Everybody and their brother that I follow at Twitter tweeted or retweeted about this today. I really enjoyed seeing all the old ones come back again (well, except for Jim Carrey who I think is new to this group). Unfortunately, they all show how horrible of an Obama impression Fred Arminsen does (and Maya Rudolph as Michelle). Advocacy group gathers SNL all-stars to turn financial regulation push into laughs http://tinyurl.com/y858umj And the direct link to the video. There's a short behind the scenes video at this link also. http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/f5a57185bd/funny-or-die-s-presidential-reunion

Par for the course for them. Not the first time. Leaked documents reveal GOP plan to use scare tactics to raise money 1 hr 3 mins ago National GOP leaders are doing damage control today after a Politico scoop lifted the curtain on the party's plan to tap voters' "fear" in the coming campaign season. The PR problem started when an absent-minded attendee at the Republican National Committee (RNC) confab on February 18 in Boca Grande, Florida, left a 72-page document from its 2010 strategizing session in a hotel room. Today, Politico reporter Ben Smith's expose is making headlines. The memo tracks the fundraising presentation that RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart delivered to the RNC's $2,500-a-head annual retreat. The best path to victory in 2010, the document advises, is for Republican candidates to depict themselves as the best hope for resisting the "trending toward socialism" taking shape in a Democrat-dominated Washington. And the document doesn't shy from making its points graphically. MSNBC showed the images this morning on "Morning Joe": The presentation portrays the Obama administration as "The Evil Empire," including the now-infamous image of President Obama made over in the makeup Heath Ledger used in his performance as the Joker in the 2008 Batman movie "The Dark Knight." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears as Cruella De Vil from "101 Dalmatians," and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the witless cartoon dog Scooby-Doo. The memo candidly confirms that the aim of such caricature is to amp up "fear" among the GOP's conservative base. The memo also makes fun of major RNC donors, categorizing some as "ego-driven" and easily pacified with "tchochkes" (a Slavic word for toys). The embrace of harsh rhetoric and the swipes at the large donor set seem to signal the GOP establishment's growing comfort with employing tactics associated with the activist Tea Party movement�and with plying Tea Party sympathizers for cash. Of course, it isn't unusual for parties out of power to court controversy and play with fire to rile up donors and grass-roots activists. The RNC has caught heat for fundraising tactics in the past, most recently when it was caught sending out fake census forms to raise money. And Democrats have shown a demagogic streak in the past, depicting George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as Bond-like supervillains and playing up alleged GOP plans to kill Social Security to rally voters behind a popular entitlement program. When asked by Yahoo! News if the leaked presentation reflects a coordinated effort to appeal more to the Tea Party movement, RNC spokesman Doug Heye replied that the group's chairman, Michael Steele, "was recently invited by Tea Party activists to a meeting, which he was happy to do. Following the meeting, it was clear those in the meeting shared a common goal: stopping the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda." As for plans to further that alliance with the inflammatory material in the memo, Heye reiterated what he'd told Politico earlier: "The language and the imagery will not be used in any capacity in the future." There's no question that the Obama-as-Joker image�long a familiar icon at Tea Party rallies�is a toxic association for the GOP establishment. Oddly enough, though, that image's origins can be traced to the activist left. As revealed by the Los Angeles Times last year, the image was created by a supporter of Rep. Dennis Kucinich, a University of Illinois student named Firas Alkhateeb, who told the Times that he uploaded the photo onto his Flickr page, and a conservative activist promptly snatched it up. Such are the odd convergences of movement politics. However, the RNC may have more trouble distancing itself from the equation of Democratic policy with socialism, however, since Michael Steele is credited with originating that meme in the health care debate. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100304/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1217;_ylt=ApeRTBqgwOS8sdpY0OoKJuys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFpcHM2bzFvBHBvcwMzNwRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX21vc3RfcG9wdWxhcgRzbGsDbGVha2VkZG9jdW1l

Oh c'mon Dorine...is this the best you can come up with ? I've been exceedingly polite not to bring up any of the current Dem faux pas. Really....*rolling eyes*

Hey, bring 'em on. I'm thick skinned. I don't staunchly defend candidates in my party when it's clear they have done something illegal/immoral/unethical, etc. (If you saw what I post to my FB page, you'd know that ;-)). I'm thrilled that Rangel has finally relented his silly idea of keeping his post. And it's been clear for quite some time that that Gov of mine has been clearly over his head to say the least and I can't believe he and people in his admin were so stupid to do anything even close to illegal coming on the heels of that Spitzer debacle and the State House Speaker's issues as well. And thank God the Federal judge didn't hold up getting rid of that state Rep (mine! from Queens!) when his colleagues pushed him out after he was convicted of beating up his girlfriend. And I probably voted for him! Ugh. You won't catch me defending elected officials if they've clearly done something wrong. I'm not a 25-percenter. ;-)

Oooh, just saw this right after I posted above. Another person has quit the Paterson administration. If the Spokesman quit, it's literally a matter of time (days?) before Paterson's toast. http://www.aolnews.com/politics/article/ny-governor-david-patersons-top-spokesman-quits-amid-scandal/19383832?icid=main|main|dl1|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Farticle%2Fny-governor-david-patersons-top-spokesman-quits-amid-scandal%2F19383832

LOL. Sorry, I don't have the time to be your daily sparring partner. Besides, that's not my style. You know that. XXXXXXXXXXX;-)

So what is going on with the Health care vote? They keep moving the date. Keeping fingers crossed for a speedy pass. Kara DioGuardi's father is running for office in NY. She's been on the talk shows announcing it.

Moon, I was just on a conference call with Hewitt re: health care. They could vote as early as Sunday.

Thanks, Mari. Kuchinich (sp?) announced he was supporting HC reform! He gave a very articulate explanation too. It is a must for the consevative Republicans to hear. Click and scroll down: http://www.aolnews.com/healthcare/article/house-democrats-on-track-for-vote-on-940-billion-health-care-bill/19404776

Two must reads. How health care will reduce deficit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031801153.html?hpid=topnews And, student loans too: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/18/AR2010031802289.html?hpid=topnews

So now it looks like the reform will pass in the House, but not the Senate and it might be up to the Supreme Court. Heaven Forbid!!! Just found out that Scalia will be the speaker at my son's high school graduation in June. And I sat next to Sonia Sotomayor at a pizzeria in DC a couple of weeks ago. My future lawyer son snuck a pic on his phone and immediately texted it to hia law school friends, lol.

Ok, my (Republican) friend just posted this link a little while ago on her FB page with this comment.... http://www.sullivan-county.com/wcva/lilley_obamacare.htm "Mr. Obama, his family, our senators, their families and our congressmen and their families are exempt from the very Health Care Plan they are fighting desperately to shove down our throats. If it is so good for the American people, why are they choosing to exempt themselves?" "Some very troubling provisions in this bill.......such as rationing cancer treatment based on age, and on, and on." What's wrong with what she posted in relation to the vote tomorrow?? Anyone? Bueller?

I should clarify to say what's wrong with the info at the link she posted in relation to tomorrow's vote?

Wy post this nonsense? It's not true, I can tell you that just by glancing down the list. It even talks about the public option--which has been out of the bill for eons. Desperate scare tactics.

I know, right? And she does the same job I do (matter of fact was my boss for a very short time several years ago). Besides that, that is addressing the bill HR 3200 from last year, not the ones being voted on today. There are some elements I believe from 3200 into the one for today, but still. I had told her that this guy seemed like he was a bit too close to the fringe and I couldn't take 99% of it seriously, but she didn't agree with that of course. The multiple references to ACORN is what tipped me off that this guy wasn't to be taken seriously. I wrote that and a couple of other things to her, but then decided to erase it as it gets difficult to get into more lengthy discussions about various points on FB vs. a forum like this.

Just for reference, here's the text to the bill (HR 4872) http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4872/text And a summary of each section: http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1738-Summary-of-the-HCR-Reconiliation-Bill-

First and foremost every American should know that Mr. Obama, his family, our senators, their families and our congressmen and their families are exempt from the very Health Care Plan they are fighting desperately to shove down our throats. Seems this misrepresentation can be traced to someone at the WSJ: http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/congress-exempt-from-health-bill/

Thanks! I'll post that to her. I was again rereading that link she sent originally and it just riles me up! The ignorance of it! Or misrepresentation of the items at the very least. And she just said this: "And, even the Chief Actuary at HHS cannot provide a cost analysis before the vote. The CBO did predict savings, but that was before the change made regarding Medicare. The vote will be today anyway... and we are supposed to think one of the main objective's is to cut the deficit? They believe the American people are stupid, which admittedly, is not so far-fetched. " While I don't totally disagree about the stupid Americans part, posting that original link didn't do her any favors in that argument.

And, even the Chief Actuary at HHS cannot provide a cost analysis before the vote. Did she have the same concerns with all the legislation proposed by the Bush administration? Running up deficits didn't bother jer a couple of years ago, why now? we are supposed to think one of the main objective's is to cut the deficit? No, we are supposed to think it will provide health care reform, not pave roads or subsidize farmers or pardon Wall Street crooks.

My DH writes for one of Italy's leading daily paper. He wrote an article about healthcare in today's paper and he's been getting emails non-stop. In Italy people don't understand why Americans would be against this very needed reform. But as he has explained it has also to do ignorance. And the "socialist" threat. The Republicans are also saying that if it passes, those who vote in favor will be out of office come election time. Here we go again with the scare tactics. Obama has stated that he would like everyone to have the same heath coverage as they do in Congress. I'm sure that it is a lot better than the one I pay for now. So what's wrong with that? Why don't Republicans want us to have the their same coverage? I'm sick of the political game, and I can opnly hope that the reform passes, and the people vote those selfish AH out of office.

(Moon) The Republicans are also saying that if it passes, those who vote in favor will be out of office come election time. Here we go again with the scare tactics. Funny you say that, she said the same thing... "Another thing I like- many, not all, of the bozo's who do vote for the bill, may be sealing their fate to lose re-election come November." Needless to say, she gave up finally. Funnily, I asked for the specifics regarding that cancer provision she was upset about, said she found it but had to go take a shower (conveniently) and never came back to it, all the while telling me I hadn't given her specifics about what I liked in the bill (which I did list verbatim from the bill summary I linked to) other than saying some things good were better than nothing. Too bad I can't link to it for you to read for yourselves. Would be much easier to see how the conversation went.

HuffPo reports Nancy Pelosi reportedly making her way to Capital Hill carrying the same gavel used in 1965 to pass Medicare.

Good luck charm. May it work.

How they voted. See who you must vote out of office for voting no: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/votes/house/healthcare/

Uh oh...lots to read. Just popping in to say :"Hello" Hope you all bought Big Pharma and Hospital stocks. They led the Dow yesterday. Thanks to Mr Obama's deal with Big Pharma ...there are no caps on prices, and provisions that favored generic drug makers also got cut out. All good news for Pfizer , Merck ,Eli Lilly . (Who also give fat dividends). The reform plan will cost dug companies $85 B over 10 yrs, but offset by money from all those new customers. Hospitals will provide more preventice and less emergency care..Health Magangement Ass., Tenet and Community Health Services will get more patients who have insurance. Just like Christmas...and just think...it won't cost anyone a dime;-D\ Whooooopeeeeee! Don't know if people can buy insurance across state lines in this bill..you know, competition.

(Evelyn)Hope you all bought Big Pharma and Hospital stocks. They led the Dow yesterday. LOL, we did! Good thing I didn't listen to Cramer on CNBC who was shouting the sky is falling last week and to sell, sell, sell. Jeez, 32 million new customers . . . it ain't rocket science.;-) Don't know if people can buy insurance across state lines in this bill..you know, competition. Was just on a conference call with some Congressional liasons and this was brought up. The answer is yes, the law requires that at least two multi-state qualified health plans will be offered.

You mean now you can buy AARP? Have been thinking all day of other companies that will gain... GE makes hospital equipment....CT Scans etc Stryker and Medtronic make implants, stents, knee and hip replacements. Might as well cash in on this bill. Might help for the rise in dividend and capital gains tax you'll have to pay. Now if they only would have included litigation reform. That might have helped keep health costs down. But no such luck. Lawyers have a lock on such.

"What does health insurance reform actually mean for me?" To help, we've put together some of the key benefits from health insurance reform. Let's start with how health insurance reform will expand and strengthen coverage: This year, children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied health insurance coverage. Once the new health insurance exchanges begin in the coming years, pre-existing condition discrimination will become a thing of the past for everyone. This year, health care plans will allow young people to remain on their parents' insurance policy up until their 26th birthday. This year, insurance companies will be banned from dropping people from coverage when they get sick, and they will be banned from implementing lifetime caps on coverage. This year, restrictive annual limits on coverage will be banned for certain plans. Under health insurance reform, Americans will be ensured access to the care they need. This year, adults who are uninsured because of pre-existing conditions will have access to affordable insurance through a temporary subsidized high-risk pool. In the next fiscal year, the bill increases funding for community health centers, so they can treat nearly double the number of patients over the next five years. This year, we'll also establish an independent commission to advise on how best to build the health care workforce and increase the number of nurses, doctors and other professionals to meet our country's needs. Going forward, we will provide $1.5 billion in funding to support the next generation of doctors, nurses and other primary care practitioners -- on top of a $500 million investment from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Health insurance reform will also curb some of the worst insurance industry practices and strengthen consumer protections: This year, this bill creates a new, independent appeals process that ensures consumers in new private plans have access to an effective process to appeal decisions made by their insurer. This year, discrimination based on salary will be outlawed. New group health plans will be prohibited from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that discriminate in favor of higher-wage employees. Beginning this fiscal year, this bill provides funding to states to help establish offices of health insurance consumer assistance in order to help individuals in the process of filing complaints or appeals against insurance companies. Starting January 1, 2011, insurers in the individual and small group market will be required to spend 80 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Insurers in the large group market will be required to spend 85 percent of their premium dollars on medical services. Any insurers who don't meet those thresholds will be required to provide rebates to their policyholders. Starting in 2011, this bill helps states require insurance companies to submit justification for requested premium increases. Any company with excessive or unjustified premium increases may not be able to participate in the new health insurance exchanges. Reform immediately begins to lower health care costs for American families and small businesses: This year, small businesses that choose to offer coverage will begin to receive tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums to help make employee coverage more affordable. This year, new private plans will be required to provide free preventive care: no co-payments and no deductibles for preventive services. And beginning January 1, 2011, Medicare will do the same. This year, this bill will provide help for early retirees by creating a temporary re-insurance program to help offset the costs of expensive premiums for employers and retirees age 55-64. This year, this bill starts to close the Medicare Part D 'donut hole' by providing a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the gap in prescription drug coverage. And beginning in 2011, the bill institutes a 50% discount on prescription drugs in the 'donut hole.' Nancy-Ann DeParle Director, White House Office of Health Reform

This year, this bill starts to close the Medicare Part D 'donut hole' by providing a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the gap in prescription drug coverage. And beginning in 2011, the bill institutes a 50% discount on prescription drugs in the 'donut hole Thank you, Mr Obama. Buy Big Pharma! What a windfall! You can't lose:-)))))))

Why would that b any different for phrma than now other than govt paying for donut hole drugs partially rather than people out of pocket? And btw, we have ur friend Mr Bush to thank for the initial big gimme to phrma....no govt discounts. And his rx drug discount cards plan served to have drug companies jack up prices by cost of discount.

I thought this was kind of cool...Obama's healthcare speech with handwritten corrections. http://www.flickr.com/photos/61139623@N00/4456618289/sizes/o/

discount cards plan served to have drug companies jack up prices by cost of discount Your opinion? Fact? Blogs?;-) Besides. All I said was: "Buy Pharma"....I want you to make $$$$ on this bill, Dorine;-D Hold the health insurance companies though. Watch this space.....

For me, it's a moral issue. It's the right thing to do. I was so proud of the Catholic nuns (representing 60 orders and 60,000 nuns nationwiwide) who broke with the bishops over the weekend in backing the bill, saying, and I quote, "This the REAL pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it." That got a lot of press, and provided some political cover for those who needed it. And, as Evelyn pointed out, I think this will be good for many sectors of the economy. And if I have to pay more in taxes on investment income, so be it--at least I *have* investment income, at least I *have* capital gains, both of which mean that the economy is moving forward and I'm still ahead financially even with the taxes. What a happy problem that is. We are our brothers keepers.

Oh I agree with you....as you well know. I understand this new bill will allow illegals to *buy* health insurance. A must. Keep them out of the ER which means everyone's premiums get raised. In fact, my socialist son tells me that the four components of the bill originally were in the Republican plan in answer to Hillarycare. There are some good components...sadly nothing to contain healthcare costs. It's just the MO in which it was passed that galls me. Sleazy payolas. Backroom deals. Moving figues around. This is transparency? This is change? My f riends, this is "business as usual". The American people aren't stupid. And that is not the Republican spin. There are Dems and Independents that are having "buyer's remorse" I was just reading that it was John McCain that wanted to import drugs. But nooooooo. Hey, if you give those Congressmen enough goodies, they'd sell the Capitol to the Iranians. Anyone can pass a bill that way; let alone sign it.

The old adage holds true: "Laws are like sausages: if you like them, don't watch them being made." To believe anything else is to be naive. The legislative process ain't pretty, but yes, this is how things get done. The simple fact is that every President has had to do some "horse trading" to get legislation passed. I look at "what's the greater good?" And in this law's instance, the answer to me is clear. Reportedly, many of the the worst gimmies will be eliminated via the Reconciliation bill that they hope to sign by end of week.

It's a start, at least. Socialised medicine is a *good* thing - I can tell you from experience. Congratulations to the US on joining the 20th century (it's only 10 years into the 21st now). Let's hope things continue to progress - one big step would be in kicking some of those damned so-called "health insurance" companies to the kerb. Because a "for profit" company isn't going to be all that interested in doing its best to ensure people receive the best possible medical care, let's face it. Seriously though - congratulations!

(Me) discount cards plan served to have drug companies jack up prices by cost of discount (Evelyn) Your opinion? Fact? Blogs?;-) I was a drug rep for a drug company when it was passed/enacted. I tended to follow what was going on in relation to it.

Yes, it is a start. Not perfect by a long shot, but a start. It gives us a framework and something to build on. I salute the Prez for a)taking it on, and b)getting it done. At considerable political risk.

Anything other than a "smoking gun" (the memo from mamagement to jack up prices) surely won't accepted as fact. ;-)

Blue Cross ain't going to go away. I am confident there will always be deals;like there was this time. And then of course, it doesn't take effect immediately ....and who knows there might be a change in government by then. Even in "socialized medicine" countries, one can always subscribe to private plans that will give a person choice. And not be dependent on the government healthcare.

In Australia, Evelyn, you can get private insurance coverage -- but it's based on the assumption that you are entitled to medicare. There's no such thing as "not being dependent on government healthcare". To the best of my knowledge, if you don't have medicare, you can't get private healthcare here.

I've had Blue Cross/ Blue Shield and any little excuse they could come up with not to pay they did, and my premiums went up every year, that was ridiculous and wrong. Other insurance companies did the same. This reform is a step in the right direction. Plus, it does not cover abortions. If you want to drive a car you must have car insurance, if you have a mortgage, you must have house insurance. Americans accept that, so what's the problem with paying health insurance?

so what's the problem with paying health insurance? I concur. But the opposition thinking is that one has a choice in the first two instances (one doesn't have to drive a car or own a home etc)but the gov't isn't giving people a choice on health insurance. 16 K IRS agents will make sure you do. However, listening to NPR this aft one caller said that in Mass. the healthy/young would rather pay the fine and take insurance once they get sick.

The govt isnt making sure u get health insurance. Pay the fine and don't get it. Simple as that. Just like I'm choosing not to for the moment (bcause of cost of it). I just have no fine at the moment, which frankly would be cheaper per yr.

And one has to have a car if there is no available mass transit.

It's not a fine, Evelyn, it's a tax. A health tax. And it's paid by every single citizen in every single developed country except the US, practically, and you know what? Our health costs, per capita, are lower than yours. And our infant mortality rate is lower and our life expectancy is higher. So a change is in order, whether it's the "perfect system" or not - it's highly likely to be better than the present system.

(Moon) Americans accept that, so what's the problem with paying health insurance? Well, car insurance paid is generally considerably less a percentage of income than health insurance when paid out of pocket and not through work coverage. I went to a slightly longer than 90 min meeting last night to explain details in the new law. It was an overload of information and we barely scratched the surface IMO. Hopefully I'll get to information we discussed by the end of the weekend. I didn't even take notes on it all, so honestly I'll miss a lot I'm sure. They say they plan to have a series of informational meetings that I hope I can get to.

Actually, Sarah, with the new mandate, we do call it a fine. At least that's how we referred to it last night and no one corrected us.

Ah yes - my bad. I didn't realize what she was referring to - seems that people who opt out of paying for insurance are fined. Here in Oz you get insurance (medicare) regardless, and if you earn more than a certain amount you either get private health care (which is more of a "gap coverage"), or pay an extra amount in taxes. But your "base" health care is covered, no matter what. It's an entitlement. I prefer the approach that every citizen is entitled to basic health care. And I don't mind the fact that some of what I pay goes to subsidize those who can't afford to pay.

Hey, I'm the only Republican here (a centrist one at that..with a foot in each camp.Those who know me will attest to that ) and I really don't have as much time as you have online....so I can't answer everybody. Sorry. Sarah, I forget where you are currently living & ...but here we have to call it a fine,something about the Constitution can't force people by such a tax. (Sarah, I think) And I don't mind the fact that some of what I pay goes to subsidize those who can't afford to pay. Actually, in the US that occurs as well. Higher insurance premiums , and US fed funds do go to pay for ER visits from those who don't have insurance. Which, BTW , aren't the indigent. They have Medicaid. Often, they are illegals, or the pariahs who choose not to pay for insurance. I won't even go into the car insurance vs. health. Ludicrous. Let's see now....who else.

car insurance vs. health. Ludicrous. It's accepted, period. Basic health care for everyone in the long term will cost the Gov less for obvious reasons. What we need now is for the AMA to open up to more doctors. Back to the old supply and demand. More doctors would make their fees go down. Of course, that opens up to debate the extreme high cost of Medical School with their closed numbers. That should all go hand in hand with the reform.

We in Canada have had the "pleasure" of hosting Ann Coulter recently and I just have to ask - Do people really take her seriously? Is she a thought leader in the U.S.?

Just had a longer answer that I accidentally erased on the phone. Short answer, more fringe Republicans I wager, but probably some less than that far right. Thought that appearance was cancelled at last minute for security reasons.

Ann Coulter has a following in the US on the right just as some far -Left Wing members favor some of their more liberal members. Every country has extremes....including Israel which I just left 5 days ago. That's called "democracy", Sandy.

(Moon) What we need now is for the AMA to open up to more doctors. Back to the old supply and demand. More doctors would make their fees go down. Of course, that opens up to debate the extreme high cost of Medical School with their closed numbers. That should all go hand in hand with the reform. Actually, more of the problem is that not enough MD's are choosing primary care instead of other specialties like radiology, GI, cardiology, etc. They choose those to pay off the massive school loans. There is talk of creating incentives to choose primary care instead.

Glad to hear it, Dorine. A talented primary care MD is very hard to come by. Coulter was boycotted in Ottawa, Canada. Student protesters made it all happen.

I don't know if I'm right putting this here...but feel a NEED to share...for the benefit of others. It's RE: these internet romeos that scam lonely hearts. This week, I caused a very dear friends world to fall apart and heart be broken when I exposed her internet love of 2 mths to be one of those romance scammers. This one in particular is of the Nigerian scams that are going around. To try and be brief, she met him on a dating site. His photo was stolen from a Hawaiian models site. Claimed he was living in Australia but was in UK caring for sick mother, in need of surgery. The romance 'blossomed' with cards and long phone calls and hints of marriage, when he got back home. His homecoming was postponed many times...next week, next week.... then the inevitable story - I need to pay my mothers medical bills, but I can't access my Australian funds...if I could only pay the bills, I could come home to you darling...and have that wonderful rosy future we had planned together. Her friends had growing suspicions but didnt want to hurt her or cause a rift. But finally this week, I'd had enuf, found out enough details from her to scour the net and search for him. Took me most of the night but found him on romancescam.com ...with a scamming history going back 5 yrs....and many victims So I guess my motivation for writing this, is, ladies & gents, beware...and to all friends of these people, don't be afraid to be honest to your friends if you suspect they are getting into that sort of situation...I felt terrible at the time...but it very nearly cost my friends thousands of dollars....so it is worth the risk... I hope Im not out of place writing this here?? cheers

Thanks. That's good information. If someone had said something sooner, she'd most likely not have listened and even run faster toward him.

Exactly right Dorine...she did react negatively to one person who suggested it was a scam....so I quietly found out names and details from her, thru conversation, then did my homework on the net before hand...then the proof was undeniable. Underhanded and sneaky...I felt awful doing it...but in hindsight ... it's worked out well, fortunately....and it was thanks to the other victims who have posted their experiences to prevent others from doing the same.

Thanks, for the information, Linda. I have a UK friend whom may consider internet dating. Are there 'safe' sites or is it all a bit of a lottery?

You are to be applauded, Linda, for being a great friend and putting in all the time and effort on her behalf. It's always sad to hear such stories. But lonely women have fallen victim to such schemes for ages. This is just another variation of an old con. :-(

You are a true friend indeed, Linda. I hope she appreciates all your efforts. Someone less caring would have just ignored the whole saga.

It's the worry of confronting your friend and losing your friend in the process...that made it such an uncomfortable thing to do...felt like such betrayal. I think Sue, most dating sites are a bit of a lottery... Even found the guy on Facebook, under a different name - one of many...and warned all his friends - all ladies, of course...and reported him. It's scary that if you don't take precaution with your privacy settings on things like Facebook, these guys can 'watch' you and figure you out...then hook you in...my friend kept talking about her soul mate and love on FB...and he could see she was falling hook line & sinker... On investigation, it seems her had dozens of women 'on-the-go' at one time... Sounds too organised to be just one person IMO. Thanks for your thoughts ladies...

BTW Sue, another friend found her husband on RSVP.com...and they are expecting their first child now...he is a wonderful guy...so it can work for many...but my friend was VERY private and VERY careful & select before she actually went on a date with anyone...good luck to your friend...

Thanks, Linda. I know of a person whom found her second husband quite late in life (after her family grew up) through internet dating. She is now happily married. Her experience was a success, but it's good to be aware of the dangers. I will pass on the information.

Obama is really not thrilling me today. Between the ridiculous energy policy and several other things, he'd better get his act together or I'll be ready for .....who's the next in line Dem expected to run for POTUS??

I'm sure POTUS is worried;-D

Whatever.

Too funny... A doctor in Orlando posted this sign on his door.... http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-mount-dora-doctor-tells-patients-go-aw20100401,0,6040296,full.story Hope you doctor doesn't ask you;-)

I sincerely hope ALL of his patients voted for Obama. :-) What an idiot.

Oh Sarah...Im sure no one took it seriously. But a lot of these medics are pretty incensed. They have been accustomed to ordering tests and procedures that they think would benefit the patient in the correct diagnosis. Now there will be panels that will utlimately approve such.

(Evelyn) They have been accustomed to ordering tests and procedures that they think would benefit the patient in the correct diagnosis. And many of them are instead practicing defensive medicine in case of a lawsuit. Of course there are already "panels" (usually of one) at any private insurance company approving such. And sometimes I think the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing. Saw a denial for treatment letter today, dated yesterday denying the patient's stay and treatment and an authorization letter written a few days before authorizing his treatment through April 4th. The April 1st letter is clearly written as if the other one with auth didn't already exist. I did find that sign pretty amusing to be honest, regardless if he meant it or not. Don't like the sentiment at all, and as the ethics guy in the article said, could be quite ethically sticky a position to publicly proclaim, but I was amused how he said it. So rude almost, so blunt. And if I told you how it works in my line of work to maximize reimbursement (including creative notewriting - which believe me they don't teach you in school), it might make your head spin.

Now there will be panels that will utlimately approve such. There's nothing in the new law that expands this beyond where it already is today. Like Sarah Palin's "death panels." LOL.

Re: "Death Panels: Just a eupehmism ,for they still do have "end of life counseling sessions". The VA has had them for yrs, I am told. Not my cuppa' ;-) Panels that approve or dis have been around for a long time; HMO's/PPo's have them. Actually, Medicare often refuses to pay for a procedure/treatment. That's why one has to sign a form that says in the event your provider doesn't pay the patient has to. But it has never been extended to private practices.

Don't you think the term "death panels" is demagoguery? Sounds like if you have a sniffle, they're going to take you out back and start shooting.;-) That's not what this is, at all. And you're right, it's not new. That's why one has to sign a form that says in the event your provider doesn't pay the patient has to. Evelyn, I've had to routinely sign such forms with private insurance, for pretty much everything other than doctors office visits and presciptions. They want to make sure they'll get paid in case your insurance doesn't cover it, or cover it in full.

(Mari)"death panels" is demagoguery? Sounds like if you have a sniffle, they're going to take you out back and start shooting.;-) LOL. I never took it that lightly. "Death Panels"always applied to Seniors who were ill. Gaaaaagh;-) Yes, patients formerly had to sign forms, but in the new bureauocracy (AKA "New World Order";-) doctors would have to first get approval from "Big Brother";-).

(Evelyn) Re: "Death Panels: Just a eupehmism ,for they still do have "end of life counseling sessions". The VA has had them for yrs, I am told. Not my cuppa' ;-) But oh so needed. So much wasted $$ on treatments for clearly terminal patients (including multiple rehospitalizations). May sound cruel, but I'm telling you, had to deal with many such cases at the hospital my company dealt with who clearly should've gone on hospice instead trying to be saved. Hospice is a dirty word at that place. The doctors and social workers rarely bring it up. They have a palliative care program that while it did grow some, was still criminally underused, mainly because there was not enough support (or maybe even awareness) of it. Though I think the program suffered a setback when the director died of recurring cancer. So much wasted resources in such cases. (Evelyn) Panels that approve or dis have been around for a long time; HMO's/PPo's have them. Exactly my point from above....Of course there are already "panels" (usually of one) at any private insurance company approving such. "Death Panels"always applied to Seniors who were ill. Why just seniors? Under 65'ers die everyday, too. doctors would have to first get approval from "Big Brother";-). Could you please cite where this is spelled out? Don't tell me you don't have time.

but in the new bureauocracy (AKA "New World Order";-) doctors would have to first get approval from "Big Brother";-). Hate to tell you, that's what HMO's/private insurance/managed Medicare-Medicaid have always done. It's called pre-authorization (note the example I gave above with the denial/approval letters). Again, nothing new.

Yes, far better to rely on individuals/panels at insurance companies who are pressured or incentivized to deny doctor-recommended care to preserve the company's bottom line. For-profit health care and patient interest are usually at odds.

LOL at your name!!

LOL at your name!! For-profit health care and patient interest are usually at odds. I just said basically exactly that to a (Candian) coworker last week when talking about the healthcare reform law. She's been working here just 18 mos. Reform also won't work (as I've said numerous times) without individuals changing lifestyles and expectations regarding their health and healthcare as well.

May sound cruel,... It is. Between my family and a clergy member, yes. Government. No. Sorry.

doctors would have to first get approval from "Big Brother";-). Could you please cite where this is spelled out? Don't tell me you don't have time. "I read it someplace" ;-)

(Evelyn) It is. Between my family and a clergy member, yes. Of course. But not your doctor??? The one who's working with you on your health?? I'm not sure you actually know what you're talking about re: end of life counseling and death panels. Or rather what it all really means. I'm seeing a skewed view of this that really makes no sense.

May sound cruel,... It is. Between my family and a clergy member, yes. Actually, no, it's not cruel. If someone's in the hospital for the third time in a month, or been in for weeks and even days, etc, and clearly is terminal, the doctor damn well better be talking to you about options, it's his job....with family of course if there is any....and clergy if so desired. It's no different than them stating all the options for any treatment as well as possible side effects/repercussions. It's cruel to prolong suffering by not stating all options. It's cruel to give someone hope when there's none. And should the patient be over 65 on that socialistic program called Medicare, it drains the coiffers of that unnecessarily, which the last time I checked, added costs to the government which is something you and my other Republican friends complain about.

Per your favorite, WSJ: "The cost of caring for patients who are near death accounts for a big piece of the government's medical spending. [Ed. note - As I alluded to above] But a furor over a provision for government-paid counseling to plan for end-of-life care is steering lawmakers away from the issue. Tucked inside a sweeping House bill to overhaul the health system is a provision that would require Medicare to pay physicians to counsel patients once every five years. During those sessions, doctors could discuss how patients can plan for such end-of-life decisions as setting up a living will, obtaining hospice care or establishing a proxy to make their health decisions when they are unable to do so. [Ed note - What is wrong with this concept?? There isn't any legal adult in the US of sound mind (or anywhere else that has such types of provision), who shouldn't be doing this.] The end-of-life counseling provision in the House bill is expected to cost a few billion dollars over the next decade. But health policy experts say it could lower medical spending by reducing end-of-life medical care that patients don't want. Opponents say the provision shows that architects of the health-care overhaul want to ration seniors' care. Democratic lawmakers say no part of the House bill calls for rationing care. Physician counseling would be voluntary." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125012322203627701.html If you're not sick, there's no need to consult your doctor about it, unless you need an explanation of what extraordinary measures means and the implication of having them administered (such as the legal issues having to do with a respirator turned off). But surely, if you're chronically ill, stable or not, you'd want to discuss some things with your doctor. Or not, whatever, but no one is telling you you have to.

"I read it someplace" ;-) I always give you links. ;-)

Too long , Dorine. Cut it shorter.

*sighs*

Actually, I was thinking about the doctor joining in on my "end of life couseling session"... ...if it's Jeremy Northam, bring him on;-)

LOL! Too right.

Nice

Forgot to say this is the official First Family photo

Beautiful pic. Thanks, Evelyn.

Makes sense Dorine.

They are a most photogenic family, aren't they? And now for something completely different... Doctor shortage? 28 states may expand nurses' role AP By CARLA K. JOHNSON, Ap Medical Writer � 45 mins ago CHICAGO � A nurse may soon be your doctor. With a looming shortage of primary care doctors, 28 states are considering expanding the authority of nurse practitioners. These nurses with advanced degrees want the right to practice without a doctor's watchful eye and to prescribe narcotics. And if they hold a doctorate, they want to be called "Doctor." For years, nurse practitioners have been playing a bigger role in the nation's health care, especially in regions with few doctors. With 32 million more Americans gaining health insurance within a few years, the health care overhaul is putting more money into nurse-managed clinics. Those newly insured patients will be looking for doctors and may find nurses instead. The medical establishment is fighting to protect turf. In some statehouses, doctors have shown up in white coats to testify against nurse practitioner bills. The American Medical Association, which supported the national health care overhaul, says a doctor shortage is no reason to put nurses in charge and endanger patients. Nurse practitioners argue there's no danger. They say they're highly trained and as skilled as doctors at diagnosing illness during office visits. They know when to refer the sickest patients to doctor specialists. Plus, they spend more time with patients and charge less. "We're constantly having to prove ourselves," said Chicago nurse practitioner Amanda Cockrell, 32, who tells patients she's just like a doctor "except for the pay." On top of four years in nursing school, Cockrell spent another three years in a nurse practitioner program, much of it working with patients. Doctors generally spend four years in undergraduate school, four years in medical school and an additional three in primary care residency training. Medicare, which sets the pace for payments by private insurance, pays nurse practitioners 85 percent of what it pays doctors. An office visit for a Medicare patient in Chicago, for example, pays a doctor about $70 and a nurse practitioner about $60. The health care overhaul law gave nurse midwives, a type of advanced practice nurse, a Medicare raise to 100 percent of what obstetrician-gynecologists make � and that may be just the beginning. States regulate nurse practitioners and laws vary on what they are permitted to do: � In Florida and Alabama, for instance, nurse practitioners are barred from prescribing controlled substances. � In Washington, nurse practitioners can recommend medical marijuana to their patients when a new law takes effect in June. � In Montana, nurse practitioners don't need a doctor involved with their practice in any way. � Many other states put doctors in charge of nurse practitioners or require collaborative agreements signed by a doctor. � In some states, nurse practitioners with a doctorate in nursing practice can't use the title "Dr." Most states allow it. The AMA argues the title "Dr." creates confusion. Nurse practitioners say patients aren't confused by veterinarians calling themselves "Dr." Or chiropractors. Or dentists. So why, they ask, would patients be confused by a nurse using the title? The feud over "Dr." is no joke. By 2015, most new nurse practitioners will hold doctorates, or a DNP, in nursing practice, according to a goal set by nursing educators. By then, the doctorate will be the standard for all graduating nurse practitioners, said Polly Bednash, executive director of the American Association of Colleges of Nursing. Many with the title use it with pride. "I don't think patients are ever confused. People are not stupid," said Linda Roemer, a nurse practitioner in Sedona, Ariz., who uses "Dr. Roemer" as part of her e-mail address. What's the evidence on the quality of care given by nurse practitioners? The best U.S. study comparing nurse practitioners and doctors randomly assigned more than 1,300 patients to either a nurse practitioner or a doctor. After six months, overall health, diabetes tests, asthma tests and use of medical services like specialists were essentially the same in the two groups. "The argument that patients' health is put in jeopardy by nurse practitioners? There's no evidence to support that," said Jack Needleman, a health policy expert at the University of California Los Angeles School of Public Health. Other studies have shown that nurse practitioners are better at listening to patients, Needleman said. And they make good decisions about when to refer patients to doctors for more specialized care. The nonpartisan Macy Foundation, a New York-based charity that focuses on the education of health professionals, recently called for nurse practitioners to be among the leaders of primary care teams. The foundation also urged the removal of state and federal barriers preventing nurse practitioners from providing primary care. The American Medical Association is fighting proposals in about 28 states that are considering steps to expand what nurse practitioners can do. "A shortage of one type of professional is not a reason to change the standards of medical care," said AMA president-elect Dr. Cecil Wilson. "We need to train more physicians." In Florida, a bill to allow nurse practitioners to prescribe controlled substances is stalled in committee. One patient, Karen Reid of Balrico, Fla., said she was left in pain over a holiday weekend because her nurse practitioner couldn't prescribe a powerful enough medication and the doctor couldn't be found. Dying hospice patients have been denied morphine in their final hours because a doctor couldn't be reached in the middle of the night, nurses told The Associated Press. Massachusetts, the model for the federal health care overhaul, passed its law in 2006 expanding health insurance to nearly all residents and creating long waits for primary care. In 2008, the state passed a law requiring health plans to recognize and reimburse nurse practitioners as primary care providers. That means insurers now list nurse practitioners along with doctors as primary care choices, said Mary Ann Hart, a nurse and public policy expert at Regis College in Weston, Mass. "That greatly opens up the supply of primary care providers," Hart said. But it hasn't helped much so far. A study last year by the Massachusetts Medical Society found the percentage of primary care practices closed to new patients was higher than ever. And despite the swelling demand, the medical society still believes nurse practitioners should be under doctor supervision. The group supports more training and incentives for primary care doctors and a team approach to medicine that includes nurse practitioners and physician assistants, whose training is comparable. "We do not believe, however, that nurse practitioners have the qualifications to be independent primary care practitioners," said Dr. Mario Motta, president of the state medical society. The new U.S. health care law expands the role of nurses with: � $50 million to nurse-managed health clinics that offer primary care to low-income patients. � $50 million annually from 2012-15 for hospitals to train nurses with advanced degrees to care for Medicare patients. � 10 percent bonuses from Medicare from 2011-16 to primary care providers, including nurse practitioners, who work in areas where doctors are scarce. � A boost in the Medicare reimbursement rate for certified nurse midwives to bring their pay to the same level as a doctor's. The American Nurses Association hopes the 100 percent Medicare parity for nurse midwives will be extended to other nurses with advanced degrees. "We know we need to get to 100 percent for everybody. This is a crack in the door," said Michelle Artz of ANA. "We're hopeful this sets the tone." In Chicago, only a few patients balk at seeing a nurse practitioner instead of a doctor, Cockrell said. She gladly sends those patients to her doctor partners. She believes patients get real advantages by letting her manage their care. Nurse practitioners' uphill battle for respect makes them precise, accurate and careful, she said. She schedules 40 minutes for a physical exam; the doctors in her office book 30 minutes for same appointment. Joseline Nunez, 26, is a patient of Cockrell's and happy with her care. "I feel that we get more time with the nurse practitioner," Nunez said. "The doctor always seems to be rushing off somewhere." ___ On the Net: American Nurses Association, http://www.nursingworld.org/ American Medical Association, http://www.ama-assn.org/

"I feel that we get more time with the nurse practitioner," Nunez said. "The doctor always seems to be rushing off somewhere." That's for sure. For ordinary medical issues, I prefer so see a NP.

Interesting article, Do. My sister is in the Masters program at Penn and will receive her nurse practitioner certification later this year. (She's been a nurse for 25+ years.) I saw a nurse practitioner at my last GYN check-up and was very satisfied with her care and with the amount of time spent with me. There's a 2-month wait to see the docs in that practice, but I was able to get an appt. with her in less than 2 weeks. They will be increasingly prevalent as time goes on and as the shortage of primary care docs worsens. The pay level for primary care is so much lower than for specialists; no wonder young docs don't want to go into it. Was just reading an article that said out of the average Penn MD graduating class of 160, only 3 to 5 go into primary care.

(Mari)There's a 2-month wait to see the docs in that practice, but I was able to get an appt. with her in less than 2 weeks. Two weeks! I can usually get one same day for NPs if I request it. PAs take a little longer. I predict that there will only be NPs for family practice in the nr future. Not even PAs want to do that one.

(Evelyn)Two weeks! I can usually get one same day for NPs if I request it. For primary care, yes, but for GYN/specialty care, there's still a wait here.