Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

More on that note....France, that non...

Posted By: watcher on 2009-06-22
In Reply to: Thank God someone in this country still - has some sense.............sm

judgmental open-minded country....their Prez says France cannot accept Burqas...this is just part of it....PARIS — President Nicolas Sarkozy said the Muslim burqa would not be welcome in France, calling the full-body religious gown a sign of the "debasement" of women.

In the first presidential address to parliament in 136 years, Sarkozy faced critics who fear the burqa issue could stigmatize France's Muslims and said he supported banning the garment from being worn in public.

"In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity," Sarkozy said to extended applause at the Chateau of Versailles, southwest of Paris.

"The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly," he said. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."

Hmmmm. Oh my. Muslims world wide (not to mention the 5 million that live in France) are going to LOVE that.

And people say WE aren't open-minded? LOL. Where is the French version of the ACLU?? Hey...they can borrow ours. HEY, Sarkozy...take THEM ALL. :-) lol


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

France is burning.

Radical fundamentalist Muslims are rotting Europe from the inside out.  They know it and they are actually starting to admit it.  But their country had to burn before they took their cowardly unappreciative heads out of their hairy armpits.  France especially should be ashamed of their actions.  If ever a country should show some appreciation for the tens of thousands who died to liberate them...but then, they are French.  The only country in the world where every citizen can say *I surrender* in ten different languages.  Phooey on them.


Protests going on all over France like this.
http://www.nj.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/international-2/124092166956780.xml&storylist=health
France is getting universal healthcare right...

Great post piglet.  I so agree with what you all had to say in support of changing our current system.  Canada probably has the worst universal healthcare system, and yet the average Canadian lives 3 years longer than the average American.  People always point to the flaws in their system and just assume that we will make all the same mistakes.  Of course their system has flaws, just as our system has many fatal flaws.  England and France actually have great universal healthcare systems.  Here is an article I found about France's successful program:


"France's model healthcare system
By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007

MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.

Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.

The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.

An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.

That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.

Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.

Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.

It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.

Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?

National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.

Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.

French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.

The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?

Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.

American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.

Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine."


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...lthcare_system/


I thought it was working in France? nm
.
Why should I comment on France - or avoid doing so?
We're not France. It's not like you can take a system from one culture and parachute it into another culture. This isn't Leggos, or buying off-the-rack clothes.

There are many, many factors to take into account when a society fashions something like government-paid healthcare because it will impact, and be impacted by, that society in many ways. We don't have the same culture that France has, we don't have the same tax rates, we have a different healthcare delivery system in place, and on it goes.

No, I won't be commenting about France, except to say that I watched an extensive documentary about government health systems around the world and neither England, Canada, France or Sweden were rated very highly in terms of efficiency or patient satisfaction. Japan's system was considered the best on most metrics, so if anything I would comment on that system - which I won't do either for the reasons mentioned above.
I agree. If not for the US, France would be speaking German. nm
nm
Have you studied the healthcare system in France?
I have not seen you remark on it once.  It seems you are avoiding it.  The young person who opts out is not an issue.   
Yep...and today he is holding a town hall in France...
yukking it up with Europe as his own country circles the drain....pittiiiffullll.
No. Latest news is that costs for France rising too
nm
Let me try this again. You're demanding that I comment about France for some reason.
Have it your way, though. I certainly have better things to do. Our side of this conversation is over. I'll continue to discuss this with others who don't have a "French fixation" though.
U.S., France join in cease-fire call in Lebanon war..sm
So we are back bumping elbows with France. If only we would have taken their advice on Iraq too.
On a serious note...

....I thank you for your response.  While I agree boxes probably arent' the best idea sometimes they make complicated ideologies a little simpler to understand, I guess.


Actually I would be very interested in learning all the posters on these boards beliefs/ideologies/hopes for the future.  I think we could do this without undermining each other or bashing.  Perhaps I'll post it at the top of the board some time as a new topic.


and on that note...
Who gained the most benefit from keeping it a secret, and/or keeping the rumor afloat that he is still out there somewhere?
Note to sam
Sam, just wondering if when you post a legitimate question on the board could you please change your name. It seems like anything you ask anymore people are bashing you. You put up some very good questions (sorry can't answer this one as I'm not knowlegable enough to know what the outcome would be -it's all too confusing), but it seems as though people are going to attack you for anything. Now if there is an argument you want to make that's one thing, but its not right that you put up a question and people are attacking you for that. - just a suggestion.
One more note
Was curious to see what people would say to my post. I expected the O supporters to bash me for my opinion. That's the way this board is run, but I was curious so came back. For all of you thinking this is one sided - I voted for Obama! I supported Obama! I donated money to his campaign. I fought tooth and nail on this board to defend Obama. I got into some rough ones with some of the republicans on this board. But as time has gone on I have researched and learned more about Obama and I do not like what I am finding out. I come to this board to hopefully get some insightful information and it IS mostly the democrats bashing and attacking posters who are for McCain. I would say 95% dems bashing republicans and 5% republicans defending themselves by coming back at the posters who originally bashed them. Facts are facts and its in black and white on this board. And they bash Palin without cause. I just say it like it is (sorry you don't like to admit it). Like the poster below said - guess only half the pixels on your monitor work.

If you had any type of open mind you would read through every single post and you would see the Obama supporters bashing the McCain supporters more, calling them every name in the book while in the same breath saying its all them against you (and the posts below are proof of that). The posts below show you don't have open minds, you don't search out facts. You are blindly led around like a bunch of sheep.

God help us if Obama gets in there. I for one don't want to live my life with the likes of Farrahan, Wright, Resko, and Ayers (to name a few) dictating how we should be living. Farrakan's the creepiest of all, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why you want to live like that.
Please note....(sm)

I think Phelps and his daughter were banned back in Feb.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7898972.stm


There are also a number of people on the list whose names have not been published.  I would love to see the entire list. 


Note, what I said was
You prepare for what an opponent might do, not what he appears to be doing at the moment.  Situations change in an instant, stuff happens, appearances may be misleading.  You don't encumber both hands when you could be attacked, especially if there's more than one.  Doesn't mean attack them first, but you stay ready for the possibility that they might attack you.  Military training and just plain common sense. 
Please note....(sm)

We are talking about Obama here, not Bush the war monger. 


"There will always be a war that he needs them for and if there isn't one he will create one." 


You do realize that Obama was one of the few senators who voted completely against the Iraq war?  What makes you think he wants to stay in a war when all he has done is talk about how we need to get out of it?  That is just completely irrational.


"Why do you say the GOP is not funding the troops."


Ummm....because the vast majority of pubs in the house just voted against a funding bill?


 


How many did it take to write this note?
Just wondering.
Note to gt......off topic

It's me - the one who's been posting under all the gt alias joke monikers.  I just had to blow off steam after the conservative board debacle last night.  Don't know why I get involved in it.  My fall equinox resolution will be to inform, not condemn.


Thanks for tolerating my not-that-funny-ha-ha little joke.


note: this was in no way gay-bashing, as i am gay too,
but i just had to laugh at the mental image of a pitbull with lipstick, trying its best not to look like a 'klondyke'.
On a side note..
Where in the Mojave desert did you live? I grew up in a tiny town called Inyokern and went to high school in Lone Pine.
just a note from factcheck.org

A second false quote has Obama saying he would "stand with the Muslims," words that don't appear in his book. What he actually said is that he would stand with American immigrants from Pakistan or Arab countries should they be faced with something like the forced detention of Japanese-American families in World War II:


http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html


On a lighter note.....sm
Stuff I didn't know about.......




Meet Obama's bodyman: The White House 'Chief of Stuff' who caters to the President's every whim





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127223/Meet-Obamas-bodyman-The-White-House-Chief-Stuff-caters-Presidents-whim.html


Agree and just want to add to your note that
that Bush WOULD NOT meet with those of the fallen.  He out-and-out dissed them.  So, even though none of this mess is Obama's making, he met with those who mourn and actually listened to their views.  He did so much more in that 45 minutes than Bush ever did. 
Note to mythbuster...(sm)

Off our meds, are we? - Mythbuster (Views: 33, 2009-03-10)


You might want to clean up your own backyard before you start on someone else's.


I think the thing to note here...(sm)

is not so much that he had an affair.  People do that all the time.  I personally think it's nobody's business, and that's how I felt about Clinton as well.  However, what we have here is a guy who has been preaching "family values" as a campaign slogan for how many years? and then this comes out.  It's the blatant hipocrisy that I can't stand. 


Also, this guy was supposedly a good candidate for VP next time around.  If something like this had been found out about Biden, the rght would have had a field day with it, just like they did with Clinton.


Please note that American Woman is not AG

Thanks Brunson for you objective views....it is refreshing.  You know how to respectfully post and carry on an adult conversation.


The only reason I am posting here is to state this even though it's blatantly obvious American Woman is not me. 


I read here, but I don't post here.  I might post my responses to posts here on the C board....but other than to clarify like I'm doing now I don't post here....I made a mistake on Friday posting here, but I got my boards mixed up.  Have a great day!


Note to uptight liberals
It was s-a-r-c-a-s-m.   Humor is lost on you all...
OK, on that same note you answered your own question..sm
You believe abortion is immoral and that it should be illegal. I think the same thing about this war. Yeah congress passed it, so for all intents and purposes on paper it is legal, but it should be illegal to preempt war against a dictator and his followers (because technically we are not at war against Iraq) that is not a eminent threat to us.
Please note sources within this article...
http://ourfuture.org/makingsense/factsheet/oil-drilling
Here's a funny for you. Note the date.

James I. Blakslee


"Pledged to vote for Woodrow Wilson and support the reorganization of the Democratic Party"


"Democrats in every county in Pennsylvania have been betrayed times without number and to-day trickery and deception walk hand in hand to again mislead them"


"Canidates have been found, who, for a price, are willing to represent the twin-machine traitors."


"Every alert, active Democrat will easily detect the tricksters, and on Saturday, April 13th, 1912, between the hours of 2 PM and 8 PM, will register his vote for the Purification of this Party."


I get a kick out of that.


A note about your socialism comment sm
We do not have socialism except for that big bank bailout that was under Bush's leadership, (lack of leadership). All your sorry arguments of months ago are now moot points. Stop being a sore loser. Nobody cares about the birth certificate, about Ayers, about Rev Wright, about fake socialism, about your phoney crooked republican manipulations. Suck it up and be a real American and follow the new president.

And as a side note...anyone who posts here has a right to speak...
no matter how bad that chaps you. And the fact that it does chap you so much...is definitely food for thought.
On the whole religion note, I just read yesterday
about how McCain people are calling Jewish neighborhoods and making false statements about Obama. They start out saying they are polling or something, and then it gets into their religion - making false statements about Obama. The people that were called from McCain's people were very upset about this, that they would call and say these things. One woman even asked a question about it and the person on the other end of the phone said they wouldn't qualify for the poll if they weren't Jewish or they wouldn't have been called if they didn't live in a traditionally Jewish neighborhood. I think that is disgusting.
It has NOT been proven his certificate is authentic - see note
What he has provide is a computer generated copy - not the original type written certificate typed in a typewriter that was used in 1961 (there were no computers back then), and it is NOT authentic. What part of that don't you understand. The people who said it was authentic is the Annenberg foundation who is connected with Ayers and ACORN - hence, they are tied in and supporting Obama.

This has not been verified otherwise the supreme court would not be issuing an order that it be presented. There is something fishy about the whole issue especially when Obama legally had the records sealed so nobody could see the certificate.

The only ones who will not see this is the Obamabots. Open your eyes - you know, if it's found that he is inelligible to be President then Biden will become President (which is who I wanted for President in the first place and we'll see who he picks as VP).

The issue needs to be resolved and at least now we have a supreme court justice wanting to see the original type written certificate and not a computer generated certificate created by a group who is supporting Obama.
please note...the title line of the previous post were....
sim's words, not mine. Refer to her/his post.
Please note the words "Glenn and McCain's involvement...
was minimal."

Abscam and the Keating Five
In 1978, the Federal Bureau of Investigation embarked on a sting operation, labeled Abscam, in which agents posed as Middle Eastern businessmen offering bribes to senators and congressmen. The FBI targeted 31 government officials in total during the operation, including state officials in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Six congressmen, Democrats John Jenrette of South Carolina, Raymond Lederer of Pennsylvania, Michael Myers of Pennsylvania, John Murphy of New York and Frank Thompson of New Jersey, and Republican Richard Kelly of Florida, and one senator, Democrat Harrison Williams of New Jersey, were convicted of bribery and conspiracy charges in 1981.

Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania also was indicted but not prosecuted because he gave evidence against Murphy and Thompson. Only one lawmaker, Republican Sen. Larry Pressler of South Dakota, refused to take the bribe, saying at the time, "Wait a minute, what you are suggesting may be illegal."

Kelly initially had the conviction overturned when a judge ruled the sting amounted to illegal entrapment, but in 1984, a higher court sentenced Kelly to 13 months in prison. Kelly was famously caught on videotape packing his pockets with $25,000 in cash, asking the undercover agents, "Does it show?"

But as opposed to Abscam tarnishing Congress, it was the FBI that dealt with much of the long-term scrutiny as investigations into their probe brought up the entrapment issue. After Abscam, there have been no published accounts of efforts to catch lawmakers in the act, rather the focus became investigating wrongdoing after the act.

The Keating Five scandal from 1989 implicated five senators in another corruption probe. Democrats Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Donald Riegle of Michigan, John Glenn of Ohio and Alan Cranston of California, and Republican John McCain of Arizona, were accused of strong-arming federal officials to back off their investigation of Charles Keating, former chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan association. In exchange, the senators reportedly received close to $1.3 million in campaign contributions.

The Senate Ethics Committee concluded that Glenn and McCain's involvement in the scheme was minimal and dropped the charges against them. In August 1991, the committee ruled that the other three senators had acted improperly in interfering with the Federal Home Loan Banking Board's investigation.

DeConcini and Riegle did not run for re-election in 1994 and were succeeded by Republican Sens. John Kyl and Spencer Abraham.

Looks to me like the Democrats were on the majority wrong end of both of these scandals.
On a lighter note, a bipartisan funny card (sm)
http://www.americangreetings.com/ecards/view.pd?i=474735065&m=2086&rr=y&source=ag999
While the "poo" is flying, let's note I did not make my post about whether...sm
I agreed with the stimulus package, because if you read further back on this board, I have been stating my opposition clearly for weeks, and just what I have problems with! This post was about a thinly-veiled, very inflammatory, crude, demeaning, hurtful "comic," and not just for the President, many African-Americans were hurt by this, and wrong is wrong, I am keeping my post specifically to this one point, I am sick of "pubs" or anyone else clouding issues by dragging other irrelevant issues in. The Post really demeaned themselves by publishing this, and they know it!!
You fail to note that the Army Corp of Engineers....
is a federal entity and it was THEIR job to fix the levies, too bad W cut all the funding so he could play Monopoly in Iraq.
Note that the democratic talking points memo of the week must contain sm
stuff about utilities, cuz I sure see it on here a lot.  I guess it was okay when Saddam was in power cuz people could flush their toilets and drown out the screams of those being tortured and raped.
A note about educated and un-educated
I think a lot of people get the two mixed up. They believe that if you have a degree you are educated. Anyone can go to school, sit through classes, study and take a test. That's the easy part. The hard part (IMHO) is for people to receive information, process it, understand it, and make their own informed decisions. I have a sister who has a 4 year degree and graduated from a college, but she is not educated on the policies or what is going on in the country and around the world. Also have a brother & brother in-law with their degrees. One understands the issues presented to us, the other, like my sister only knows what they were taught in class, and they tell me that the instructors would not lie to them so they will believe what their instructors taught them. You ask them about a policy or why laws were put into place, ask them to talk to you about what's going on in the country/world, etc, and they cannot answer.

Then there are those who did not receive a "formal" education yet when you talk to them you can have an honest intelligent discussion with them. They ask questions and give input. They share information and think on their own.

Therefore the two really need to be separated.

Education = informed and able to think and process information without being told how to think. This can include both people with degrees and without.

Uneducated - blindly following what someone tells you what to do and how to think. You have no ideas of your own and just mimic the words of others. This can include both people with degrees and without.