Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 24, 2014, 03:54:53 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83027 Posts in 2257 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  California
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] Print
Author Topic: California  (Read 52983 times)
Power User
Posts: 31517

« Reply #450 on: October 02, 2014, 04:58:43 PM »

As a state legislator, TMcC had my respect for the right values and clear headed analysis.  I am glad that even though he is now a Congressman, he continues to put out his CA ballot recommendations.

McClintock November Ballot Recommendations

Prop 1 – Water Bond: YES.  This is a long way from a perfect measure, but it’s as good as it gets in California these days: a $7.5 billion water bond that spends $2.7 billion for new water storage.  If that sounds breathtakingly underwhelming, remember that’s $2.7 billion more than the multi-billions of dollars of water bonds that we’ve spent in recent years. Sadly, it doesn’t overhaul the environmental laws that vastly inflate costs and it squanders a great deal more that won’t be used for storage, but it is a step away from the lunacy of the green left (that adamantly opposes it) and this alone merits support.       

Prop 2 - Stop Us Before We Screw Up Again: YES.  This repeals Prop 58, a vat of Schwarzenegger snake-oil sold to voters as the panacea to the state’s budget woes.  It wasn’t.  (My I-told-you-so moment).  Prop 58 promised an iron-clad reserve, but in reality, the governor could suspend it any time he wanted.  He did. (Oops, I did it again).  What I like most about Prop 2 is that to raid the required budget reserve, both the governor AND the legislature must agree and then, only for a specifically declared emergency.  In a nutshell, it requires the legislature and governor to do what they did voluntarily during the Deukmejian era.  Still plenty of loopholes, but better than what we have today.

Prop 45 – If You Thought Obamacare Was Bad: NO. This is a trial lawyers measure that give the state insurance commissioner the power to set health care rates.  Sound good?  Doctors and other health care providers are already opting out of Obamacare because of artificially low rates; this compounds the problem for California.  The good news it you’ll have cheap health insurance.  The bad news is you won’t have a lot of providers accepting it.

Prop 46 – If You Thought Prop 45 Was Bad: NO. Another trial lawyers measure that quadruples the amount they can get for pain and suffering awards.  Prop. 45 means lower provider reimbursements and Prop. 46 means higher provider costs.  It also requires drug testing for doctors, which is a stupid idea but I appreciate the poetic justice in making THEM pee into little cups for a change.  Anyway, it won’t matter because your doctor will be out of state.

Prop 47 – Rose Bird’s Revenge: NO. We’ve gone overboard on some drug-related offenses, but this Proposition can only be described as a drug-induced hallucination.  It reduces many grand-theft crimes to misdemeanors and would release an estimated 10,000 incarcerated criminals back on the streets.  Basically, it is a burglar’s get-out-of-jail free card.  Good news for alarm companies and the handful of 60’s radicals nostalgic for Rose Bird – bad news for the rest of us.  Hide the silver.

Prop 48 – Freedom Works: YES.  This ratifies Indian Gaming compacts for two tribes in economically depressed regions of the state that will be an economic boon to the struggling local communities there.  It also cuts through environmental red tape that would otherwise delay these projects for years.
Power User
Posts: 31517

« Reply #451 on: October 23, 2014, 10:46:01 PM »

How Many are Covered California Hospitals? 28% of Calif. Hospitals Had Worse-Than-Expected Infection Rates
October 22, 2014 By Stephen Frank
More than one out of four hospitals in California have worse than expected infection rates—and government has demanded You be a victim. Connect the dots: Under Covered California you are only allowed to use doctors in a network and hospitals in the network. Neither doctors nor hospitals are chosen on the basis of quality—they are chosen on the basis of cost. The State of California forces you to use the low cost doctor and hospitals that have lots of infections. Feel safe now getting your government approved health care?

“KHN found that 695 U.S. hospitals had reported rates that were higher than expected for one or more of the six infections. Further, researchers found that 25% or more of hospitals had worse-than-expected infection rates in 13 states and Washington, D.C. California was one of the 13 states, with 28% of hospitals reporting at least one worse-than-expected infection rate.

If you are harmed or die, you or your family will not be allowed to sue Covered California for their lack of vetting hospitals for quality or safety. Once again, government is the problem not the solution.

28% of Calif. Hospitals Had Worse-Than-Expected Infection Rates
California Healthline, 10/22/14

California is one of 13 states and Washington D.C. where more than 25% of hospitals had higher-than-expected infection rates for at least one of six infections, according to a Kaiser Health News analysis of available CDC data, Kaiser Health News reports.


About one in 25 hospital patients in the U.S. have a health care-associated infection on any given day, and 75,000 U.S. residents die from hospital-related infections annually, according to KHN. The federal government since 2012 has been publishing hospital-related infection rate analyses on Medicare’s Hospital Compare website. In addition, Medicare in the fall will begin factoring hospital-related infection rates into reimbursement payments(Rau, Kaiser Health News, 10/21).

Analysis Details

For the analysis, KHN analyzed CDC data from reports submitted by more than 3,000 hospitals on:

•   Catheter-associated urinary tract infections;
•   Central line-associated blood stream infections;
•   Infections from the antibiotic-resistant germ Clostridium difficile, or C. diff;
•   Infections from the antibiotic-resistant Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA.
•   Surgical site infections from abdominal hysterectomies; and
•   Surgical site infections from colon surgery.

The hospitals were rated as having infection rates that were better, as expected or worse based on the hospital type and patient mix. The MRSA and C. diff infections were contracted between Jan. 1, 2013, and Sept. 30, 2013, while the other infections were contracted between Oct. 1, 2012, and Sept. 30, 2013 (KHN analysis, 10/21).

Analysis Findings

KHN found that 695 U.S. hospitals had reported rates that were higher than expected for one or more of the six infections. Further, researchers found that 25% or more of hospitals had worse-than-expected infection rates in 13 states and Washington, D.C. California was one of the 13 states, with 28% of hospitals reporting at least one worse-than-expected infection rate.

In addition, KHN found that seven hospitals were determined by CDC to have worse-than-expected infection rates in four of the six categories, including the highly regarded:

•   New York-Presbyterian Hospital;
•   Pennsylvania-based Geisinger Medical Center; and
•   University of Michigan Health System.

Meanwhile, the analysis found that some major teaching hospitals generally had lower-than-expected infection rates, including:

•   Denver Health Medical Center;
•   Duke University Hospital; and
•   Mayo Clinic’s hospitals.


Some of the hospitals contested CDC’s data. Some hospitals said their infection rates appeared higher because they worked harder to identify and report the infections or as the result of the hospitals admitting more patients who were prone to contracting infections.

Patient safety expert Kevin Kavanagh said the hospital-related infection rates were the result of many hospitals not strictly following infection disease treatment protocols and a lack of specificity in the government’s protocols. He added, “Right now there are too many recommendations on how to handle infectious diseases” and there is “too much leeway” on adhering to the recommendations.

Don Goldmann — chief medical and science officer at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement and co-author of a 2011 New England Journal of Medicine study on hospital-related infections — said, “The percentage of time that health care providers do all of the things they are supposed to do when caring for a patient with a contagious disease can be pretty low.”

Goldman added that many hospitals are more likely to follow protocols when addressing rarer ailments such as Ebola, but that “[w]hen [an infection risk has] been around for a long time, it kind of becomes part of the background” (Kaiser Health News, 10/21).

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!