|
Post by valkyrie on Jul 28, 2009 13:08:41 GMT -5
government run health care is better than no health care In my opinion, government run health care leads to no heath care. I lived in England for 3 years, where they have socialized medicine. I knew a man, who needed a hip replacement. He was in his early sixties and still working. He was placed on the waiting list and told it would be 2 years before he could get his surgery. Here in the good ol' USA, SSA law and policy states that the inability to afford medical treatment is equivalent to there being no effective treatment. Having to wait 2 years for a hip replacement is about the same as there being no such thing as a hip replacement. Luckily, the members of this fellow's church collected private donations and paid for the surgery, so he didn't have to wait. Our system of health care isn't perfect, but it sure beats any other system out there. Our elected officials should heed the Hippocratic oath and above all, do no harm. I'm listening for it... not hearing it... Just not hearing that huge outcry from the British and Canadians clamoring to switch to the American private insurance system.
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Jul 28, 2009 13:57:12 GMT -5
government run health care is better than no health care Having to wait 2 years for a hip replacement is about the same as there being no such thing as a hip replacement. Luckily, the members of this fellow's church collected private donations and paid for the surgery, so he didn't have to wait. Our system of health care isn't perfect, but it sure beats any other system out there. Our elected officials should heed the Hippocratic oath and above all, do no harm. Well, that is true especially for those without health care because they would never get the hip replacement. In fact they probably don't even know they need one because they don't ever see a doctor unless it is in the emergency room, so waiting two years is not even in the equation. There are a lot of people out there who forego insurance because it is a loser's bet. You are betting that it will pay off because you get ill. The problem with it being optional is that people who are not employed, i.e. many small business owners, employees, or contractors, and their families, cannot afford the premiums for individual policies. The premiums are determined based on the fact that the people with insurance are sick and need treatment and the insurance companies are designed not to lose money. If they have to pay out $1 they need to take in at least $1.01, otherwise they're in the wrong business. If money is tight you do without. Once you are diagnosed with high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer, etc. it's too late, nobody will insure you. So you stay away hoping that there is nothing wrong with you until you can get insurance. In the meantime you figure that the $100 or $1,000 a month it would cost you for insurance is money in the bank that you can use to pay for the emergency when it occurs. Of course you don't save the money because if you had it in the first place, you'd have paid for insurance. Even going to get a check up when you haven't been in years can be dauntingly expensive. Perhaps if you are truly poor you can get healthcare through medicaid, but if you're working poor or even middle class you do without.
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Jul 28, 2009 17:54:37 GMT -5
Am I missing something- Brits can come here (and anyone else) and pay for it but we can't go there and get it for free or have I messed-up again?
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jul 28, 2009 23:49:45 GMT -5
government run health care is better than no health care In my opinion, government run health care leads to no heath care. I lived in England for 3 years, where they have socialized medicine. I knew a man, who needed a hip replacement. He was in his early sixties and still working. He was placed on the waiting list and told it would be 2 years before he could get his surgery. Here in the good ol' USA, SSA law and policy states that the inability to afford medical treatment is equivalent to there being no effective treatment. Having to wait 2 years for a hip replacement is about the same as there being no such thing as a hip replacement. Luckily, the members of this fellow's church collected private donations and paid for the surgery, so he didn't have to wait. Our system of health care isn't perfect, but it sure beats any other system out there. Our elected officials should heed the Hippocratic oath and above all, do no harm. Let's see: no hip replacement, deterioration of the joint, no ambulation, loss of job, SSDI application, etc. Sound familiar? In England he would have had the surgery before his SSDI app. got to you in ODAR. And you as the taxpayer would have had to pay for it because the claim was just. No insurance is worse than slow insurance. Some truths are self-evident. What boils my blood is these are the same fear tactics that the insurance industry has used to its advantage since the time of FDR. I should know. I've defended them for 29 years. I'm tired of these fact-less fear tactics. It insults my intelligence and the intelligence of all Americans. And fear is not about facts, its about the big lie, like WMD in Iraq. Sure, it sounds good. Socialized medicine doesn't work. Then why do we pay $6500 per person per year more than countries that do have this system? And have 40 million who don't have this flawed system of insurance? The only difference between you and them is that you have a government job. As it Watergate, just follow the money--insurance profits buy alot of lobbyists. You can bet those that don't care about our 40 million without insurance all have health insurance.
|
|
|
Post by carjack on Jul 29, 2009 10:46:39 GMT -5
Why is it that we are taught to share in kindergarten but that lesson is lost the minute we become adults? How about doing what's right for a change? The greed is getting tired. Health care is a human right not a privilege. How many health care company ceo's have been indicted or prosecuted in the last 5 years, not for extending benefits to the uninsured in violation of their corporate by-laws but for stealing. We could fund the system on their bonuses alone. The focus should not be on those with adequate health care but on those without. Insurance is only important because that has evolved, thanks to the industry, to become the only way to obtain health care short of dumping limp bodies in the ER.
|
|
|
Post by counselor95 on Jul 29, 2009 19:44:06 GMT -5
As for the original topic, just to point out that solicitations sent out this year for sitting ALJs to transfer to the NHCs have included a requirement to be in active status.
|
|
|
Post by candor on Jul 29, 2009 20:44:28 GMT -5
REGARDLESS of what is said ... an agency can not arbitrarily and outside the regulatory process "drop" a regulation. They can choose not to enforce it, but it is a regulation that can be chosen again at anytime (w/o notice) to be enforced again. This topic came up under the thread about the government paying bar dues. I think it warrants its own thread. Some new ALJ's seem to think OPM settled the lawsuit by making its active status regulation apply only to "new" ALJ's coming on board after the date of the lawsuit. This is not my impression or that of AALJ. I posted in that thread: "I checked on this issue. OPM requires candidates be active or judicial as they define it and you must be when you accept the position. OPM has dropped its regs requiring ALJ's to maintain that status. OPM is cagely implying you have to, but it never comes out in writing and tells new ALJ's they have to do so. If anyone has a WRITTEN communication from OPM telling them that they have to remain in such status while serving as an ALJ please let me know. I very much want a copy and will see that it is sent to the right people. I have spoken to new ALJ's here, and they had the same impression that somehow only the older ALJ's were Grandfathered in, and new ALJ's were under the new rule. I spoke to several people at AALJ and they say OPM suspended its regulation on this issue and have not set up a double standard. AALJ also says under no circumstance lose your license. Many judges take a voluntary judicial status (which OPM does not think is "active") in order to pay a reduced bar dues bill or to be exempted from CLE. This is OK. You are still subject to dicipline by the bar. " Also, I note in many states "inactive" status is available and only means you can't practice law in that state unless you declare yourself active again and attend CLE, etc. This varies from state to state. In some inactive status is a prelude to no license, after a certain number of years. New ALJ's check your states of licensure carefully. All candidates must be active or judicial as defined by OPM and must be so at the time of your service date (first date on the job as ALJ). Patriot's Fan is trying to get FALJC to ask OPM about this issue. I doubt OPM will reply to any request. If he gets one in writing I would love to have it. Thank you PF.
|
|
|
Post by aljsouth on Jul 30, 2009 8:40:28 GMT -5
REGARDLESS of what is said ... an agency can not arbitrarily and outside the regulatory process "drop" a regulation. They can choose not to enforce it, but it is a regulation that can be chosen again at anytime (w/o notice) to be enforced again. This topic came up under the thread about the government paying bar dues. I think it warrants its own thread. Some new ALJ's seem to think OPM settled the lawsuit by making its active status regulation apply only to "new" ALJ's coming on board after the date of the lawsuit. This is not my impression or that of AALJ. I posted in that thread: "I checked on this issue. OPM requires candidates be active or judicial as they define it and you must be when you accept the position. OPM has dropped its regs requiring ALJ's to maintain that status. OPM is cagely implying you have to, but it never comes out in writing and tells new ALJ's they have to do so. If anyone has a WRITTEN communication from OPM telling them that they have to remain in such status while serving as an ALJ please let me know. I very much want a copy and will see that it is sent to the right people. I have spoken to new ALJ's here, and they had the same impression that somehow only the older ALJ's were Grandfathered in, and new ALJ's were under the new rule. I spoke to several people at AALJ and they say OPM suspended its regulation on this issue and have not set up a double standard. AALJ also says under no circumstance lose your license. Many judges take a voluntary judicial status (which OPM does not think is "active") in order to pay a reduced bar dues bill or to be exempted from CLE. This is OK. You are still subject to dicipline by the bar. " Also, I note in many states "inactive" status is available and only means you can't practice law in that state unless you declare yourself active again and attend CLE, etc. This varies from state to state. In some inactive status is a prelude to no license, after a certain number of years. New ALJ's check your states of licensure carefully. All candidates must be active or judicial as defined by OPM and must be so at the time of your service date (first date on the job as ALJ). Patriot's Fan is trying to get FALJC to ask OPM about this issue. I doubt OPM will reply to any request. If he gets one in writing I would love to have it. Thank you PF. This is why the litigation is still ongoing. In my experience representing state agencies if you are sued about a regulation and you suspend it, it strongly signals that the lawyers defending it have no faith in it. A likely favorable decision on the merits is an element required to obtain a preliminary injunction, by suspending its reg OPM's lawyers showed it thought there was a very real chance it would lose the PI hearing. Personally, I favor a settlement of the whole litigation based on OPM agreeing to abandon this reg. This would be enforceable in future.
|
|