It's not as if the Surgeon General was such an important post. The SG's mission is mainly to educate the public and advise the President. No big deal, really. And in fact the past SGs might as well have been invisible. Hell, they were invisible. No use of the position as a bully pulpit to educate the public about good health. Now President Bush has nominated a new Surgeon General to replace the Acting SG who replaced the previous one who did almost nothing his whole tenure except issue a report on the dangers of second hand smoke and shortly thereafter found his appointment not renewed. So who's the new guy? Will he educate the public and the President about good health and bad health? Unlikely. But he clearly has some pretty definite views on Right and Wrong. He's got it Straight, all right.
Meet Dr. James Holsinger, currently Health Director in Kentucky, former Chief Medical Director of the VA and, not incidentally, president of the United Methodist Church's high court, its Judicial Council. He's has a medical doctor and PhD (anatomy) from Duke and, of course, his most important qualification for a health post in the Bush administration, a theologian. Not an amateur one. A real one. He has a master's degree in biblical studies from Asbury Theological Seminary. So he's religious. Very religious. Bible studies. That doesn't mean it will affect his policy views as Surgeon General. The Bush administration wouldn't stand for that:
President Bush's choice for surgeon general likely will face questions about his stands on AIDS, sex education and abortion during the confirmation process, various political and religious activists say.The nominee, Kentucky cardiologist Dr. James Holsinger, serves as president of the United Methodist Church's high court, its Judicial Council, and has made his negative views on homosexuality known for nearly two decades.
In the early 1990s, Holsinger resigned from the denomination's Committee to Study Homosexuality because he believed the committee "would follow liberal lines," according to Time magazine. At the time, he warned that acceptance of homosexuality would drive away millions of churchgoers.
As a member of the Judicial Council, he voted with the majority in 2005 that a Virginia pastor could deny church membership to an openly gay man. (Frank Lockwood, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette religions editor)
Oh, yeah, I forgot about this, the case of the Lesbian pastor in Washington state exonerated by a church panel. The new SG, despite being overruled, is a man of principle:
"Fair process has been accorded Rev. Karen T. Dammann and the result is she is found to be a self-avowed practicing homosexual. The application of the Discipline to the finding of the trial court means Rev. Karen T. Dammann is not in good standing and cannot be appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church," Holsinger and three other Judical Council members said in a dissenting opinion. (another Lockwood piece)
Well, I suppose we should also mention the 1996 Methodist conference, when 15 Bishops issued a statement registering their personal pain against proscriptions against homosexuality. Dr. Holsinger thought they really spoiled the party:
"We believe it is time to break the silence and state where we are on this issue that is hurting and silencing countless faithful Christians," the bishops' statement asserted. At the same time, the 11 active and four retired bishops affirmed their commitment to "continue our responsibility" to the church's order and Book of Discipline.[snip]
The Rev. J. Philip Wogaman, pastor of Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington, told United Methodist News Service he believes the "prophetic" statement of the 15 "will, in the long run, do much good."
Jim Holsinger, Lexington, Ky., said "the careful orchestration" of the conference by the 15 bishops "cast a gray pall across the" conference, "which did not lift, even after its adjournment." (more Lockwood)
At least unlike other Bush appointees, this one won't fall easily to lobbyists:
When surgeon general nominee Dr. James Holsinger was serving on the board of the Confessing Movement of the United Methodist Church, the board issued a statement accusing the "radical homosexual/lesbian lobby" and those who support homosexuality of precipitating "a crisis in the United Methodist Church." (another Lockwood piece)
Maybe Bush's nomination had nothing to do with Holsinger's anti-gay religious views. There is certainly some evidence to indicate other factors were involved:
The doctor and his wife, Barbara, have given more than $21,000 to Republican causes over the past decade, including $4,000 to President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. (Lockwood)
I wouldn't want to judge him hastily.
Comments
Yet another science appointment carefully stocked by the administration to do as much politics, and as little science, as is humanly possible.
Posted by: Eric | May 29, 2007 4:33 PM
Thank you for finding out what I couldn't. I got as far as his educational credentials, but I didn't know he was one of the antagonists who drove logs into his opponents' eyes.
Posted by: N=1 | May 29, 2007 5:18 PM
Wow. You poor poor Americans.
Posted by: Taylor Murphy | May 29, 2007 5:21 PM
Ridiculous. I feel like throwing up.
Posted by: bdf | May 29, 2007 5:29 PM
Perfect choice from President Shrub, not so perfect for the US.
Posted by: Ann | May 29, 2007 6:17 PM
Clearly AIDS research is going to be his top priority.
Posted by: Science Avenger | May 29, 2007 6:39 PM
So folks, you can just sit back and wait for the now just under 17 months until the next election. Relax and enjoy the ride. Regardless of what you think, the guy may not be confirmed. As a centrist Republican I can only say that unfortunately for the Bush Admin, they keep putting idiots with agendas into office. It gives the Dems and the libs ammo with which to shoot and that is their failing. It also confirms what I have said many times here.... the whacko extremists are in charge of two branches of our government. The Pelosi types on the left and people like this on the right. It wont hold. The middle of the road is where it needs to be and the numbers dont lie. In of the latest polls the Congress's numbers are as bad as Bush's. So could you have expected anything more from the Administration? This is a political appointment and whomever presents the center of the road in the next election will win it handily. Yes Revere, it could be a Republican, it also could be Hillary or Obama if they change their stripes. Regardless though, they had better quit screwing around because this time around we have major issues and they are going to come full circle. Iran is the next Iraq and there is a difference between screwed up intel and the head of the IAEA telling the world that they will have the bomb sometime next year. That doesnt include the other hard asset intelligence out there. SG? We havent had an SG since Koop!
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | May 29, 2007 7:30 PM
Randy: I understand (and agree) that the Republicans are in the grips of far right whackos. Now tell me why Nancy Pelosi is a left wing crazy. What has she said that is anywhere near as whacko, or whacko at all, as what we see from Bush and cronies (including your pal, Frist, BTW; remember, he was in charge in the Senate, the doc who can diagnosis brain death on TV; well maybe it's possible. Just look at a Bush presser).
Posted by: revere | May 29, 2007 7:45 PM
Randy thinks Pelosi is far left? Based on what? We far leftests don't recognize her as a fellow traveler.
FYI, Randy, I was a centrist Social Democratic until Bush was elected. That turned me into a crazed leftist.
Posted by: Melanie | May 29, 2007 9:13 PM
It's a lost cause, you all know that, right? Even if this guy isn't confirmed (and he shouldn't be), Bush is not going to give up his habit of appointing connected right-wing ideologues to positions that should be above politics. It's going to turn into a game of chicken like the Iraq funding bill did, and Congress is going to lose because the corrupt chimp in the Oval Office has more-or-less absolute veto power with the current congressional makeup.
Cut to 2008, where the Democratic Party has blown it again in the race for the White House and we're inaugurating President Romney, the do-nothing ex-governor (alleged) of Massachusetts... Right now we've got a hopelessly corrupt President and a Congress that has gone from lap dog to leaderless and ineffectual with the change of party dominance. And these, folks, are the GOOD times. Seems like if you give a damn about your career in any biological fields, it's a good time to move overseas.
Posted by: Brian X | May 29, 2007 11:08 PM
With respect, M. Randolph Kruger, if you think Pelosi and co are extremist left, then you need to get out and see where the rest of the world sits politically. By world standards the US is generally hard right. Only in the US could a centrist like Pelosi get called "extremist" left.
Put it this way, in my country (Australia), hardly a bastion of socialist radicals and in some ways more free market than the US (particularly on agricultural trade), the US Democrats would be considered a centre-right party, and Republicans would probably never get elected. Yet we still have a pretty good life.
So maybe your view is the extremist one, not the rest of us?
Posted by: Ardem | May 30, 2007 1:50 AM
No one sits in the Speaker position in the Democratic Party without having been cobbled together from a mish mash of lefties. As for Romney, I am sure our friends in the NE would have something to say about that. People like me are trying hard to move them back to the center and just to bait Revere a bit, I think we ought to Reaganize them.
Pelosi is from California where its do one thing but make damned sure you say another. This bimbo wanted a fully outfitted B747 so she could fly back and forth from the Western NutHouse with family and friends. She is like Gore whose ecological footprint was the size of daddy's oil company-Occidental Petroleum... maybe you heard of them. So dont jump on Cheney next time until you know a few more things. Pelosi was for the minimum wage, except for the American citizens out in Samoa. Hmmm....
She went to Europe to meet with the Germans about global warming. She took a trip to Greenland and said, "I have seen global warming." Uh huh-sitting on the same spit of land that the Vikings used to farm 1000 years ago ...when it was warmer. How could this be? An agenda for the left. Earth to Pelosi, global warming and climate change has happened frequently and yep, it might get warmer but them core samples dont lie. Its happend many times before.
Carbon footprint. We are told we need to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, but does she cut her use of her SUV's? Nope, just like Al Baby. Remember Al couldnt even get elected in his own state when he ran for president. Tennessee to the rest of the country, Tennessee to the rest of the country...Al is a fraud.
Back to Pelosi. She went to the Middle East and got slam dunked by the press and rightly so. She set womens rights in the region back to the 16th century as she wore a head covering because it was their law. Condi wouldnt have and hasnt. She should have worn it? Neyope! She had diplomatic immunity so whats the deal there. Did I mention how much it cost for her to visit to the taxpayers? The costs are still rolling in and are a whopping 3.3 million bucks. What did Pelosi accomplish except to galvanize the right? Final tally? I am waiting on from the General Accounting Office report. Will advise. I am sure that all the gays would be welcome in Iran as a result of her visit, or oh shit theres the phone.... Its Joe Biden....We gotta stop a war to go to DARFUR!!!!!! Humanitarian and all. Lets see I read where Pelosi is a multimillionaire, same with Al G., Joe B, Cut and Run Murtha (un-indicted at this particular time) and Waxman.
They scream about gas prices and dependence on foreign oil. How come they wont let us drill off the coast of the US? Same thing with refineries. Prices are starting to fall per barrel but the price of gas goes up because there isnt refinery capacity. Now who blocks that folks? Its not the Republicans. Guess what? You could build all new refineries that use the latest technologies and drop emissions from those mothers by about 25%. Hell they WANT to tear them down. Cant do that. I guess that must be because we are such gluttons for energy. I also get it that the Democrats think that making money is a crime (above group is excluded of course-but thats exactly what I said, do one thing and say another). The rhetoric is appalling and basically a lie. The only way they can get into power and stay there is to lie or throw money at someone with a program. UHC they will try to make an issue, but it wont happen. It will bankrupt the country in under three years and thats if they raise the taxes to 40% across the board. Too damned many old people. Should have started that noise during Vietnam... LBJ never saw a program he didnt like-many arent old enough to remember the "Great Society" which was socialism. The people it was supposed to help got worse.
Crap Revere, your guys are as bad as mine. At least they feel they have God on their side. I still say Bird Flu might not be such a bad thing in so many ways. This could reset the oven timer for a lot of problems.
Melanie-FWIW I am just tolerant of GWB. He has kept us safe but at the expense of our rights. But thats okay because we gave it to them. Real nutcases like Sean Penn, Ben Afleck dont get it. They treat this like its an unlawful rabble that we are dealing with. Unlawful yes, but with national implications. Therefore its a war. There are things you never hear or see that I do and that is likely the difference between us. Reasonable people make reasonable decisions if the information is presented. It might be modified by upbringing, life experiences but most Americans are middle of the road. E.g. Gays-I want gays to enjoy all of the rights afforded to them by the states and US. Constitution. On the other hand I dont want them to have a super right either that overrides my rights and others. What the Republicans have dones is to go from the center right to the far right and at the time of the election enough people felt safer than they would with Al Gore. I think they still feel that way. Had it not been for a beam holding on the WTC's the attack by Al Qaeda would have brought the building down.
Same with healthcare. Its not a right and therefore it should be treated as such. You think that it would get better for some, but it would do so at the expense of someone else. How did we get to that in this country? Did I catch a disease from someone 1500 miles away? Why should I pay for it?
Some elected guy says that the money in my pocket belongs to someone else because I am successful and they are not.... only a leftist would come up with that. Oh, here comes the war thing I am sure. Congress is afforded the right to assess taxes for the defense of the country... Havent seen a thing about healthcare for the poor. Its a free market society. Lets keep it that way.
If its implemented it very likely will be ruled unconstitutional and dumped anyway. Those knives are being sharpened now.
So all in all its a fine mess of things. Pelosi is target of her own party because she cant keep them all happy, not even enough for a majority. The next time out she will likely get knocked down and for good reason.
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | May 30, 2007 2:34 AM
dubya is a joke!
Posted by: Larry | May 30, 2007 4:53 AM
Wow, that was quite the rant, Kruger. You've swallowed an awful lot of "talking points", there, apparently without ever tasting what it was you swallowed. Not surprising you're puking a lot of it back up again undigested.
Just to pick on one thing among so many, many misconceptions -- if you think that you do NOT already pay for healthcare for the uninsured in America (but get extremely bad value for money), then you are sadly deluded, or perhaps just ignorant.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/spotlighthealth/2004-05-14-mcbride_x.htm
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=45279
http://www.highlighthealth.com/healthcare/an-inconvenient-financial-truth-healthcare-costs-endanger-us-financial-stability
http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml
I suppose your answer would be to turn away anyone who can't pay up front, and simply let them die...since you don't seem to be able to figure out how that would collapse any semblance of social stability or national productivity, in short order.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | May 30, 2007 6:13 AM
I just can't believe what I hear about U.S. politics is real. Hey, you, Americans -- you're actually smart and decent people, and you're making this shit up just to confuse the rest of the world? Right? It's a joke? Please?
Posted by: Martin R | May 30, 2007 7:11 AM
Howdy Martin,
Obviously, you're not Australian... You wouldn't be asking this rather pertinent question if you physically resided in the (((LOST))) lands of AmericanOz!
Posted by: Jon Singleton | May 30, 2007 7:28 AM
MRK says: "Gays-I want gays to enjoy all of the rights afforded to them by the states and US. Constitution. On the other hand I dont want them to have a super right either that overrides my rights and others."
You've weasel-worded the statements above until one might conclude that you want gays to enjoy the same rights as all American citizens. I don't believe that's true. If I'm wrong you can set me straight.
What's a super right?
Posted by: HatTrick | May 30, 2007 8:05 AM
A super-right Hat is one that say gives an individual the right to say push another from a job because they are ____ and insert the ethnic, religious or of a sexual orientation, or even someone with a disability.
Frequently this is being used to override the rights of others. Smoking is brought up here often and its a bad deal, but it is overt. The act of one affects the right of another. I live in the South where many people are ultra-sensitive to skin color (but it aint as bad as LA I can tell you). Preferential treatment of one in lieu of another often determines who gets hired. Everyone is falling all over themselves to look out for the rights of non citizens (Mexicans) but not the citizens of the US.
As late as two years ago a certain overnight package company was in a lawsuit by a carrier who was ethnicly owned. The cite in the lawsuit was that because of the ethnicity his company was due a percentage of the overnighters business because well, he was Pakistani. The court ruled in the overnighters favor as they kept good records and instead of this one guy getting all of the business for one aspect which was supplemental carriage, that the overnighter provided ample opportunity through ALL of its contracting rather than the one aspect.
Another example is the Americans With Disabilities Act. Often used as a gun against the bigger operations. Company locally that manufactures paper was faced with spending 14 million dollars to pay for a wheelchair access for one employee, the employee sued when they were going to move him to another job to avoid putting the elevators, wheel chair accesses etc. The court ruled in the company's favor because the employee wasnt guaranteed a particular position when hired, only that he would have equal rights to a position.
Marriage in each state is different, there is no provision in most State Constitiutions for civil unions of male/male or woman/woman and for my way of thinking they either need to change it by amendment to allow it or dump it in lieu of the will of the people. The Federal Government doesnt have a provision just yet to define the rights of these people So for right now they are not afforded any rights and that means the laws of the States overrides their rights. The Civil Rights Act of 64 changed it for blacks, The Americans With Disabilities Act for the wheelie types, lost limb veterans, children with ADD etc. Until they come to grips with the issue (not problem) for gays in the US they are in a limbo status.
Jonny knows I am not a gay basher..... Sorry J. if thats the way you took it. Hat that about cover it? The point is simple the whole US Constitution is based upon equal rights for all. Then everyone spends one hell of a lot of time trying to create a super right for themselves in the meantime.
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | May 30, 2007 11:43 AM
Randy, thanks for a refreshingly "factual" view of the big picture. I read, enjoy and respect the views on Revere's site almost daily but I certainly don't always agree. Although centrist, your comments and observations are certainly in the minority on this site...we need more "thoughtful" imput that will promote a little balance.
R. Burt Prater, MD
Posted by: Burt Prater | May 30, 2007 11:49 AM
MRK, I think you are suffering from a bit of Compulsive Centrist Disorder, and a confusion of factual craziness with differences in political opinions. I only see the latter with the lefties. On the right however, we have people denying facts, like those associated with evolution and the age of the earth. There is no one on the left akin to the Ann Coulter's of the right that has any kind of audience at all.
Posted by: Science Avenger | May 30, 2007 12:00 PM
Thanks Burt. I find Revere to be one committed individual to his beliefs and of course me mine. But he is the first to say its a political blog with a large medical tinge. He knows us right wingnuts are out there and he makes some damned fine arguments and quite a few of them I agree with. True lefty patriot that one.
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | May 30, 2007 12:01 PM
I guess that CCD you speak of SA is something you came up with. I have never heard that before. As I always say it to both sides of the evolution/creationist theories - PROVE IT! I personally believe and lean more towards a lack of information evolutionary theory, mainly because the "In the beginning ...." just doesnt have enough data to produce a finding.
As for Coulter SA, I would say her audience is much bigger, and much more committed than yours. Its not a slam but she is making millions each year off of nothing more than an opinion. She is a Reaganite and while I dont agree with some of what she says, I agree with a lot of it.
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | May 30, 2007 12:09 PM
CCD is the creation of Max the Mad Biologist here. It is basically the unwarranted presumption that whatever lies at the middle of the spectrum of opinion has more credibility than the poles, and that somehow holding this opinion gives one intellectual superiority. Iraq and game theory, among many other examples, refute this notion.
The evolution/creation debate is another. On one side you have the overwhelming support of scientists in the relevant fields, and on the other you have people twisting and cherry- picking facts to buttress their religious views. There aren't "two sides", unless one thinks that there are two sides to the issue of germ theory.
I mentined Ann Coulter as evidence that the wackos are not evenly distributed across the political spectrum. The rightwing crazies like her are worse than the leftwing crazies. Some of the lefties hold odd views of the world, no doubt, but they do not with regularity deny facts as she does. Her book "Godless" was described by one scientific reviewer as "wall to wall error" for good reason. Nothing on the left matches that.
And yes, it is a slam that she makes millions and has such a committed following despite consistently entertaining reality-free notions. It is a slam against our society, just like it is a slam against Bush that he keeps appointing these incompetents.
Posted by: Science Avenger | May 30, 2007 6:26 PM
She makes millions because
"A fool and his money are soon parted"
(and I guess we haven't Impeached Bush - or- he got in in the first place because)
"There's a sucker born every minute."
Society is over overdue for Mother Nature and her clue-by-four.
:-/
Posted by: crfullmoon | May 30, 2007 6:47 PM
The biggest problem with "centrist" as I see it is that the people who compulsively promote "centrist" as a value simultaneously seem to have a very poor idea of what it means. It seems like all that you have to do to be a "centrist" is to call yourself one.
We have a great demonstration of this here, with Mr. Kruger who starts out by describing himself as a "centrist" and then hauls off into what seems like every far-right talk-wing-radio party line stereotype one can think of, starting with repeating outright lies about Nancy Pelosi and airplanes and moving on from there. What exactly is "centrist" about what Mr. Kruker says above? Is the fact he is "just tolerant" of GWB rather than liking him outright enough to qualify him as a "centrist"?
It seems to me that "centrist" is more often just a meaningless label people use to whitewash shortcomings in their political stances, than it is an earnestly sought value.
Posted by: Coin | May 30, 2007 8:46 PM
Yes, sort of like the way O'Reilly uses the term "independent" and Fox uses the phrase "fair and balanced". It's part of the bigger societal problem we have of the "it means what I say it means" mentality.
Posted by: Science Avenger | May 30, 2007 11:07 PM
Randy: "Jonny knows I am not a gay basher..... Sorry J. if thats the way you took it. Hat that about cover it? The point is simple the whole US Constitution is based upon equal rights for all. Then everyone spends one hell of a lot of time trying to create a super right for themselves in the meantime."
As an OUT gay male EffectMeasure contributer, you've done the ol' "POSTERBOY" thang on me -- I'm outta the loop vis a vis Hat's comments but, hey of course, get dragged in to make an 'official comment' cos I'm gay.
Randy, I respect you more than you realize! You've been right "in-there" hardworkin' on transgenic H5/7 (etc) public education and prevention since... Well, just like me, you've been 'right-in there' for years and strategically understand the pandemic score like a virology professional -- your military training no doubt!?!
Randy, we understand each other to the point where I can safely say we (((BOTH))) display symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder -- PTSD. But irrespective, we both get on with the job, even whilst naive others bugger around with our efforts cos they just aint got a clue!
Centrelink Receipt Number is: SIMS791113.
Web @ http://www.centrelink.gov.au/
Wed, 30 May 2007, 09:55 PM (Canberra, ACT Australia)
Customer Name: Jon Singleton
Centrelink Service Information: Other : DSP Payments
Customer Reference Number (CRN):
Message Subject: Centrelink Staff, Please Stop
Psychologically Raping Me...
Message Detail: Subject: RE: Question re: DSP payments
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 12:50:32 +0800
From: 'Ric Chaney'
To: 'jon singleton'
Hi, Jon,
Sorry it has taken a whole to get back to you. I have
no clue as to why your payments might have stopped,
but you will have to take it up directly with
CentreLink. Now that you are on DSP, and not required
to provide ongoing medical certificates, I don't have
any input into what becomes a purely administrative
affair.
You may need to present directly to their offices and
talk to someone about it. The whole point of the long
struggle to get you onto DSP was precisely to avoid
this sort of thing happening. I can understand your
frustration.
Let me know what happens,
Cheers,
Ric
From: coffsnet@centrelink.gov.au
To: photoniqueer@yahoo.com
Subject: Your Centrelink Enquiry SIMS 788009 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 14:36:35 +1000
Dear Jon,
Thank you for your email.
I was unable to call you as you did not provide contact details [haha, apart from your primary email address] in your email.
If a customer was requested to make a claim for a foreign pension and failed to do so, the result may be a suspension of payment. Once the customers payment was suspended, the foreign pension claim forms would need to be lodged before the payment could be restored.
I recommend you call a Centrelink Customer Service Adviser to discuss your enquiry on:
13 2717 Disability, Sickness and Carers 8.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Friday
You may prefer to send another email [see Centrelink SIMS791113 above -- Subject: Centrelink Staff, Please Stop Psychologically Raping Me...] including a daytime phone number and a suitable time for us to call you.
Thank you for using Centrelink's internet service [ -- we, bored shit-for-brains homophobes, are working to psychologically rape you into a nervous breakdown and abject poverty].
Regards,
Alexandra@Internet Services
Posted by: Jon Singleton | May 31, 2007 4:20 AM
I have a reply to MRK on some his rather worse misconceptions about the medical system hung in the moderation queue, I think.
MRK, you have a lot of "talking points" but a weird grasp on the facts. The reason my first response got hung in the moderation queue is probably the number of links I wanted to give you...but the point that I picked on was the fact that the US medical system is NOT "free market", you are *already* heavily subsidising the uninsured (and getting extremely bad value for money for it, too), and that huge numbers of honest middle-class full time workers are caught in an untenable situation insurance-wise anyway. Your answer would simply leave people to die...and you seem to have absolutely no grasp of how quickly that would destabilise anything resembling a productive society.
I know that one link will get through, anyway...so start here, and try and understand that real life does not match your ideal and never will, because the more people who die from simple poverty, and the more middle-class people who slip into poverty because of medical misfortune, the more the entire country loses productivity and political stability -- and there you have a good self-interested reason to try to ensure that all citizens have a basic standard of care that they can live with. Not to mention the fact that you or yours could well need the emergency room someday...
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=45279
...
As the number of uninsured people in the USA approaches the 50 million mark, emergency departments are having to care for a disproportionate number of uninsured cases. About 50% of emergency care is uncompensated. No other developed country has such a large percentage of its population without any medical cover at all. In the UK, for example, the number of people without medical cover is zero - the same in most of the European Union and Canada.
The situation in emergency departments has become so dire that health professionals and administrators are no longer concerned about long term issues and planning - all the focus is on coping with the day-at-hand as resources dwindle and patient number rise.
It is not uncommon in America today for hospitals to simply close down their emergency department - not to have one at all.
Quite aside from that...I bet, from your comments, that you consider yourself Christian. Please remember that all four gospels carry the clear message that the two things one needs to do to be Christian, above all else, are:
1. love God
2. care for your fellow human beings -- including the poor.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | May 31, 2007 7:26 AM
MRK, re: your take on equal rights for those who aren't heterosexual, fully ambulatory, magical thinking, insured, white men.
You're one mean-spirited SOB.
Posted by: HatTrick | May 31, 2007 10:05 AM
Whoops, and there is my original post, too. Thank you, revere.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | May 31, 2007 11:48 AM
One step closer to theocracy.
Posted by: Nancy | May 31, 2007 1:50 PM
Luna-That is an opinion and not a fact. Fact is what did people do before we got into the government takes care of all concept? We took care of each other.
Now we have the Cradle to the Grave concept. Oh, we will just go and give it all up to the government that does such a fine job of things now. It costs so much because it costs so much to provide service and costs always rise to the level of the ability to pay. Do you think that isnt a fair statement. The UK has had it for 40 years and their system is going to need another couple hundred billion in short order. The Germans also have stated they are going to need more money AND limit some services.
In the US 1/2 of the entire system is subsidized now. It is a service and not a right and we need to do one thing. TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR OURSELVES! We were a far better nation when that was in effect.
Next thing there will be a call for a worldwide healthcare system and it will simply bankrupt the system. Healthcare at all costs? Give me a break.
Hat-I dont think that anyone who knows me would call me mean spirited. I can though safely say that I can get as shitty as the situation dictates. Hell I have been known to absolutely rise to the occasion and to a level that would put me on a par with the blitz. I dont ever recall calling anyone an SOB here.
Jonny, still having trouble I see. Dont know what I can do to help but will. You have my email if you want to rant anytime you want. PTSD Jon is sometimes referred to way to often as a catch all. Lets just say I have been to the mountaintop and looked over the other side, didnt like what I saw and ran the other way as all good soldiers in the face of overwhelming odds.
It is as I said before they will use the tax code to put this in, and then they will gain full control. A system that will perpetuate itself completely. They will force by taxation the subjugation of the entire population of the US and we will all have our little cards, wait for days in most cases for care simply because someone who is poor couldnt afford to go to the doctor themselves?
Luna-Jesus said that there will be poor always. Look at the good things you have.
I believe that this will be our undoing. There wont be any better care, it will get worse. How can 1 newborn take care of 7 babyboomers from a tax situation standpoint. They will have to tax social security and inflation will go thru the roof. But oh, I am crazy and mean spirited. You wont have the right NOT to participate. We had the right not to here in Tennessee in their little socialist experiment and it bankrupted the entire budget for almost ten years and was solvent for only one. It accounted for every tax dollar and actually 1.5 dollars for everything taken in and resulted in nearly a billiion in the hole by the third year.
The poor had great care under it, the result was that doctors quit seeing them because they couldnt get paid, too much paperwork, the costs went up to more than what they would make from it. Tennesseans were going to MISSISSIPPI for health care because the system had gone to Hell in a bucket. The poor ended up in the ER for colds and headaches. The average ER visit went from four hours to seven. Still dont think I have grasp on it Luna? You probably havent seen the real effects of what you suggest. It would also wipe out the research business after a couple of years. Simply no money to promote it, nor would there be any reason to do so.
Its a nobel idea. The US cant afford this anymore than we can Iraq, Vietnam and the Great Society. You are right Luna, people will die and unfortunately unless you havent looked out the window lately that is exactly what needs to happen on this planet, people need to die under a survival of the species scenario. We are a carbon footprint. Things are about to radically change for the better or worse, they are for sure are not going to remain the way they have been. Its not a kill them all and let God sort them out issue. Its God is going to kill a bunch of them and the issue will sort itself out.
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | May 31, 2007 2:59 PM
I just wanted to quote this.
Posted by: Coin | May 31, 2007 3:06 PM
Coin-What part didnt you understand the first time. All things are based upon the ability of a species to survive in an environment. Thats basic high school science. Look around the world and tell me how many TRILLIONS of dollars have gone out to improve the condition of so many people? So what did they do? They went out and made more people and now the system is beginning to fall apart from the lack of resources as their requirements task an already tasked system.
We talk about the lack of fuels, drinkable water is far more daunting. What happens when that goes? We are supposedly at about 1.5 billion people more than the food supply is capable of handling now, in 20 years there will be another 1.5 billion. You think the planet is able to survive that if the statement is true? We are told that the change in weather is due to human interventions at the ground floor. Want to take a bet on what will happen if we add another billion five into the pot, the supposition is correct and we stir?
You can quote that too.
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | May 31, 2007 3:25 PM
Randy: All the data I know says that birth rate drops when standard of living rises. So if you want to keep population down, you raise the standard of living. If you want the world to be overpopulated, you let people starve. That's what happens.
Posted by: revere | May 31, 2007 3:48 PM
MRK: "Hat-I dont think that anyone who knows me would call me mean spirited. I can though safely say that I can get as shitty as the situation dictates. Hell I have been known to absolutely rise to the occasion and to a level that would put me on a par with the blitz. I dont ever recall calling anyone an SOB here."
MRK, Inasmuch as I have no knowledge of your mother's disposition, I shouldn't have called you a SOB.
As for your pronouncement that you have the ability to hissy-fit with the best of them, I bow to your judgement.
The views you take the time to post to this site are all I know about you, and those seldom (I say seldom because I don't have the patience for most of your very long posts, and within those some bit of human kindness might be apparent) contain compassion for your fellow humans.
If "those who know you" wouldn't call you mean-spirited, why then are you affecting that personae here?
Additionally, survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean survival of the best.
Posted by: HatTrick | May 31, 2007 4:04 PM
HatTrick: Randy (aka MRK) is very hard to classify. He is definitely not mean spiritied. If anything, he's pretty much a softie. On the other hand, he often expresses himself in the hardest of Hard Right language because he is pretty far Right in my view, although he likes to think of himself as a centrist. I am a person of the Left, plain and simple. Nothing centrist about me. Nancy Pelosi is a centrist. Randy is the Right Wing. I'm the Left Wing. But Randy meanspirited? No. In fact I think of him as rather generous of spirit. My main criticism is he doesn't seem able to put himself in the place of others. If he did, he'd horrify himself.
Posted by: revere | May 31, 2007 4:23 PM
"Randy (aka MRK) is very hard to classify. He is definitely not mean spiritied. If anything, he's pretty much a softie."
Revere: On your say so I'll give MRK the benefit of doubt. Just don't expect me to rub him behind the ears; I know people who swear that their dog won't bite....
MRK, if Revere's got your back, you're doing something right.
Posted by: HatTrick | May 31, 2007 4:40 PM
http://www.ias.edu/SpFeatures/kurt_godel/godel-2.html
--------------------
... And then he turned to Godel and said, Now, Mr. Godel, where do you come from?
Godel: Where I come from? Austria.
The examiner: What kind of government did you have in Austria?
Godel: It was a republic, but the constitution was such that it finally was changed into a dictatorship.
The examiner: Oh! This is very bad. This could not happen in this country.
Godel: Oh, yes, I can prove it.
------------------------------
Posted by: Hank Roberts | May 31, 2007 7:06 PM
Hank: Never saw this before. Thanks. I once had to prove Godel's Theorem on a final exam. No problem. I had memorized it.
Posted by: revere | May 31, 2007 7:26 PM
This is a bit off the topic for the rest of this thread, but MRK made one comment I felt I had to remark on:
As the kids on the Internet say these days, O RLY?
http://slog.thestranger.com/files/2007/04/condihijab
Posted by: Mithrandir | May 31, 2007 9:27 PM
Revere... You are too kind.
Hat-No I dont mind too terribly much being called an SOB. I can be a real one if I need to and have in the past. My mom was one of the kindest, gentlest left wing liberals you have ever seen. It was at times enough to make you puke. Kind of like Jimmy Carter with no buck teeth. She married into a military family. Talk about contradictions in history. She marries a Navy guy, he is the son of a WWI Army officer who later heads the draft board in St. Louis. His father is the son of a Prussian duchess and the brother of the son of Oom Paul Kruger of S. African fame, it goes back to from there all the way to the Crusades as German/Dutch knights. Coming back forward my daughter is in college in the east on a ROTC scholarship. Mean spirited?. Nyah, I have different ways of doing things and I dont ascribe to the left or right wing ways of thinking. The country is way too polarized already. I dont know how long you have been here but my status on gays is very middle of the road. I had gays in my units in the military and they were some of the best troops I had the pleasure of commanding. Inasmuch that they were, I never had one bolt on me in a firefight and I never lost one to combat, but I did to HIV/AIDS and it took him like a flyswatter hit him. Rough to watch, but the military trains you that no matter what color the guys is, the religious background, sexual orientation or the homelife he/she had you had better depend on them. For me it was the Wiccan's that bothered me the most. Flipping beads and chicken legs and talking about what they would do to the enemy if they got them.
Kind of like shrunken head stuff....
Mithrandir-If I am wrong about the headress thing then I will accept your picture, but I cant find that visit in the 2005 itinerary for Secretary Rice. When I beez wrong I admit it and move along.
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | May 31, 2007 10:10 PM
For the original news story on this topic from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette as well as links to new articles from the Lexington Herald-Leader and the Bay Area Reporter,go to:
www.biblebeltblogger.com
Posted by: Little Rock, Arkansas | May 31, 2007 10:12 PM
No MRK, revere is not too kind. You're a fine individual, very fine as a matter of fact, and there are many who appreciate your straight forward no nonsense approach.
People that come to EM should take some time to learn a little more about you before they say ugly things about you.
Just one other thought, why can't people just be Human Beings and stop this left, right stuff? You may think it defines you but in my eye it's limiting.
Human's have the silly habit of assigning themselves labels. Peel all the layers off of the onion (human) and what do you have?, a human.
If anything, even if you disagree with the blog but are attracted to the blog, it would only enhance the world if each and every one set aside their petty differences and strived to meet in the middle. Imagine that, the middle incorporates both sides.
Posted by: Lea | May 31, 2007 10:37 PM
Lea.... Revere talks ugly subjects sometimes and for the record I think he is dang tootin' right about the VA in most cases. But its not the VA, its the system and that runs back to the Congress. I do disagree that the woes of the world aint all GWB's fault, but some of them for sure. Iraq in my opinion is winnable but it will take knocking the dog shit out of Iraq AND Iran to do it. I am not a cut and runner, I am a cut them down and send them running. We dif on that frequently as he would negotiate with them in my mind. I would too only with a Pave Pat 6 dropping into Natanz just to make a point.
Revere has dedicated his life to helping his fellow man in his profession. He is like Marty Sheen and he doesnt back off of his convictions and I think in the proper circumstances (Germany '38) he might have been convicted for sedition. I have the opinion that this ship is beginning to right itself having gone too far to the right. It is a dangerous line we walk right now and putting this gentleman into the post of SG might not have been the brightest idea. But it is a political position.
Holding the picture for all to see sometimes means he in his opinion has to become less than respectful in what he says. There are more than one Revere(s) too so the one might not totally agree with the other either.... Naturally. But they dont name call unless its a public figure and its fine as far as I am concerned for them dis-illusioned liberals to call GWB a sack of shit, SOB, MOFO and on and on because thats the system we all ascribe to...free speech. Revere has been abrasive to me, nice, respectful and I to him but its never gone to a name calling thingy. We just differ on opinions on things is all and we rant and shoot testosterone across the deck BUT I STILL pass on back channel intel on many things to him. Information is the name of this game and this ole redneck patriot respects that UHC left wingnut to the nth degree. I wont out him for reasons previously painted and its part of the general problem we have in this country. Left/Right? I guarantee you that this new SG is going to have a confirmation hearing from Hell. It buys time for GWB to decide whether he will make an interim appointment too for him. He could just appoint him now, just as Clinton did for many and GWB did for Bolton. Its politics and its a political blog with a public health message. What would you have Revere do, sit back and not spill his guts. It would be the most boring of blogs there are.
As for the middle I submit that we are roughly there in this country as Jefferson foresaw some 200 plus ago at any given time. A little drift to the right or left starts bringing the wingnuts out on both sides. End result is back closer to the middle each time.
I would probably take the Reveres out to dinner if he/they were in town..... You know, a Republican fundraiser with Karl Rove as speaker.
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | May 31, 2007 10:59 PM
Hard to admit, and I don't agree with everything the revere(s) say however, I am in their camp for now MRK. Wouldn't want to change their aggressive arguments either. And I agree, the pick for the SG is a poor one.
Please, invite me to that dinner if it ever happens, I promise to be good.
Posted by: Lea | May 31, 2007 11:32 PM
Lea....yah! Here is my read on the SG and its like a one-liner in a monologue on Letterman..."What? You couldnt find ANYONE else?"
Shit. Revere for SG!
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | June 1, 2007 12:54 AM
MRK, the only thing I posted which was opinion was my opinion that you do not have a good grasp of the facts. This is opinion -- however, I do have some evidence for it, if you actually believe what you write.
Aside from that, I posted about the state of the US healthcare system, compared to the UK. All my facts and figures are real, not opinion. The physical evidence exists. And yes, the poor will always be with us; I accept that this is actually inevitable. However, the Bible is also explicit about caring for them. And history demonstrates that it is perfectly possible to raise the general standard of living for an entire population, including those who fall below the poverty line.
History also demonstrates one other thing: that yes, people did "take care of themselves" more in a lot of ways, and that the people who couldn't, for whatever reason, died. People starved in the street. Child mortality was often well over 20%. People also ended up rioting for food and housing. Crime increases as poverty increases, too, including violent crime. National resources end up being diverted to deal with social unrest, damage control, and the mass tragedy which often undermines more and more of what should be a productive work force. By diverting fewer resources ahead of all this, to maintain the basic standards of health and living even for those on the lower end of the economic spectrum, it is possible to maintain more social and political stability, encourage business investment where there is a healthy and educated work force, and avoid having to pay out masses more cleaning up messes. You seem to have sailed right past this point without even noticing it.
"From the Cradle to the Grave" enabled the UK's workforce to drag itself from a socially and economically stratified and depressed WWII society to the growth of a huge stable middle class. Have you forgotten, or have you ever truly, fully grasped, how necessary a stable middle class is to a stable and prosperous country?
I would say, given my family, that I have all too dam' much familiarity with both the US and the UK medical systems, too. I am a dual US/UK citizen, with elderly and ill and otherwise damaged relatives on both sides of the water, and a doctor sister; and some time this month, if all goes well, I will be moving into new work part time for a hospital in Aberdeen, Scotland. I have helped arrange appointments, funding, and paperwork for medical "entitlements", for years. The UK system, for all that it is in "crisis" and there are daily headlines trumpeting its imminent demise, is far less broken than that in the US, for those who aren't actually rich -- and in my opinion (having experienced both sides) it is also far more likely to survive the next two decades. I am very, very, very familiar with the real effects of what I describe.
What you have there in the US is the result of trying to maintain a "free market system" in which the insurance companies and HMOs have the upper hand completely and all the costs are passed on to the public, and yes, society still has that requirement that people always be able to access emergency care. "Just let them die" is not an option for those of us who see value in human lives, and who have experienced family deaths for themselves. And right now, the unsupportable costs of healthcare even for the insured individuals firmly in the middle of the middle class are capable of reducing families to homelessness and poverty if they get hit with something unpreventable and big, like a head injury requiring long-term care and rehabilitation, or cancer. And this happens. Often. (As, for example, illustrated here: http://www.cahealthadvocates.org/newsletter/2006/08/cancer.html .)
Also, revere is absolutely correct, as borne out by the historical experience in multiple countries on multiple continents...the birthrate drops and population stabilises, then shrinks, when the general standard of living is brought up, when people start believing that their children are more likely than not to reach adulthood, when (publicly funded) education brings in better jobs, and when women are given more rights. You want to sort out overpopulation -- then you should be supporting all of these things.
As it stands, your "let them die" attitude, whyever you may hold it, puts you with the worst and most uneducated and irrational of the nature-is-a-friendly-place-humans-are-bad-and-should-be-eliminated "left wing Wiccan hippie freaks", and many of us do regard that attitude, and those who hold it, with utter disgust.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | June 1, 2007 7:44 AM
Correction -- when I wrote
that should have been
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | June 1, 2007 10:17 AM
Luna-Your comments are taken. But these things dont come on trees. Your assumption is that everyone is entitled to these things, and it isnt so. Revere is also right about that population thing. By doing so we have now damaged the earth to the point that sustainability is no longer there and it is approaching collapse. You can agree or disagree. Due to our "stability" we now have between 7-12 what will become rapidly "non productive" people as our population grows gray for every 1 of our new taxpayers.
There is absolutely no way that the kids will be able to pay for those people under Social Security, much less a new program that provides all new services. The single prescription drug benefit that the Democrats forced thru cost the taxpayers 1 trillion dollars in future unfunded mandates. That was for generic drugs. The thought that you spread risk is based on the lack of risk. This is fraught with the future. Old people will die in droves in the next 20 years and everyone wants to have the best of care for them. so do I. But who in Hell is going to be around to pay for it? Iraq, Vietnam, space program, Aid to Dependent children have all pushed the national debt to a level that is unsustainable now. Do you really think we can afford yet another program. This will take control of the people completely and it wont be optional.
You cant amortize inflation when you are talking about debt. One day and soon, no one will be around to buy our paper bonds that back up paper money. Those older people will die in a collapsing medical system that is also attached to a social welfare system th