biased propoganda).

p.p.s. An award-winning economist's perspective on Bush tax cuts, i.e. not biased like all your links: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/bush-tax-cut-mythology/

Top
#81114 - 12/17/10 04:03 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: LAgirl]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
Let me say this to you in a Motherly fashion. You seriously need to take some anger management courses, get on some medication or mellow out with some weed. You are off the wall. Again, you are embarrassing yourself, Irena.
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81115 - 12/17/10 04:05 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
I already have a mother, Dee. I don't need another one.

Once again, you are being condescending simply because you have no practical answers. There is only one person embarassing themselves here as you can tell from some of the other responses in this thread.

p.s. I don't see where I'm angry. Your ignorance of the world is actually quite entertaining.

Top
#81118 - 12/17/10 04:16 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: LAgirl]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
I have found that highly educated elitists such as yourself are the most miserable people on the face of the earth. They stomp, demand, insult and degrade themselves to the point of destruction. Seriously, go smoke some weed and then call your Mother for advice on how to become a more loving, stable person, Irena. I have seen plenty of your rants over the years with different posters and this is about as bad as it gets.


Edited by dfahey (12/17/10 04:33 PM)
Edit Reason: more thoughts
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81121 - 12/17/10 04:57 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
This is laughable, again. Instead of having a debate, you prefer to insult, belittle, and scream (there is no need for huge fonts here. None of us are blind). This is the tactic of Fox News (you've used all of their keywords at this point). That's fine, but find someone else to insult and be condescending to. You're obviously not capable of intelligent debate. We, the "educated elitists" are not immature crybabies who prefer to think the big bad government is out to get us. My life is pretty great, in fact, and not full of ignorance. I've probably done and seen more than you will in several lifetimes.

Either way, I have no interest in throwing insults back and forth.

p.s. I don't "rant". Blaming one unidentifiable entity for all your problems is a rant - that's what you are doing. I am very happy with my life. You're obviously not given your statements here. And I have no idea what you're referring to with respect to my supposed "rants". The only heated discussions I've had on this forum in the past were related to fighting biased laser information by electrologists who had no experience with it. And it's the only reason this forum is now moderately unbiased in that respect.

Top
#81136 - 12/17/10 11:01 PM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: LAgirl]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
Irena,

I think you thrive on confrontation and conflict. I also think you have unrealistic beliefs in your own superiority and your need for total control and power over others that don't agree with you. I don't really think you are "educated" at all in areas where it counts. The word Megalmania comes to mind.

Adious, Grandiose
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81151 - 12/18/10 03:24 AM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: ]
Rhodesengr Offline
Major Contributor

Registered: 10/25/10
Posts: 80
wow. this sounds a lot like last night's Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. Maybe we can have a new show called Real Hair Removers of the Internet

Top
#81154 - 12/18/10 04:09 AM Re: Plucking by electrologist [Re: Rhodesengr]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
When can we start! Great idea, Rhodeeee! Thanks for the great advice, ihatebodyhair. I think I will take it, but don't hold me to that just yet.
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81181 - 12/18/10 06:51 PM Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
Originally Posted By: dfahey
I don't really think you are "educated" at all in areas where it counts.


Really? And you say I have a superiority compex?

I didn't bring up my background to brag. I brought it up to counter your baseless insults. Your only credential seems to be the non-existent self-congratulatory "university of common sense".

Bringing in your baseless bias any time the European healthcare system is mentioned on the forum is what anyone unbiased would call "thriving on confrontation and conflict". Your close-minded conservative views don't belong here, especialliy if you don't have the capacity to have an intelligent debate without resorting to belittling and baseless insults. And judging by the private messages I've been getting, you've gotten into it with plenty of people over your ignorance.

Top
#81182 - 12/18/10 06:56 PM Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
Originally Posted By: ihatebodyhair
Originally Posted By: LAgirl
...I've probably done and seen more than you will in several lifetimes...

Sounds like words of an "elitist" to me...

Dee - A good saying I found a while back: "Never argue with an idiot. They bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."



Facts and credentials speak for themselves. I'm not too worried about opinions on my intelligence by anyone without any creditials to judge (reminds me of uneducated people judging global climate change as if they have the capacity to understand it without a scientific background). You know what they say about opinions...

Top
#81184 - 12/18/10 07:33 PM Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: LAgirl]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
Okay. You are digging your hole deeper, missy. So, what's your I.Q?
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81204 - 12/19/10 01:01 PM Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: ]
Spaniard Offline
Contributor

Registered: 08/28/10
Posts: 32
Woaw, people, what a thread!

To be of any help, I only could say that the only way to make such statements about USA or Europe, is living in both places.

An ocean between us is enough to get flawed impressions about us.

Europe is a continent, USA is a country as big as a small continent.

Talking about USA, lacking knowledge and experience, drive us to be very mistaken. I do know that living in Boston is VERY diferent to living in Mobile, Alabama.

Living in Spain is a lot diferent to living in Russia.

There are true liberal (not what you call liberals, meaning democrat party supporters or something like that) countries like Switzerland (they are a Confederacy) and almost socialist (not dictatorial communist like URSS) countries like Sweden.

There are rich countries like Denmark, where unemployment rates are really low and there are poor countries like Albania or Moldavia, where survival is a hazardous experience.

The keyword is FREEDOM. Freedom to choose, to have guns at home, to build up a company without ridiculous restrictions and being under the thumb of the goverment, to vote, etc We are neither China nor North Korea. We should stay away from them.

The way to make us free, is the eternal discussion. The real deal.

I´ll dare to make a statement; the more ancient is a country, the less future it has. Take a look to the "cradles of civilization" like Persia, Egypt, Iraq, Greece, etc and after that, take a look to Australia or USA.Iraq, Greece, etc and after that, take a look to Australia or USA.

Top
#81207 - 12/19/10 02:34 PM Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: Spaniard]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
Finally, careful and thoughtful words that are not discussion stoppers. You are most polite and reasonable and it is appreciated.


Originally Posted By: Spaniard

The keyword is FREEDOM. Freedom to choose, to have guns at home, to build up a company without ridiculous restrictions and being under the thumb of the goverment, to vote, etc

The way to make us free, is the eternal discussion. The real deal.



These words are at the core of what flipped this thread. Governing by good intentions without measuring or at least being truthful about the signs of bad or mediocre outcome that such "good" intentions cause, is an assault on individual freedoms. No one wants to be enslaved by a government that involves itself into everything from what kind of light bulbs to use to choosing what electrologist will do treatments on one's face for "free", as determined by others who have the power to choose for them, paid for by other taxpayers who have no control over the quality and outcome of the electrolysis care they are subsidizing.


_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81248 - 12/20/10 04:31 AM Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
Unfortunately, the issue of healthcare is not black and white. People in the US don't pay for most of it out of pocket or have much control over it. Instead of the gov't, the insurance companies dictate how much things cost, how much is covered, where exactly one can get treatments, etc. It's not the people as conservatives here seem to always imply. They speak in abstract terms and don't realize that competition in the heathcare system specifically (as opposed to other things) works against people because insurance companies are the ones in control and their interests lie with their bottom line, NOT with the people. They make money by trying to pay for as little as possible, not the other way around.

A gov't healthcare system is not perfect, but at least its goal is to serve people's interests, not insurance companies'. And existence of a government healthcare system doesn't prevent or forbid private practice. It simply provides an extra option for those who can't afford it on their own (just like insurance does now) as the person from the UK demonstrated in this thread. They can use NHS OR they can pay out of pocket.

And just because something is managed by the gov't doesn't mean it can't be set up in a way that prevents bad practitioners from being in business. Then again, the current system supposedly controlled by people doesn't prevent bad electrologists or bad laser clinics from being around either. Just look at the feedback on this forum.

Once American ultra conservatives can come up with a good in-between solution that actually looks out for and benefits individuals and not insurance companies, there'll be something to talk about. For now, a gov't option is a better solution because it's better than the system which has insurance companies in control denying claims and not paying for things in order to show a profit to shareholders every quarter.

And ultra conservative Americans who've never been anywhere else don't realize that we're paying 5-10 times more for drugs than anyone else in the world because corporations selling drugs in the US convinced politicians to establish rules that protect their products from competition.

p.s. You are correct, Spaniard. Unfortunately, many Americans haven't even been to another side of the US much less to Europe or anywhere else in the world, but they get fed a bunch of propoganda about how people elsewhere supposedly feel, think and live, and consider that enough "education" to judge everything.

Top
#81294 - 12/21/10 01:00 AM Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
Government doesn't need to make a profit. Insurance companies do. That's my point and it's not that hard to understand. Competition works well, EXCEPT when it comes to healthcare the way we have it currently set up because currently insurance companies are competing to NOT pay for treatments so they can show the most profit every quarter. They're not competing to provide you with the best treatments. You can't compare to it Wal-Mart because of this. If people paid for everything out of pocket like they do at Wal-Mart, it would be different. Instead, we have insurance companies controlling things because healthcare is something that's too expensive and impractical to be paid by individuals similar to many other services that the government currently provides for that reason.

Your point seems to be that competition makes healthcare better and cheaper. And my point is that competition is great, but not when it comes to healthcare. It obviously doesn't do either well looking at the US since we still have bad doctors and the most expensive care in the world (by comparison, we have much cheaper electronics and other items compared to Europe because in that realm of direct purchase by individuals, competition is great). So the current system doesn't work the way you seem to suggest it does. That's why people are looking for alternatives.

I never suggested that the government system would be necessarily more efficient. That's a separate issue, though it's not impossible to make it efficient. There could be several entities in charge creating competition for rewards, employee pay increases etc as one example. The discussion here was about the fact that the current system doesn't produce the kind of competition you suggest and that it actually is set up to screw individuas over instead. Either way, the right-wing articles on Medicare denials don't give you the whole story like reasons for denials and factual differentials (like the one that points out that private insurances drop you altogether when you get sick, so they won't have to deny or pay for you later). http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/10/6/05110/6076

Top
#81305 - 12/21/10 04:31 AM Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: LAgirl]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
She doesn't know what she is talking about as usual. Robotical ultra liberal talking points is all she has, backed up by ultra liberal nutballs like Paul Krugman and the Daily Kos. True, governments don't need to make a profit AND they don't need to be accountable either for all the waste, fraud and corruption they bring upon us. Government run Medicare / Medicaid fraud is so HUGE - 60 BILLION to 90 BILLION per year and you are indignant about private insurance companies profits? The private insurance companies make much less profit than the government run socialist programs which loose, steal and corrupt taxpayers hard earned dollars. Even if you throw in the far left leaning Daily Koss's numbers, it's still out paces a private sector company profits. Is it any wonder we don't want to hand over any more of our earned money to the all powerful, all knowing what is good for us, federal government?! If this were a private business, they would have been booted out on their heads a long ago.


The average healthcare industry profits are 4%. Check it out on Google Finance. I don't think it is far left or right leaning source. Check out Pepsico, Google and Microsofts profits while you are there.

As far as denying claims, even if someone is denied the first time because of inadequate paperwork or whatever, that doesn't mean if a request is submitted a second or third time, with proper information and such, that they will be denied again. Government run socialist programs such as Medicare and Medicaid deny more claims than private sector insurance companies. As far as medications are concerned, in my locale, certain pharmacies under the control of big corporations offer, $4.00 prescriptions and FREE antibiotics for those who choose to make the effort to get them, but yet there are patients that stop taking their blood pressure medicine because they say they can't afford it? Frequently, when Medicaid denies a costly medication to a patient the evil drug company that makes that drug offers it free of charge. It is the drug companies that supply free medications at the local free health clinic. Let's not forget them and perhaps say thanks. One woman at a local clinic complained when she had to pay $2.00 for a pair of prescription eye glasses wondering why they were not free. These are examples of just some of the entitlement personalities in my community alone. People don't understand that money comes from the private sector taxpayers who work very hard and they are getting more embittered about being told that they have to pay more. I say there will never be enough money. Healthcare dollars should focus on catastrophic care and have many levels of health care options that are tailored to individuals. We need to help our brothers and sisters, who through no fault of their own are faced with cancers, accidents or any situation where the expense will be more than they can pay.

Irena, aka LAgirl, thinks like a child and believes everybody is so mean, unfair and greedy and there should be no end to the enormous amount of money that it takes to sustain a healthcare system. Guess what genius, people are not going to work for free, so how much money do you want? Maybe the politics of good intentions makes her feel superior and she needs that feeling to feed her enormous ego. Guess what? Focusing on business models that lead to measurable, sustainable outcomes at affordable prices akin to other things we choose to purchase makes me feel super good. Measurable outcome should be part the main focus of any government plan that has to do with taxpayer money. However, the party of class warfare and good intentions is seriously flawed and the last electrion proves that.



Next......

Here are several polls and examples of wait-lists and other miseries brought on by government intervention in healthcare in other countries. This is why educated, reasonable Americans are hesitant to accept Obama care in it's present rushed form. We want more thought put into reforming the parts that don't serve people well in OUR unique health care system so as not to destroy the quality and accessibility we still have in OUR healthcare system today, that are second to none.


I did throw in a bright note article on Russia beyond the polling information. smile

Satisfaction with Quality, Current Coverage

CNN/Opinion Research:
CNN/Opinion Research released its latest poll on the public’s view of the health care reform debate. One of the key findings from the poll:
74% of people are satisfied with their personal health insurance coverage.1
83% of people are satisfied with their own health care.2
Employee Benefits Research Institute:
Benefits Research Institute released its findings from the 2009 Health Confidence Survey (HCS): 3
Fifty-eight percent of those with health insurance coverage are extremely or very satisfied with their current plan, and approximately one-third (30 percent) are somewhat satisfied
84% of people surveyed said the quality of their personal health insurance was either excellent or good.4
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics:
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics released its latest poll on American’s attitudes on a variety of issues including health care reform and the current health care system. Here are some of the key findings related to people’s personal health care coverage:
83% of people surveyed said the quality of care they receive is either excellent or good.5
Quinnipiac University:
Quinnipiac University released a nationwide survey on the public’s attitude about health care reform. The survey included this finding:
Employee Benefits Research Institute:
85% of Americans are very or somewhat satisfied with their own health insurance plan.6
The University of Texas/Zogby International:
The University of Texas/Zogby International released a poll on American attitudes on healthcare reform — including satisfaction with health care, opinions of potential reform legislation, and how to potentially pay for health care for the uninsured. The poll included this finding:
84% of people are satisfied with their health care.7
The Washington Post:
The Washington Post released a survey focused on health care on June 22. The survey demonstrated that the public is extremely satisfied with their own personal health plan.
81% of people are satisfied with their health insurance coverage.8
88% of people are satisfied with the quality of care they receive.9
The New York Times:
The New York Times released a survey focused on health care on June 21. While there was much made about the public’s split on issues, one thing was clear – they are satisfied with their own coverage.
77% of people are satisfied with the quality of their own care.10
77% of people said that basic medical care covered by their health insurance plan is affordable.11
Democracy Corps:
Democracy Corps released their latest poll on health care reform. One finding from the polling shows people are satisfied with their own insurance.12
72% of people are satisfied with their own health insurance coverage vs. 75% in 1993 – not a significant change.
76% of self-identified independents are satisfied with their coverage as are 72% of Democrats and 78% of Republicans.
Gallup:
According to one of Gallup’s most recent health care surveys, Americans give a high approval rating for the quality of care they personally receive as well as a high approval rating of their personal health care coverage.
“Among all Americans, 83% say the quality of healthcare they receive is either ‘excellent’ or ‘good.’ Only 16% say it’s either ‘only fair’ or ‘poor.’”13
“Americans are only a bit less positive about their own healthcare coverage, with 67% describing the coverage they now have as excellent or good.”14
“Gallup’s conclusion: “At the same time, [Americans surveyed] are pleased with the quality of medical treatment in the country, and are mostly satisfied with their own healthcare quality, coverage, and costs.”15
Employee Benefits Research Institute:
The Employee Benefits Research Institute is known as a leader in helping to develop “sound employee benefit programs and sound public policy through objective research and education.” According to EBRI’s 2008 Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey:
93% of people enrolled in a traditional health care plan were satisfied with the quality of coverage they received through their health plan (including 31% extremely satisfied).18
93% of people enrolled in a traditional health care plan were satisfied with their plan.19
86% of people enrolled in a traditional health care plan were likely to stay with their current plan.20
(Note: The EBRI/MGA Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey is an online survey of privately insured adults ages 21-64. A traditional private health care plan is defined as a broad range of plan types, including HMOs, PPOs, other managed care plans and plans with a broad variety of cost sharing arrangements as well as no deductible or deductibles that are below current thresholds that would quality for HSA tax preference, and do not have an HRA-based plan.)
References:
1.CNN/Opinion Research Poll, July 31-August 3, 2009.
2.Ibid.
3.Employee Benefit Research Institute, 2009 Health Confidence Survey, July 2009.
4.Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll, July 21-22, 2009.
5.Ibid
6.Quinnipiac University Poll, June 23-28, 2009.
7.The University of Texas/ Zogby International Poll, June 18-22, 2009.
8.The Washington Post, Survey, June 18-21, 2009.
9.The Washington Post, June 18-21, 2009.
10.The New York Times, June 12-16, 2009.
11.The New York Times, June 12-16, 2009.
12.Democracy Corps, “The Health Care Reform Debate”, June 15, 2009.
13.Gallup.com, “Americans Rate National and Personal Healthcare Differently”, December 4, 2008,Accessed on June 3, 2009.
14.Ibid.
15.Ibid.
16.CNN/Opinion Research Poll, March 12-15, 2009.
17.Ibid.
18.Employee Benefit Research Institute, 2008 Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey, p.7.
19.Ibid, p.7.
20.Ibid, p.9.

Government Intervention in different countries that Irena has been to most likely

New Zealand



New Zealand's Ministry of Health is the New Zealand "Government's principal agent and advisor on health and disability."
On the waiting list roller-coaster
- Martin Johnson, March 20, 2008 [The New Zealand Herald]
No charge for trips to emergency department
The figures show most people who arrive at the emergency departments don't need to be there.- Alison Brown, December 17, 2004 [Rotorua Daily Post]
Surgical waiting lists numbers come under twin attacks
- November 15, 2004 [stuff.co.nz]
Hospital Waiting Lists Under Serious Pressure
- October 26, 2004 [Scoop New Zealand News]
Hundreds on waiting list as hospital pleads for help
- August 23, 2004 [The New Zealand Herald]
Private hospitals offer help with waiting lists
- August 12, 2004 [The New Zealand Herald]
Alarm over GP shortage
- July 5, 2004 [The New Zealand Herald]
Hospital urges patients to stay away unless really ill
- March 6, 2004 [The New Zealand Herald]



Russia:
Capitalism Comes to Russian Health Care
by Michael Wines
December 22, 2000 New York Times



With the "free" government-run health system in Russia in a state of collapse, an increasing amount of health care is being provided by for-profit clinics and hospitals.
Even the poor care that is available in underfunded and outdated hospitals usually requires bribes or gratuities to health care workers.
A typical surgeon at a public hospital might take home 1,500 rubles a month -- $50 -- and if lucky, add $100 in legitimate overtime and other supplements.
At a state-of-the art private hospital near Moscow, a surgeon can make as much as $3,000 a month.
By some estimates, private spending for drugs and physicians' services approached 2.6 percent of gross domestic product in 1998, almost equal to the 3 percent the government spent on free care. While only 3 to 5 percent of Russians can afford private hospitals, their relatively low prices are attracting expatriates and funding modernization of the health care system -- including some public institutions that take for-profit patients. 


The UK:
BURNHAM FORGETS 230,000 ON LIST
by Macer Hall, August 14, 2009 Daily Express (UK)




HEALTH Secretary Andy Burnham was under fire last night after admitting he cared more about his favourite football team than the National Health Service.
The gaffe-prone Cabinet Minister had already caused embarrassment by claiming there were “no waiting lists” in the NHS.
But official figures published yesterday revealed that more than 230,000 patients are being forced to wait more than 18 weeks for hospital treatment.
Writing on an internet social networking site, Mr Burnham wrote: “Over the moon about strong support for NHS – an institution I will defend to my dying day, 2nd only to Everton FC.”
The flippant remark, part of a Government-backed internet campaign on the Twitter website to trumpet the NHS’s achievements, provoked anger yesterday.
A senior Tory said: “This is an inappropriate remark from the minister in charge of the National Health Service. It demonstrates a worrying lack of maturity.”
A source close to Mr Burnham said: “Andy is incredibly proud of the NHS” and accused leading Tories of “denigrating” the Health Service.
Gordon Brown and other senior ministers yesterday added messages to the welovetheNHS campaign, launched in response to a bitter debate about publicly funded health care in the US.
A message from the Prime Minister said: “NHS often makes the difference between pain and comfort, despair and hope, life and death. Thanks for always being there.”
His wife Sarah Brown wrote: “welovetheNHS – more than words can say.”
But the Downing Street twittering was undermined when official NHS monthly figures for June showed that 236,316 patients faced a wait of more than 18 weeks between GP referral and admission for hospital treatment.
Lib Dem health spokesman Norman Lamb said: “Three days after the Health Secretary claimed there were no more waiting lists in the NHS, ­Government figures have shown that a quarter of a million people are stuck waiting longer than 18 weeks for ­treatment.
“Andy Burnham’s insensitive comments will anger the thousands of patients who are still waiting.”
Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said: “Labour’s 18-week waiting time target has been widely discredited. The Government only met it by moving the goalposts and it hasn’t ended waiting in the NHS.
“People should not be waiting needlessly for treatment.
“But the way to sort that out is to improve treatment capacity in the NHS through allowing independent and voluntary-sector providers to do NHS work. It’s not through top-down targets that create stacks of paperwork and are a distraction for doctors and nurses.”
Mr Burnham provoked astonishment in a radio interview earlier this week by saying: “We have no waiting lists now in the NHS.”
Department of Health officials later clarified his remarks by saying that average waiting times were 7.7 weeks, the lowest since records began.
A Department spokesman said last night: “Record investment and dedicated staff have given patients the shortest waits since NHS records began.
“Patients should start treatment within 18 weeks of referral from a GP and are often treated much faster than this.
“In the 1990s it was not uncommon for people to wait 18 months or more for their operation, with some people dying on the waiting list.”
The June waiting list figures compare with a total of 280,663 patients waiting more than 18 weeks in May.
The welovetheNHS campaign on Twitter follows angry confrontations in the US over President Barack Obama’s plan for state-funded federal health care.
Opponents have branded his plans “Orwellian” and “socialist”.
Former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin said the proposed system was “downright evil”.
Tory Euro MP Daniel Hannan joined the debate during a recent visit to America, describing the NHS as “Marxist” and warning Americans: “Ponder our example and tremble.”
Tory leader David Cameron disowned his comments yesterday.
He said: “I support the NHS 100 per cent. The Conservative Party backs the NHS 100 per cent.
“It is incredibly important for my family, it’s incredibly important for the country.” 


Canada:
Wait times for surgery,
medical treatments at all-time high: report
by staff writer, October 15, 2007 CBC News (Canada)




The average wait time for a Canadian awaiting surgery or other medical treatment is now 18.3 weeks, a new high, according to a report released Monday.
That's an increase of 97 per cent over 14 years, the report says.
"Canadians wait longer than Americans, Germans, and Swedes for cardiac care, although not as long as New Zealanders or the British," it reads. "Economists attempting to quantify the cost of this waiting time have estimated it to amount to $1,100 to $5,600 annually per patient."
The report, the 17th annual edition of Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada, is published by the Fraser Institute, an independent Canadian research organization.
"Despite government promises and the billions of dollars funnelled into the Canadian health-care system, the average patient waited more than 18 weeks in 2007 between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required," said Nadeem Esmail, director of Health System Performance Studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the report, in a release.
The total median waiting time for patients between referral from a general practitioner and treatment, averaged across all 12 specialties and 10 provinces surveyed, increased to 18.3 weeks from 17.8 weeks in 2006, according to the report.
"The small increase in waiting time between 2006 and 2007 is primarily the result of an increase in the first wait – the wait between visiting a general practitioner and attending a consultation with a specialist," the report says.
The report also found that total wait times increased in six provinces: Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. British Columbia, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island lowered their wait times.
Waiting times best in Ontario
Ontario recorded the shortest wait time overall (the wait between visiting a general practitioner and receiving treatment) at 15.0 weeks, followed by British Columbia (19.0 weeks) and Quebec (19.4 weeks). Saskatchewan (27.2 weeks), New Brunswick (25.2 weeks) and Nova Scotia (24.8 weeks) recorded the longest waits in Canada.
Despite have one of the shorter waits among the provinces, Quebec's 19.4-week wait shows that despite more money directed at fixing the problem, there hasn't been any improvement, Tasha Kheiriddin, the Quebec director of the Fraser Institute, told CBC News Monday.
She says Quebec has invested millions of dollars over the past few years in efforts to reduce wait times, but that inefficiencies in the public system are proving to be obstacles.
"What this tells us is spending more money in the system does not decrease wait times. In fact it's the opposite result, so we have to look at other solutions," she said.
Across Canada, the wait time between referral by a GP and consultation with a specialist rose to 9.2 weeks from the 8.8 weeks recorded in 2006. The shortest waits for specialist consultations were in Ontario (7.6 weeks), Manitoba (8.2 weeks) and British Columbia (8.8 weeks).
The longest waits for consultation with a specialist were recorded in New Brunswick (14.7 weeks), Newfoundland and Labrador (13.5 weeks) and Prince Edward Island (12.7 weeks).
The wait time between a specialist consultation and treatment – the second stage of waiting – increased to 9.1 weeks from 9.0 weeks in 2006. The shortest specialist-to-treatment waits were found in Ontario (7.3 weeks), Alberta (8.9 weeks) and Quebec (9.4 weeks), while the longest waits were in Saskatchewan (16.5 weeks), Nova Scotia (13.6 weeks) and Manitoba (12.0 weeks).
The shortest total waits (between referral by a general practitioner and treatment) occurred in medical oncology (4.2 weeks), radiation oncology (5.7 weeks) and elective cardiovascular surgery (8.4 weeks).
Patients endured the longest waits between a GP referral and orthopedic surgery (38.1 weeks), plastic surgery (34.8 weeks) and neurosurgery (27.2 weeks).
Nova Scotia best for CT scans
Patients also experienced significant waiting times for various diagnostic tests across Canada, such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound scans.
The median wait for a CT scan across Canada was 4.8 weeks. British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had the shortest waits for CT scans (4.0 weeks), with Manitoba experiencing the highest wait (8.0 weeks).
The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks. Patients in Ontario experienced the shortest wait for an MRI (7.8 weeks), while Newfoundland and Labrador residents waited the longest (20.0 weeks). 


In New Zealand:

Private hospitals offer help
with waiting lists
by unknown
August 12, 2004 The New Zealand Herald




The Government has been told it can cut waiting lists for heart surgery significantly by using private hospitals more often.
Figures released on Sunday showed 47 patients had been waiting more than the prescribed six months for cardiothoracic surgery at Wellington Hospital.
But the Private Hospitals Association says the waiting lists would not be excessive if the Government relied less on public hospitals.
"The private sector has the capacity to perform extra operations, including cardiac procedures, which the public sector simply does not have," association vice-president Michael Woodhouse said yesterday.
"I cannot see the logic of leaving people on waiting lists for long periods when there is the capacity in the private sector to [do] this surgery."
In September last year, after public pressure, the Capital and Coast District Health Board cut the number of people waiting six months for heart surgery to zero and vowed to keep waiting times down.
But the waiting list has grown steadily again this year. The average delay is now 6.9 months.
"Waiting lists may be a fact of life but the current system regularly creates delays for people who have made plans for surgery and who clinically require the surgery," Mr Woodhouse said.
"The Government must realise that a viable private sector is required in a country our size to support the public sector and that their ideological opposition to using the capacity and capability in the private sector is misplaced."
Wellington Hospital provides heart surgery for Nelson, Marlborough, Hutt Valley, Hawkes Bay, Wairarapa, Wanganui and Manawatu.
Capital and Coast spokeswoman Chris Lowry said on Sunday that the board was doing everything it could to reduce the waiting list. But efforts were being thwarted by a steady stream of acute cases forcing the postponement of less urgent operations.
In May, Wellington Hospital contracted out 16 operations to the private Wakefield Hospital. 

In Australia:


Public patients wait
longer for surgery
by staff writer
June 29, 2005 The Sydney Morning Herald



Patients in the nation's public hospitals are waiting longer to have surgery than they were six years ago, a new report has found.
In Tasmania's public hospitals, the situation is especially bleak, with patients waiting more than 14 months - up to 432 days - to have a total knee replacement, and 393 days for cataract extraction.
The national average for a hip replacement was 134 days and 82 days for cataract extraction.
The government report, The State of Our Public Hospitals, relied on statistics provided by public hospitals for the 2003/04 period.
It showed elective surgery waiting times had worsened since 1999, with just over 15 per cent of patients not being operated on within the clinically-appropriate time.
The report said nationally, admissions for elective surgery within the set timeframe fell by six per cent between 1998/99 and 2003/04.
"This means that you were less likely to be seen within the recommended time in 2003/04 than you were six years ago," the report said.
It said many people mistakenly thought the term "elective surgery" meant choosing to undergo a non-essential or optional surgical procedure.
"Much of the elective surgery undertaken in Australia's hospitals is urgent and critical, such as coronary bypass operations and hip replacements, which are clearly necessary and often fundamental for a person's wellbeing," it said.
Chair of the Australian Medical Association Federal Council, Dana Wainwright, said the jump in elective surgery wait times was a major worry.
"Our public hospitals are in serious trouble, they're slowly deteriorating and we are very concerned," Dr Wainwright said.
"The hospitals are overloaded and under-bedded and unless somebody moves to fix the problem now, we'll end up with a two-tiered system: public and private."
The data also revealed just over 30 per cent of emergency patients in Australia's public hospitals did not receive treatment within the recommended time over the 12-month period.
South Australia fared worst, where 55 per cent of emergency patients were not seen within the recommended timeframe.
Queensland, the Northern Territory, Tasmania and NSW were also below the national average of 69 per cent, while Victoria and Western Australia had the best record for seeing emergency patients within the prescribed time.
Australian Healthcare Association executive director Prue Power, whose organisation represents public hospitals, said faced with a growing number of admissions and workforce shortages, the public sector was struggling to cope.
"The pressure on public hospitals can't continue if we are going to maintain a high-quality of care and a satisfied workforce," Ms Power said.
"There are problems in the system - partly to do with a lack of funding and a lack of transparency in funding, a stretched workforce and a lack of real collaboration between the public and private sectors."
Health Minister Tony Abbott said the government was taking pressure off the public health system through private health incentives. 















_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81311 - 12/21/10 02:37 PM Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: ]
Basquelady Offline
Member

Registered: 12/21/10
Posts: 4
Looks like another Fox news propaganda puppet. You have no compassion for the people who have with Pre Existing Conditions. Do think Jesus would only save rich and healthy. You say your a nurse where is the compassion for the poor and lame.
LA Girl has it right.

Top
#81320 - 12/21/10 05:16 PM Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
Originally Posted By: ihatebodyhair
LAgirl, it seems we will never see eye to eye in the same way you and Dee didn't.

Since a person in my household works at a very high level for a national insurance brokerage firm they know more then anyone regarding private vs. government healthcare. It is a frequently discussed subject here. Since you like people to have "credentials", rest assured that they do.

I can tell you this, many of your points are flawed and you do not understand what you are talking about. You were fed Democratic propoganda - plain and simple - and believe what you were told. I could counter every one of your points, then you can counter every one of mine. I'm sure both of us have more important matters to attend to than arguing about something here because in the end, it is not important. Neither you nor I have any control in what will happen in health care, but rather the US as a whole. And of that whole, the majority want Obama's health care law repealed and do not want government healthcare.


Being in the insurance industry doesn't provide credentials to judge this issue in an unbiased manner. Conversely, it provides a motive to back the option that is beneficial to the insurance industry and their job. I don't blame them for sticking up for their interests. However, their interests do not align with the majority of this country who doesn't work for an insurance company and doesn't have a stake in whether they make money or stay in business.

I don't "believe" anything. Belief is for people who can't analyze facts. I take facts and come up with my own conclusions. If my reasoning was flawed, you'd be able to show how. Instead you basically said "you're wrong because someone biased lives in my household". That doesn't show or prove any of my points are illogical or don't make sense. Everything I said is basic common sense.

If someone you knew got cancer, was thrown off their insurance policy, and had to cash out their 401k and sell their house to pay for treatments in order to stay alive, you may have a different opinion.

p.s. Neither of you seem to undestand what "propoganda" means. No one would benefit from a government healthcare system except for the people. A beneficiary is necessary for something to be "propoganda". "Propoganda" is for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical companies trying to convince gullible people that it is in the people's best interests for these companies to complete on who gets to spend less on people's health.

Top
#81321 - 12/21/10 05:37 PM Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: LAgirl]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
Dee, all I can say is that if you had any confidence in anything you were saying, you wouldn't have the need to resort to belittling and baseless namecalling. You're acting like an immature kid in middle school who yells and screams and calls everyone names instead of just sticking to the facts.

- Government programs don't have to be inefficient. It's not a given and not something that cannot be set up in a way that isn't. Any government program can be made accountable with rules and laws just like any other organization. The public education system in other countries demands accountability from teachers and schools, which is why it's so much better than the US. Just because something is paid by the government doesn't have to mean it's inefficient. It's all about how you set up the system to operate. There is no reason competition and accountability couldn't be built into the model.

- If you're familiar with Google Finance, then surely you're able to look up profits of the major insurance and pharmaceudical companies. If they were 4%, no one would invest in their stocks. Insurance companies are, in fact, making their record profits: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HealthCare/health-insurers-post-record-profits/story?id=9818699

- Obama's healthcare changes prevent insurance companies from throwing people off when they get a deadly medical condition. That's something. But let's discuss what you think of this if/when you or your loved one gets cancer or another deadly disease. It's always a lot easier to speak in abstract terms when the current flawed system doesn't impact you personally just yet.

- If members of Congress didn't enjoy a tax-payer-funded healthcare themselves and weren't getting shmoozed by insurance and pharmaceudical lobbiests, the problem of insurance companies being run as for-profit entities at the expense of people's health would be resolved a lot quicker.

Anyway, I have other countries to visit and things to see over the holidays (you know, the type of stuff that makes you experience things outside your box). This will have to be continued in the new year.

Top
#81516 - 01/02/11 06:27 AM Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: LAgirl]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
Ding! Happy New Year!

-Your link to ABC News is bogus statistical wizardry. It's more propaganda filled with magical fulminations, stretched and contorted to mean whatever looks good for the opposing side's government takeover of health care. This is what ABC "News" does well - it is the propaganda arm of this administration. The numbers come from an ultra liberal organization comprised of 1,000 ultra liberal donors, including unions, acorn chapters, and so on (list of donors is on the website) and you expect to convince others that you are not biased or unfair? You slipped up or else you rushed your post.

-If you have been reduced to basing your argument, with reliance on ABC "News", The Daily Kos, Paul Krugman and The New York Times, then you need to find sources with much better facts. Let me help you a bit. Credible statistics on health care are readily available from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

-Insurance profits have varied between 2% - 8% over the years. And, why should they not make a profit? These are not gouging numbers. When we buy food, the food corporations make a profit. When we buy clothes, the manufacturers and business connected to them, make a profit. When we buy shelter, the real estate agent makes a profit and in turn, the local government collects property taxes. When we buy a car, used or pre-owned, that company makes a profit. These are things we need, food clothing and shelter and most probably a car. These are needs, just like health care, so why is health care any different? Obama needed a scapegoat and health insurance corporations are the lucky winners and you are robotically falling in line with fake facts.

-I couldn't keep a straight face when you said, "Government programs don't have to be inefficient. It's not a given and not something that cannot be set up in a way that isn't." The French word "naive" comes to mind. Can you list some federal programs that are efficient, with minimal fraud, corruption or waste? Same will happen with government controlled health care (socialism). We already have seen the furure with Medicare and Medicaid, Veterens Adminisstration, DMV, post office, katrina to name a few. We are told that HR3590 with all it's 2,200 pages that congress people admitted to not reading before passing, will bring health care coverage to 30 million more people and reduce costs. More bunk. Reducing costs means rationing the care. Who decides this? This new health care bill is so full of holes that congress had to pass it quickly so Americans could not possibly have the opportunity to ask the hard questions that they the congress and the president could not answer with a straight face. Passing it quick like a bunny was their only chance for passage, so how good can it be?

-Somebody asked what would Jesus do. I am not a theologian, but I feel pretty sure that he would be against trickery with numbers. He would not approve of the stern command and control techniques that are being used to run the health insurance industry. He would not want free choice to be minimized by maximizing brute force ---- forcing people to buy certain kinds of politically designed insurance, forcing insurers to cover services many consumers do not want to pay for and forcing insurers to curb premiums even as medical costs go up. The concepts of competition and free markets with limited government would settle this better than the so-called educated liberal elitists who are full of good intentions, but somehow always miss the mark for achieving a good outcome where unintended things result that make people's lives harder and more expensive in the end. Jesus would probably say in conclusion, "Blessed are the children, for they shall inherit the national debt".

Hey, James, I just noticed that this thread was split away from "Plucking by the Electrologist" and re-titled somewhat appropriately. Next time I talk to you, remind me to tell you about my whirlwind trip to Dublin and London last week.




_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81643 - 01/05/11 11:14 PM Re: Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
- ABC News and dozens of other independent organizations didn't create anything out of thin air. They posted actual numbers. The only thing you can contradict them with are conflicting actual numbers. You don't post any, so I'm assuming you don't have them. Ranting that dozens of established organizations are all lying is not a fact that you can debate with. Post links to numbers from credible sources.

- I already provided you with examples of efficiently run gov't organizations above - see my comment about the education system in other countries where student education levels are miles ahead of the US (South Korea, Finland, Japan, etc).

Top
#81648 - 01/06/11 03:46 AM Re: Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: LAgirl]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
Just because established institutions like ABC "News" have been in existence for years, does not mean it can't spew propaganda that jacks up a political party they identify with. If you read the piece, you would have seen that even ABC reports that the health insurance companies fall below what average business profits are. ABC quoted 5.7% profit as a whole. This story is clearly one more reflection of the shameful deceit and descent of what ABC News want the masses to believe, as opposed to getting down on the real problems of how to get affordable, accessible health care for all American citizens. Government control over anything is always an unmitigated disaster.

Here are some real numbers with real sources listed. Be careful, viewing this link could cause hormonal imbalance on a scale that causes massive insane hair growth.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/


Do you understand what the word 'TRILLION' means? Why are you comparing our economy and a 310,000,000 U.S. population with countries like South Korea, Finland and Japan? You are trying to compare apples to oranges which shows you are in total denial about this national debt. I'm very cranky because my instincts tell me this is going to end be very bad. Going bankrupt is a national defense issue and it uplifts and helps no one whether they are in the "R" camp or the "D" camp. In the end, health care profits account for very little in the big scheme, just like food profits, clothing profits and shelter profits, so conserve your energy.
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81653 - 01/06/11 03:40 PM Re: Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
- Do you understand how insurance companies make a profit? Do you understand what being a publicly traded company means? Have you ever purchased a stock? Do you understand what the goal of any publicly traded business is? --> To make as much profit as possible. Do you know what profit is? Money they take in minus expenses. Our system is set up in a way that encourages insurance companies to get out of spending on your health as much as possible so they can make the most money (that's the only way they make money, i.e. denying claims or dropping expensive members). If you don't see how this is a fundamental problem that doesn't result in providing the best healthcare to the population, you are not actually thinking.

- The 5.7% number is not talking about profits. It's talking about spending. Are you actually reading? Have you taken an accounting course?

- You still haven't provided any contradicting numbers. Baseless rants aren't facts. The profit numbers from the article come straight from the insurance companies financial statements that they have to disclose to shareholders. They're available to everyone publicly. I have a feeling you've never purchased a stock and don't really understand how the stock market works (or the economy in general since this is a huge part of it).

- Japan's population is not that different, especially considering the fact that they have almost 4 times the density (i.e. our area is much bigger, but they have almost 4 times more people living per square kilometer). You've probably never tried to get into a subway in Tokyo, I have.
Do some research first. Either way, a good model is a good model. If it works, it works, regardless of the size.

- Healthcare is not the spending that resulted in our debt. Wars, defense, and lack of regulation for the banks did. That's what you need to be focusing on if you're so worried about it. Did you worry about our debt when you were pro-war? What about when you scream for lack of regulations for corporations (like the banks that got us into a lot of this mess)?

Top
#81655 - 01/06/11 05:35 PM Re: Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: LAgirl]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
-I never stated my position on being pro-war or anti-war. I never stated my position about lack of regulations (or over-regulating) for corporations. So, how do you know what is in my heart? You are profiling me again like only a well-indoctrinated highly educated liberal elitist does best.

-I actually appreciate all the good products and services corporations bring to mankind, but do count me in as among the first to strongly condemn any business that oversteps,deceives or cooks the books. My hate and disdain for such institutions runs deep. Did you see "Inside Job" yet? That's what I'm talking about, but in this documentary, we are talking about banks, wall street and government -all cozy buddies in crime. I don't think you have any idea of what many well-run corporations do with their profits, let alone for mankind. What did they "teach" you at UC Berkeley?

-Go to www.usdebtclock.org and tell me again that healthcare has not been a major contributer to our national debt. Cost of wars, Social Security, interest on the debt falls behind the spending levels of government run health care, Medicare and Medicaid. They are all listed under largest budget items section. I'm trying so hard to keep a straight face when you declare such things smirk .
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81657 - 01/06/11 08:15 PM Re: Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
- What corporations do with their profits is irrelevant. Are you even following the discussion or you're too busy coming up with baseless insults? We're talking about the fact that insurance companies profits come as a direct result of NOT paying for medical services. This is a fundamental problem with the way our system is set up. Why should any company profit from not providing the best thing possible for people? You are ignoring the basic premise of this entire discussion.

- Are you proposing to get rid of Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security? I'm guessing you're almost at an age when you are going to be relying on it, if you're not already. If not, you should focus on the wars/national defense spending, which is using up just as much without anything to show for it. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are keeping people alive.

Top
#81661 - 01/07/11 01:38 AM Re: Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: LAgirl]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
Originally Posted By: LAgirl
- What corporations do with their profits is irrelevant........ We're talking about the fact that insurance companies profits come as a direct result of NOT paying for medical services............ Why should any company profit from not providing the best thing possible for people?........



Okay, I just about spewed my vegetable steamed dumpling with no MSG, no preservatives and no trans fats across the room when I read this. So, why is health care any different than food, clothing and shelter? People need food, clothing and shelter,too. Should food corporations, clothing corporations and home/apartment real estate corporations/businesses make profits? Should communication companies make profits? How about transportation services. Profits for them? Just who should and who should not make profits according to you? Since people need food, clothing and shelter, should any profit they make go towards giving those profits back for more or cheaper food, clothing and shelter? Or, should those industries not work for profit?

Originally Posted By: LAgirl
- Are you proposing to get rid of Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security? I'm guessing you're almost at an age when you are going to be relying on it, if you're not already. If not, you should focus on the wars/national defense spending, which is using up just as much without anything to show for it. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid are keeping people alive.


-Let me put it this way, if a for profit business was run the way Medicare and Medicaid have been run for 50 of the 65 years it has been around, then, that for profit business would have been long gone by now and a new model, a new brand, would have replaced it that could show accountability and sustainability. That is how free markets and competition settle things and that is better for the consumer patient side of things.

-I'm not holding my breath thinking I will receive what I have paid into Social Security during all my work years and you shouldn't either. Better psychologically prepare yourself. It is grossly underfunded. We are broke and the promises are fake promises. The money isn't really there. Refer to www.usdebtclock.org . Check out state debt top left hand corner. According to this clock, your state, New York, is really, really broke. The state you resided in last is really, really, really, REALLY broke. My state, Ohio, is just really broke.


_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81670 - 01/07/11 05:14 PM Re: Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
- You seem to lack the basic understanding of economics and how different businesses operate and make money. Healthcare is not food. You pay for food yourself. Insurance companies are the ones paying for your healthcare. All companies make money when they spend less than they take in. Companies that sell food, clothing, and other goods make money when they spend smart and sell a lot of product at a premium. Insurance companies make money when they sell policies to people and then spend as little as possible when those people want to get medical treatment. They don't make money by spending money on your healthcare. And if they spent everyone's premiums every year, they wouldn't make any money. Their goal is to charge as much for premiums as possible and spend as little as possible on your healthcare (i.e. having members who pay premiums, but don't use much healthcare and drop people who are too expensive to keep). A 10-year-old can grasp this basic difference. Healthcare is not clothing or food because we have insurance companies. I already tried to explain this basic concept to you a few pages ago: if people were purchasing all healthcare directly from healthcare providers, then the economics would be similar. But with insurance companies being the middleman, it's not.

- The Social Security you'll be getting will be money that I am paying, not you. The money that you've paid has already been paid out to others before you. I'm the one who should be worried, not you.

- Either way, you are missing the point, again. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid have been around for dozens of years now during times of prosperity and some of the best economic times. That's not what caused the issues you're referring to. The war spending did (do you realize how many gov't contracts for this are being given out to private corporations with stock ties to Republican gov't members? Since you're basing a lot of your knowledge on movies, I hope they addressed this) along with the other issues I mentioned. Those are the new ones that got us into this mess.

- Once again, a gov't organization doesn't have to be inefficient. A gov't organization can be built on a model that involves competition too. Competition is not exclusive to private corporations. Teachers in schools who are turning out kids with higher test scores could be getting higher salaries, for example. Labor unions are the ones who don't want this and other similar competition in such gov't organizations. Since you like movies, go see Waiting for Superman or just read what Michelle Rhee tried to do in DC and how she was prevented from doing it.

Top
#81672 - 01/07/11 07:30 PM Re: Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: LAgirl]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
You seem to lack basic understanding of economics and how different health care companies work to not run into deficits and thus fall over a cliff, like our brilliant, big, bloated government does, despite the fact, that government run insurance (Medicare and Medicaid) turns down more claims than the private industry insurance companies do.

You and our beloved politicians love to show sympathy and deep concern for the consumer/patient by insisting that health insurance companies have to include certain unfunded benefit mandates. Mandates FORCE a business to offer things without offering them financial help to enforce those mandates. Mandates severely limit the free markets ability to develop and offer inexpensive plans that are tailored to individual buyers' needs. State governments continue to meddle and demand benefit mandate laws, telling health care insurers that they must pay for or offer specific treatments whether they like it or not.


Thirty years ago, there were only about five mandate laws per state. Today, there on average about 40 mandates per state. The list of mandates I just found is long, but not by no means complete. They include - massage therapy, hearing aids, hormone replacement therapy, breast reductions, hair prosthesis, acupuncture,chiropractor visits, dieticians, contraceptives, drug abuse and alcohol abuse treatment, athletic trainer, marriage therapy, morbid obesity treatment, pastoral services, smoking sensation, speech therapy, varicose vein removal, port-wine stain elimination, in-vitro fertilization.............and on and on and on...........

These mandates are FORCED upon health care companies and alas, these mandates, full of good intentions, cause the insurance premiums to rise. The obvious result is costs are driven up for everybody, due to government meddling with private run companies that have to balance the budget somehow. Because the government seems to think they don't have to have healthy balance sheets, they just keep running deficits and raising taxes for their flippant failures.

Because of government interference, a healthy 24 year old can't get a catastrophic only policiy with low premiums, so they become one of the invincibles that simply don't contribute to the insurance pool because they are priced out of the market, thus driving costs up further. So, when the 24 year breaks her leg skating, she has no insurance, but she still gets treatment, thus driving the cost up for those who have insurance that pay for her hospital bills by paying higher premiums. Good deal for her, bad deal for the the ones dutifully paying premiums. Government mandates cause costs to go up > then, insurance companies have to charge more > then insurance companies are evil and greedy > then government comes to our rescue to save us from a problem they caused?! Vicious.

Read up on Oregon and Massachusetts reform efforts. The price tags and access to care have been sobering. Illinois under Blago attempted to take a look at government run health care and it was voted down. There was not one vote in favor because of the price tag. In Wisconsin, again, government run health care voted down - too expensive. Connecticut? Price tag - cringe time there, too. Schwarzenegger, gone, but he, too, saw the price tag shock of government run health care and thus, there is no universal health care there either. You ask WHY???? Mandates and high taxes. Also, when the people that benefit from services do not directly pay for the services and the services are easily available, costs spiral out of control.

If people want one-size-fits-all health care, then politicians need to be very honest and talk about the doubling of taxes, being forced to pay higher premiums, long waiting times and lists, rationed care, and limited access to the newest and best cutting-edge medicine and surgeries that are readily availbale today.

I trust the free market and the spirit of competition to bring more to many. No doubt, the cost of care goes down within the structures of a free market. Government needs to butt out because they are by nature very inefficient, burdensome and clumsy. There is proof in what I am saying. I just gave you the mandate example that even a ten year old can understand.
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81677 - 01/07/11 09:54 PM Re: Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
- You're again missing the point. The current system sucks. We shouldn't have insurance companies controlling healthcare of the population. We should have a system where the incentive is to provide the best care at the best price. That's not what we currently have. Gov't incentives or anything else aren't going to fix the fundamental problem with the current system.

- We already addressed the whole Medicare/Medicaid issue. Those supposed denials have a reason. Medicare/Medicaid doesn't drop people as they don't need to make a profit. Insurance company numbers adjusted for dropped customers would be way higher.

- You still haven't answered: should we get rid of Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security? If the answer is NO, then you need to stop bringing it up. It refutes your point.

- The gov't doesn't "think" anything. It's not an entity that thinks or has a profit-making goal in mind. The gov't role only has one concern by definition: working for the good of the people. You don't seem to understand that the only negatives that come from any gov't operations are caused by the same corporations you're defending because they're the ones who are using lobbiests to get gov't members to do what they want. The gov't itself doesn't "want" to do anything. There are special interests, who are those same corporations you defend, who pressure the gov't to do things that are in their best financial interests.

- You don't know what you're talking about. A healthy 24-year-old has no problems getting any policy they want because they're young and healthy. Those are exactly the type of members insurance companies love. I've bought those policies when I was 24 and so have my friends. 24-year-olds are the healthiest ones out there. They're not the ones driving anything up. It's the older people who have pre-existing conditions and can't get an insurance company to offer them an affordable plan because they're simply too expensive to keep on any plan. Plus, you lack logic in your entire statement. Insurance companies don't pay for anyone who's not insured. Hospitals who give them free treatment do.

- What is expensive? How much is that? You don't know what you're talking about again. Healthcare in the US is most expensive in the world. If anything you say was true, it would be cheapest. Healthcare is just like any other commodity that is too expensive and impractical for individuals to pay for out of pocket, like roads. Those other commodities are gov't-managed for that reason. No one ever addresses getting rid of insurance companies altogether. Right now, we have a system where individuals mostly have no idea what anything costs, so expense is irrelevant to them due to existence of insurance companies. No competition for healthcare prices can be possible under these conditions. The supposed competition that you say supposedly drives healthcare prices down doesn't exist in this country. That's why we have the most expensive care in the world.

Top
#81682 - 01/08/11 04:52 AM Re: Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: LAgirl]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
I heard some journalist say, "If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it is free."

Okay. Point by point again:



Originally Posted By: LAgirl
- You're again missing the point. The current system sucks. We shouldn't have insurance companies controlling healthcare of the population. We should have a system where the incentive is to provide the best care at the best price. That's not what we currently have. Gov't incentives or anything else aren't going to fix the fundamental problem with the current system.


I am not missing the point, I have been outlining to you in first grade language, that I don't agree with your utopian liberal views. Government interference, along with their lack of accountability is the problem. Unfunded mandates are the problem. The proponents of government run health care seem to think that the Tooth Fairy, aka The American Taxpayer, will keep coming up with a magical supply of money. A free market approach that incentivizes and rewards human behavior, along with, perhaps, very little government influence. That is our best hope for sustainabilty. In fact, the NHS in Britain, UK is NOW talking about looking into starting some privatization measures to save the NHS as the systems finances are spiraling out of control. The PC Trusts, 151 of them, are being eliminated by 2013 and the GP's will now have the final say over who gets what/when. This is a role that they are not wanting for obvious reasons, but, alas, they are being forced to do this by the "system".

The Canadian Health System have mentioned the "P" word as well, meaning "p" as in privatization, to control costs.
We have Canadians coming across the border for cancer drugs that American pharmaceutical companies have invented over an average period of 10-15 years at a cost of 1.3 BILLION dollars. These cancer drugs show great promise. The best hope for survival can't be had if the drug is deemed too expensive and thus, is not approved in the Canadian formularies. Hip replacement surgery, mitral valve surgery are done here in the US, without the typical 18 month wait time in Canada. Canadian quadruplets were born in Montana because there were not enough neonatal intensive-care beds for all four babies in Calgary. The US health care system does not suck (your word) 80% are very satisfied with the system when they are sick and need the best. Yes, the sick are served at great cost and quality. Yes, it is very expensive here, but there are enough MRI machines, CT scanners, and researchers, well-trained doctor/specialists and high tech innovative news breaking approaches in regard to disease and injury. The expensive job of inventing medical devices and medications are done here. So, what price do you put on curing someone with lymphoma, leukemia, breast cancer, prostate cancer?

The working poor and the non-working poor get treated, but more so, as the government keeps dictating what doctors and hospitals will get paid for Medicare and Medicaid services, more doctors are refusing to take care of these government insured patients. So, in the meantime, emergency departments are filling up and the wait times are miserable. All this is government initiated and the poor and elderly suffer the most because of governing by good intentions. The government run health care programs keep racking up costs, so they institute price controls by cutting reimbursements to doctors and hospitals and they ration care by denying claims. Eventually, doctors refuse to see government dependent patients. I could pull out more examples of the pitfalls of government interference, but I will stop for now. The list of examples is very long.


Originally Posted By: LAgirl
- We already addressed the whole Medicare/Medicaid issue. Those supposed denials have a reason. Medicare/Medicaid doesn't drop people as they don't need to make a profit. Insurance company numbers adjusted for dropped customers would be way higher.


In reality, the denials are disguised price controls measures. Price controls always raise prices. The socialist government plans ration care with denials as well. Private companies do this as well, but not as much as government run plans. So, where does the patient/consumer go? The patient shows up in the emergency department where federal law mandates that they must be treated. Government insurance, which they are already enrolled in, rejected them, so now the costs are passed onto the private sector and we pay higher premiums to cover the cost. Hospitals lose money , go out of business, or they just pass it on disguised as the $100 aspirin. Somebody has to pay for the doctor, nurse, I.V.'s, catheters, latex gloves, paper products, janitorial care,electricity and medications that were consumed by the patient. Seriously, tell me you don't know this.

Originally Posted By: LAgirl
- You still haven't answered: should we get rid of Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security? If the answer is NO, then you need to stop bringing it up. It refutes your point.


If we:

Had portability and did not have health insurance tied to a job
Change the tax code
Reduce costly government mandates
Made it possible for people to purchase insurance across
state lines
Increase the limits for contributing to tax-free health
savings accounts and let that money roll over each year
to accrue so people could directly pay for non-catastrophic
health care costs
Increase clinics that are located in retail places such as Target, Wal-Mart, CVS, Walgreens so there is cheap, 24/7 care available for all
Insist on TORT reform so physicians wouldn't have to practice defensive medicine by ordering too many expensive tests to cover their azzes against lawsuits
Provide vouchers for the working poor and the chronically uninsured and put them in high risk pools and fund those pools

.....THEN we could possibly phase out or limit the need for these big government financial failures called Medicare and Medicaid, that are eventually going to go bust anyway. Social Security should not be an issue for anyone above the age of 40, they will get their money, as promised. But, serious steps should be taken to protect the younger workers from paying for this cruel Ponzi scheme tax which will collapse as well, and won't be there for them. These are not my ideas, but I happen to like these ideas. I have studied information from various think tanks that employ health care economists experts who study these issues as a career choice. How's that for answer?



Originally Posted By: LAgirl
- The gov't doesn't "think" anything. It's not an entity that thinks or has a profit-making goal in mind. The gov't role only has one concern by definition: working for the good of the people. You don't seem to understand that the only negatives that come from any gov't operations are caused by the same corporations you're defending because they're the ones who are using lobbiests to get gov't members to do what they want. The gov't itself doesn't "want" to do anything. There are special interests, who are those same corporations you defend, who pressure the gov't to do things that are in their best financial interests.


The government doesn't have a profit making motive in mind? You think like a child. grin Well, I guess many politicians would never think of listening to the lobbyists and special interest groups to get a bill passed or be bribed with earmarks in exchange for a yes vote on Obamacare. I suppose you think that there are no politicians that want to control people, but rather only help them. You think like a child. And, no politician would ever desire power or money. Amazing how many go into congress with a modest amount of money and come out multi-millionaires. Most are only concerned with getting votes for the next election and will say and do anything for those votes. You think like a child.


Originally Posted By: LAgirl
- You don't know what you're talking about. A healthy 24-year-old has no problems getting any policy they want because they're young and healthy. Those are exactly the type of members insurance companies love. I've bought those policies when I was 24 and so have my friends. 24-year-olds are the healthiest ones out there. They're not the ones driving anything up. It's the older people who have pre-existing conditions and can't get an insurance company to offer them an affordable plan because they're simply too expensive to keep on any plan. Plus, you lack logic in your entire statement. Insurance companies don't pay for anyone who's not insured. Hospitals who give them free treatment do.


The young "invincibles" are choosing in large numbers not to purchase insurance because they are being priced out of the market by mandates and lack of choice to purchase policies that meet their needs as 24 year olds. Check out what's happening in New Jersey and Massachusetts. The younger people pay higher rates than necessary in part to cover the older or chronically ill. They drop their insurance or don't consider buying insurance at all, knowing that they will still get treatment if they break their leg or get injured in a car accident. So, what is the incentive for them to have insurance in the first place?


Originally Posted By: LAgirl
- What is expensive? How much is that? You don't know what you're talking about again. Healthcare in the US is most expensive in the world. If anything you say was true, it would be cheapest. Healthcare is just like any other commodity that is too expensive and impractical for individuals to pay for out of pocket, like roads. Those other commodities are gov't-managed for that reason. No one ever addresses getting rid of insurance companies altogether. Right now, we have a system where individuals mostly have no idea what anything costs, so expense is irrelevant to them due to existence of insurance companies. No competition for healthcare prices can be possible under these conditions. The supposed competition that you say supposedly drives healthcare prices down doesn't exist in this country. That's why we have the most expensive care in the world.



Healthcare is expensive, but quality, availability of medical equipment such as MRI's CT scanners, accessibility and cutting edge cancer drugs and innovations are some of the big items there for us in time of need. We don't have wait times like many single payer systems have in other countries. In fact, many come to America to get the best, right away. Money well spent.

Okay, so we can accept a government takeover by reducing our options, imposing mandates, raising taxes, imposing price controls and rationing, thus distorting the free open market or we can work towards putting doctors, patients and consumers in charge by freeing the health care markets so choices are maximized. Innovations will keep coming as well. People want freedom and choice, especially when it comes to life and death matters. I back freedom - not more government control.

_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81709 - 01/09/11 05:13 AM Re: Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: ]
Basquelady Offline
Member

Registered: 12/21/10
Posts: 4
The Tea Party members and Right wing radio now appear to have blood on their hands. Democratic Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a Federal Judge and a 9 year girl plus 9 others are now victims of right wing rhetoric.
Under your Corperate Health plan would they qualify for health insurance?
Tea Party Queen, Sarah Palin, in a shocking display of violent extremism, targeted Democratic Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords for defeat by putting the Congresswoman in a rifle crosshairs graphic on her SarahPAC website.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was gravely wounded in Tucson today should die, she will be the first political victim of Sarah Palin’s Tea Party.

Top
#81715 - 01/09/11 04:23 PM Re: Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: Basquelady]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
Well said, Basquelady! smirk

From NewsWeek magazine, Eleanor Clift wrote:

"She talked about her struggles as a moderate: "It's held against you if you cross party lines.” Case in point: the first vote she cast in this new Congress as one of some 20 Democrats opposing Nancy Pelosi as minority leader drew a Daily Kos screed titled “My Congresswoman voted against Pelosi, now she’s dead to me.” (After the shooting, Daily Kos removed that post from the site.)"

Full Story here: http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/08/the-gabrielle-giffords-i-know.html

Having a great medical institution with high tech, expensive medical equipment nearby, along with the best medical team saved her life. I'm praying for her and the other victims and their families and I hope you are, too. Please include in your heart-felt prayers all those who are on the fringe and are mentally ill, like the shooter. Psychosis is a terrible disorder, as we all sadly witnessed yesterday.


smirk
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81760 - 01/10/11 10:34 PM Re: Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: ]
LAgirl Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 12/22/04
Posts: 9994
Loc: New York, NY
You are gravely misinformed, Dee. It's interesting to see how Fox News twists facts to make illogical points and then see people like you repeat them.

- People in Europe or Canada are NOT asking their gov't to change to an American system. It's the Americans asking their gov't to change to the European system. If nothing else, that should give you an indication of what people think is best and prefer. The only people "satisfied" with the system are those who haven't experienced not having the care they need yet (you're obviously included in this). Just because something is available doesn't mean that you'll be able to afford it. You're in favor of cancelling Medicare right? Talk to me in 20 years when you'll want it.

- Canadians getting drugs from the US? This is beyond ridiculous. The only drugs Canadians can't get are those that American pharmaceutical companies are not distributing abroad in order to protect their profits at home - because they can and do charge Americans much more for them due to lack of regulation. American drug companies don't want Canadian drug price competition. That was addressed in Obama's healthcare bill as well for that reason. Why should Americans pay much more for drugs? Try going outside of the US and buying the same drugs and you'll see the difference. I have. I had to buy prescription eye drops in South Africa and they cost me $12. Then I had to buy the same ones here in the US and they were $65 AFTER insurance. Is this ok with you?

- Taxes are not Ponzi schemes. They're a necessity to provide you with all those services that you enjoy and don't actually pay for out of pocket. Americans pay less taxes than pretty much all other countries, and you still think it's too much. What is this magic number that you would like to pay and how did you come up with it? We had prosperity at higher tax rates in this country, and we have the worst economic times at some of the lowest taxes rates currently. Your statements don't align with facts. Look around.

- Your problem is that you can't seem to distinguish between "the government" and "government members who take bribes from corporations to do what corporations want". If you actually read what I wrote, you wouldn't state the same BS twenty times over. Any corruption in the gov't is the result of corporations paying gov't members off. It's not the result of the gov't being the "big bad wolf" that you make it out to be. Try to use logic and not first grade "good" and "bad" terms. Everything is a result of something. Gov't's intent by nature is to act on behalf of people. Corporations' intent by nature is to make a profit at the expense of whatever it takes. Any benefit to individuals is a consequence, not the intent.

- How much is "too expensive" for these invincibles you created in your mind? It's the cheapest insurance I've ever paid when I was 24. My current rates through my employer are much higher. Once again, you don't understand what's actually causing insurance rates to rise. And the main thing you don't understand is that insurance rates will ALWAYS RISE because insurance companies need to make a PROFIT. They don't have any incentive to drop their rates. They need to make a profit EVERY QUARTER. Buy a stock. It's a pointless discussion if you don't understand what a stock market is and how it operates and impacts everything else.

- Do you know anyone personally who came to te US from a first world country to get medical treatment? I doubt it. I know plenty of foreigners as I lived in foreign countries and they're all satisfied with their care. In fact, in France, a doctor came to my home when I was sick. Can you get that type of care in the US? You base your "knowledge" of who comes to what country to do things on Fox News propoganda. Those aren't facts. They find rare instances of things, blow them out of proportion, and brainwash people like you who have never actually left the country or know many foreigners themselves to think whatever they want you to think. It's laughable.

- Ok what? Once again, consumers will have zero control over their care or the price of healthcare as long as insurance companies are involved. Current gov't regulation or involvement of any type is irrelevant to this point. Insurance companies' interests are in direct opposition of consumers' interests. You seem to refuse to understand this simple basic concept. Insurance companies could care less about your health. All they care about taking in more money in premiums than they spend on your care.

Top
#81765 - 01/11/11 04:00 AM Re: Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: LAgirl]
Basquelady Offline
Member

Registered: 12/21/10
Posts: 4
Dee Fahey

We're now seeing the sad spectacle of an endless stream of far right wingers
on  trying desperately to deny that their violent political rhetoric has any
real consequences. Yet again, conservatives find themselves arguing
strenuously against observable reality.
For example, if words don't matter, how do they explain the THREE HUNDRED AND NINE BILLION DOLLARS spent on adverting in the US last year? Obviously words do matter. Obviously words can and do move people to action. Obviously their denials are disingenuous, at best.
But in private, some Republican leaders do acknowledge that the poisonous rhetoric that's become a trademark of the GOP, the Tea Party, right wing ;talk radio and FOXNews, together known as the conservative noise machine, bears at least some responsibility for the Tucson massacre.
Nineteen people were shot at a town hall type event held at a local Tucson grocery store, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). Six of the nineteen ;are dead, including respected federal judge John Roll, Giffords aide Gabriel Zimmerman and a nine year old girl, are dead. Giffords, who was shot in the head, is in critical condition and fighting for her life. Doctors say her prognosis is uncertain.
The shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, 22, is in custody and has been charged with multiple murders and attempted murders. Rambling, incoherent YouTube videosand postings to his MySpace page paint a picture of an unattained young man agitated by right wing political rhetoric.
In private, senior Republicans admit that the incendiary right wing violent rhetoric from right wing political leaders and talking heads amplified and disseminated by the right wing noise machine and echo chamber is at least in part responsible for the growing list of right wing domestic political terrorism. From Politico...
Is it about time you and the Tea Party simmer down your retoric your not the only Amercian in this country. My family lost may members from the Right Spanish Fascist party and we see it happing here in Amercia which is sad. My family always loved Amercia thats why we moved here. This is a electrolysis website not a platform for the Tea Party please take your retoric to a polical website and let Amercia live.

Top
#81768 - 01/11/11 05:42 AM Re: Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: ]
Basquelady Offline
Member

Registered: 12/21/10
Posts: 4
(Come on,try to be more positive fo a change?) The attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, 9 year old child is the postive change . For a nurse you appear not to have any compasion for life.

Top
#81776 - 01/11/11 07:52 AM Re: Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: Basquelady]
Deedra Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 08/02/18
Posts: 9712
Loc: United States
I deleted my response to LAgirl. The floor is all yours, basquelady. Please continue as you wish.
_________________________
Dee Fahey RN CT LLC

Licensed by the State Medical Board of Ohio for Cosmetic Therapy/Electrolysis and the State Nursing Board of Ohio

Top
#81810 - 01/12/11 11:52 PM Re: Plucking by Governments and The Medical Industry [Re: Basquelady]
depilacionelectr
Unregistered


Originally Posted By: Basquelady
My family lost may members from the Right Spanish Fascist party and we see it happing here in Amercia which is sad. My family always loved Amercia thats why we moved here. This is a electrolysis website not a platform for the Tea Party please take your retoric to a polical website and let Amercia live.


It is a luck that your family could escape of the tyranny of the dictator, others did not have so much luck. Many children (between them my father, a posthumous son) remained orphans because a shot closed the mouth of his father forever (he did not want to leave his pregnant wife). The only crime committed by my grandfather was to belong to an union and to defend some fundamental rights as the right to express his ideas.

40 years of silence it is a lot of time for any people. The whole world should have right to express his ideas, opinions or thoughts, including Dee or LAgirl, without being afraid to a shot ..... or to a few words of reproach.

My condolences to the citizens American for the death of the victims of the gunfire.

NOTE: That popular phrase said by our monarch:"¿PORQUÉ NO TE CALLAS?". It was an enterteining anecdote, but please Basquelady, not to follow the example.

Top
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >

Moderator:  Andrea 
Sponsored Links
Recent Posts
upper lip scars
by MrsV
Today at 07:36 AM
Looking for a marathon electrologist
by TSTimmi
Yesterday at 10:57 PM
Apilus Electropil... no model name?
by Iluv2zap
Yesterday at 10:06 AM
Understanding How Laser Hair Removal Works
by Deedra
09/24/18 03:35 PM
Best Laser Hair Removal UAE
by osamadcs
09/24/18 07:06 AM
Top Posters
LAgirl 9994
Deedra 9712
James W. Walker VII 8055
Andrea 4158
Michael Bono 3490
Who's Online
0 registered (), 80 Guests and 6 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod