CA: Healthcare cuts would mean higher costs and possibly deaths, officials warn

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Elderly Households

Electric, Gas, Water, and Telephone

If you and all the members of your household are 65 years or older, it is very difficult for a company to shut off utility service—so difficult that it almost never happens. The rules covering electric, gas, water, and telephone service shut-offs for elderly households require the following:

• Companies must establish procedures to identify households in which all members are 65 or older.
• To protect yourself, you should notify the utility company if everyone in your household is 65 or older.
• Companies must allow elderly households to identify a third-party contact person who can warn them if a utility company threatens to shut off service.
• To get this protection, contact your utility company and ask for a Third Party Notification Form. You can name a friend, relative, or home-care provider as a third party. After you give a company this form, the company must then notify your third party of all overdue bills and shut-off notices. This third party is not legally responsible for paying your bill.
• Companies cannot shut off service to elderly households without written permission from the DTE. Because this would involve a hearing before the DTE, companies rarely even request permission to shut off service to elders.

Used with Permission of Neighborhood Legal Services, Inc. www.neighborhoodlaw.org

[Ban Hammer 13,364]

We should be making sure that the elderly never have to worry about their electricity or gas be shut off because of failure to pay. In fact, I believe in this country, it is against the law for a utility company to do so.

If you value human life above all else, then such financial costs are worthy investments. It just depends on your value system.

Why only the elderly? Is it ok to let a young person die if they cannot afford to pay their heating bills?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We should be making sure that the elderly never have to worry about their electricity or gas be shut off because of failure to pay. In fact, I believe in this country, it is against the law for a utility company to do so.

If you value human life above all else, then such financial costs are worthy investments. It just depends on your value system.

Why only the elderly? Is it ok to let a young person die if they cannot afford to pay their heating bills?

I don't know. Maybe you could write to your Congressman and ask him?

[웃 910]

The UK is in a terrible financial situation. They are in a complete mess:

The S&P lowered the U.K.’s rating outlook to “negative” from “stable” last week, citing the nation’s soaring debt burden. The U.S.’s $11.2 trillion of debt is about 79 percent of the $14.1 trillion in gross domestic product, according to Bloomberg data. In the U.K., the debt-to-GDP ratio approaches 100 percent.

My health insurance sucks! I refuse to go to the doctor cause an office visit will cost me $90!

BTW, universal health care would bankrupt the country. How do you provide "free" health care to over 300 million people? It might work in Canada (33 million), Australia (21 million), but no way Jose for 300 million citizens! The UK has 61 million citizens and look at the mess they are in!

[Peikko 1,575]

The UK is not in the kind of mess you think it is. Still carry on with your 'fear of commies'. Here, take a look under your bed, you might find one!

Edited May 28, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[mawilson 2,133]

The UK is not in the kind of mess you think it is. Still carry on with your 'fear of commies'. Here, take a look under your bed, you might find one!

It's not? What kind of mess is it in then?

[Peikko 1,575]

Everyone is going to vote BNP in June.

[mawilson 2,133]

We should be making sure that the elderly never have to worry about their electricity or gas be shut off because of failure to pay. In fact, I believe in this country, it is against the law for a utility company to do so.

If you value human life above all else, then such financial costs are worthy investments. It just depends on your value system.

Why only the elderly? Is it ok to let a young person die if they cannot afford to pay their heating bills?

I don't know. Maybe you could write to your Congressman and ask him?

My Congresswoman is useless.

[웃 910]

The UK is not in the kind of mess you think it is. Still carry on with your 'fear of commies'. Here, take a look under your bed, you might find one!

It's not? What kind of mess is it in then?

They are wayyyyyyyyy worse off than we (USA) are!!!!!

Standard & Poor's has moved its outlook for the British sovereign bond rating from stable to negative for the first time May 21, citing the United Kingdom's growing public debt and budget deficit. S&P analyst David Beers said, "We have revised the outlook on the U.K. to negative due to our view that, even assuming additional fiscal tightening, the net general government debt burden could approach 100 percent of GDP [gross domestic product] and remain near that level in the medium term." The other two main rating agencies — Moody's Investors Service and Fitch Ratings — announced that they are not planning any similar cuts.

The combination of the United Kingdom's spiraling public debt and political uncertainty ahead of general elections slated for mid-2010 has worried economic observers. The S&P rating cut only confirms obvious fears that the deficit and debt incurred by the British government to fight the recession may not be easy to rein in.

London is not restrained by the eurozone rules on printing money or keeping the budget deficit below 3 percent of GDP (though the European Commission has relaxed this rule as various eurozone countries struggle with the recession). London has therefore been free to conduct a policy of "quantitative easing," which has meant printing money and buying back government-issued bonds.

This policy has allowed London to spend its way through the current recession, in the process fueling an increase in public debt from 52 percent in 2008 to an expected 68 percent in 2009 — and a whopping 81.7 percent in 2010 (according to European Commission forecasts). While this does not put the United Kingdom at the top of Europe's chronic spenders (like Italy, France and Greece), the 30 percent increase in public debt forecast for a three-year period is equaled only by the European Commission's forecasts for Ireland and Spain, two of the most troubled economies in Europe at present. Meanwhile, the British budget deficit is set to reach -11.5 percent in 2009 and -13.8 percent in 2010 — numbers that the main West European economies of Germany, France, Italy and Spain do not even come close to.

A negative outlook for the British sovereign bond rating means that a downgrade from its AAA rating is possible. Lower credit scores will further dampen investor interest in British sovereign debt, making it more difficult for London to raise funds to fight the recession and forcing it to rely even further on quantitative easing to fund its debt — and thus continuing the growth of its public debt. Concern about the quality of British debt already caused the failure of one government bond auction March 25, the first time this has happened since 2002. Considering that the government intends to auction off 220 billion pounds ($348.8 billion) of government bonds in 2009 (50 percent more than in 2008, according to Bloomberg), investor confidence will be crucial if the United Kingdom is to find buyers for its sovereign debt. Positive news did come immediately after the S&P announcement when the British government managed to auction off 5 billion pounds ($7.9 billion) of two- and five-year government bonds. But the British political situation could sap what is left of investor confidence in economy of the United Kingdom. Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his Labor Party are under extreme pressure over the handling of the recession, and a recent scandal over spending allowances for members of parliament saw the speaker of the House of Commons forced to resign May 19, the first such resignation in the United Kingdom since 1695. The Labor Party has slumped to its lowerest polling numbers ever at just 22 percent support among likely voters, according to a survey published May 15 by the Sun newspaper, trailing the Conservatives at 41 percent and challenged by the Liberal Democratic Party at 19 percent. Brown is widely expected to reshuffle his Cabinet after June 4 local and European Parliament elections as a way to inject some life into his government.

Such slumping support strongly indicates that Brown's government has effectively lost the confidence of the populace. In such a situation, it is highly unlikely that the government will attempt to curb public spending, as this would amount to political suicide with the elections only a year away — something that makes the United Kingdom's economic prospects even more dire.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yes, waaaaaaaaaaay worse off, with their expenses scandals, and their enourmous debt, and oh yeah, their economic rating by a US bank

Count your blessings that you don't live like those suckers.

[웃 910]

March 2009

The latest economic forecasts from the IMF, which come as unemployment today surged through the 2 million mark, show that the UK economy will contract by 3.8% this year - a much more severe slump than the government has admitted. The IMF also predicted that Britain will be the only country to keep shrinking through 2010 (...) the International Monetary Fund warned that the UK will suffer a longer recession than other major countries (...) These IMF forecasts show that Britain is set to have the longest recession of all the major economies.

[Peikko 1,575]

...and yet, down on the streets of London, you'll not find shanty towns and people unable seek primary health care like they are here in the good 'ol USA. Weird, huh?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

...and yet, down on the streets of London, you'll not find shanty towns and people unable seek primary health care like they are here in the good 'ol USA. Weird, huh?

In the US we don't pour good money after bad.

The big difference between the US and Europe is the simple realization that while all people are created equal, the equality pretty much ends there. At age 40, no two individuals have an equal right to consume healthcare dollars. Preference for healthcare dollars should be towards more productive members of society. This is why our employer-based system works so well.

[Peikko 1,575]

...and yet, down on the streets of London, you'll not find shanty towns and people unable seek primary health care like they are here in the good 'ol USA. Weird, huh?

In the US we don't pour good money after bad.

The big difference between the US and Europe is the simple realization that while all people are created equal, the equality pretty much ends there. At age 40, no two individuals have an equal right to consume healthcare dollars. Preference for healthcare dollars should be towards more productive members of society. This is why our employer-based system works so well.

Indeed, I'd noticed.

The UK politician is ####### at embezzlement, and the Euro elections will probably produce some 'interesting' results.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Our best people have awesome insurance.

As it should be.