ALARM one out of six children....

"Caledonia" wrote in message
oups.com...

Kevysmom wrote:

My friends with severly disabled children are scared for the future
of
thier own children. We all know Bush could have stepped in and saved
Terri, Even on my christian groups, They are very upset with Bush for
not
doing more. He went against the UN and attacked another country, He
could
have went against a judge and saved a severly disabed child(shes
someones
child)From starvation. The cruelest death anyone would have to
endure.

Donna

*Everyone* is someone's child, even the 100+ people executed in Texas
during Gov. Bush's administration. Even people with mental retardation
like Johnny Frank Garrett or Terry Washington.

It is unconstituional to to execute someone who was less than 18 at the time
of the crime or retarded, although it wasn't always unconstitutional.

Jeff
Caledonia

Jeff wrote in message:

It is unconstituional to to execute someone who was less than 18 at
the time
of the crime or retarded, although it wasn't always unconstitutional.

Jeff

You're correct -- the Supreme Court ruling was in 2002. (But wait,
weren't we discussing Bush?)

Caledonia

"Caledonia" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jeff wrote in message:

It is unconstituional to to execute someone who was less than 18 at
the time
of the crime or retarded, although it wasn't always unconstitutional.

Jeff

You're correct -- the Supreme Court ruling was in 2002. (But wait,
weren't we discussing Bush?)

You mean the guy who signed more death warrents than any governor since the
death penalty returned in the 1970s or so?

Yeah, we were.

JEff

Caledonia

We really do need to do something, I couldnt imagine not having
health
insurance, and even with health insurance, if you have a sick kid it
cost
a lot of money! No wonder divorce rates are very high among parents
with
disabled children, You have the stress of caring for a sick child
then all
the bills!

Yes - you need to ORGANIZE! Canada's health care system didn't come
without a fight if you want it you have to DEMAND it - the same wya
those crazy Jesus freaks 'demanded' that the Bushes intervene in her
'murder'. You keep saying 'if only' and 'that should be' but you aren't
screaming about it! If you scream, something will happen.

"Kevysmom" wrote in message
lkaboutparenting.com...
Not to mention the fact that a governor Bush sought to limit end of
life care.

Typical Bush trying to have it both ways. He will pass a law against
pulling the plug with great fanfare to impress his right to life
socially conservative power base and then quietly cut funding for the
electricity to pander to his wealthy financially conservative power
base.

--
00doc




My friends with severly disabled children are scared for the future of
thier own children. We all know Bush could have stepped in and saved
Terri,

There is no lawful manner by which Bush could have done that. The President
is not omnipotent.

Even on my christian groups, They are very upset with Bush for not
doing more.

While I have no problem attacking Bush, they should attack him for involving
government with religion, an incestuous mix.

He went against the UN and attacked another country, He could
have went against a judge and saved a severly disabed child(shes someones
child) From starvation. The cruelest death anyone would have to endure.

I can think of many more cruel deaths. However, good thing her brain was not
working, so she never realized it.

"Caledonia" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jeff wrote in message:

It is unconstituional to to execute someone who was less than 18 at
the time
of the crime or retarded, although it wasn't always unconstitutional.

Jeff

You're correct -- the Supreme Court ruling was in 2002. (But wait,
weren't we discussing Bush?)

IIRC, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the death penalty applied to
under 18 is unconstitutional. Suffice it to say that the Bush Brothers were
hell bent on executions several years ago.

Medina Wilson wrote:
We really do need to do something, I couldnt imagine not
having
health insurance, and even with health insurance, if you
have a sick
kid it cost a lot of money! No wonder divorce rates are
very high
among parents with disabled children, You have the stress
of caring
for a sick child then all the bills!

Yes - you need to ORGANIZE! Canada's health care system
didn't come
without a fight if you want it you have to DEMAND it -
the same wya
those crazy Jesus freaks 'demanded' that the Bushes
intervene in her
'murder'. You keep saying 'if only' and 'that should be'
but you
aren't screaming about it! If you scream, something will
happen.

Just be careful - you may get what they got.

The problem with advocating for a single payor universal
coverage model is that 40 million people benefit to the
detriment of 240 million. This is not likely to happen in a
democracy - especially when you consider who the 40 million
are.

--
00doc

"00doc" wrote in message
...
fight if you want it you have to DEMAND it -

(...)

Just be careful - you may get what they got.

The problem with advocating for a single payor universal coverage model is
that 40 million people benefit to the detriment of 240 million. This is
not likely to happen in a democracy - especially when you consider who the
40 million are.

Consider that 40 / 280 is 1 / 7 or about 15% (yes, the US populaltion is
closer to 280,000,000 than 240,000,000). The US spends like 10% more of its
health care budge on adminstration than Canada does. That 2/3 of the 15% of
the country that is uninsured already. Now, the cost of care for the 15% is
already partly subsidized by the insured or by charity care. And the care
uninsured people get it often fragmented and ineffective.

So, according to my oversimplified analysis, the cost savings by not having
to subsidize uninsured people, in administration of the program, and
increased effectiveness, getting a single payer system will pay for itself.

We also have to increase the efficency of adminstration. Let's a 2 year old
kid comes into emergency department because he has diarrhea. How much does
it cost the hospital to care for the kid? There are not even good hospital
accounting models to answer this question. How can you save money if you are
clueless about the real costs of care?

Jeff

--
00doc

00doc wrote in message:

The problem with advocating for a single payor universal
coverage model is that 40 million people benefit to the
detriment of 240 million. This is not likely to happen in a
democracy - especially when you consider who the 40 million
are.

--
00doc

Hmmm...The 40M uninsured are primarily the people whom you see working
everyday, at the check-out, the service station, the Wal-Mart (from
Kaiser, "as of 2003 over 8 in 10 uninsured came from working
families."). Yes, you're right that people within 200% of the federal
poverty level aren't able to leverage political clout, but they're not
the elderly (covered), or the very very poor (covered).

We already have a single payor universal coverage model for 40M
Americans -- Medicare. The number of uninsured non-elderly is about
equivalent to the number of insured-through-Medicaid/CHIP programs --
so, yes, it would be a big expansion, but not something that's never
happened here before.

Caledonia

Jeff wrote in message:
(snip good points about potential cost-effectiveness of moving toward
single payor)

We also have to increase the efficency of adminstration. Let's a 2
year old
kid comes into emergency department because he has diarrhea. How much
does
it cost the hospital to care for the kid? There are not even good
hospital
accounting models to answer this question. How can you save money if
you are
clueless about the real costs of care?

Jeff

I think there exist some pretty good models already for your
hypothetical case, only they're Dx-driven by facility. Likewise, you
can check out what Medicare would presume would be a length of stay and
'cost' for certain Dx-related groups on line (medicare.gov); many
facilities just modify the Medicare fee schedule slightly to accomodate
their higher/lower costs and older/younger population.

Caledonia