Politics & Current Events
MommyLiberty5013
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Another One Bites the Dust
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/southwestern-pa-hospital-to-stop-baby-deliveries/
Excerpt: "The Windber Medical Center will stop delivering babies after March 31 because its obstetricians are either leaving or refocusing their practices, and because hospital officials believe they can't afford it based on projected reimbursements under looming federal health care reforms.
The hospital, about 60 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, is losing two obstetricians and two others are shifting their focus more to gynecology."
They are losing 2 OBs, won't deliver babies, and will have to lay people off (probably mostly female office staff since most OB/GYNs have female office staff).
Re: Another One Bites the Dust
Yes because we cannot take valuable health care away from women...I think that was the argument.
These women employed by this hospital aren't just losing health care, which they can get back under Obamacare "ironically," they're losing their jobs...means to pay for their homes, for their food, for their kids, for their transportation, for their sustenance...it's collateral damage.
Oh well.
The liberal posse will no doubt be here in the morning to tell us how stupid our reasoning is.
I just can't see their view as valid.
I am sure we haven't even started to feel the ill-effect of Obamacare yet. And by the time we do, it will be too late.
But as long as women have free birth control, all is well. Right?
Stupid, short-sighted people.
There is nothing in any article, except for Fox News, of course, that says they are doing any of this because of the ACA. Please point me to where you are seeing this informaiton.
The hospital is closing it's obstetrics practice because doctors move to different hospitals. Again, please explain how this has anything to do with the ACA. Are doctors not allowed to change fields or hospitals now?
As for the the female staffers "losing their jobs". Again, false. The other departments within the hospital will be employing them.
Here's a real news source: http://www.wjactv.com/news/news/winder-medical-center-closing-obstetrician-program/nTxrw/
Cute.
Similarly, how can you debate with people who are spoon fed their opinions by blatant propaganda sources?
Chronically hilarious - you'll split your stitches!
I wrote a book! Bucket list CHECK!
http://notesfortheirtherapist.blogspot.co.uk
Seriously - I'm not an American and I'm living in Europe - the international impression of Fox News in America is that it's a joke news station.
Just clicking on your link I'm lead to a video clip of Lingerie Football (wtf??) and a Sheriff saying "you're never going to pull guns out of here"
Related stores involve a reality show called All my Babies' Mamas and "Obama orders doctors to snoop on guns in homes".
Chronically hilarious - you'll split your stitches!
I wrote a book! Bucket list CHECK!
http://notesfortheirtherapist.blogspot.co.uk
I agree. Even if something is scientifically proven and full of empirical evidence, if it comes from a non-approved source, it's immediately crap. They will take Wikipedia over Fox News...hoodie girl (that's how I remember people, buy their sigs and avatars) told me that along time ago that Wikipedia was an acceptable source (I disagree).
Caveat: Some of the stuff on all the major networks is exceptionally biased, especially things coming from the talking heads, but for the most part it's just news. End caveat.
I am consistently amazed by how many newsworthy stories are avoided by the CNNs, NBCs, etc. that are told on Fox. Case in point: The woman in GA who shot the intruder in the face 5 times to protect her kids...Fox had that one as it happened. CNN didn't run in until 2-3 days later. In light of our nation's debate on guns and control, this is a pretty important story. However, it exemplified how guns are important in some cases to some networks. IN ADDITION, I failed to see where any of the major networks, besides Fox News discussed the story about the recent SHOOTING IN SWITZERLAND provided by the AP and published on 1/3. On CNN.com the last report they have in thier archives of a Swiss shooting is from 9/2001!
Also this article (if she [Jeni] actually read it) stated that the changes were DUE to Obamacare and them not being able to afford it. Kinda hard to argue with that FACT.
Jeni: And, actually no, the employees, unless their RNs, will probably NOT be absorbed into other departments...since those departments are probably already filled.
You can call Fox News biased all you want...but until you recognize that the other networks are too you are simply deluding yourself. Fox is just the Lone Ranger.
Some headlines on cnn.com...more real news...they ALL do it. with the crappy sensational stories and videos. Fox is no exception.
1. Billy the Rescue Dog Dies
2. Jessica Simpson too Pregnant to Marry
3. This goldfish is massive! (video)
4. 4 year old's silver teeth shock mom (video)
5. Puppy survives 80 foot cliff fall.
I think all networks carry the agendas of the producers and owners of the network that then drive it.
Not unlike Fox, ABCnews right now has the following featured "news" stories:
Jeans that Moisturize
McConaughey's New film
Teachers fired for porn loses legal fight
Wedding Tips from Toni Braxton
and the big headline story there and on NBC news is the stupid story abut
the football player with the fake dead girlfriend.
Really? all of that is so much more topical and relevant than say the budget cliff talks, the hostages in Algeria or even the gun control edict laid out yesterday?!
i love you
and i never say that to anyone on line.
No, the article stated that the changes were due IN PART to Obamacare. You need to put the whole fact in there, not just that part that suits you.
Chronically hilarious - you'll split your stitches!
I wrote a book! Bucket list CHECK!
http://notesfortheirtherapist.blogspot.co.uk
This is the part that continuously surprises me - that people will stick to one source and blindly believe anything it says without giving any thought whatsoever to any other angle that an issue could be viewed from.
Chronically hilarious - you'll split your stitches!
I wrote a book! Bucket list CHECK!
http://notesfortheirtherapist.blogspot.co.uk
Every media outlet has its' own agenda, of course it does. And nearly every one will have seemingly obscure and random stories - however, these are written for and targeted to the reader demographic of that media outlet, not random.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
Even the telegraph today has an article about a globetrotting dog as their human interest story embedded within their headline stories. Celebrity entertainment is commonly in a lot of mainstream and respected media, but to a degree.
Lingerie football? That one made my jaw drop. How sad that I would be part of a demographic that has this as an identified and marketed interest.
Chronically hilarious - you'll split your stitches!
I wrote a book! Bucket list CHECK!
http://notesfortheirtherapist.blogspot.co.uk
I also agree that there should not be name calling if we really want to get our points across to each other.
I did find this regarding another hospital that did cite Obamacare in it's closing. I'm not familiar with the site it is on but it appears to be a local interest site or the blog of a local newspaper. It does not appear at first glance to be promoting any partisan agenda
http://blog.al.com/live/2012/10/citing_obamacare_infirmary_hea.html
How can anyone trust Fox News? The same news broadcast that told us three months ago that the polls were all wrong and Romney would win? The election wasn't even close. They are so accurate and all.
Also, this is specifically for kbmom. I am trying to understand really hard what makes people vote against their own self interest. You talk about needing surgery but you are waiting to afford it. Now, if we had universal healthcare you would have already had the surgery because the wait is not as long as you have been waiting. Maybe you qualify for Medicaid or charity care in your local hospital. I am blown away at putting off surgery that is recommended by your doctor. What am I missing? I just wish we had universal coverage so you could get your surgery. How much do you need? Maybe DH and I can help? It makes me sick to my stomach whenever you mention it.
That was to vlagrl. Not kbmom. Sorry
"the hospital cited several reasons for the decision -- including a claim that the population of women of child-bearing age is dropping and that the number of births the hospital would be called upon to perform isn't enough for it to provide the service in the face of lower reimbursements under the federal Affordable Care Act."
A. The population of women of child-bearing age is dropping. Therefore, there aren't as many births. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to offer the birthing service at all.
B. "in the face of lower reimbursements under the Federal Affordable Care Act."
C. This statement implies "in the face of" that IF the ACA weren't there to contend with at all, they would still offer birthing services and care. The costs to them with ACA and the lower number of births outweigh doing births at all.
D. Therefore, ACA is a culprit for them not doing this needed service to women, which was an important point in the 2012 election - care for women and not taking it away.
The article doesn't state this but essentially you cannot run a hospital off of volumes anymore. ACA moves away from quantity and moves to quality. Even though most hospitals (ex. Cleveland Clinic) have been preparing for this for over 10 years because of conferences, ect. This hospital did not for child birth.
In preparation for quality vs. quantity, hospitals have merged, etc. I can give you lots of examples. ACA moved hospitals there but this was coming for years.
Lastly, we all know that women are still going to be able to deliver their children. They will not have to deliver in a barn.
Thanks, I appreciate it. As a sidenote: I enjoyed the discussion you had on the other thread about Strict Liability. It was above board.
I know Fox is conservative. But, I don't only go there for news. I'm kind of a news junkie and I like to see varying points on a story. So you can imagine my amazement and somewhat dismay, that other networks don't have the same "big" breaking news.
I've discovered that if CNN or others have it, so will Fox. But if Fox has it and it's a more conservative story or it points toward a conservative take on an issue, other other major networks will avoid it.
It's not that I love Fox so much. I just go there a lot because I think I can get a more well-rounded take on our national news since they are offering stories the other networks aren't.
And, the reason I avoid the talking heads like the plague is because they are all about bias. And they are annoying. LOL.
Which broadcast was that? If it was talking heads talking, then yes they wanted "their guy" to win. Were there any non-talking heads, non-opinion pieces that Fox put out that said that Romney would win?
I just remembered a lot of quotations from various polling sources, which are all educated guesses anyway.
And, let's not forget after that first debate, Romney looked pretty good!
...we're surprised that an OB department that delivers less than a baby a day (and barely a baby every other day) [while supporting 4 OBs] isn't financially sustainable?
Oh.
[edited]
You make no sense. Elaborate?
Yes. Many things surprise us. We are easily surprised. In fact, we LOVE surprises. Do you have any surprises for us, Lexi?
Seriously? Can't you at least fall in love with ML instead? I don't think I have EVER agreed with her, but she at least brings information and informed opinion to the table. She engages in real, adult discussion.
Kbmom just spams the board with, "Those stupid liberals. Stupid." Has she ever actually offered up one iota of information or explained an opinion without being a jerk?