treatment needs to be covered by insurance as recommended by health professionals rather than the present CDC guideline. And no claims from this day forward will be denied. Would you vote for him?
Posted by nwisser (Member # 15682) on :
That wouldn't be enough to change my vote.
Posted by joalo (Member # 12752) on :
I don't know. They all make too many promises that they don't keep.... Posted by Lymetoo (Member # 743) on :
Nope, not necessarily.
You have to be careful what politicians promise. They don't have as much power as most people think.
Laws are passed in the Congress and Senate. Have you seen any of them rushing to help us?
Posted by JKM03 (Member # 17788) on :
No. The differences in the candidates this election are just too extreme to jump from one to the other over Lyme disease treatment.
Posted by randibear (Member # 11290) on :
huh, don't matter at all....wait until one of them has lyme and then we'll see something.....
er, bush had/has lyme and nothing yet.....
so, no, won't change my vote a bit...
Posted by lpkayak (Member # 5230) on :
what about the relationship between lyme and ms
do you think michelle obama, whose dad died with ms would get involved?
Posted by METALLlC BLUE (Member # 6628) on :
If she/he "would" recognize Lyme, then I absolutely would. However, for someone to recognize Lyme they'd have to be intelligent by association simply because they recognized the truth, which would mean most certainly that other things he or she recognized and did would also be likely to be based on intelligent decisions. While not always true, you can often judge a person by the things they believe in.
So yes, yes I would if he/she "would" in-fact recognize it and commit to bringing it to awareness and to get the research done. A promise doesn't count. It would have to be 100%.
Posted by adamm (Member # 11910) on :
The media bigwigs would make sure he/she didn't get elected.
Posted by Hoosiers51 (Member # 15759) on :
It's not like the economy is going to be fixed anytime soon.....so yes, I would!!!! Might as well fix something.
If someone was willing to enact that sort of change that swiftly, why not vote for them?
Posted by B and M (Member # 13544) on :
Our doctor is covered under my insurance.
I am concerned that the government may get into the healthcare business.
If I am not mistaken, our friends in the Canada have a much harder time finding treatment.
If the government get into the healthcare business, the few doctors around that accept insurance would no longer be allowed to.
My vote is to make sure the healthcare business stays private.
Posted by Sojourner (Member # 9424) on :
Well, B and M I'm glad that your doc is covered under your plan....YIPPY for you. There are millions of Americans with NO healthcare....what about them?
Besides, I haven't heard any candidate mention the government taking over healthcare in the US. They (the gov't) would act as a leveling entity so everyone who would want it could get it. If you like your current insurance you would be more than entitled to keep it.
Before Nov. 4th everyone should be correctly informed about each candidate's health care plans....don't rely on sound bites and snipits..............
Posted by B and M (Member # 13544) on :
Sojouner,
I afraid you've fallen into the talking point mode. One plan on the table will have the government provide , guarantee and pay for peoples health insurance. If the don't like their own.
All that will do is prevent companies from providing insurance. Paying the tax (i mean fee) is cheaper than providing the insurance.
My father died of cancer he had no insurance. He actually had it three times over about 5 years. He was treated at the best hospitals in Rochester, NY. No hospital, No Doctor never go a dime. Hospitals treat people without insurance! (maybe not Lyme)
While this may make my premiums go up. It is still better than the government getting into it. I cant think of anything they ever get into that they don't screw up.
Anyway, it the poles are correct, that will be the least of our worries.
I can't believe most beople favor giving 40% of the US population other peoples money. They aleady pay no taxes but we are going to take someone elses money and give them a check.
I would call that redistribution but I guess it is just a tax cut to you.
Posted by METALLlC BLUE (Member # 6628) on :
quote: My father died of cancer he had no insurance. He actually had it three times over about 5 years. He was treated at the best hospitals in Rochester, NY. No hospital, No Doctor never go a dime. Hospitals treat people without insurance! (maybe not Lyme)
For every story like your father, there are a thousand of the complete opposite. Then there is the possibility: Maybe he would not have passed away had he been able to get the preventative care and testing necessary before it came to that. It usually has to become urgent before anyone will even consider being charitable in doing pro-bono care. Without insurance he didn't have the opportunity for prevention(If he couldn't afford medical care), and even if he had, most insurance companies will not invest in preventative care. Insurance companies are literally raising co-payments each year in order to detour people from actually going to doctors. It's actually one of the mechanisms they use to save money. Insiders have reported that fact.
quote: I can't believe most beople favor giving 40% of the US population other peoples money. They aleady pay no taxes but we are going to take someone elses money and give them a check.
I would call that redistribution but I guess it is just a tax cut to you.
Sort of like redistributing over 700 Billion (Now over 1 Trillion) of the taxpayers money to big corporations that failed to be both accountable and honest. The same insurance companies that deny coverage to many Lyme patients here. I guess they should have denied more claims, then maybe this wouldn't have happened...eh?
I would call that hypocrisy but I guess that's just irony to you.
Posted by B and M (Member # 13544) on :
My father had plenty of tests and frequent treatment. Hospitals cannot refuse treatment. He paid his doctor out of pocket. But that not the real issue.
I agree with you about the bailout. Something needs to be done but this isn't it. There is so much crap in there that it hurts us all.
The peice missing is responsibility, if these compaines were responsible, they wouldn't need any money.
I have a hard time with the government giving money to any company.
Posted by METALLlC BLUE (Member # 6628) on :
Just a note, to make sure everyone is clear:
quote: CAN A DOCTOR REFUSE TO TREAT A PATIENT?
It depends. While some states have Good Samaritan laws that obligate doctors to help out in certain life-threatening situations, doctors generally have no legal obligation to assume the care of a patient. However, once a doctor-patient relationship has been established, the physician usually cannot refuse to treat you. Doing so could be considered "abandonment." If a doctor wants to terminate the relationship with a patient, adequate notice must be given so the patient has a reasonable opportunity to find alternative care.
It is standard practice for a doctor to have a covering doctor on-call when he or she is unavailable for patients. Also, if a doctor's office is not equipped to handle an emergency, the doctor must advise you to seek care at an emergency room. If the doctor does this in good faith (and not just because he or she doesn't feel like treating you), then it probably does not constitute abandonment.
CAN HOSPITALS TURN PATIENTS AWAY?
Not if it's an emergency. Federal law requires most public and private hospitals that accept Medicare patients to stabilize any patient who needs emergency care. In addition, statutes and court decisions in most states require hospitals to treat any patient who requires emergency care. These "anti-dumping" laws developed out of concern that private hospitals were denying emergency care to financially undesirable patients by transferring them to public institutions.
Non-emergency treatment is different. Private hospitals are not required to provide such care to people who cannot pay.
Of course, a hospital has no legal obligation to keep a patient who no longer requires hospitalization. If you remain in the hospital past the date set for your discharge, the hospital may either remove you physically or bring an action for trespass.
-- The following is excerpted from The Court TV Cradle-to-Grave Legal Survival Guide, an easy-to-read, in-depth explanation of the law as it affects all aspects of daily life.
Reference: Court TV.com: Doctors and Hospitals.
Posted by Dawnee (Member # 15089) on :
Nope, wouldn't change my vote. Especially if Obama was the one touting such a thing.
Posted by hopeandhealth (Member # 17605) on :
It wouldn't change my vote. I usually vote on what would be BEST for the world as a whole, and not just my personal woes. It just so happens this year, I'm voting for a candidate that seems to be great for the world and for my personal beliefs and needs. Granted, I don't think he's said anything about Lyme disease, but if anyone would EVER listen, he seems like he would genuinely listen and WANT to make a change and help people. I can see it in his eyes. That's just me though.
However, it would be so AWESOME if someone called for attention to the National Health Crisis of LYME DISEASE! It would be nice if it and ALL OF THE HORRIBLE SYMPTOMS were recognized by our whole country....I think so many more people would try to come up with a real cure and sure fire preventative measures.
It has to be recognized FIRST. If people can realize that, "Hey, this can happen to my own kids, my family, me, IN FLORIDA...maybe we should take action and CARE a little bit about this horrible disease."
Unfortunately at this point, I did not know anything about Lyme and I sure as heck did not know that it could ever be SO debilitating and painful. I just never knew, because it wasn't common knowledge. Everyone should know about this.
About the presidential candidate though, if there was some way to KNOW for SURE that he was actually going to put his all into finding a cure for Lyme, and mandating the insurance companies to follow and cover what the doctors orders say...ehhh...I don't know....I might vote for him. But I would have to know it wasn't going to be another "talking point" and that it would be a real promise and something that he would REALLY do.
Posted by Curiouser (Member # 14128) on :
If a candidate or their spouse "did" get on any particular health bandwagon, they most likely wouldn't be putting any public effort into it until they're out of office anyway.
They wouldn't want to rub all the other special needs the wrong way and all that.
Me? Cynical?
And no, even if the candidate did go pro-lyme prior to the election, it wouldn't sway my vote.
Posted by lymeparfait (Member # 14268) on :
Interesting question.
I did write to both campaigns in the beginning.
A sincere compelling message.
Got no response, of course, and didn't really expect one! Just had to do it! Especially afater both came out publcally in support of Aids and Cancer research. But would have been impressed if someone really cared about this epidemic, that is larger than AIDS!
IT's just a political machine on both sides, with two people bent on just getting elected.
We all need to be very concerned of any candidate talking about supporting a national health care initiative. Socialism...is not America. But America is not America anymore.
Our care will go down the tubes...no individualized care, the best and brightest students will not go into medicine, (there's no money in it anymore, too many hours and if they make too much, they will be taxed more) It will just be more of a "system" with gov. regulations. The kids I know in college in the medical field are very scared of this change. Considering changing.
This is a big concern for me. We will pay more taxes, and not be able to afford out of network lyme treatments. And if we work hard and make more than $200,000 year, we will be be paying out more than the 50% we are already taxed, just to treat other people to free care!
America is in for a rude awakening after this election. Promises are just promises, and we are very ignorant as a whole of what will actually take place with the economy, if some of the ideas that america is clinging to from this campaign actually happen. Congress is the only one who is in control of any changes. No president. We are fools if we believe anything different.
I'm not supporting any particular candidate or party, as I am not impressed with either for being our president. they are not bad people, just not the right people to choose from. Neither understands how to turn around the economy. They have no experience running a large corporation, or know what it is like to have to fire good people, and reinvent a co to keep it afloat. We would be better off with a corporate CEO type! We don't even know who would be on their cabinets who will be guiding them to make these business decisions and changes, in order to trust their judgement and to be confident they will choose wisely.
So I"m personally dissappointed and believe that we will have to wait until the next election for a White knight to come out of hiding to get it right!
In the meantime, we all need to vote! Using our conscience, and choose the candidate who can lead best, and will cause less problems and unknowns with our health care system, and not collapse our economy with more taxes to trickle down and effect jobs and higher products and services for all americans.
Posted by treepatrol (Member # 4117) on :
Does this question belong in medical? or is it more political? who knows ? Forest Gump a little of both i think.
Answer to the posts question would depend on tons a things just because he believed in lyme wouldnt be enough for me at least NOT this year.
Posted by Dahlia (Member # 17066) on :
quote:Originally posted by B and M:
I am concerned that the government may get into the healthcare business.
If I am not mistaken, our friends in the Canada have a much harder time finding treatment.
If the government get into the healthcare business, the few doctors around that accept insurance would no longer be allowed to.
My vote is to make sure the healthcare business stays private.
quote:Originally posted by lymeparfait: Our care will go down the tubes...no individualized care, the best and brightest students will not go into medicine, (there's no money in it anymore, too many hours and if they make too much, they will be taxed more) It will just be more of a "system" with gov. regulations. The kids I know in college in the medical field are very scared of this change. Considering changing.
This is a big concern for me. We will pay more taxes, and not be able to afford out of network lyme treatments. And if we work hard and make more than $200,000 year, we will be be paying out more than the 50% we are already taxed, just to treat other people to free care!
Government-run healthcare really scares me too. Those of us with chronic Lyme, which is NOT RECOGNIZED by the goverment should be very concerned about this issue, regardless of your current health insurance and financial situation.
At least now, we have options to see whatever doctor we choose and get whatever treatments we want. Yes, the doctors and treatments are usually very expensive and often not covered by insurance, but at least you can get whatever treatment you want with whatever resources you have. It's called freedom of choice, which I cherish, especially in regard to my healthcare choices.
As it is now, many Canadians and even Europeans come here for Lyme and treatments for many other illnesses that they can't get treatment for in their country due to socialized healthcare.
If the U.S. healthcare system goes socialized like these other countries, where will we all go? China probably.
Anyway, I can't claim to know what each candidate has promised because I've been too sick to keep up with the news and watch the debates.
I do know that one candidate is less likely both endorse a governement-run healthcare system and raising taxes on the "rich". Since that candidate simply worries me less, I am voting for him.
Posted by Keebler (Member # 12673) on :
-
As Dahlia (and others) say: "Government-run healthcare really scares me too. Those of us with chronic Lyme, which is NOT RECOGNIZED by the goverment should be very concerned about this issue . . ."
I think it would be great to have all those in political service to see this error and facilitate correction. However, I think the political action committees are too strong.
I just saw an ad for a local candidate (for reelection to US Senate) on CNN's web site. A full 30-sec. commercial. Paid for by the American Medical Assoc. political action committee.
Interestingly, this candidate has repeatedly denounced even the existence of lyme in my state.
And, I ask you, just what the bleep is the American Medical Assoc. political action committee doing spending money supporting a candidate that is ignoring one of the worst health matters ?
What are they doing spending money to pad the government?
How many other candidates and legislators are they supporting? Politicians will listen to the AMA before anyone else.
Hopefully, though, the efforts of Andy Wilson and the film "Under Our Skin" will help change that. I applaud the effort by that group.
-
Posted by Wildthing (Member # 6791) on :
Skylord-Awesome Post....You should run for President!!!
I would not vote for a president that recognized Lyme disease, because it doesn't mean that they would do anything about it.
Just empty campaign promises...
As far as our freedoms go, you are 100% on the mark. This is a very important point. You need to stand up for what you believe in.
Not enough people do this.
I do not want to side with one candidate or the other but I am going to make a statement that is a simple matter of fact-not an opinion.
If a certain party wins, we will have a "D" President, House and Senate.
ANYTHING they want, including socialized medicine, etc, etc, will be past with no contest.
We will need to police this and really make our voices heard if certain laws/policies are presented that we do not agree with.
We need to keep our freedom!
Posted by Peedie (Member # 15355) on :
"This country is governed by the people, not by a few trumped up noble politicians. It's governed by you and me."
Sadly...this is not true. Note the most recent examples:
Most Presidents Ignore the Constitution The government we have today is something the Founders could never have imagined.
By ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO
In a radio interview in 2001, then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama noted -- somewhat ruefully -- that the same Supreme Court that ordered political and educational equality in the 1960s and 1970s did not bring about economic equality as well.
Although Mr. Obama said he could come up with arguments for the constitutionality of such action, the plain meaning of the Constitution quite obviously prohibits it.
FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court. Mr. Obama is hardly alone in his expansive view of legitimate government.
During the past month, Sen. John McCain (who, like Sen. Obama, voted in favor of the $700 billion bank bailout) has been advocating that $300 billion be spent to pay the monthly mortgage payments of those in danger of foreclosure.
The federal government is legally powerless to do that, as well.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt first proposed legislation that authorized the secretary of agriculture to engage in Soviet-style central planning -- a program so rigid that it regulated how much wheat a homeowner could grow for his own family's consumption -- he rejected arguments of unconstitutionality.
He proclaimed that the Constitution was "quaint" and written in the "horse and buggy era," and predicted the public and the courts would agree with him.
Remember that FDR had taken -- and either Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain will soon take -- the oath to uphold that old-fashioned document, the one from which all presidential powers come.
Unfortunately, these presidential attitudes about the Constitution are par for the course.
Beginning with John Adams, and proceeding to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and George W. Bush, Congress has enacted and the president has
signed laws that criminalized political speech, suspended habeas corpus, compelled support for war, forbade freedom of contract,
allowed the government to spy on Americans without a search warrant, and used taxpayer dollars to shore up failing private banks.
All of this legislation -- merely tips of an unconstitutional Big Government iceberg -- is so obviously in conflict with the plain words of the Constitution that one wonders how Congress gets away with it.
In virtually every generation and during virtually every presidency (Jefferson, Jackson and Cleveland are exceptions that come to mind) the popular branches of government have expanded their power.
The air you breathe, the water you drink, the size of your toilet tank, the water pressure in your shower, the words you can speak under oath and in private,
how your physician treats your illness, what your children study in grade school, how fast you can drive your car, and what you can drink before you drive it are all regulated by federal law.
Congress has enacted over 4,000 federal crimes and written or authorized over one million pages of laws and regulations. Worse, we are expected by law to understand all of it.
The truth is that the Constitution grants Congress 17 specific (or "delegated") powers.
And it commands in the Ninth and 10th Amendments that the powers not articulated and thus not delegated by the Constitution to Congress be reserved to the states and the people.
What's more, Congress can only use its delegated powers to legislate for the general welfare, meaning it cannot spend tax dollars on individuals or selected entities, but only for all of us.
That is, it must spend in such a manner -- a post office, a military installation, a courthouse, for example -- that directly enhances everyone's welfare within the 17 delegated areas of congressional authority.
And Congress cannot deny the equal protection of the laws. Thus, it must treat similarly situated persons or entities in a similar manner.
It cannot write laws that favor its political friends and burden its political enemies.
There is no power in the Constitution for the federal government to enter the marketplace since, when it does, it will favor itself over its competition.
The Contracts Clause (the states cannot interfere with private contracts, like mortgages), the Takings Clause (no government can take away property, like real estate or shares of stock, without paying a fair market value for it and putting it to a public use),
and the Due Process Clause (no government can take away a right or obligation, like collecting or paying a debt, or enforcing a contract, without a fair trial)
together mandate a free market, regulated only to keep it fair and competitive.
It is clear that the Framers wrote a Constitution as a result of which contracts would be enforced, risk would be real,
choices would be free and have consequences, and private property would be sacrosanct.
The $700 billion bailout of large banks that Congress recently enacted runs afoul of virtually all these constitutional principles.
It directly benefits a few, not everyone. We already know that the favored banks that received cash from taxpayers have used it to retire their own debt. It is private welfare.
It violates the principle of equal protection: Why help Bank of America and not Lehman Brothers?
It permits federal ownership of assets or debt that puts the government at odds with others in the free market.
It permits the government to tilt the playing field to favor its patrons (like J.P. Morgan Chase, in which it has invested taxpayer dollars)
and to disfavor those who compete with its patrons (like the perfectly lawful hedge funds which will not have the taxpayers relieve their debts).
Perhaps the only public agreement that Jefferson and Hamilton had about the Constitution was that the federal Treasury would be raided
and the free market would expire if the Treasury became a public trough. If it does, the voters will send to Congress those whom they expect will fleece the Treasury for them.
That's why the Founders wrote such strict legislating and spending limitations into the Constitution.
Everyone in government takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. But few do so.
Do the people we send to the federal government recognize any limits today on Congress's power to legislate?
The answer is: Yes, their own perception of whatever they can get away with.
by: Mr. Napolitano, who served on the bench of the Superior Court of New Jersey between 1987 and 1995, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His latest book is "A Nation of Sheep" (Nelson, 2007).
This appeared in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. How many bills have we voted for - that were never enacted? Disappeared without further discussion? Our government has already demonstrated it will help a select few - not all of the people. The timing - the ones who benefit is all a mystery. What I don't get - and this really eerks me because I never new the number before this campaign began - what eerks me is that we owe China 3 Trillion and yet come up with all this bail out money? Did they borrow against our Social Security again? Why didn't the people get to decide on these bail out issues at the polls? Is it because "no" is not an acceptable answer? So much goes on - much money spent - and nobody ask me for my opinion. How 'bout you? -p
Posted by lpkayak (Member # 5230) on :
peedie, you said:
"the ones who benefit is all a mystery"
it's the ones with the money that get what they want. i don't know much about politics, but i know that. daddy used to say, "them that has, gits." he was right.
Posted by jeanettefv (Member # 17730) on :
No, I wouldn't vote because a candidates' promises mean nothing. I find it unbelievable that some people actually believe "change" is really going to happen if the democrat is elected.
It isn't going to happen with a republican president either. As another poster said, the president does not have that kind of power.
As my grandfather used to say re: presidential elections, It didn't really make a difference for him (financially) he would still have to get up and go to work in the morning."
I know many people that feel this democatic candidate means "change" or financial gain for them. I say if you want to prosper go out and work. Of course, I am talking about healthy people who can. Posted by lymeparfait (Member # 14268) on :
It comes down to one word.
GREED
Americans will vote based on perceived personal gain. What hasn't been seen in America since WWII is one word:
SACRIFICE
Americans believe it is a privilege and a right to receive what they did not sacrifice and work for. This has changed in this decade. When you have sacrificed , you are part of it, you feel like you are invested in it. Most Americans have not made an investment in America!
Hard work pays off? Not to this generation.
Many think they deserve what others have. Gee, I would want to cross the border too, if I had things given to me! Greed, personal greed, not just corporate greed has got us into all of our problems. Medical, and Economic. Greed from every side!
Who on this post has sacrifiecd for America?
Most people have ZERO connection to the war, but have strong convictions about it.
It hurts to give your last dime, to take that extra job, to risk your life, to give your time to someone hurting, to volunteer because it is right, not just to get into college.
Sacrifice actually hurts, and the pain it causes and the experience it gives you creates character, and forms a strong conscience of what is right and true, and makes the strong connection to Country. I don't think we can afford a Pres. who hasn't sacrificed him or herself.
Americans in general cannot see this as this sense has not been developed in this generation, the generation that will grow into our leaders of tomorrow.
No Pain, No Gain? That is long gone.
Very selfish I say.
The One word for this election:
CHANGE ... actually means nothing. But foolish Americans are clinging to a word, that has no meat attached to it. The word means actually: Nothing, because no one can control the nature of man and God.
Just like the last decades word: CHOICE
That means nothing as well.
The election campaigns know how to get votes. Using words that everyone can relate to , that sound promising , but are misleading! No real meaning attached, and can be taken to mean any point they want.
Smart politicions that know we are dumb, greedy and selfice Amercans!
And that's how we will vote!
If a candidate had the courage to use the word
SACRIFICE...and speak the TRUTH
...they would be lynched by the media. But that is the type of candidate we need.
We do not truely know our candidates...it's alarming.
We need someone who is not afraid to give a "hard word" to all people, before the election! That is a leader. Not someone pandering for votes, and being so politically correct.
Posted by Niere (Member # 14387) on :
Lymeparfait--
Concise. Well-written. In my opinion, dead-on accurate.
![[confused]](graemlins/confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[group hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)