Shadow Dancer wrote:
Dr. Fauci (finally) says "Hydroxychloroquine not effective against coronavirus."

Wonder how much longer he will keep his current position?

Fauci also said in an interview this morning that masks work to stop the spread of the virus, and he’s wearing one both for safety and to set a good example. No doubt somebody shit their britches when they heard that!

Baanthai wrote:

Fauci also said in an interview this morning that masks work to stop the spread of the virus, and he’s wearing one both for safety and to set a good example. No doubt somebody shit their britches when they heard that!

Yes, Dr. Fauci is an Enemy of the People. Useful Idiots everywhere have soiled their dyties.

Shadow Dancer wrote:
Good observations, it is a complex situation regarding proof, probably insurmountable.

And workplace liability is a separate issue. In my old industry, film production, a battle is brewing over productions' wanting workers to sign waivers, with the unions saying "no way." And rules being discussed for TV and movie production would make a stressful, difficult and frequently dangerous closely collaborative process pretty much unbearable .

Focuspuller wrote:

And workplace liability is a separate issue. In my old industry, film production, a battle is brewing over productions' wanting workers to sign waivers, with the unions saying "no way." And rules being discussed for TV and movie production would make a stressful, difficult and frequently dangerous closely collaborative process pretty much unbearable .

Huge can of worms there too.
Basically, "We will pay you to take the risk working at our risky work environment but anything bad that happens is your problem and we won't pay you anymore since you are dispensable. Too bad, so sad, call Dad."

Good call by the Union. Workplace safety should be provided by the workplace. If somebody does something outside safe working guidelines then the liablity for that action should be their problem. Don't do anything stupid and the workplace safety implementation/protections provided by the employer should be sufficient.

At least, that is the dream world scenario.

Focuspuller wrote:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zcd32ctibyjfq … 1.mov?dl=0

Says it all.

Sad. Fake news. Mommy always said good things about me!!!!

GRMACK wrote:
Fwiw, I found out my barber shop is reopening Friday.  The new restrictions mean they must take appointments only and no more walk-ins and loitering in the shop and waiting to be next, have to stay outside if waiting along with an appointment.  Glad I called and asked and made mine.  Have to wear a mask too and may need to get a temperature scan both.  She expects to be swamped for a while too as people find out the new guidelines.  I also expect to see a price increase as they had a higher price for appointments than walk-ins, and maybe some for added Covid-19 supplies.  Given my car service added on an extra $40 Covid-19 surcharge to the bill, I could see haircuts maybe jumping $10.

Next week my dentist starts up with their restrictions.  Must arrive 10 minutes early. Stay in car and call saying you are there.  They come out and take your temperature and may ask you to smell some sample (Virus affects smell.).  Then go in via some other nearest door to the cubicle and not through waiting room which is closed.  Patient mask required too before any treatment begins.

The new normal.

One of the new normals. Here is another one.

https://www.yahoo.com/money/many-furlou … 35608.html

A downward spiral has been created. Fewer employed means fewer incomes, less consumer spending which means more businesses will fail - leading to fewer employees. And then there is the rising toll on life.

100,576 dead in the US as of this morning.

Shadow Dancer wrote:
One of the new normals. Here is another one.

https://www.yahoo.com/money/many-furlou … 35608.html

A downward spiral has been created. Fewer employed means fewer incomes, less consumer spending which means more businesses will fail - leading to fewer employees. And then there is the rising toll on life.

100,576 dead in the US as of this morning.

Ah yes, the great debate of private health insurance versus socialized health insurance.  Will there be converts to socialize insurance for those unemployed who lost their private insurance?  And may be unemployed for a while, or end up with jobs with no insurance.  I had Blue Cross with private companies for decades.  Now that I have Medicare, I have no desire to go back to BCBS.

rxz wrote:

Ah yes, the great debate of private health insurance versus socialized health insurance.  Will there be converts to socialize insurance for those unemployed who lost their private insurance?  And may be unemployed for a while, or end up with jobs with no insurance.  I had Blue Cross with private companies for decades.  Now that I have Medicare, I have no desire to go back to BCBS.

There was a point in my business where I was literally working 60-80 hour weeks for health insurance and the mortgage.  The cost of my health care and my employees health insurance was rising so fast, I couldn't begin to keep up with the price I charged for my services.  I whittled the business down to one employee who, married a teacher and could be covered by the taxpayers.

The fallacy of those that deride anything socialist, is that they have the expectation that private enterprise will fill the needs of the country.  That private enterprise will act in the best interest of the country, even though, time and time again, we see businesses and investor strip bare the salaries and benefits of the employees they can't automate away, to increase profits and shareholder return. 

Far too many Americans have no choice but to live frugal lives and live paycheck to paycheck. This pandemic strips away income and benefits and will leave people destitute.  The bailout was politically designed and any future efforts will be fought over political gain, not the needs of the people or the best interest of the country.

Countries that are far more socialist have better benefits regarding health care and leisure (vacation) time and live comparable life styles, or better, than Americans. 

I love my freedom, but I don't see where my freedoms far exceed those of people in some countries, such as in Western Europe.  Please, tell me how America is superior in freedom?  What rights do we have that, say Norway or Switzerland, does not?   When people in the United States lose their homes because of an illness of a family member, how has the private sector stepped up?

The American dream has become a myth unless you are able to live in 19th century conditions, without 21st century expectations.  Get sick and die young, in poverty, is the new American way.

rxz wrote:

Ah yes, the great debate of private health insurance versus socialized health insurance.  Will there be converts to socialize insurance for those unemployed who lost their private insurance?  And may be unemployed for a while, or end up with jobs with no insurance.  I had Blue Cross with private companies for decades.  Now that I have Medicare, I have no desire to go back to BCBS.

Just to be accurate, it is private health INSURANCE versus universal health CARE. One is motivated by profit. the other by providing for the common good.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
.
I love my freedom, but I don't see where my freedoms far exceed those of people in some countries, such as in Western Europe.  Please, tell me how America is superior in freedom?  What rights do we have that, say Norway or Switzerland, does not?   When people in the United States lose their homes because of an illness of a family member, how has the private sector stepped up?

The American dream has become a myth unless you are able to live in 19th century conditions, without 21st century expectations.  Get sick and die young, in poverty, is the new American way.

“Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose“ Me and Bobby McGee by Kris Kristofferson.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Get sick and die young, in poverty, is the new American way.

Nothing new about it.
Let me tell you how trickle down works, oh wait, it doesn't. Hmmm...
Can't afford hospital care when you are infected by Covid_19? Not my problem, sorry - gotta go play golf now, bye.

Focuspuller wrote:

Just to be accurate, it is private health INSURANCE versus universal health CARE. One is motivated by profit. the other by providing for the common good.

Not really.  health care = health care.  Payment for that care can be made by a government entity, private insurance company, the "patient", or a combination.  The "patient" can be that person, family, go fund me, etc.  Patients without any insurance or funds are covered by the medical facility raising fees for patients with insurance.

rfordphotos wrote:
[...]
But- for those advocating socialized medicine, in govt run programs.... think about this:

The Veteran's Administration is govt run health care... It is their best effort after decades of trying to get it right.

Have you read the headlines in the past few years about the abuses, the wait times, the poor quality care given to the veterans at the VA hospitals?

Why would you think they would treat the general public any better?

Keep in mind that there are all sorts of major western countries where universal healthcare works quite well.  And others, where it's not so great.   So it definitely can be done quite successfully.

I know you didn't mean anything by it, but keep in mind that most of the civilized world doesn't think of it as "socialized medicine".  That was a term that was popularized in the U.S. and deliberately made to sound evil (communist, etc) for political reasons.  Sort'a like the idea that having healthcare is a blow against freedom, or other such nonsense.

We just think of healthcare as a basic human right.  You shouldn't be financially wiped out due to cancer, etc.  Nor should you be refused medical care when needed.  Fairly basic stuff for most of the civilized world.

So you can imagine why people in so many other countries cringe when they hear a U.S. politician talking about the "best healthcare in the world..."     For politicians, talk is much cheaper than action!  And it's certainly much cheaper to talk a big lie as to why something that's expensive and good, is actually "evil".  Remember it's not a major problem for those of them with lots of money.  Just "the little people" (with tax implications for those with big money).  But the "it's anti-American" talking points seem to have worked amazingly well for them, politically!

LightDreams wrote:

Keep in mind that there are all sorts of major western countries where universal healthcare works quite well.  And others, where it's not so great.   So it definitely can be done quite successfully.

I know you didn't mean anything by it, but keep in mind that most of the civilized world doesn't think of it as "socialized medicine".  That was a term that was popularized in the U.S. and deliberately made to sound evil (communist, etc) for political reasons.  Sort'a like the idea that having healthcare is a blow against freedom, or other such nonsense.

We just think of healthcare as a basic human right.  You shouldn't be financially wiped out due to cancer, etc.  Nor should you be refused medical care when needed.  Fairly basic stuff for most of the civilized world.  You can imagine why people in so many other countries cringe when they hear a U.S. politician talking about the "best healthcare in the world..."     For politicians, talk is much cheaper than action!  And it's certainly much cheaper to talk a big lie as to why something that's expensive and good, is actually "evil".  Remember it's not a major problem for those with lots of money.  But the talking points seem to have worked amazingly well for them, politically!

We do tend to politicize, and also to ignore when it is inconvenient.
Public roads? Public parks? Police and Fire services? They are not capitalist businesses. Socialism, plain and simple.
And, a great benefit to everybody!!!!

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
As far back as I can remember, I remember the "grown ups" talking about how bad the health care system was in Canada.  Long lines, bad doctors, rejection of services.  nOt like any of them had first hand experience.

Sounds like that is still better than the VA is here.

How good our health system is, depends on one factor more than anything else, and that is how we prioritize it.  The VA, despite political promises, is not prioritized.  It takes more than an little increase in funding.  It will take more than a big increase in funding.  The VA has a lot of injured people to deal with.  The vets deserve better than good care.

For as long as I can remember, the VA has had a reputation for putting things off, apparently hoping the vet in need will pass on and alleviate them of having to take action. I do know a couple of vets who've been through that long, slow legal back and forth.

We had a hard time with the VA in Californa but that is a seperate entity. Still, my Dad enlsted in the Marines and ducked down into foxholes on Guadalcanal when the Japanese bombed the crap out of Henderson Field. He had Alzheimer's and the VA finally conceeded that they would provide free diapers. That's it, after a prolonged back and forth.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
As far back as I can remember, I remember the "grown ups" talking about how bad the health care system was in Canada.  Long lines, bad doctors, rejection of services.  nOt like any of them had first hand experience.
[...]

It's funny, most Canadians have no idea that we apparently have a bad health care system.  I did a couple of quick google searches on Canadian healthcare surveys, and they seem to be fairly similar in the results.

"Most Canadians (85.2 percent) aged 15 years and older reported being ‘very satisfied’ or ‘somewhat satisfied’ with the way overall health care services were provided".

Another survey found 86% of Canadians "flat-out reject Dr. Ouellet’s proposal to provide us with American-style, two-tier medicine."

Is it perfect? No.  But it works pretty well.  And yes, most of us are mystified when we hear U.S. politicians talking about how horrible the Canadian healthcare system is. 

You already know how we had 4,000 empty hospital beds ready for COVID-19 here in BC.  And how fast we had working tests in place and useful information going out to the public.

[EDIT] Our death rate for COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital ICUs here (15%) was also MUCH, MUCH lower than most of the world, and experts are trying to figure out why.  A significant part of that is probably due to not being overloaded, but it's still a much higher success rate than others in a similar situation (50% in Seattle, etc).  Either way, it's certainly not reflective of a "bad" healthcare system. [/EDIT]

One study claims (but I have no idea how accurate it is), that the difference in taxes between U.S. and Canada that's related to our universal healthcare is 3% (give or take 1/10 of a percent).  But that's the first time that I've heard any comparison figure, so I don't know how accurate that is.

LightDreams wrote:
[...]
I know you didn't mean anything by it, but keep in mind that most of the civilized world doesn't think of it as "socialized medicine".  That was a term that was popularized in the U.S. and deliberately made to sound evil (communist, etc) for political reasons.  Sort'a like the idea that having healthcare is a blow against freedom, or other such nonsense.
[...]

Sorry.

You are absolutely correct I did not intend to use a prejudicial word. My intent was to describe a health care system completely administered by the government with no private sector involved.

I am hopelessly disconnected to a lot of the buzzwords, I dont use social media where so many of these terms take on their current cultural meanings... is "single payer" better (or worse?) What would be a good, non-politicized term to use?

Medicare? Your private doctor bills the govt for his services. Anything not paid is your responsibility. Doctors and the govt often do not agree on the value of services... As a VA patient, I am not using Medicare but I remember what it was like during my Dad's illness trying to keep the doctors happy and paid.

Medicare helps. But we still have waaaaay to many seniors trying to decide whether to buy their meds or food.

rxz wrote:

Not really.  health care = health care.  Payment for that care can be made by a government entity, private insurance company, the "patient", or a combination.  The "patient" can be that person, family, go fund me, etc.  Patients without any insurance or funds are covered by the medical facility raising fees for patients with insurance.

Yes, really. Health insurance is either paid for by individuals or received as a perk of employment, for the purpose of returning a profit to the insurance carrier, health care being the service parceled out as cheaply as possible. Universal health care is a public service for the common good paid for by all taxpayers.

rfordphotos wrote:
Sorry.

You are absolutely correct I did not intend to use a prejudicial word. My intent was to describe a health care system completely administered by the government with no private sector involved.

I am hopelessly disconnected to a lot of the buzzwords, I dont use social media where so many of these terms take on their current cultural meanings... is "single payer" better (or worse?) What would be a good, non-politicized term to use?

Medicare? Your private doctor bills the govt for his services. Anything not paid is your responsibility. Doctors and the govt often do not agree on the value of services... As a VA patient, I am not using Medicare but I remember what it was like during my Dad's illness trying to keep the doctors happy and paid.

Medicare helps. But we still have waaaaay to many seniors trying to decide whether to buy their meds or food.

I certainly didn't question your intentions using the phrase, nor would I be offended by it.  I just thought it was useful as an example of how the debate was being "skewed" by politicians that constantly deliberately describe it that way!

With us, the Doctors negotiate as a group with the Government for what the pay will be.  They're not always happy but it's pretty rare to see a Doctor charge someone extra.  Although I can remember it briefly happening as a negotiating ploy during a tough round of bargaining...

We don't have a solid general drug plan here either.  But drug prices are regulated to some degree by the Gov't and the prices for generic drugs are negotiated as a single national "block" basis with the suppliers.  So the drug prices aren't as bad, but there are still too many horror stories here as well.

One area that we've clearly failed is in terms of how Seniors homes are being run / monitored.  There are suggestions that they should be taken over by the Gov't but I'm not sure that will happen.  But there are already tighter new rules and I'm sure we'll see a whole new inspection regime.   In terms of COVID-19, senior facilities were clearly our biggest national failure...

LightDreams wrote:
I certainly didn't question your intentions using the phrase, nor would I be offended by it.  I just thought it was useful as an example of how the debate was being "skewed" by politicians that constantly deliberately describe it that way!
[...]

no I didnt feel that you misunderstood my intent, you illustrated perfectly why it has become so difficult to "talk" about this stuff.

One side or the other decides to demonize a term (ie. socialized), then attaches meanings and inferences FAR beyond anything the word originally meant.

Then, instead of a discussion, as soon as someone uses a "loaded word" it ends.

I am not a Bernie Sanders fan. But he was demonized by a word--- socialist---- (democratic socialist) that most of the "haters" couldnt even accurately define.

We can do health care right.

We landed on the freaking moon for crying out loud, we should be able to figure out how to care for one another.

The ultra right loves to attack the left on this. Dont understand that, never will. Dont they have moms and dads, sons and daughters?

Elder care is another area done terribly... I dunno. I pray to the gods I die before I have to go into a "home".

LightDreams wrote:
Out of curiosity, I don't know the details but I know you have some kind of medicare system for seniors.  How well does it run / how (reasonably) complete / protected are the seniors under that program?  Is it similar to the VA mess? or is not very useful in terms of coverage, or...?

I will be finding out soon. I am at a lower income level so Medicare is paid by state health care and I get additional coverage from the health care provider I selected for Applecare (WA state's version of "Obamacare").
Now I have allowances for vision and dental so it appears to be an improvement for me. Hopefully I don't ever need any care for Covid_19!!!!