News Tips?
-- tips@phblend.com

PHB Mobile


About
-- The Blog
-- Pam | My home page
-- Autumn
-- Daimeon
-- Julien
-- "Radical" Russ
-- Terrance

Contact the Baristas

The Blend Blogrolls

Activism


Best of the Blend
Blog Posts

Special Events and Interviews

Blend-o-licious endorsements...



The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend:
"a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."

He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior." (CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)


Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).

"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008



Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:

A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist."
(Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)

"A nutty lesbian blogger."
(MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)


Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush


who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
--"Joe"

Content © 2004-2008
Pam Spaulding

House Blend logo © 2005
Melissa McEwan

Photo of Pam Spaulding
© Judy G. Rolfe
All Rights Reserved.


SITE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Support the Blend




An Online Magazine in the Reality-Based Community.



The Myth of Health Care Rationing

by: TruthAboutReform

Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 15:10:31 PM EDT



There has been a lot of talk the past few weeks about the false possibility of health care rationing in the current storm of discussions surrounding President Obama's health care reform plan, as well as options put forth by Congressional Democrats such as Senator Max Baucus.  

While rationing may be a popular topic - particularly among the conservative and right leaning blogosphere, it is, at its core, a health care myth. Unlike the health care debate in 1994, where Harry and Louise were lamenting government rationing on behalf of the insurance companies, rationing has no place in current health care reform bills.

According to the American Medical Association, "The health reform plans being debated in Congress ensure that health care decisions will be made by you and your doctor - no one else."  

TruthAboutReform :: The Myth of Health Care Rationing
Leading newspapers such as The Washington Post and USA Today are also working to dispel the rationing myth by dissecting the issue at the ground level and discussing how health care reform will prevent rationing - not lead to it.

Health Action Now! AARP's health care reform campaign specifically states "Health reform isn't about rationing; it's about giving people the peace of mind of knowing that they will be able to keep their doctors and that they will always have a choice of affordable health plans."

Jumping on the myth bandwagon doesn't help anyone decide if they should support or oppose current health care reform bills. What it does do is encourage false information, fruitless discussions, and, overall, more confusion on what is already a confusing topic. This nation has grown up using debate and democracy as cornerstones for "getting the job done" but with people slinging mud - from both sides of the political spectrum - and creating chatter that isn't true, it only threatens to take us further away from our goal of affordable, quality care for all Americans.  

Tags: (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Well I'm at ease.
Its ok everyone, the AARP and AMA say there wouldn't be any rationing. What do they have to do with anything? Are they writing and voting on bills?

Enjoy your Kool Aid.  


Of course there's rationing!!
In the system as it is, in any of the proposals being considered, there is rationing. Simply put...there are not enough resources to give everyone unlimited medical care. This is a fact. There has not been an honest discussion about this, which just goes to show you that we have really not had a serious debate about health care as a country to date. The goal is not to avoid rationing...it is to handle the inevitability of rationing in a fairer way than the current system allows.

Just because the AARP says something doesn't make it so.

Even when the decisions are "left to you and your doctor" that doesn't translate into "all the medical care you could possibly want".


SPOT ON!
This is one of the areas where reformers have messed up big time.

People do not seem to have a good grasp of what rationing really means. With the exception of oxygen (wait until we have private space programs), everything is rationed. Our society rationes things based largely on an individual's ability to pay.

At its core, healthcare reform is about changing the way we RATION CARE. The current system is set up in such a way that people with significant amounts of money can get almost unlimited care whether they need it or not. Conversely there are people who desperately need care but either cannot get treatment due to costs or are financially ruined trying to save their life. Its a really dumb and inefficient way to ration something that is essential for the maintenance of life. Most other developed countries have decided that healthcare is one good that should be rationed based on need more than wealth.

Its too bad that reformers are not saying this often enough because it is, in the end, the best argument for reform. What's even more amazing is howmany people have an upside down understanding of the reform. Its just odd to hear republicans make the claim that the government is out to develop a system that determines care based on someone's value to society/social status. That is the definition of the system we already have and the exact opposite of what is ultimately being proposed.


[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?




Join the Blend Chat Room



Report TOS Violations

Premium Sponsors



BlogAds






Search the Blend
Current site


PHB 2.0 Web
Search Blend 1.0 Archives
Ad Networks


BlogSheroes BlogAds


Miscellany

RSS Feeds

Subscribe with Bloglines

Visit NCBlogs


frontpage hit counter

Stats

Powered by: SoapBlox