 |
Appalling treatment of mothers-to-be at maternity units | Mail Online
I think it is far too early to make comparisons when it comes to health care. Obama care may well become a single payer system. If it did the British system would be very different to your system. Both may well be single payer, but in name only.
It's a works in progress Tut, and any system can be improved on. If I read the article correctly, it's a lack of trained help that is the main contributor to the problem, driven by administrative decisions no doubt having to do with budgets and costs. A global concern in all the labor intensive industries.
the problem here is costs in medical provision won't be curbed while free enterprise rules the system. Medicine isn't supposed to be about money making, but an MD is a license to print money. Even in systems where there is strong regulation they do well. In my own country they are now saying a surplus of doctors drives costs up, guess we will have to send all those imports home
All I can say is we have two hospitals next door to each other, a for profit hospital and a non profit effort between Baptists and Catholics. My daughter has been in the corporate hospital since Friday, my wife just came home from the non profit hospital yesterday. The medical care is comparable I think, but the total care my wife received is miles above my daughter's care. From the kid that brought her meals to the nurses, techs, coordinators and the sweet girl that cleaned her room everyone was without fail respectful, courteous, professional, outstanding. Not a person that came in her room left without asking if there was anything they could do for her. Five star care, I don't want to screw that up.
Apparently the "Catholic" Supreme Court is waging the war on women according to one obviously bigoted and clueless columnist.
I don't know, what could be easier than not imposing your beliefs on nuns in violation of a very clear first amendment?Quote:
The Catholic Supreme Court’s War on Women - Jamie Stiehm (usnews.com)
Et tu, Justice Sonia Sotomayor? Really, we can't trust you on women's health and human rights? The lady from the Bronx just dropped the ball on American women and girls as surely as she did the sparkling ball at midnight on New Year's Eve in Times Square. Or maybe she's just a good Catholic girl.
The Supreme Court is now best understood as the Extreme Court. One big reason why is that six out of nine Justices are Catholic. Let's be forthright about that. (The other three are Jewish.) Sotomayor, appointed by President Obama, is a Catholic who put her religion ahead of her jurisprudence. What a surprise, but that is no small thing.
In a stay order applying to an appeal by a Colorado nunnery, the Little Sisters of the Poor, Justice Sotomayor undermined the new Affordable Care Act's sensible policy on contraception. She blocked the most simple of rules – lenient rules – that required the Little Sisters to affirm their religious beliefs against making contraception available to its members. They objected to filling out a one-page form. What could be easier than nuns claiming they don't believe in contraception?
Ok little miss bigot, first of all it was just a temporary stay. Second, do you not see the irony in whining about someone allegedly imposing their beliefs on you while demanding others walk in lockstep with you? Not all women want anything to do with your "sisterhood", quite a few are smart enough to be independent and think for themselves. Now, go back in the rat hole you climbed out of and let the nuns exercise their rights. Nuns are women, too, or is that fact to obvious for clueless wenches like you?Quote:
Sotomayor's blow brings us to confront an uncomfortable reality. More than WASPS, Methodists, Jews, Quakers or Baptists, Catholics often try to impose their beliefs on you, me, public discourse and institutions. Especially if "you" are female. This is not true of all Catholics – just look at House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. But right now, the climate is so cold when it comes to defending our settled legal ground that Sotomayor's stay is tantamount to selling out the sisterhood. And sisterhood is not as powerful as it used to be, ladies.
This quote is an example of how many of us view catholics - mean-spirited and not following their teachings.Quote:
Now, go back in the rat hole you climbed out of and let the nuns exercise their rights. Nuns are women, too, or is that fact to obvious for clueless wenches like you?
You are personalising the debate Karma and being equally mean spirited
Nk, I'm not Catholic. But feel free to show me the same kind of bigoted vitriol from the nuns as this wench and then we can talk.
Karma confuses individual opinions for the opinions of a group or organisation. As an athiest he thinks all Christians think alike and can therefore be tarred with the one brush. He is just doing a little God bating
He apparently believes as she does that is ok to bash Catholics and Jews and shut them out of political and public life. Just insert the words blacks or gays in her column for Catholics and Jews and see how the attitude changes all around.
I'll remember that when you go on your anti liberal tirade and play the victim card. I guess everybody hates something or somebody.
Ok, I believe in free speech, not hypocrisy and bigotry. You think it would have been different had she said such things about blacks and gays? Or are you like her think it's fine to bash Catholics and Jews, particularly Catholic women in of all things an ignorant rant about the "sisterhood?" Nuns are women, too, and it’s the ultimate hypocrisy to demand they walk in lockstep while pretending to defend a woman's right to make their own choices but I fully expect that irony to be lost on you.
It's not irony, just a nut expressing themselves. You ignore yours, I ignore mine.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” .” —C.S. Lewis
Right?
Come now, you think the nuns have no complaint either.
They have complaints, and they are having their day in court.
War on women, Democrat style...
Yeah, yeah I know, he's just one guy, after the last guy, and the guy before that...Quote:
War on Women: Massachusetts Democrat Heading to Jail for Choking and Punching Woman Who Refused Sex
Posted by Jammie on Jan 15, 2014 at 1:34 pm
http://www.jammiewf.com/assets/warre...z1-150x150.jpg
Don’t worry, Democrats, he’ll be out of jail in time for the next election cycle.State Representative Carlos Henriquez was sentenced to serve six months in Middlesex County House of Correction today after he was convicted of charges that he choked and punched an Arlington woman he was dating in July 2012.
A Cambridge District Court jury convicted Henriquez on two assault and battery charges, but acquitted Henriquez, a Dorchester Democrat, of a third assault and battery charge, one count of intimidation of a witness, and one count of larceny under $250.Why would he be remorseful for basically getting a wrist slap? Oh, and not that anyone in the media will mention it, but his mother is an Obama appointee.
The victim, Katherine Gonzalves, testified about the events that unfolded on July 8, 2012, and underwent a rigorous cross-examination by Henriquez’s defense attorney, Stephanie Soriano-Mills.
Following the verdict, Judge Michele Hogan expressed concern that Henriquez was not accepting responsibility for the actions the jury convicted him of. Speaking from the bench, she also told him that he should have ended his interactions with Gonzalves early that morning when she told him she was not interested in having intimate relations.
“When a woman tells you she doesn’t want to have sex, she doesn’t want to have sex,’’ Hogan said, adding that she was “very concerned that you’re not remorseful.’’
Meanwhile, the regime talks the talk but still doesn't walk the walk.
Men still make a lot more than women in Obama's White House | The Daily Caller
Then it surely was originated, perpetrated and perpetuated by women
Exposed: the treachery of hairy women - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
I guess a Kermit Gosnell wasn't enough for Philadelphia's Planned Parenthood to make some changes to protect...minors.
Yes it is an ongoing problem with PP, they've been subverting parental authority for decades and more importantly breaking the law in looking the other way when they should be reporting rape. How can any of you support a group that looks the other way when little girls are molested? There's not only your war on women, but a war on our children. This has nothing to do with "choice" or "health care," this is an atrocity.Quote:
The Pro-Life Action League has uncovered some disturbing information in Philadelphia. The Pennsylvania Department of Health posted inspection reports recently, which the Pro-Life Action League then reviewed. What they found was not only despicable and disgusting, but also criminal.On August 29, 2013 Department of Health inspectors conducted an annual registration survey [PDF] of Planned Parenthood's Locust Street Health Center, during which they reviewed the facility's policy related to external reporting to appropriate agencies as related to The Pennsylvania Crimes Code and the Child Protective Service Law.This is, of course, false. And the Pennsylvania Department of Health inspectors found that for six of the girls seen at Planned Parenthood under the age of 16, no one at Planned Parenthood had any documentation proving that they had verified the age of the person who had sexual intercourse with the girls.
The Planned Parenthood Locust Street Health Center's policy, updated December 2012, stated:
Statutory sexual assault (“statutory rape”) is sexual intercourse when one person is under the age of 16 and the other is 4 or more years older. It is a crime, however it is NOT a mandated reportable incident.
But it only gets worse:Of these six girls, two were age 14, and four were age 13.This is an ongoing problem at Planned Parenthood, and it should be shouted from the rooftops until all Americans know that this is the “health care” that our daughters get at Planned Parenthood. Their counselors do not care if someone is a victim of rape or sex trafficking. They do not care if the abortion is coerced. What matters is the dollars that the girl brings in — as long as the money is flowing, Planned Parenthood will look the other.
… Two of the 13-year old girls were known to have had sex before the age of 13. One reported her first sexual intercourse at age 11. Another reported her first sexual intercourse at age 12. It was in their medical records. Even Planned Parenthood's own policy acknowledged that sex with a child under age 13 is always, by definition, rape.
Under Pennsylvania law, a child under 13 cannot give consent. These incidents of child sexual abuse should have been reported by Planned Parenthood employees, but they were not.
Hello again,
Mike Huckabee said that if only women could control their LIBIDO, they wouldn't NEED birth control. Rush Limprod agrees, if they weren't such SLUTS, everything would be cool...
Bwa, ha ha ha ha.
excon
best to thin the herd from the likes of the Huckster early in the process before he pollutes the whole process like he did in 2008 .
not the right way to put it ex that remark only applies to some women
Which ones Clete?
Except you know that's not what he said. He said that's what Democrats believe and it is true, you think women aren't smart enough or capable enough to live without a government nanny, I.e. Julia. That's your war on women.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Mike Huckabee Makes Epic Flip-Flop On Birth Control Coverage?
Quote:
Huckabee signed state legislation in 2005 that required all health insurance plans providing prescription drug coverage to cover contraceptive drugs and devices as well. According to the Arkansas Times, Huckabee's exemption for religious organizations was actually narrower than the exemption in the Affordable Care Act:
But like the original federal regulation proposed by Obama, the Arkansas law did not exempt church-affiliated hospitals and universities. It exempts only "religious employers" that are nonprofit organizations whose primary mission is "the inculcation of religious values," and primarily employ people who share the same religion, a standard few Catholic hospitals meet.
Hello again, Steve:
Yeah, I saw O'Reilly spin it that way, but he said what he said.Quote:
Except you know that's not what he said. He said that's what Democrats believe and it is true,
I DO agree, though, that he said it SOOOO inartfully, ANY interpretation could be made of it.
Beyond that, libs believe women's health care ought to be covered just the same as men's. You DON'T. Your side thinks HER boss should decide what health care she gets.. That's STUPID, MEAN, and VERY VERY much a WAR on WOMEN!!
excon
The only spin is from your side. I got chastised over taking Schmucky out of context and yet this obvious distortion gets off? What the hell? Here's the context:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Attachment 45553
It's unequivocally clear he said this is what Democrats think, so give it up.
" I got chastised over taking Smucky out of context and yet this obvious distortion gets off."
Fair enough comment.
Others may join in of course, but how about you take care of the left-wing distortions and I take care of the right-wing distortions? This would suit our political leanings.
Why did Huckabee sign as governor of Arkansas a law that made contraceptive coverage a part of an insurance policy despite the religion, and now as part of the ACA law he derides it as making woman dependent on government sugar?
Why does the right always run away from their own ideas when it shows up in the lw they vote against? You holler about the presidents poll numbers but ignore the republican poll numbers, wonder why?
I have supplied links to that effect which the right ignores rather than explains. Leads me to believe the right is stalling, BSing, or BOTH.
Explain to me why it takes 3 republicans to rebut the upcoming State of the Union address tomorrow?
What does Huckabee's comments on the difference between how Republicans and Democrats treat women have to with religious exemptions on contraceptive coverage? Nothing, they're separate issues.Quote:
Why did Huckabee sign as governor of Arkansas a law that made contraceptive coverage a part of an insurance policy despite the religion, and now as part of the ACA law he derides it as making woman dependent on government sugar?
And if nothing else it belies the ridiculous idea that Republicans, including the religious right, are anti-contraceptive neanderthals.
People that don't have the money to buy a condom or "The Pill" don't have the financial resources to have and raise a child... and therefore should be abstaining from sex until they do.
You know as well as I do that few can abstain from sex, whether they have money or not. Hell those that take a vow of abstinence have trouble abstaining.
We have huge forums here that illustrate that point.
That's their problem then... not ours to finance.
The point being....they can easily afford the small cost of birth control themselves.
Few of us can ignore the need to breed so investment in prevention of pregnancy is a reasonable alternative for those with no money but a high libido. Better that than the costs to society of the consequences of unprotected breeding by those that can barely afford a pot to piss in.
Good luck with just say NO during a full moon and a willing partner. After a load is dropped is to late for regrets.
You avoided responding to my point that ALL of these people have the money to buy their own birth control... they have it to waste on stupid stuff if they lack the capacity to keep their clothes on. If they can afford to date they can afford the tiny amound birth control would cost. A months worth of condoms cost less than half their monthly cell phone bill even on a basic prepaid service.
The Pill at Walmart cost $9.00 a month which is even less.
What I suggest is reversible sterilization operations for everyone on some form of public assistance....above the age of 12.....male or female FREE at no charge and manditory to collect handouts.. When they can afford to have it reversed...they can afford to support and raise a kid. And they will be off the doll.
Like the rest of the world a growing number of American women are making use of the morning after pill and it's getting cheaper and more available. Speaking of Walmart its those workers who are on the public dole since 7/8 bucks is hardly a living. Not with kids. Lets not limit this too just women as a growing number of men are raising kids without females also, and trying to get better jobs that are not that widely available. Life is tougher than you acknowledge and its not always the fault of workers with no skills.
I will pass over the forced sterilization as being way out there.
No sterilization then they forfeit getting tax dollars... if they can afford to breed.. they can afford to pay for them, themselves.
THose of us who actually have a shred of responsibility... don't have kids we can't afford... because we are smart enough to take the required precautions.
And you have seen the numbers of people dumb as stumps with the "Duh...I had unprotected sex...could I be pregnant?" Seriously... these people should not be allowed to breed if they don't understand that much. Women knew this eons before sex education was put in schools... so what is the excuse other than lower intelligence being bred into certain communities?
There is NOTHING wrong with conditions being attached to handouts... in fact there are almost always strings attached every other time.
We aren't talking hysterectomies and neutering... we are talking reversible procedures that are commonly had by the responsible members of society every day.
Taking a pill every day is obviously too much of a burden for some of these women... but if you could smoke it I'm sure they never forget to do that.
And to be fair with the other gender as well, the idiot guys who are too lazy to put a condom on because it takes a few precious seconds... I guess if you can't last more than a minute or two a few seconds is a long time. They should have vasectomies... if they bothered to pay their child support bills they would learn to keep their zipper up.
Geez smoothy, don't be so hard on those not as blessed with your common sense and brain, or work ethic or experience.
As long as I have to pay higher taxes as a result of their stupidity and laziness... I'm going to be.
You pay more in taxes to subsidize Walmart and GE profits than you do for poor people.
No... I pay far more to people that don't work... have never worked... and don't have the desire to work.
And every dollar I pay in taxes to support their lazy butts is a dollar I don't have to put towards my future retirement... or to spend on something that will support jobs of people who actually get up in the morning.
People at Walmart actually work... unlike the welfare class.
Walmart is meant to be a starter job... meaning a first job to get experience... not to be a career to raise ten kids on because you can't be bothered to use birth control. YOU get work experience and move on to other better paying jobs.... its intented to be entry level....thats what entry level is.
THEY even say as much unless you get into management.
People that spend 10+ years in an entry level job need to revist their lack of ambition and the choices they make in life.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:08 PM. |