by Tia Will
The president-elect has made a bold choice in Dr. Tom Price to head Health and Human services. Dr. Price, an orthopedic surgeon and seasoned legislator, has now proven himself to be a visionary. Long known as an opponent of both abortion and readily accessible and affordable birth control, Dr. Price is applying these principles to the creation of new jobs. The elimination of accessible effective contraception is known to provide increased jobs and income for obstetrician gynecologists, anesthesiologists, nurse practitioners and pediatricians, the incomes of whom have recently been threatened by the decrease in teen and unintended pregnancy attributed to the wider acceptance and availability of long acting contraceptives. In explaining his plans to further roll back support for contraception, Dr. Price referenced the president-elect’s promise to be a president for all the people. After all , Dr. Price explained, all women should contribute equally to providing increased jobs and income throughout our medical sector by reproducing ……whether they want to or not.
Warming to his subject of the provision of increased high paying jobs within the medical/pharmaceutical industries, Dr. Price elaborated on how this concept could be extended to his own field of orthopedics by dictating that doctors not counsel their elderly patients about fall prevention since this limits the opportunity for geriatric orthopedic surgeries. Internists and pediatricians will be cautioned not to discuss healthy eating habits , exercise and weight reduction so as to increase the need for endocrinologists and bariatric surgeons. Likewise, mums the word on breast cancer screening due to the anticipated further decrease in opportunities for breast surgeons, reconstructive plastic surgeons and oncologists brought about by earlier detection of small tumors.
In what may be his most wide ranging plan, Dr.Price has stated his interest in partnering with UCD expert in gun injury prevention, Dr. Garren Wintermute. Although he acknowledges that Dr. Wintermute has in the past been a strong advocate for gun safety measures, Dr. Price feels confident that Dr. Wintermute will see the benefit of advocating for decreased regulation of firearms and more ready access to concealed carry permits once he is made fully aware of the job security that this will provide for ER physicians, trauma surgical teams, and life flight crews. As Dr. Price points out, it is critical that we place economic well being above all else. And what better place to start than in the medical field ?
Why is the Vanguard posting false satirical articles like one might see on the Onion. Is that why this is called the Green Onion? Even Facebook is looking into scrubbing out this type of fake news. So I see it’s Edition 1, does that mean we have more of this $#@& to look forward to?
Ask Tia, she wrote it
Hi BP
First, I am happy to see that as obviously intended from the choice of “The Davis Green Onion” you were able to ascertain that this was a satirical piece. I cannot speak to David’s motivation for publication, but I can speak to my own motivation for writing. This was largely a means of venting for me about what I see as the real risks of this choice presented in a more light hearted fashion than subsequent pieces will be.
I disagree with your characterization as “false news”, as I think it was clear that I was in no way intending this to be believed by anyone……as you correctly noted immediately. If any reader did believe this and has had their opinion changed of Dr. Price, to you and only you, I apologize.
I feel that writing this was entirely consistent with my oft stated firm belief in our First Amendment rights to free speech. Heck, it was only yesterday that I was defending the right of Milo Yiannopoulous to speak here on campus regardless of how odious his beliefs are to me. I have even offered to author a piece for you if you do not want to take the time or reveal your identity.
I appreciate the expletive marks in your comment as an expression of your genuine feelings and a legitimate expression of your free speech rights. To the idea that such an article should be censored due to your dislike of the contents…..I cannot agree.
So whether there will be more depends on the reception to this one, my mood, and David’s discretion. There is a very simple solution if you do not like them. Do not read them. And feel free to use that ignore function.
Hey, it’s David’s blog, he can print whatever he likes. Though I think when people come to the Vanguard they’re looking for stories that are either factual or opinions based on facts and not stories that are fake news filled with lies.
But what the heck, if David’s willing to print fake news then maybe the conservatives in town that do read the Vanguard can come up with The Davis Red Onion where fake satirical stories can be posted about people like say Nancy Pelosi, Gov. Brown, our mayor and city council, etc.
The possibilities are endless.
BP
“Though I think when people come to the Vanguard they’re looking for stories that are either factual or opinions based on facts….”
I believe that people come to the Vanguard for a number of reasons. I would like to call your attention to a piece that I wrote previously entitled “Sweeping with a Glad Heart “. There were zero “facts” or “opinions based on facts ” in it unless you count my recounting of my feelings as I swept and later sat reading on my patio as “fact”. And yet , there were a number of comments, some positive, some neutral, and a couple poking lighthearted fun at my choice to write such a piece. No one, including yourself, objected to this “non factual” piece. This leaves me to wonder if your real objection may not be to the fact that my beliefs regarding health care delivery are not in alignment with Dr. Price’s and not some broader sense of the need for “factual information” only ?
By the way, I really enjoy satire and so would welcome a “Red Onion” type entry.
Oh my. Am I embarrassed. All these years I thought BP’s Vanguard posts were satirical.
By all means, dazzle us with your sense of wit and humor. However, something tells me that we’ll all be left waiting like Merrick Garland, with a similar payoff to boot.
Barack, you as a very good question. I’d like to congratulate your sister Sarah for calling out Pres.-elect Trump’s deal with United Technologies and it’s Carrier division for what it is: “crony capitalism.”
Nancy, it kept over 1000 jobs from migrating to Mexico. $7 million of Indiana state tax breaks was the cost. Carrier has agreed to put over $16 million into plant upgrades in their Indiana manufacturing plant. How much would it have cost to have 1000 people on unemployment, welfare, food stamps and retraining costs? All taxes now paid by Carrier and its employees now stays in the U.S. What good would have done to let those jobs go to Mexico then we would’ve lost all tax revenue?
Did you complain when Obama bailed out GM? That ened up costing taxpayers $11 billion. Not millions but billions. I think you’re letting your political bias cloud your views because this was a good deal for America. Just read some articles on how grateful the Carrier workers are to Trump that he saved their jobs.
If this is an issue that Democrats and other liberals want to hang their hat on then bring it on. You’re fighting a losing battle on this issue. The Carrier deal was a win-win for our country, our workers and Trump. If you want to keep on losing elections just like you lost on Nov. 8 then keep up this narrative. It works well for the GOP.
BP
” Did you complain when Obama bailed out GM? “
Actually, I did, although in private since I was not participating on the Vanguard at the tim. I do not believe in the government picking financial winners and losers regardless of who has control of the White House. I do not support our current model of winner take all capitalism, but if that is the model we are going to use, I think we should use it until enough people realize that they are not heros and heroines in an Ayn Rand novel and vote to adopt a more humane system. Pretending that we live in a “free market” system while all the while being bailed out of a preferential basis by whatever political party is in power does not seem to be a productive approach to me regardless of who holds power.
Tia,
Did you ask him about his position on the UBI?
That will be in Edition 2, obviously Dr. Price will be all for a very large UBI so he can suck even more money out of sick patients for his doctor friends.
BP
“so he can suck even more money out of sick patients for his doctor friends.”
Well, it would seem that you and I have at least one opinion in common with regard to Dr. Price’s likely motivations. Dr. Price’s positions do indeed reflect many positions that are contrary to my own about the ethics of the provision of medical care. Dr. Price is for a an exclusively privately controlled medical “system” of fee for service medicine ( more lucrative for the doctors) over seen by private insurance companies ( an entire industry devoted to making as much money as possible from individuals while paying for as little care as possible.
I believe in single party payer universally provided health care with a private option for those who want to pay for it out of their own pocket. Many modern countries have such hybrid systems that provide needed medical care for all while allowing elective and cosmetic care for those who choose to pay for it. Many of these countries achieve objectively far higher standards of health care outcomes for their populations than we do. We have much to learn from these other models but are extremely unlikely to move in that direction under the guidance of Dr. Price.
So while my piece Davis Green Onion piece was ( almost) purely satirical, I do have very serious objections to the philosophy of Dr. Price and will write on that separately and in a serious fashion.
Are you being satirical now? How are we to know? I’m surprised you didn’t put devil’s horns and vampire teeth on Dr. Price’s picture for the fake article.
Hi quielo
Wish we had had the time ! Maybe at a future conversation ? Feel free to send your questions and I will ask him and respond when possible ……if I haven’t been censored by then that is.
Brilliant piece but it left out the part about vouchering Medicare to create an income boost for insurance agents and brokerage commissions as seniors sell holdings from IRA’s in excess of the required minimum to make up the shortfall in premium support.
Misanthrop
So little time, so much to satirize.
Tia…you are obviously a talented satirist. Thank you.
Tia.. .you are obviously a talented satirist. Thank you.
BP
You are right. The possibilities are endless and I welcome any articles as I always have. I hope the Vanguard will continue as a space for as wide a presentation of views as possible within the stated guidelines.
As an honest question. Do you view satire and lies as the same ? Because if you do, I can certainly see how my piece would be offensive to you.
Just as I don’t see how you and other liberals in town I’m sure won’t see satirical fake news articles filled with lies about liberal people and politicians as offensive to all of you.
There’s a certain irony to seeing somebody who regularly rails against the perceived victim mentality of liberals whining about a cheeky satirical piece. Who knew your skin was so thin?
I always advocate for ‘justice 4 all’.
Lol you actually think I’m a pseudonym for justice4all? Best laugh I’ve had all morning!
You said it, not me.
Well golly, that must make it true! Ha ha
Loki
Thank you. I love the word “cheeky” and look for appropriate places to use it.
Loki I thought you were a poet.
Misanthrope:
I am a poet
But I claim not to know it.
Refrigerator.
“A man is angry at a libel because it is false, but at a satire because it is true” ~ G.K. Chesterton
Tres vrai…
BP
“ I’m surprised you didn’t put devil’s horns and vampire teeth on Dr. Price’s picture for the fake article.”
Darn, I wish I had thought of it. ( Satirical)
I wonder about Dr. Price’s stance on continuing to provide taxpayer funding of sugary beverages for low income and disabled people through the SNAP (AKA “food stamps”) program? We certainly want to assure that the obesity epidemic continues so that there will be more income opportunities for people that have to deal with the consequences in the future.
BP
“Are you being satirical now? How are we to know?”
I was only being satirical in the first sentence about our agreement. The rest was my true opinion.
As for “how are we to know” ? Simple, if unsure just ask. I will always give you a straight answer.
For my part, I will attempt to make it even clearer in the future. Maybe a change of title to “The Davis Green Onion” – a satirical piece” would be clearer and thus avoid any suggestion that I am presenting factual information for the consumption of the gullible.
I’m pretty sure it’s the frontal lobe that governs abstract thinking.
Then why didn’t you get that I was being satirical when I wrote that?
Yet, some have had (or should consider) frontal lobatomies…
A great movie… “one flew over the blogger’s nest”… think it starred Jack Nickeanddime…
Misanthrop and TopCat
Thanks for playing along in the intended spirit of the article.
Eric
Well spoken sir. You made me laugh out loud and so are receiving my award for my first Vanguard induced laugh of the day.
Especially for BP
The comment to Eric was “satire” as there is no official award for first induced laugh. I made that up, but truly apologize if you have believed in the past that such an award truly existed. I cannot tell since you have never chosen to comment on that before.
oh WOW…the anti-DV and the anti-DE and thank god…. I was already getting feelers out for one of my non-profits and the folks to run those servers..
See ya folks later. 🙂
And I hope the Green Onion is not a joke….please tell me it isn’t….
did ya know that in CA one cannot get WIC if the babies are NOT fully vaccinated and the mother also
did ya know that one can not become a citizen without enduring COMPLETE BAYER led vaccinations… even though they were fully vaccinated in whatever country they emigrated from?
And some are now dying from massive injections of toxins at once?
Did ya know that Bayer makes money on fluoridation of water and many of the vaccines…..
and did ya know Bayer flouridated the jews in the holocaust?
did ya know that in CA one cannot attend school even if all the older or other children in the family were maimed or killed as a result of vaccines?
did ya know that in CA and perhaps other states, MDs get $40K bonuses if they have 100% compliance with the USDA<FDA>ADA>AMA and Bayer vaccine schedules
did ya know that is ALL truth and many friends have lost their pediatricians as a result of a refusal of even the worst of the vaccines.
Watch the movie BOUGHT. it is online…
OMG each day is only getting so much better and better… I should pinch myself
USDA Food & Nutrition Service. http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/immunization-screening-and-referral-wic
Marina, thanks for the list but it might just be easier to post a link like this:
http://www.shortlist.com/entertainment/15-of-the-internets-craziest-conspiracy-theories
do I have time to read your links? not now…have a plane to catch..
If ya go back far enough the nimrods who make such lists later eat their words oh wait….with the 50 year rule they are are likely dead first get a f grip
PS> ever follow quackwatch….an AMA group?
Follow Dr Mercola and Dr Hyman instead
or farmwatch? a Monsanto group?
nah do farmmatch instead
really jokers
the best jokes of these days are the Jon Oliver ones…..the ones about the likes of George Clooney and BO about the chances of the Donald.
cya…have a plane to catch…may meet some of you tomorrow in person if I have time.
Marina
“did ya know that in CA and perhaps other states, MDs get $40K bonuses if they have 100% compliance with the USDA<FDA>ADA>AMA and Bayer vaccine schedules”
Satire alert, lest I trigger anyone.
OMG ! I did not know that. I have never received so much as one cent for meeting this target which I have done on a regular basis. Do you suppose that I can get $40K retrospectively for the past 30 years ? I will be happy to do my “own research” for this much money if you just point me in the right direction……any little clue will do. This ranks right up there with the person who pointed out at City Council that I was receiving funding to promote fluoridation. OMG…..I missed out on that too. I guess that I am just not much of a business woman.
Actually, it’s almost all complete nonsensical garbage.
When I first read the headline I thought Trump may have nominated local car guy Tom Price (who once gave me a ride in his GTO):
http://www.autonews.com/article/20121217/OEM02/312179992/after-selling-out-to-sonic-price-builds-another-empire
P.S. This reads more like the “Blue Onion”, the recent edition of the “Red Onion” says Dr. Price has dedicate his life to “saving babies” and as a “fiscal conservative” dedicated to teaching “gun control” and he hopes that with more training to gun owners like the “Mozambique drill” (2 shots to the thoracic area followed by an immediate shot to the cranio-ocular cavity) we will not only reduce the number of criminals transported by ambulance and life flight but reduce the need for prisons to lock up violent criminals.
You should post this on Pantsuit Nation. Maybe not so satirical… http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/11/30/the-new-secretary-of-health-and-human-services-is-a-member-of-a-fringe-medical-organization-heres-what-that-means/ The SF Chronicle said it well yesterday with the headline: “Trump filling Cabinet with “swamp” denizens.” I feel we may be sloshing around in their muck a lot in the next four years.
Anya
Thanks so much for the link. I was unaware of Dr. Price’s affiliation with the AAPS. That is quite illuminating with regard to his over all perspective.
for the stupidest on this stupid list..
here is the link for the MOVIE BOUGHT> http://www.boughtmovie.com/
of those who dare,you will, get a clue I mean
the others can continue selling round up and get more and more poisoned……
ask me if I care ..natural selection will take care of those who cannot follow the money nor learn the truth
Marina:
Thanks for providing the link.
Overall, I’m still on the side of “trusting the establishment” regarding vaccines, etc. I get a flu shot every year, for example. However, in general, I’m uncomfortable when I learn of the “business side” of that same establishment, since it inevitably becomes entrenched to preserve the status quo. (And yes, it ultimately leads to $.)
As you’ve said, “follow the money”. (That’s both the strength, and weakness of our system.) It also probably ensures that some research is funded, while other research is not.
Regarding Tia’s original article, yes – I’m concerned, but feel powerless (at this point) to do anything about it.
Ron
I am confused. What in my article made you concerned ? I thought that I was writing a satiric piece before considering delving into the actual major problems with this appointment as I see them. The intent was humor, not to increase anyone’s level of concern….. that will come later, and I guarantee, for many of us, it will not be the least bit humorous.
Tia:
Some examples from your article:
“Long known as an opponent of both abortion and readily accessible and affordable birth control . . .” (Speaks for itself.)
“Warming to his subject of the provision of increased high paying jobs within the medical/pharmaceutical industries, . . .” (Just wondering if he does have ties to such industries. I’m not that familiar with him.)
In general, I’m concerned about most of Trump’s appointments.
Better to learn, understand and trust science and your own judgement, and history than “the establishment”.
Smallpox has basically been eradicated in the world, thanks to vaccinations… polio in most countries… hope you didn’t need the “establishment” to teach you that… measles was rare until a lot of folk started to listening to folk like MK. Likewise whooping cough.
Ex… does it depend on “the establishment” to determine that water flows downhill (unless there is a pump involved)? The establishment did not make up gravity… it’s not just a good idea, it’s the law!
hpierce:
Doing your “own research” often involves depending upon the research of others (including experts in the field). It generally does not involve conducting your own research studies. And yes – the examples you’ve provided have helped convince me that vaccinations are (overall) a good idea.
Some people have more interest than others, in diving into these issues. (It’s not a real pressing concern, for me.) However, there have been plenty of examples of relatively new medicines and techniques that were subsequently found to be harmful. (Seems to happen quite often, actually.)
Also – in general, western medicine has had a history of disregarding age-old practices from other parts of the world, that might be effective (but perhaps not studied).
I never said do your “own research”… (you ‘trolling’ here?).
Jenner’s discovery as to a smallpox vaccine was empirical, as I recall… I understood the concepts before I was 10 (and I’m not even slavic)… if you watch TV, and see medicines being ‘promoted’, you’ll hear that ‘oh, but instead of a cure, you might have an erection lasting more than 4 hours, requiring medical attention, your condition might deteriorate (physical or mental), and oh, you might die’… rubella was still prevalent when I was a kid, and caused serious complications for some. Have known those contracting polio in the 1950’s… major factors to their lives…
Yes, “big pharma” can be self-promoting, but that doesn’t mean that for the most part, the recommendations on vaccinations are not valid. There are risk groups,but a competent physician, with honest patients, can navigate those.
Chickenpox is a ‘funny’ one… the recommendation of many was if your child contracted it, expose the other kids in the home to ‘get it over with’… we did. They’re fine 30 years later… it was, a ‘live virus’.
Besides the standard vaccines as a child (did the sugar cube polio thing), as an adult, have chosen the flu shots, pneumococcal pneumonia, and shingles ones… had the mumps (hence, no tonsils), regular measles, and chickenpox, as a kid. Still going strong.
Oh, Ron… acupuncture, in particular has been studied by “western medicine” since the early 70’s, and is now standardly used by ‘western medicine’… I knew one of the earliest test subjects (frequent pain due to early rheumatoid arthritis) and it helped him, and it helped/helps one of my kids over 40 years later… a procedure fully covered by most standard health insurance companies, when indicated…
hpierce:
I should have clarified: By trusting the “establishment”, I meant that I’m mostly trusting of the research that’s conducted and reported by the establishment, as well. (While still noting that the research may not uncover all complications, and might not focus as much on some alternatives that don’t have as much potential profit motive.)
Yes – regarding those “disclaimers”, it sure makes one pause, doesn’t it? I wonder how well those advertisements work.
I’ve heard from some anti-vaccination folk that getting (X) disease is the best way to develop immunity. (Sort of like your chickenpox example.) However, this doesn’t seem to be a “good idea” regarding polio, for example.
Again, this issue (in general) is not one that I have a great deal of concern about. Also, I figure that truths eventually surface, regardless. (As we gain more knowledge, as well.)
In the meantime – if we all wanted to improve our own “mental health” (well-being), we’d probably all stay off the Vanguard! 🙂
That’s why I included “history”, Ron… although I am pretty sure you discount anything I contribute…. you are not alone in that… have a great weekend… pax
hpierce: ” . . . although I am pretty sure you discount anything I contribute. . .”
Well, you’re definitely wrong about that.
Actually, I try to consider every viewpoint that I read (from everyone), even if I post a disagreement. (Sometimes, I think about it later, as well. Even if it doesn’t always change my opinion.) Maybe that’s the real value of this blog – to see and understand different viewpoints.
Marina
So I took the time to read your referenced article on vaccination. I thought that you were on to something with the initial paragraph that emphasizes doing one’s own research and then questioning every thing that one believes or is told. The problem is that the author simply does not believe that unless your conclusion happens to agree with her’s.
The evidence, in her own words : “In reality, your doctor is simply parroting the standard line about vaccination from the American Medical Association (AMA) playbook. If you think you are getting their honest assessment, think again.”
Now let’s think about that statement for a moment. Does the author know everyone’s doctor ? Does she know whether or not each and every doctor is “simply parroting the standard line” or has she considered that some of the involved doctors may have themselves been engaged in research, may be thoroughly knowledgeable in both the pro and con side of the vaccination debate and be presenting their own synthesis of the data as they understand it through their own research and experience. Obviously she does not know this, but is willing to make such a sweeping statement is a testament to her own lack of willingness to keep an open mind as she supposedly urges the reader to do.
My training in medicine precludes me from making up my mind in advance and then accepting or rejecting information depending on whether or not it aligns with my preconceived ideology. This author obviously does not share this approach and I would highly urge people to read it just as you urged, and it is my belief that if they do indeed read with an open mind, they will find ample reason to reject her ideas.
PS> the only links I am now willing to share of the triplet alphabet soup FED sites is the CDC… I even have some FB friends who are like some of the densest doctors on this group….who unfriended me when I said….scuse me…..but the link to the CDC webpage for the LIVE MMR vaccine is ….this and guess what….it is a
LIVE virus…..
and the guy, usually it is a guy, who knew so much better, raged and swore and undfriended and even blocked me
Many of the same types of ostrich people are hanging out here….in fact I dare ya to watch that movie
cya
Tia- You are advocating for a single payer health care system that the government provides to everyone. Then you write an article about Dr. Price who has been selected to run the department that oversees healthcare disagreeing with some of his beliefs.
Do you not see that if we had gone to a single payer system in 2009 that on the first day of work Dr. Price could decide that his department would not longer be providing abortions or any forms of birth control? Roe v Wade would not need to be overturned in the courts if the only employer of doctors in the country did not provide abortions.
As an example look at the canceled carry rules. Sure it is legal in Yolo County to carry a concealed weapon, that is your constitutional right. However, you will never be issued a permit to carry because the current Sheriff does not believe that people should have concealed weapons.
I know some things sound great like free healthcare for everyone, but you have to remember that if it is controlled by the government then sometimes the people in charge are going to have different views on life that you won’t agree with and you gave up your choice in what services you receive by having the government provide the service for everyone and eliminating all competition.
Sam said . . . “Roe v Wade would not need to be overturned in the courts if the only employer of doctors in the country did not provide abortions.”
Sam’s statement would be true in a National Health System, where the doctors are employees, but in a single payer system where the healthcare delivery system and the healthcare payment system are separate/independent of one another.
So you are saying that Dr. Price could only eliminate abortions and birth control from the VA hospital and not from Kaiser? If Medicare was expanded for everyone and Dr. Price made the reimbursement $0 for both abortions and birth control because he considers them “unnecessary” like lasik and braces do you think the availability for both will stay the same or decrease?
In Davis if you want to purchase solar I think you have to also have low flow toilets in your house. Because the City has been given the authority to dictate how I improve my house they can force me do things that I would rather not do.
Maybe Dr. Price will require all healthcare delivery systems to sterilize patients that receive abortions or those companies don’t receive any medical reimbursements for any services they provide.
Sam you are taking a page from Ron’s playbook . . . creating “what if” scenarios that have only the remotest possibility of happening. Dr. Price can’t eliminate anything by himself. If he wants to eliminate abortions he will first need the concurrence of the SCOTUS to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and that SCOTUS decision will only throw the decision about abortions back to the 50 individual states to decide. What are the chances that California will eliminate access to abortions? Zero.
If Dr. Price succeeds in getting SCOTUS to overturn Roe vs. Wade, he could attempt to have Congress pass a law banning abortions nationwide. However, the States Rights support in Congress he has for overturning Roe vs. Wade would be strongly opposed to a Federal mandate that takes those rights away from the States right after giving them back to them. Ain’t gonna happen.
Your solar/toilets abortions/sterilization example is illuminating (about what a local jurisdiction can get away with) but it lacks equivalency.
Matt- Did the Yolo County Sheriff go to SCOTUS to overturn the second amendment or did he figure out a way to effectively stop issuing or severely limit concealed carry permits?
I think that you are missing my point. What I am trying to say is as you push for the government to have more control over aspects of our lives you need to be careful because those in power will not always believe what you believe in or want what you want.
“Ain’t gonna happen.”
I am sure a year ago in Alabama someone said that same thing when asked if the Obama administration would (without a vote in congress) require employers pay $43,000 per year in order for someone to be considered a salaried employee.
Sam, how is a Yolo County Sheriff decision that applies only to Yolo County equivalent to a Federal Government decision that denies currently provided medical services to every woman nationwide?
I understand the principle that underlies your government taking control point, but the devil is in the details and the devil in a Yolo County carry permit issue is very different than a nationwide women’s access to healthcare issue and also very different from an employer/employee status conflict.
What is the $43,000 paying for?
The Department of Labor decided to increase the wage required to consider someone a salaried employee from $23,000 to $43,000. Not one elected official voted for this change and now as of December 1st it is the law. I am sure that 95% of the Vanguard readers think this is wonderful, but you also need to consider that the opposite could very well happen in the next year and the DOL could decide that you can deem any employee salaried no matter what the wage.
(Yes, I know that California has a law that you can’t be considered a salaried employee unless you make double minimum wage, but most states don’t have those rules.)
Sam, thanks. I did not know about that.
At 2,080 hours that equates to an hourly rate of $20.67, up from $11.05.
The reasonability of either of those hourly rates varies by region. Seems like an instance where a National imposition is an example of your government taking control point.
Will admit that I don’t know the current nuances, but “salaried” used to mean that you were not eligible for ‘overtime’, didn’t have to work 40 hours a week, as long as the work got done… hadn’t heard of the $ threshold, but wouldn’t surprise me, either.
Ron
Having the government be the provider of health care is no more likely to have the government dictating what health care you can and cannot receive than is having insurance company dictate what care you can and cannot receive. You seem to be neglecting the simple fact that if your sole insurance provider is a Catholic run institution, they get to dictate what service you can and cannot have if you are a women expressing a need for reproductive health care. I said nothing at all about the government being the sole provider of health care. What I would favor is a system in which the government in the sole funder of health care for all preventive and all necessary services. I would like to see a hybrid system in which all medically necessary care is provided by the government and all elective care is purchased by those who desire it. I fail to see how this equates to the government mandating your care. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you see as the problem ?
If the government deems abortion and birth control unnecessary then for a large percentage of the population they will become unavailable.
Imagine in the real world of the United States if the government-run health agency tried to do that.
About half of the Country would be OK with it and the other half would be in furious just the same as the government deeming (NLRB) that McDonald’s is responsible for franchise employees.
I concur with Don.
Sam’s half and half example needs to be restated in three groups (1) Supports, (2) Neutral, (3) Opposes. That would probably result in something like 20 – 40 – 40
Sam
You are correct that the governmental definition would limit care in the case of both contraception and abortion if designated “unnecessary”. However, that is not significantly different in outcome from the use of a different strategy currently being employed across the nation by Republicans whose plans are to defund Planned Parenthood ( the major provider of low cost quality preventive health care to poor women ) on the bogus basis of defunding abortion. This is a false statement on two counts. The first and most concrete is that this defunding will apply to Planned Parenthood clinics where no abortion has ever been performed. The second is more subtle but no less substantial in effect. I can think of no better means of increasing the demand for abortion than to defund the major source of highly reliable, accessible contraception to the economically least advantaged, namely, Planned Parenthood. And yet, this is Dr. Price’s avowed plan.
Sam
“If the government deems abortion and birth control unnecessary then for a large percentage of the population they will become unavailable.”
I am much more concerned about the real intent of Dr. Price which according to his own plan is to defund Planned Parenthood which will have the effect of making both unavailable to a large percentage of the population.
I am also quite concerned about his Empowering Patients First plan which is very explicit in its protections for providers whose religious beliefs prevent them from providing or even referring for either abortion or contraceptive services, but provides no protection for providers whose moral framework demands providing whatever service is most appropriate for their patient be it contraception or abortion. To me, this is a blatant breech of church and state when the states decides whose religious convictions will be honored and protected and whose will not. This is not hypothetical. It is a written part of the bill that he introduced.
” However, that is not significantly different in outcome from the use of a different strategy currently being employed across the nation by Republicans whose plans are to defund Planned Parenthood ( the major provider of low cost quality preventive health care to poor women ) on the bogus basis of defunding abortion.”
I think that the defunding threat is just bogus showboating for votes.
“I can think of no better means of increasing the demand for abortion than to defund the major source of highly reliable, accessible contraception to the economically least advantaged,”
That is true now, but would Planned Parenthood be needed if everyone had accessible/affordable healthcare?
Tia wrote:
> Planned Parenthood ( the major provider of low
> cost quality preventive health care to poor women )
Tia forgot to mention that the main reason conservatives want to cut funding to Planned Parenthood is that it is also the major provider of low cost abortions in America for poor women. The main reason that many moderates now want to cut funding to to Planned Parenthood is that David Daleidan’s videos have shown that it is also the major provider of low cost baby parts from poor women…
Tia:
I think you’re confusing me with another commenter. In general, I support a single-payer (government-sponsored) system, probably along the same lines that you stated. It’s about time to remove this as an employer responsibility, as well.
Society ends up paying for those without health care insurance, regardless. It’s completely absurd, and costly.
However, I try to avoid engaging in these types of discussions, since it’s beyond a Davis issue (and all of the arguments have been repeatedly and well-stated by others, regardless). And, Trump has been elected, essentially ending all hope of such a system, for now. (Perhaps he will have some ideas/proposals to reduce costs in general, however. I guess that remains to be seen.)
Ron
I am sorry for confusing you with someone else. I have been on and off the Vanguard frequently today and have sometimes found myself tangled up in comments. I realize that some of these issues may seem very distant to some. But for me, as a member of multiple Yolo County health committees and as a gynecologist who after many, many years of promoting affordable effective contraception finally began to see a reduction in teen and unintended pregnancies, to see these advances threatened by national policy seems not only local, but very close and very personal.
So, Ron, if employers don’t pay towards healthcare, who does? If government, where does that money come from? Does it come equally from those earning $35k/year, those making $100k/year, more? And how do we pay for those earning nothing, with pre-existing conditions, etc.? [i.e. the ‘homeless’]
You wrote,
Please define what “society” is/will be paying for healthcare… right now, employers, employees, and taxpayers in general are paying… you recommend employers be taken out of that mix, apparently… supplanted by who?
You are sounding like a pro-business, profits are first, person… you should learn from how you characterize developers, if you haven’t already taken that “view” (which is untrue/unfair)
hpierce:
I don’t have answers to all of those questions. However, I understand that other countries have come up with government-sponsored systems that seem to work. I’ve never understood the “knee-jerk” negative reaction that some seem to have, when this is mentioned. Seems to be a uniquely American, and conservative response.
Regarding “employers”, they wouldn’t necessarily be totally “out of the picture”, since they are part of “society”. However, I’d like to see a system that isn’t tied to employment. (Hmm, maybe something like “Obamacare”? At least, until something better is created?)
I don’t see your connection regarding developers and government-sponsored healthcare. (Also, I don’t think that I’ve characterized all developers. Most of my statements have been focused on the “status quo” system in most communities, where developers have undue influence. You don’t have to look very far away, to see it.) Regardless, all of this eventually leads back into a discussion regarding “endless” development/growth on a finite planet, and starts to get off topic from this article.)
Ron…
Acknowledge your 5:58 post… you obviously did not read the totality of my post to which you responded… I addressed the issue of the un-employed… a bit of a cheap shot on your part to have ignored that part… will not engage further with you on this thread… but, truly, best to you and yours…
And you pretty much didn’t answer ANY of my questions… but it matters not…
You’re reading more into my response than what’s there. No “cheap shot” intended.
Health care systems are a very complicated subject, in which I essentially have no expertise. I’m not the best person to ask specific questions of, regarding how an ideal system would work.
I began my comments by noting Marina’s (general) point regarding the corrupting power of $. Then, Tia mistakenly attributed some statements to me, regarding a position on government-sponsored healthcare. I then clarified that I agreed with Tia (overall), and she acknowledged the error. Then, you challenged me regarding those statements. None of this is a big deal.
Funny how things can be misunderstood (and spread beyond intentions), on these blogs. I wish now that I hadn’t said anything on this subject.
Ron… will accept your 7:36 post at face value, but don’t think you care (I’m just ‘trolling’, right?) [no need to respond to that… am pretty much beyond that now]
You definitely have one thing right… medical coverage for folk, private, public, healthy, pre-existing conditions, insured, not insured, etc., is indeed complicated… that is definitely true…
hpierce: No – I don’t think you’re “trolling”. I think that sometimes you might attribute some intentions that aren’t there, and perhaps make some conclusions based on that. And, no – you’re wrong, in that I care enough about what you think to clarify my intention.
Are you baiting me, Tia? Employees of Catholic employers providing health insurance do not restrict what procedures a woman can have… only that they will have a 100% deductible on that… big difference… many other faith-based employers do the same… yet, you singled out Catholics … why?
BTW there are at least 3 ‘flavors’ or Catholics in the US…
hpierce
“Employees of Catholic employers providing health insurance do not restrict what procedures a woman can have”
I certainly had no intent to “bait” you. I do not go around memorizing the religious preferences of posters on the Vanguard.
I think that you misunderstood my point. I was not talking about “Catholic employers providing health insurance….” I was talking specifically about Catholic health care individuals and institutions both of which I have known personally to deny both contraception and abortion to more than a few individual patients that I have known through the years. One example is a Catholic provider who I have known for many years who was of the practice of refusing not only to prescribe birth control himself, but also of not referring to a willing provider until such time as he was told by the group that of course he himself did not have to prescribe any particular medication, but if he intended to carry on as a member of the group, he did have to refer to a willing provider. Now this may be equally as true of members of other religions, but not within my experience with 30 years in the field.
“BTW there are at least 3 ‘flavors’ or Catholics in the US…”
I admit to a lack of knowledge of the “flavors” of Catholicism as many are of the “flavors” of Islam or the “flavors” of Protestant theology. But, I am not sure what this assertion has to do with my comment, if anything.
Everyone note the time and date, I am going to defend Tia’s post:
Hpierce- Hobby Lobby did sue for being forced to provide birth control and I think they are Catholic an the only faith based health coverage I have ever heard advertised was Catholic. That might have been why she chose that religion.
No, the owners of Hobby Lobby are Pentecostal Christians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Green_(entrepreneur)
You missed my point… you failed to acknowledge the difference in payment/treatment…
You also mentioned a “catholic provider” who would not only not prescribe, but who would not refer… good… take an example of one, and paint the canvas… got it… whatever… I am thinking you have other “issues”…
I know of many Catholic organizations who discourage artificial contraception, and definitely abortion, while offering support to the woman for alternatives, including financial support if she chooses to carry to term… and emotional support if they don’t make that choice… they pretty much also ‘refer’. The ones I’m familiar with are definitely “pro-life”, and that includes the life of the woman. It is “pro-life” after all.
Wish those resources existed the two times Mom had an ‘abortion’… natural, spontaneous… she wanted kids, but biology said “once”, and from what I was told, that was a bit dicey… but Mom delivered a 9 lb 1 oz baby, when she was told by her physician (literally, up to the point of delivery) the baby would be 6.5 lbs. Yeah, trust the professionals…
Hobby Lobby is evangelical Protestant in ownership. See,
http://www.hobbylobby.com/about-us/donations-ministry
A swing and a miss, Sam…
PS, thanks Don, for the affirmation as to facts…
Sorry, I stand corrected. I must have incorrectly assumed that Hobby Lobby objected to birth control because they were Catholic and missed that they were Pentecostal.
Sam… I truly respect you acknowledging the error… I hope always to do the same… no harm, no foul… best to you and yours… truly…
hpierce wrote:
> BTW there are at least 3 ‘flavors’ or Catholics in the US…
Like any faith there a lot more than three “falvors” of Catholics between the super right wing daily mass ladies with a lace scarf over their heads who protest in front of abortion clinics and Nancy Pelosi who wants federal funds to install a drive through window at abortion clinics making it easier for people to pick up birth control and baby parts…
What’s your order ma’am?
I’ll take 3 hearts, 2 lungs, a liver and a large diet coke.
sam, though you seem like a nice enough chap… I am pretty sure your conjectures are not based in facts… more after I land cya
if you were old enough to read one of the first iterations of the BOs obamacare …..by the time I made time it was over 1700 pages and while my friend Ron Paul read it as said OMG. the likes of Pelosi were encouraging those who give a f what she thinks to vote yes and figure it out later
that is a typical democrat response.. in the meantime I was working hard to let folks know what a bunch of idiocy was in that piece of garbage
by the time it was passed it was over 3000 pages and I am screw ya i@@@@@@@@
as my senior friends, many self employeed and with few options lost their plans and got crap for way more
in the meantime those who live in the states where BO promised to help….you know the areas where the generations of black men has not had a job well for generations…..they also got na da
Marina
It would seem that you and I see the effects of the ACA from very different perspectives. In my own clinic, I saw many, many women, some who were merely concerned because they had had no health care which covered preventative services for many years because of lack of insurance and some who had advanced stages of cancer for the same reason. If a woman could not afford health care insurance that included preventative services, prior to the ACA, she was simply out of luck. Yes there were some health care clinics who provided free or reduced cost services to some women, but these free clinics are never, repeat never adequate to meet the existing need. The ACA would not have been my choice. Single party payer with universal coverage would be my choice. But to state only the bad, without acknowledging that there was also some good ( including lives saved) by the ACA is to allow your ideology to overwhelm any sense of nuance with regard to the downsides and benefits of this bill.
hpierce
I provided one example. I could have posted many others since many of my patient’s have come from the system previously known as “Mercy”. Many of them had to utilize other resources such as Planned Parenthood to obtain contraception since their providers refused to provide contraceptive care. I fail to see what other “issues” you think that I have since all you have done besides insult me is to reinforce what I said by stating “I know of many Catholic organizations who discourage artificial contraception, and definitely abortion,” which was essentially all I was saying. It seems that you are asserting that when you say something it has merit, but when I say essentially the same thing using different words. I must have “issues”.
Well, I posit the ‘insults’ are mutual… that said, best to you and yours… seriously…
hpierce
What insult did you take…..seriously. It was not I that mentioned you having issues. Until this evening, if asked, I could not have even said what faith you adhered to. Nor do I care. I also said nothing disparaging about Catholics or their faith. I just happen to disagree with some of the beliefs and more especially with the imposition of those beliefs upon others. Again, please, I am genuinely asking…..what did you see as an insult ?
Ok, might have misread… you accused me of,
Oh, and the “you think” comment is what you say others should not apply to you? How do you surmise what I think? Seems you’ve reacted to others claiming to know ‘what you think’, many times… am I incorrect?
The “insult me” part is even more telling… you impart to me an “intention” (knowing what I thought/intended?)…
No, on three counts… you are not consistent on projecting how others feel… yet you did so with me… you are on record as saying that is inappropriate… I did, in fact, not mean to insult you but questioned your words, assumptions… BIG difference… if you can’t discern the difference, can’t help with that…
Catholics do not impose their beliefs on others… patently untrue… you wrote,
Yeah, right… there has been exactly one President of the US who was Catholic, and he was murdered before he fully served his first term… try evangelical protestants, Mormans, Jehovah’s Witnesses, atheists, Scientologists and agnostics higher on the list of those who actively try to impose their beliefs on others. At least in the last 100 years…
Finally, you ignored my well wishes, honestly meant, and those still apply… best to you and yours now and forever… hope you don’t consider that an ‘insult’…
hpierce wrote:
> How do you surmise what I think?
We have multiple people that post to the list who have “super ESP” and know what everyone thinks (and can also tell if they are really racist)…
And yes, Tia, eliminating “the products of conception” is ‘righteous’ and the essence of moral and free will… great means of contraception… I defer to your medical and moral values… and yes, I understand you do not do the abortion procedure
As Catholics, my spouse and I practiced contraception (in contradiction to “instructions”)… many forms, but the “pill” was not one of them, and ‘norplant’ didn’t exist. We paid for the contraceptive means. We did not expect others to do so. You seem to believe all of us should share those costs… OK…
It still appears you have problems with Catholics, or anyone who is faith-based. Based on your posts… yet, if someone questions that, you appear to be hyper-defensive… I finally realize I don’t really care why…
Best to you and yours…
hpierce
What have I ever said that made you feel that I have problems with Catholics or the members of any faith for that matter ? Disagreement does not imply that I have “issues”. Perhaps if I appear to be defensive it is the defensiveness of a minority who is well aware that many do not feel I have any morals simply because I do not adhere to theirs. I have been told as much since there are many who freely express their belief that agnostics, or atheists or spiritualists who do not adhere to a particular faith cannot have morals. If you are a lifelong Catholic, you have problem never experienced being told this since yours is a world recognized religion. That does not make my experience any less valid. I fully respect your right to any belief system that you have, as long as you do not attempt to force me to adhere to your beliefs. If I have ever said anything to the contrary, please let me know what it was.
Tia,
Nicely done satire! I approve and strongly suspect that my mentor, George, would approve as well. Oink!
Thanks NP IV.
It was my first venture into this genre. I cannot state whether or not it will also be my last. I feel that we may have a rocky time ahead and this was better than than simply wallowing in my trepidation.
hpierce
I made no “surmise” that was not based on your words directly. You claim that you believe that I have “issues”, non specified based on my comments. I believe that this implies that you feel that I have motives that I am not revealing. This to me would imply a rather non-flattering level of deception. If this was not your implication, I stand corrected.
You still have not explained why you feel that I have “problems” also non-specified with those who are religious without any indication of what makes you think so.
And as for not acknowledging your good wishes, when has that ever been a requirement for respectful communication on the Vanguard ? I see frequent greetings and closure of comments without good byes or other verbal amenities without anyone seeming to take umbrage or perceive a lack of respect. I count some posters here amongst my personal friends and yet we do not always say “hello” or “good buy” or wish each others families well. However, if you feel that this is a way that you would like for us to start and end conversations, just let me know and I will be happy to abide by your preference.
Tia wrote:
> You still have not explained why you feel that I have “problems”
> also non-specified with those who are religious
I think most people have some “problems” with some “religious” people. If Tia does not come out and post “I don’t have “problems” with any religious people” she will answer her own question…
SOD
I do not have “problems” with any “religious people”.
I do have major problems with anyone who wishes to force others to abide by their own religious beliefs whether that is by legislation, by regulation, or by force, coercion or violence.
I sincerely hope that clarifies my position.
“We have multiple people that post to the list who have “super ESP” and know what everyone thinks (and can also tell if they are really racist)…”
And we have some people who take people at their word, whether written or spoken, local or national, until such time that one has either revoked their earlier statements, explained the evolution of their change of heart and belief, and preferably acted on these changes to demonstrate that “acts do speak louder than words”.
BP
Satire alert.
“Nancy Pelosi who wants federal funds to install a drive through window at abortion clinics making it easier for people to pick up birth control and baby parts…”
Oh no ! I object ! Not to the content, but rather to the fact that this was not explicitly labelled as “Satire” as the author seemed to feel necessary for others. Perhaps it represents the first trial ballon for The Red Onion ?
Funny but BP didn’t write it, SOD did.
Oooops. My fault entirely. Target changed. Sentiment remains.
Target? Are you targeting commenters?
I am targeting ideas as expressed in comments regardless of who may be authoring them and whether or not I have made the correct attribution. ( No satire)
Remember when Sara Palin used a target in her campaign, it didn’t come off too well.
(satire) I’ll play your game too.
BP
Works for me. I am an equal opportunity satirist.