anyone? :)

I am looking for a review of the companion workbook. Thanks for any feedback.:bigear:

:iagree: and someone who's been around long enough to know about these old threads? Or just a bored googler? or ogler, maybe LOL Really, if you just want to argue, wouldn't you at least make up a new thread? :glare:

Rebecca, I saw your point. :)

thanks for the chuckle ;)

Equal opportunity : follow the rules or don't. Equal results : all children who disobey the rules receive the exact same punishment. Why perpetuate a victim class? Obviously I know nothing more than has been shared here about the Tucson school system, but that is my view in general. :lol:so stealing this

I agree with this. And I never sang the praise of Old MacDonald either.:confused:

What is it about some people that they must say "if you disagree with a black person, you must hate black people?" I vehemently disagree with most of the policy that has so far been submitted and/or supported by Pres Obama. I think based on his speech yesterday, that he is anti-Israeli and has very negative feelings toward the United States. How dare people call me a racist because I disagree with a particular man? Are all Bush-haters racist, as well? Is the only reason to disagree with someone who is diametrically opposed to you in all policy ideas his skin color. This argument is so ridiculous.

Sounds like the mom received a schedule (in the mail?) Maybe she has not received it yet, but why not just send her another and she can put it on her fridge. It is for the quarter? Year? I do similar types of jobs at church, and this I would not use bulletin space on. High school youth - send the schedule. Maybe the problem is just that the daughter has not had her "training" and they have not yet received their schedule. Or maybe - as one poster mentioned - they don't want to do it. That should be ok. I am the one in our church of 400 members who keeps my 1 yo in the pew, because a) that's what I do, and b) I don't want to work in the nursery.

For the record, our family has had a high deductible plan for several years. We started out with a $5000 family deductible, which sounds high; but when you realize that we saved $650/month on premiums, we easily saved the money to cover the deductible. After a few years of saving the premiums, we had enough to switch to a $10000 deductible, which significantly lowered our premiums. The money is saved tax-free if used only for medical expenses. Of course, you don't probably want to go with the Western family brand of insurance company - choose the one that serves your community. Do you have a county, city government or school district or university in your city. Use their insurance company. Most all doctors in a city will contract with an insurance company with such a large account. I think the instance of a hospital contracting with an insurance company and then the hospital's ancillary sevices not, is actually rare. It has happened to us in the past that the only local ambulance company didn't contract with our smaller insurance company. That was the insurance company we received from the job at the county. Just to say that out of network bites and it doesn't matter if it is a corporate plan or an individual plan. And as a patient, you do have the right to choose - doctors, labs, etc., but if their is only an independent provider, then it wouldn't matter what insurance you have.

Have a great weekend. We leaving today for a family trip - dh's parents are having their 50th - 750 miles in the car each way. :auto:

It is impossible to read you posts about your daughter and son and not have compassion for your personal grief from the medical conditions in your family, and the trials that come from dealing with them. A hug to you, and possibly a glass of wine, It has health benefits, I've heard. :001_smile:

I'm curious about this, too. That is why I originally asked the question. BTW my health ins co is mandated by state law to cover "reproductive services" and yes this is euphemism here for abortion on demand. I don't like it. I wish Health insurance companies were not forced to cover procedures that their customers do not wish to pay for, or would not use. And that is not just abortions.

I see your point, Tara, really I do. But yes, I believe that if Joe Six Pack should have the right to decide for himself if he wants to spend his money on snowmobiles, new cars and a big house. If he does not have health insurance, by his choice, then when the big bills come in, he should pay them. Maybe it means selling said luxuries, and making payments, and perhaps going bankrupt and then even having to make hard decisions about what care he can afford. You see, in my view, the difference is automobile liability insurance is to cover someone else. That is closer to the equivalent to what universal health insurance is - everyone must pay to protect someone else. If Joe Sixpack (I'm actually referring to his abs, not his alcohol use :D) chooses not to protect himself, that is now HIS problem. What I don't understand is this: Why do people not have a problem with handing over such a huge control to the state? We choose to educate our children outside of the state system for a reason. The state system is failing. Medicare/Medicaid is a broken system. Look at what the state system did to the mortgage industry. (You must give a loan to anyone, because home ownership is a right.) Responsibility goes out the window and the nanny state "must take over." I know I have stated before, but will reiterate because I feel I have been mischaracterized. I do think it is a good thing to take steps to help people who have the impossible choice, as you do, regarding your health insurance. (like CHIP) This is what the co-op idea is about, I believe. Also, allowing for insurance companies to design plans around their customers needs/wants. I do not want an insurance plan that covers birth control, abortion, well-baby checks, sports physicals, teeth cleanings, eye exams, etc. I consider these maintenance items to be more affordable than the premium in the first place. And if there was a large group of people who got togher with the same idea, our insurance would be cheaper, because it would not pay for those things. However, many state governments require insurance companies to cover a long list of procedures (including ones I would rather not have covered) decided on by legislators - not customers. The insurance companies must comply in order to do business in that state. This is one main reason that insurance premiums are so high. If the government would quit regulating the InsCo to death, they could better meet the needs of their customers. As well, then an ins.co could have a larger pool for each group because they could take customers from all 50 states to make up their pools. Group A "wants only catastrophic care" could include more people - cost goes down. Group B "wants the cadilac plan" could include more people - cost goes down. It is basic economics, but our federal government has been failing basic economics for years now. For what it's worth, I am a republican in general, but I have never been so angry at a politician as I was at Bush for signing that darn 1st TARP plan. And I think that Clinton's Welfare Reform was one of the best things to happen during his administration (ok, its the only legislation I can remember ;)) Just thought I'd throw in that I am not in love with insurance companies. But insurance companies employ a lot of people. What government plan are we going to have to come up with when bluecross, healthOne, Kaiser, etc. have to start laying everyone off, because they are going out of business? One size fits all, does not fit anyone. random thought: We we soon see life insurance be mandatory as well, since we are all going to die? Maybe the state will start to provide this so that Martha doesn't have to foot the bill for a funeral.

ERs do not provide these services because they are not Emergeny Medicine. People keep saying that you CAN be turned away from the ER and prove it by saying "so and so had a broken knee and couldn't be treated, so and so saw someone not get treated." Now maybe so and so did get turned away, but if it was for an EMEMRGENCY and it was at a hospital that receives federal funds, that was illegal. New legislation is not needed to fix problems that are already addressed. If the person who was turned away had an actual claim, there is an actual lawyer who would take on a hospital. Are those in favor of univeral free health care actually advocating that every single thing that could go wrong with every single person be covered by the new universal health insurance?? Can anyone say "Sky rocket?"