Discussion in 'Parents Off Topic' started by virgo39, Jun 28, 2012.
Sorry Brensdad. I didn't know what the term meant. I edited my post. Please accept my apology.
In your defense I honestly didn't know what that meant either until I just Googled it.
Thank you! Live and learn lol..
I think that "basic" coverage doesn't necessarily include a CGM (or even a pump) for all people with type 1 diabetes - certainly not all adults. Getting a handle on the rapidly increasing spending in healthcare means setting some limits so that everyone can be covered. Everyone understand this concept on a population level, but it obviously feels different and unpopular when it's applied on the individual level.
Healthcare reform also needs to provide coverage for everyone so that the cost can be balanced across the population. Those who are uninsured and underinsured are driving up the cost of healthcare so that everyone is ALREADY paying for their care.
I also work with Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veteran's Health Administration regularly. They aren't the only bureaucrats in the the healthcare system. The "bureaucrats" at your health insurance company already dictate your care. You may have been blessed with excellent employer-based insurance, but not everyone is so lucky. Employer-based programs vary tremendously and most employees aren't given more than a few choices.
This is the post that I was referring to as "scary."
I have no idea how may more there will be. What I do know is that for the last three years all I've heard is what a crisis this is, and how many millions of people are unable to get medical care. Throwing millions more patients into the system with no increase in the availability of services is bound to have some effect.
Believe it or not, conservatives want people to get medical care too. Trusting in the government to make it cheaper or more efficient is something I have trouble with. Maybe that's just a result of the dealings I've had with government agencies. Others may think that the government will be an improvement. I'm certainly open to hear examples of efficient government agencies.
I don't know exactly what impact the addition of millions of people into the system will have, nor does anyone else. This is new ground, and I can only project based on what I've seen. I doubt that pedi endos are a good example, which is why I didn't specifically mention them.
As for cost-effectiveness, the ACA (Affordable Care Act) was promoted as a way to make health care more affordable.
Well, Think Progress has about the same degree of legitimacy with me as Fox News has with many on the left, so I ignored their commentary and went right to the referenced press release. If Tea Party members had any real history of violence or armed insurrection, there might be a couple scary things in there, but the history of the group is pretty non-violent from all that I've seen.
This is the final paragraph of the press release, which I don't find really scary at all:
May all of us fall on our faces before the Heavenly Judge, repent of our sins, and humbly cry out to Him for mercy on our country. And, may godly courageous leaders rise up in His wisdom and power to lead us in displacing the criminal invaders from their seats and restore our constitutional republic.
While I don't especially like the term "criminal invaders", people make strong statements because they feel strongly about this issue. I wouldn't be too scared.
Yep, and certainly not out of line for a board like this. Our CWD need a lifetime of care, and we all know it's expensive. That perspective does factor into my views on this. I know that there are a lot of pluses in the ACA for our kids. I just believe that there are too many unknowns in this program, especially int he long term impact that it will have on the level of care. A one size fits all approach has too much potential for not being able to provide the care that it is designed to provide.
I have no connection to Think Progress, it was given to me in a link to read what had been written. I am using the term "scary" not to imply that I worry for my safety, rather, I find it disturbing to think that there are actually people who think this way and want to inspire others to think the same way. Feel free to substitute the word disturbing for scary.
Well, for the record, I find that paragraph flat out terrifying.
Sooz - lots of interesting characters of all stripes out there. In a previous day and age, they would just have been ignored. The Internet has allowed them all to get way more publicity than they deserve.
Read the rest of my link. Perhaps terrifying is more accurate than scary or disturbing.
True, but we only have to look to WWII to see that groups that spout hate should not be ignored.
No comment on the Health Care, but the issue of media and how it has inflated the relevance of small groups is I think a very serious issue. i hope after another decade or two this will sort itself out, but we have been right in the middle of this explosion of tech and media since the 60's and only in the last ten years have started to get a handle of the plus and minuses, the good and bad of it. :cwds::cwds:ali
Really? Seriously? Not scary?
You write that in Arabic and I'm guessing you will find it scary as all hell.
Something else to consider....
"Ninety five percent of the new drugs coming on the market are developed for sale in the United States. They are paid for by American consumers, while other countries, such as Canada, Germany and France, free ride at our expense. The United States is the last major country that allows the market to set prices high enough to compensate pharmaceutical companies for their R&D investments. Obama Care will increasingly control pharmaceutical prices as costs rise and federal and state funds fall short. Major pharmaceutical advances will stop (How well will government labs work?), and the rest of the world will lose along with Americans."
See link below for complete article:
I don't think you need to apologize to Brensdad for using that term. The media (and even the President) has used that term for quite a while in relation to the Tea Party. Just because it has an alternate vulgar meaning doesn't mean you can't use it in the context you did. I remember when people first started using the term "Gangbanger" to refer to someone in a gang. It also has an alternate meaning. Now it is a commonly used term, in that context.
Just my 2 cents. :cwds:
Of course you don't think so. Hateful name-calling is permissible when it's done by people like Bill Maher against people like Sarah Palin. That vulgar slang has existed for years, and it was revived as a purposeful insult against people who are a part of or are sympathetic to the Tea Party movement.
I accept the poster's explanation that she wasn't familiar with the term and accept her apology. Let's try to stay on-topic now shall we since it's remained civil to this point.
This really concerns me. I've seen the huge improvements in insulins, testing equipment, pumps, and CGMS over the last 30 years. I would hate to either move backwards or not continue to move forwards with innovations. If you're not acquainted with the rigidity NPH and Regular required, be thankful. Diabetes' schedule ruled life rather than being along for the ride like now, and good control was much harder to achieve. Many of us use CGM and find it extremely beneficial, but I would expect it to be the first thing to not be covered. We also read on here about other countries - like New Zealand - not covering pumps or only now moving toward one pump company option at the same time they're concerned only an inaccurate blood meter will be covered. I'm thankful for the R&D that goes on in our country and how it benefits our kids. I'm still annoyed at the $3000 price tag on MySentry, but Medtronic has been leading the field in R&D for years and that doesn't happen without financing.
Separate names with a comma.