11 I will call to mind the deeds of the LORD; yea, I will remember thy wonders of old. 12 I will meditate on all thy work, and muse on thy mighty deeds. 13 Thy way, O God, is holy. What god is great like our God? 14 Thou art the God who workest wonders, who hast manifested thy might among the peoples. 15 Thou didst with thy arm redeem thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. [Selah] 16 When the waters saw thee, O God, when the waters saw thee, they were afraid, yea, the deep trembled. 17 The clouds poured out water; the skies gave forth thunder; thy arrows flashed on every side. 18 The crash of thy thunder was in the whirlwind; thy lightnings lighted up the world; the earth trembled and shook. 19 Thy way was through the sea, thy path through the great waters; yet thy footprints were unseen. 20 Thou didst lead thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.
Quick note: I am doing pretty good these days. I am over the lost of Chloe, don't really miss her much anymore and got over being mad at mom pretty quickly. She ended up going to a nice family. I have a new job making more money than I have in my entire life. Its not much to some people but its still nice for me. Later
evie
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Chloe's Last Days
Well, mom is taking Chloe to the SISCA. I have a hard time believinge they will take her but who knows. Dad talked her about letting me take care of Chloe's financial needs but she still insisted that we half to to get rid of her. But all I ever hear is how expensive she is and yet I cant' keep her if I offer to pay for everything???? As usual, I am missing something and I will never understand. I have a feeling she is going to get put down not because she is a mean dog or suffering from illness but because she is expensive and nobody wants her. After this, I am through having an animal of my own. If I do it will be a cat but it want be while I'm living in this house. Its not worth to get a attach to her, be expected to feed her and take her out all the time, but not being able to have a say in whether she lives or dies. I dont' know how I am going to deal with this on top of everything else. I have loss so much in the last couple of months. How much more is God going to ask me sacrifice until he is satisified or says enough she had all she can handle.
Monday, March 27, 2006
several weeks ago I had turned in application for Rizing Stars Childcare. After a week I hadn't heard anything badly needing some money (story of my lif thus far!LOL) I have gone ahead asked for a recieved extra hours at work. 4 am until some times noon. However, this morning around 7:30 in morning the phone rings. Its Rising Star, wanting to know if I would like to come in and spend sometime with the children from ten until noon. Problem: I did not have car b/c dad had a transfusion he needed to get. I would probably end up running late because I still needed to shower b/f taking two different busses to get there. So I asked her if tomorrow would be better. She said yes. She had just hoped I could come into today and hopefully start tomorrow. Then I had to tell her about my change in my work schedule. So now, we are going have me come in tomorrow and go from there. Its just ugh my boss Sarah is going to be really dissapointed if I get this job and I tell her we half to change my schedule again. She will start working tomorrow or Wednesday on next week schedule. If I don't get the job no biggy but if i do get the job, she'll probably be annoyed.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Rambles
I have had so many dreams about things over the years. None of them have ever come to fruit. I have at various times wanted to do missions work in Canada and Belgium. So far I have been to Californing, Slovakia, and Wisconsin. Wisconsin was the only place I eve had any thing close to a positive experience. I blame myself for all of them. I was stupid an immature. I look at my life right and its hard not to feel discourage or throw a pity party. I am 25 and I have no car, I still live with my parents because I have no steady job and I have $200 bucks to my name. My life as of right now is a total waist and isn't amounted to a whole lot. Jesus take my life and use it in some small way.
evie
evie
Saturday, March 04, 2006
This Just In: Is this the truth about healthcare? U Decide!
The Mythology of Health Care Reform
Friday, March 03, 2006
By Michael Tanner
Health care is once again moving to the top of the national political agenda. The early evidence is that this debate will be dominated by misinformation and misconceptions. Advocates of a government-run, national health-care system will do everything they can to frighten Americans and discredit consumer-directed health care. But we would be advised to look at the facts and not the scare tactics.
The Claim: The U.S. spends too much on health care.
The Facts: It is true that the United States spends more on health care than any other country. Why is that a bad thing? There is no “right” amount to spend on health care or anything else. The United States spends more on athletic shoes than any other country. No one speaks of the athletic shoe crisis.
Economists consider health care a “normal good,” meaning that spending rises or falls with income. As incomes rise, people demand more and better health care. America's wealth determines its spending on healthcare.
The real problem is the fact that the people spending the money are not the people paying the bills. Because those purchasing health care are able to pass the bill onto third parties, the usual market disciplines don’t apply. True health-care reform would focus on giving consumers a greater stake in the decision-making process.
The Claim: Though we spend more, we get less.
The Facts: America offers the highest quality health care in the world. Most of the world’s top doctors, hospitals and research facilities are located in the United States. Eighteen of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine either are U.S. citizens or work here. U.S. companies have developed half of all the major new medicines introduced worldwide over the past 20 years. And Americans played a key role in 80 percent of the most important medical advances of the past 30 years.
If you are diagnosed with a serious illness, the United States is the place you want to be. Tens of thousands of patients from around the world come to this country every year for treatment.
Critics of American health care often point out that other countries have higher life expectancies or lower infant mortality rates, but those two indicators are bad ways to measure the quality of a nation’s health-care system. In the United States, very low-birth-weight infants have a much greater chance of being brought to term with the latest medical technologies. Some of those low-birth-weight babies die soon after birth, which boosts our infant mortality rate, but in many other Western countries, those high-risk, low-birth-weight infants are not included when infant mortality is calculated.
Life expectancies are also affected by other factors like violent crime, poverty, obesity, tobacco, and drug use, and other issues unrelated to health care. When you compare the outcome for specific diseases like cancer or heart disease, the United States outperforms the rest of the world.
The Claim: A government-run health-care system would expand access to care.
The Facts: The one common characteristic of all national health care systems is that they ration care. Sometimes they ration it by denying certain types of treatment altogether. More often, they ration indirectly, imposing cost constraints through budgets, waiting lines, or limited technology. One million Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals at any given time, and shortages force the NHS to cancel as many as 100,000 operations each year. Roughly 90,000 New Zealanders are facing similar waits. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks. In Canada more than 800,000 patients are currently on waiting lists for medical procedures.
The Claim: Health care is too complex for average Americans to make decisions about price and quality.
The Facts: Health care is increasingly high-tech and complex, but so are many other products and services that Americans purchase everyday without specialized expertise. A consumer does not need to know how an internal combustion engine works in order to buy a reliable car, or how silicon chips are manufactured before he selects a computer. When consumers have good information about product prices, quality and safety, they naturally gravitate toward the goods and services that offer the highest value for the lowest price.
There are numerous studies that show health-care consumers make decisions about price and quality. The current problem with the healthcare sector is that there isn’t enough good information available for consumers to make sound decisions about which healthcare provider or facilities offer the best value. But that’s rapidly changing as providers respond to increased consumer empowerment.
At the same time, patient advocacy companies are springing up to help health-care consumers make informed choices. When consumers, rather than insurers or employers, control the money, markets naturally respond.
The U.S. health-care system represents one-seventh of the American economy, and is literally a matter of life and death for millions of Americans. Here's hoping that they'll be able to sort the facts from the fallacies in the coming debate.
Michael Tanner is the director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute and director of Cato's Project on Social Security Choice
Friday, March 03, 2006
By Michael Tanner
Health care is once again moving to the top of the national political agenda. The early evidence is that this debate will be dominated by misinformation and misconceptions. Advocates of a government-run, national health-care system will do everything they can to frighten Americans and discredit consumer-directed health care. But we would be advised to look at the facts and not the scare tactics.
The Claim: The U.S. spends too much on health care.
The Facts: It is true that the United States spends more on health care than any other country. Why is that a bad thing? There is no “right” amount to spend on health care or anything else. The United States spends more on athletic shoes than any other country. No one speaks of the athletic shoe crisis.
Economists consider health care a “normal good,” meaning that spending rises or falls with income. As incomes rise, people demand more and better health care. America's wealth determines its spending on healthcare.
The real problem is the fact that the people spending the money are not the people paying the bills. Because those purchasing health care are able to pass the bill onto third parties, the usual market disciplines don’t apply. True health-care reform would focus on giving consumers a greater stake in the decision-making process.
The Claim: Though we spend more, we get less.
The Facts: America offers the highest quality health care in the world. Most of the world’s top doctors, hospitals and research facilities are located in the United States. Eighteen of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine either are U.S. citizens or work here. U.S. companies have developed half of all the major new medicines introduced worldwide over the past 20 years. And Americans played a key role in 80 percent of the most important medical advances of the past 30 years.
If you are diagnosed with a serious illness, the United States is the place you want to be. Tens of thousands of patients from around the world come to this country every year for treatment.
Critics of American health care often point out that other countries have higher life expectancies or lower infant mortality rates, but those two indicators are bad ways to measure the quality of a nation’s health-care system. In the United States, very low-birth-weight infants have a much greater chance of being brought to term with the latest medical technologies. Some of those low-birth-weight babies die soon after birth, which boosts our infant mortality rate, but in many other Western countries, those high-risk, low-birth-weight infants are not included when infant mortality is calculated.
Life expectancies are also affected by other factors like violent crime, poverty, obesity, tobacco, and drug use, and other issues unrelated to health care. When you compare the outcome for specific diseases like cancer or heart disease, the United States outperforms the rest of the world.
The Claim: A government-run health-care system would expand access to care.
The Facts: The one common characteristic of all national health care systems is that they ration care. Sometimes they ration it by denying certain types of treatment altogether. More often, they ration indirectly, imposing cost constraints through budgets, waiting lines, or limited technology. One million Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals at any given time, and shortages force the NHS to cancel as many as 100,000 operations each year. Roughly 90,000 New Zealanders are facing similar waits. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks. In Canada more than 800,000 patients are currently on waiting lists for medical procedures.
The Claim: Health care is too complex for average Americans to make decisions about price and quality.
The Facts: Health care is increasingly high-tech and complex, but so are many other products and services that Americans purchase everyday without specialized expertise. A consumer does not need to know how an internal combustion engine works in order to buy a reliable car, or how silicon chips are manufactured before he selects a computer. When consumers have good information about product prices, quality and safety, they naturally gravitate toward the goods and services that offer the highest value for the lowest price.
There are numerous studies that show health-care consumers make decisions about price and quality. The current problem with the healthcare sector is that there isn’t enough good information available for consumers to make sound decisions about which healthcare provider or facilities offer the best value. But that’s rapidly changing as providers respond to increased consumer empowerment.
At the same time, patient advocacy companies are springing up to help health-care consumers make informed choices. When consumers, rather than insurers or employers, control the money, markets naturally respond.
The U.S. health-care system represents one-seventh of the American economy, and is literally a matter of life and death for millions of Americans. Here's hoping that they'll be able to sort the facts from the fallacies in the coming debate.
Michael Tanner is the director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute and director of Cato's Project on Social Security Choice
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)