| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 03/27/2011 : 7:20:32 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by balataf
I submit Warmskin's refusal to answer a simple question as public evidence, a self-confession of moral bankruptcy ON THIS SUBJECT. Disagree with the World? his problem is disagreement with REALITY.
W, you seem to be a good, honest person in general, and I look forward to friendly debates in the future. We seem to agree on many more subjects thn we quarrel on.
Open discussion. It's a free country!
Balataf, I don't like that you called me an immoral person in a previous thread. I tend to weed out people who do that sort of thing. You have no right to call me immoral, although that is your privilege in your own private thoughts. I don't like being yelled at with capitalized letters. In discussion boards of all kinds, it's considered rude.
I respond to logic, events that are actual, and to neutral observations, but not to insults and yelling.
Rahel is surely entitled to her odd versions of what is really happening, but I go for the unvarnished truth without trying to grossly re-interpret it. The truth can stand by itself. If one does not like the truth, than one can change their opinion. I feel sorry for people who stick to one side, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is precious little truth as to the abundance of the morality of Zionism.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
 |
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/27/2011 : 7:59:07 PM
|
In contrast to the Zionists in Palestine, whose crimes against humanity are beyond number, here is a well-reasoned rabbi who should immediately hired to "dismantle" (his own words) the Zionist regime and governmental structure that endangers the Jewish community, worldwide.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1NLdRVkJiA&NR=1
Will Rahel say this is a doctored-video? I would like to know if Rahel's statements are from a Zionistic, or Torah point of view. Mine is purely American, in the classical sense of the word. That would be interesting to know. Like with many people in the Jewish community, Zionist Israel is a humiliating embarassment that they wish would go away.
The rabbi in this video clip sounds far more reasonable than some of the other ones. It is rabbis like this one who will hopefully make the Jewish life more of a happy one, versus what they now have at the hands of the Zionist regime.
To throw in the Tea party angle, since this is a Tea Party thread, Americans need a president who will stand up to the Zionist regime, and once again re-assert American interests in bringing about the dreams of our Founders, the real Tea Party folks, instead of crawling in the gutter to please Zionism to no end. No self-respecting entity lives in fear of Zionism's effects on itself. Ike was the last president to stand up to Zionist jingoism, greed, and paranioa.
Washington would never have knuckled down to them, nor Jefferson. Zionism is anti-thetical to representative republicanism. Freedom from foreign influence is peculiarly American. Can one be honest and say that AIPAC does not heavily influence and shape America? Why do all major politicians go their meetings and grovel before AIPAC, promising them everything, regardless of the costs to Americans, and the denigration of America in its relations to the external world? We owe Israel nothing. Where does it say in the Constitution that we owe any country anything.
Our Founders told us that we should engage in commerce with all nations and have no allies. Having an "ally" means taking on their enemies, like it or not. Having an "ally" means we have to endure more 9-11s, until we learn to have no allies, except in times of extreme emergencies. We have not had one of those in a long time.
Being stupid and having to spend trillions of dollars to correct stupidities is no way to conduct ourselves as a nation.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/28/2011 : 11:29:42 AM
|
The Neocons are certainly in close agreement with the Zionists, probably because they are, themselves, mostly Zionists. But they have basicly shrunk to near insignificance, with the growth of groups like the Social Conservatives. The Christian Right are supporters of Israel for totally diffent reasons, mostly involving their own religious process, which I do not share.
These questions will be in the mix for the 2012 Republican primaries, where Jewish voters are a tiny, negligable faction. So, we may well have a strongly pro-Israel policy totally without "knuckling under" to anyone, based on the pressures from the Chr. Rt, totally independent of Zionism.
I doubt that the remains of the Neocons could elect a single Congressman, much less a President. The election will hinge overwhelmingly on Obamacare, the economy, and energy prices.
|
Edited by - balataf on 03/28/2011 11:40:25 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 01:54:51 AM
|
It's not the numbers of voters that the "American" zionists represent, it is the money they have, and they have never been shy at heavily funding the opposition to incumbents who are remotely critical of Zionist Israel.
Ask former officeholders about Israeli power in heaving way too much influence on Congress, Supreme Court, and the Presidency. Republican US Senator Charles Percy of Illinois, US Congressman Paul Findley (R), and Democrat US Senator J. William Fullbright. All three were defeated by Israeli laundered money going to their opponents. Paul Findley wrote a book about how the Israelis caused his defeat and how they dominate Congress, instead of the American people having all the influence. Findley was well respected by both sides of the aisle, but his character and Heartland values were hated by Israel, thus Findley was targeted for defeat. Same for Percy. Same for Fullbright.
Fritz Hollings, former US Senator said much the same thing, although he did not lose office, but retired. He pointed out that the USA could not have its own overseas policy anymore, without Israel's permission.
Rep. Hamilton said:
“Israeli leaders understand our system very, very well [and] because they understand our system they can exploit it.”
The following by another Israeli victim, Republican Paul Findley:
"Nine-eleven would not have occurred if the U.S. government had refused to help Israel humiliate and destroy Palestinian society. Few express this conclusion publicly, but many believe it is the truth. I believe the catastrophe could have been prevented if any U.S. president during the past 35 years had had the courage and wisdom to suspend all U.S. aid until Israel withdrew from the Arab land seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Thanks to the suffocating influence of Israel's U.S. lobby, open discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict has been non-existent in our government all these years. "...[Israel] is able to stifle free speech, control our Congress, and even dictate our foreign policy." (They Dare to Speak Out, Paul Findley)"
"A U.S. Senator should have the same right as a member of the Knesset...to disagree with any government when its actions may not be in the United States' interest." (Senator Percy, Wall Street Journal, 2/26/85)
To the degree that the GOP grovels before Israel in the most humiliating way, they remain all necons. There is no escape from this reality. Show me just one congressman who can say what he will, highly objectively, but no one can, except to point to Ron Paul. Regardless of who gets how many votes, Ron Paul is the only voice of true free speech. He is beholden to no one, save for his constituents.
The rest of the GOP will continue on licking the bottoms of Israelis shoes and justify that on nightly news. Sarah Palin was the most recent example of a bought and paid for candidate who cannot speak on foreign issues unless she speaks, not for America, but for the Zionist state who she reveres to no end. It would be nice if she could stand up for classical America on occasion, but that would defy Israel, so she cannot do that. She knows her priorities. See her bimbo eruption here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDcQM3blXjc&feature=related
So, with that, the GOP will approach 2012 with the same old neoconism, if they want to be assured of money coming in from abroad to finance their races. The Pat Buchanans and Ron Pauls will be energetically rejected by neocon Republicans, Ron Paul will still be a favorite of university students, who are thinkers.
The GOP has separated itself from classical Americanism for the foreseeable future, and will continue embrace the necon-zionist principles. It has no choice because foreign lobbyists have too much say in how the GOP runs itself. The rank and file are clueless, and if one dares to suggest traditional Republicanism, he or she is all but run out of town.
That is why I left the GOP in 2006.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 04:13:07 AM
|
Peggy Noonan, once an icon in the Reagan tradition (Reaganism has passed into history, concomitantly with the ascendancy of the new neocon midget-mindset that passes for Republicanism), has came out with a statement that is quite true, in my opinion. That is, Sarah Palin is a "nincompoop".
Palin lacks integrity and loyalty to organic Americanism. Palin has yet to figure out what in country she seeks to hold office. This article came out last November 5th. Thank heaven for Peggy Noonan!
http://www.redstate.com/scorpio0679/2010/11/05/peggy-noonans-take-palin-a-nincompoop/
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 04:32:04 AM
|
Our dual-citizen House Majority "Leader" displays his true identity of not being an American, philosophically, or in deed. He is one big hypocrite, based on even the ultra-neocon Bush Administration own substandards. I.e., the neocons dominate the GOP, and are not going away anytime soon. It would be nice to have a truly pro-American House Majority Leader, but the GOP is powerless to choose any other.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/11/20101116121343388841.html
The definition of a Tea Party type. Who knows? Depends on how many Sarah Palin speeches they have had to endure. Palin would love to transform the whole movement into a bunch of Zionist neocons. With her, and our alleged House Majority Leader, the momentum is for more necons at our dis-service.
The conservatives remain clearly out of power.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/29/2011 : 4:09:14 PM
|
I've never seen Palin or Bachman do anything to support the Neocons. The very pro-Israel forces of the Christian Right pretty consistently have opposed them. Last yeqr, Neocons overhelmingly supported the Establishment against the Tea Party types like those two. That factor is one reason for the disappearace of the Neocon faction.
You are confusing that pro-Israel Hawks can still be strongly anti-Neocon, as they are. Israel is only one of dozens of salient interests and iaauea.
In fact the vast majority of pro-Israeli Hawks are anti-Neocon, but tend to be simple supporters of justice and morality as they, and their churches, see these issues. I am t\alking about followers of leaders like Pat Robertson, who is on a commercial channel here in Phila. You can't try to pretend that his set of biblical-based issues is Neocon, that's too bizarre.
By the way, I suppported Hollings for President when he ran.
|
Edited by - balataf on 03/29/2011 4:39:33 PM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 01:36:23 AM
|
Pat Robertson is a chicken hawk, like most of the neocons. He loves neocons. He may not have a neocon card in his wallet, but neocons are mostly zealots on parade for Israel. They all want war for the destruction of Israel's enemies. When one compares the so-called right with the Likud party and the neocons, they have far too much in common not to lump them altogether in one big happy family.
Who among the neocons, right-winged alleged Christians, and Zionists does not want to see the innocent blood of Palestinians being spilled. Palin rejoices in their blood, and Robertson does, too, because he is a fanatic and a zealot, and fully anti-Christian as the worst of the rabbis. He speaks a good game, but turns his back on everything Jesus taught. Robertson even attacked Sharon for not killing enough people, and he said that is why Sharon became quite ill. Robertson needs intensive therapy, or needs to re-read the Sermon on the Mount.
When people have all that much in common you can call them anything. A rose is still as sweet with another name. Same goes with the conscience-less Zionists, necons, and the Palins-Robertsons of this world.
As for me, of course, I take the American point of view, as did Jefferson, in his well-remembered statement that appears in my signature. Given the choice between Palin and Jefferson, I'll take the latter. The former has lost her marbles.
Palin is actually in favor of stealing more land from the helpless Palestinians (by killing them), against international law. Will she be a international criminal on the loose who may be banned in a number of decent countries abroad? If she keeps it up, she will. How would that look on her record? That may sound odd, but there are people like her who cannot travel to certain Europen nations because they are wanted by those nations for crimes against other countries and humanity. Palin is no thinker, but she marches well to the cadence of the Zionist zealots. Maybe she could march to the cadence of the US Constitution. I would say that I'm not holding my breath on that one.
Where is another Ike?
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 01:40:23 AM
|
Here is a video that will appeal to those who understand the loss of loved ones. However, in this video, there was no reason to lose loved ones, except that their attackers thought and still think that their extant loved ones are animals.
http://peoplesgeography.com/2010/03/28/children-of-gaza/
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
rahel
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 10:06:20 AM
|
You make me sick Warskin for your hatred of Israel. YOU ARE STILL IGNORANT AND CHILDISH AND NAIF.and that will be the last thing I will say about you.
rahel
|
|
Country: Canada
| Posts: 93 |
|
|
|
jbsnc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 03/30/2011 : 4:36:55 PM
|
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2010/11/20101116121343388841.html
I read the Al Jazeera article ‘Republican Cantor recants on Israel,’ an article referenced therein and some of the comments on the second article. I was unimpressed and do not recommend reading the Al Jazeera article. No where did I find a recanting statement made by Cantor. There are several quoted statements but none by the attendees present when Cantor made some sort of statement.
The Al Jazeera article contained this statement: “On the other hand, no American official - by any stretch of the imagination - has the right to tell the government of Israel, or any foreign government, that he stands with the foreign leader against his own president.” Garbage. The First Amendment does not exclude politicians. Perhaps it should have.
Happy Nuding.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 153 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/01/2011 : 03:48:16 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by rahel
You make me sick Warskin for your hatred of Israel. YOU ARE STILL IGNORANT AND CHILDISH AND NAIF.and that will be the last thing I will say about you. rahel
Thank you for sharing, Rahel. I just dislike what they do. Fortunately, there are wonderful Israelis, with a good conscience and sense of humanitarianism, who are helping the Palestinians rebuild their homes, you know, the ones that Israel dropped bombs on, to kill innocent families.
Actually, you're dissapointed in that fact that America is my concern, first and foremost. Your statements suggest that I should only care about your state. Why is it that your country is so self-obsessed? You want me to learn what Netanyahu wants me to learn, and to forget about basic American prinicples of having no allies. No sale!
You said that there are no Israelis in Palestine. Now that statement displays ignorance. You actually believe there are no illegal settlers or Israeli troops in Palestine. That is upside down logic, and it has to be drilled into a person enough times for it to take. Israeli newspapers know that Palestine is occupied, and even the American media knows that, too. I had no idea that anyone believed that the troops all over Palestine were not Israeli.
We all entertain fantasies, each and every one of us, but I try to confine mine to movies, operas, novels, and the like.
I really can't help it when I have respectable quotes and documents that prove what I am saying. Do you remember the USS Liberty? It was deliberately attacked by Israel, and was planned at the highest levels, according to the NSA, who listened in on Israeli communications at during that moment when American sailors were being slaughtered by Israel. It's all true, each and everything I have said. I wish it were not true; I really do, but how should I feel when I know it was true. You'll forgive me if I think American sailors should not be killed by any country. Odd as it may sound, that is how I feel.
At some point, you'll come to realize that, like any other country, Israel is just one out of many, and not the only one on earth. It's a small one at that. It would be easier for them if they stuck to the organic UN plans for that area.
Did you know there are some brave Israel soldiers who are refusing to go to Palestine to harrass the people there? I love all those refuseniks. I really do, along with the Israelis who are helping Palestinians rebuild their destroyed homes. I also feel very sorry for Israeli soldiers are being treated for mental problems that stem from the anguish of killing children and women, according to newspapers like Ha'aretz.
I do hope for Israel that they do find the solution to being more successful in running a peaceful country. To have good neighbors you to be a good neighbor. Imagine if it were the Amish people who settled in old Palestine. They would not have the problems that Israel is having. The Arabs would find the Amish to be loving people who stick to themselves, and that the Amish have no weapons. The Arabs just might like famous Amish bakery goods and their great hand-made furniture.
It's all about how you plan something, and do good works for those you might have problems with. The end results are far more satisfactory that way.
My real disagreement is with Zionism, and not with peaceful Israelis, who I hold dear as nice people. As always with any people, it's the leadership that ruins things. Zionists have a poor sense of proportion in their zeal for power and territory.
It's simple, really, but some folks like to obfuscate things to have it their way.
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
Warmskin
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/01/2011 : 04:20:35 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by jbsnc
I read the Al Jazeera article ‘Republican Cantor recants on Israel,’ an article referenced therein and some of the comments on the second article. I was unimpressed and do not recommend reading the Al Jazeera article. No where did I find a recanting statement made by Cantor. There are several quoted statements but none by the attendees present when Cantor made some sort of statement.Happy Nuding.
Americans have been taught well by our mass media as to how to think. Ask the average guy on the street where he gets his information about the Mideast. Since I turned of my boob tube 6 years ago, I have really widened my knowledge base. I take in media that I disagree with, as well as those with which I agee. It' a mind-broadening experience. It removes a lot of the run-away fairy tales that the best of us have taken as real. However, it is a challenge to give up what one feels comfortable with, and live among non-traditional news sources. It's weird at first, but you get comfy with it in time.
If people were to read the great writings of our Founders, they would learn that America ought not to have allies. These statements were from the most educated people. When you have no allies, you can do as you please. If you have allies, you are tied to them, and you lose a lot of your sovereignty.
Cantor did retract, but he let out a huge Freudian slip of the tongue. We all know that retractions are a way to cover up a candid statement. Democrats have had to a lot of that, as well as GOP politicians. Cantor, no doubt, realized he let out a candid statement that was not wise to release. He was not being politic.
It's the same thing when California governor Pat Brown warned students at an elementary school that an actor killed Lincoln, and Reagan was an actor. Oooops!!  It was a real and honest statement, but it was not politic. Reagan went on to slaughter Brown in the election, as he did to everyone else in his races.
It would be fun, in my opinion, if every poltician took some truth serum, or got drunk enough to speak very frankly about a number of topics. What we could learn!! Just like when Chuckie Schumer had a candid moment when he gave instructions to his fellow Democrats to smear the GOP and Boehner. I'm sure he would love the chance to retract his remarks, but he can't in all seriousness.
Once you say something, it's very hard to take it back, unless people will believe in you at all costs. If a politician or candidate of the party opposite of your choice makes a candid statement, would you think his recant was sincere? Dollars to doughnots that most people would not. It's just the way we humans are.
My idea of a great Tea Partier is a politician or candidate who is concerned 95% about America, and will not separate the people with our representative republic by having "passionate attachments" to any other country. As silent Cal Coolidge said, "The business of America is business." Now there is a real conservative.
We have over 300 million people in this country, and a marvelous US Constitution that is being shredded as each year passes by. We ought to confine our attentions to home a lot more. We can't be the referee for the rest of the world. We're broke and can't afford that. Let the UN work out the problems. About time they actually did something. Hahaha.
So, I would advise the new Tea Party folks to read our founding documents and carry them out. That would solve many problems we have today. Naturally, I'm just one little guy, so don't worry, I can have no organic American influence.
First you have to recognize the ideal (America), and then pursue it the best you can, without being sidetracked by the whims and wills of other nations.
Is that unreasonable?
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1964 |
|
|
|
balataf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/02/2011 : 2:46:19 PM
|
JDF comment: Quality patient attention, not assembly-line offices,
Avoiding Doctor burnout, and providing him high income. Good deal!
Better than being forced to work for a government bureaucracy.
But this is totally incompatable with Obamacare's viewpoint.
High-end medical option prompts Medicare worries
Apr 2, 2011
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
WASHINGTON (AP) - Every year, thousands of people make a deal with
their doctor: I'll pay you a fixed annual fee, whether or not I need
your services, and in return you'll see me the day I call, remember
who I am and what ails me, and give me your undivided attention.
But this arrangement potentially poses a big threat to Medicare and
to the new world of medical care envisioned under President Barack
Obama's health overhaul.
The spread of "concierge medicine," where doctors limit their practice
to patients who pay a fee of about $1,500 a year, could drive a wedge
among the insured. Eventually, people unable to afford the retainer
might find themselves stuck on a lower tier, facing less time with
doctors and longer waits.
Medicare recipients, who account for a big share of patients in
doctors' offices, are the most vulnerable. The program's financial
troubles are causing doctors to reassess their participation. But the
impact could be broader because primary care doctors are in short
supply and the health law will bring in more than 30 million newly
insured patients.
If concierge medicine goes beyond just a thriving niche, it could
lead to a kind of insurance caste system.
"What we are looking at is the prospect of a more explicitly tiered
system where people with money have a different kind of insurance
relationship than most of the middle class, and where Medicare is no
onger as universal as we would like it to be," said John Rother,
policy director for AARP.
Concierge doctors say they're not out to exclude anyone, but are
trying to recapture the personal connection shredded by modern
medicine. Instead of juggling 2,000 or more patients, they can
concentrate on a few hundred, stressing prevention and acting as
advocates with specialists and hospitals.
"I don't have to be looking at patient mix and how many are booked
per hour," said Dr. Lewis Weiner, a primary care physician in
Providence, R.I., who's been in a concierge practice since 2005.
"I get to know the individual," Weiner said. "I see their color. I
see their moods. I pick up changes in their lives, new stressors that
I would not have found as easily before. It's been a very positive
shift."
Making the switch can also be economically rewarding. If 500 patients
pay $1,500 apiece, that's gross revenue of $750,000 for the practice.
Many concierge doctors also bill Medicare and private insurance for
services not covered by their retainer.
Patients and family members say the fee is worth it.
Linda Popkin lives in New York, far from her 97-year-old mother in
Florida. With their mother in a concierge practice, Popkin says she
and her siblings have direct access to the doctor as needed.
"If one of us calls the doctor, he calls us back," she said. "We are
involved in all the decisions. We definitely have peace of mind that
Mom is seeing a doctor she can speak to if we have any questions. I'm
sure you've heard the horror stories about people calling the doctor
and they can't get in for three weeks."
Popkin's mother didn't lose her Medicare. She's still covered for
medications, specialist visits, hospitalizations and other services.
But she has an additional level of personalized attention.
Her doctor is affiliated with a Florida-based management company
called MDVIP, a wholly owned subsidiary of consumer products giant
Procter & Gamble that represents the largest group of concierge
physicians in the country.
MDVIP marketing executive Mark Murrison says its doctors do not sell
access, but a level of clinical services above what Medicare or
private insurance cover. The cornerstone is an intensive annual
physical focused on prevention. About half the patients are Medicare
beneficiaries.
Retainer fees range from $1,500 to $1,800 a year, and MDVIP collects
$500 of that for legal, regulatory and other support services.
Murrison said the fee is affordable for middle-class households when
compared with the cost of many consumer goods and services. "One of
our goals is to democratize concierge medicine," he said.
For now, there may be fewer than 2,000 doctors in all types of
retainer practice nationally. Most are primary care physicians, a
sliver of the estimated 300,000 generalists.
The trend caught the eye of MedPAC, a commission created by Congress
that advises lawmakers on Medicare and watches for problems with
access. It hired consultants to investigate.
Their report, delivered last fall, found listings for 756 concierge
doctors nationally, a five-fold increase from the number identified
in a 2005 survey by the Government Accountability Office.
The transcript of a meeting last September at which the report was
discussed reveals concerns among commission members that Medicare
beneficiaries could face sharply reduced access if the trend
accelerates.
My worst fear - and I don't know how realistic it is - is that this
is a harbinger of our approaching a tipping point," said MedPAC
chairman Glenn Hackbarth, noting that "there's too much money" for
doctors to pass up.
Hackbarth continued: "The nightmare I have - and, again, I don't
know how realistic it is - is that a couple of these things come
together, and you could have a quite dramatic erosion in access in a
very short time."
Another commissioner at the meeting, Robert Berenson, called
concierge medicine a "canary in the coal mine."
Several members said it appears to be fulfilling a central goal of
Obama's overhaul, enhancing the role of primary care and restoring
the doctor-patient relationship.
Yet the approach envisioned under the law is different from the
one-on-one attention in concierge medicine. It calls for a team
strategy where the doctor is helped by nurses and physician
assistants, who handle much of the contact with patients.
John Goodman, a conservative health policy expert, predicts the
health care law will drive more patients to try concierge medicine.
"Seniors who can pay for it will go outside the system," he said.
MedPAC's Hackbarth declined to be interviewed. But Berenson, a
physician and policy expert, said "the fact that excellent doctors
are doing this suggests we've got a problem."
"The lesson is, if we don't attend to what is now a relatively
small phenomenon, it's going to blow up," he added.
When a primary care doctor switches to concierge practice, it means
several hundred Medicare beneficiaries must find another provider.
Medicare declined an interview on potential consequences. "There
are no policy changes in the works at this time," said spokeswoman
Ellen Griffith.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 661 |
|
|
|
homenude
Forum Member
|
Posted - 04/02/2011 : 4:02:39 PM
|
Aren't these discussions about Israel, neo-cons, etc. a bit off topic?
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 56 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Tea Party Ten Point Platform
