Results 12,951 to 12,975 of 23206
-
09-19-2021, 10:49 AM #12951Head down, push foreword
- Join Date
- Sep 2002
- Location
- OREYGUN!
- Posts
- 14,565
U.S. states with most COVID deaths per 100,000 people:
1. Mississippi: 308
2. New Jersey: 306
3. Louisiana: 288
4. New York: 281
5. Massachusetts: 267
6. Arizona: 266
7. Rhode Island: 265
8. Alabama: 262
9. Arkansas: 245
10. Florida: 237
-
09-19-2021, 10:53 AM #12952Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!
-
09-19-2021, 11:09 AM #12953
Italy saw a 14.1% case fatality rate through August 2020. The Northeastern United States was also hit hard early in the pandemic. Both served to show how deadly Covid is when it hits a naive unprepared population.
That was then, now, slower vaccine uptake means more deaths. If you live in Florida or Mississippi you're 10x more likely to be killed by Covid today than if you live a state with higher vax rates.
-
09-19-2021, 11:20 AM #12954
-
09-19-2021, 11:41 AM #12955Jamie Azar left a rehab hospital in Tennessee this week with the help of a walker after spending the entire month of August in the ICU and on a ventilator. She had received a shot of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in mid-July but tested positive for the coronavirus within 11 days and nearly died.
Now Azar, who earns about $36,000 a year as the director of a preschool at a Baptist church in Georgia, is facing thousands of dollars in medical expenses that she can’t afford.
“I’m very thankful to be home. I am still weak. And I’m just waiting for the bills to come in to know what to do with them,” she said Wednesday, after returning home.
In 2020, as the pandemic took hold, U.S. health insurance companies declared they would cover 100 percent of the costs for covid treatment, waiving co-pays and expensive deductibles for hospital stays that frequently range into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
But this year, most insurers have reinstated co-pays and deductibles for covid patients, in many cases even before vaccines became widely available. The companies imposed the costs as industry profits remained strong or grew in 2020, with insurers paying out less to cover elective procedures that hospitals suspended during the crisis.
Now the financial burden of covid is falling unevenly on patients across the country, varying widely by health-care plan and geography, according to a survey of the two largest health plans in every state by the nonprofit and nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.
If you’re fortunate enough to live in Vermont or New Mexico, for instance, state mandates require insurance companies to cover 100 percent of treatment. But most Americans with covid are now exposed to the uncertainty, confusion and expense of business-as-usual medical billing and insurance practices — joining those with cancer, diabetes and other serious, costly illnesses.
A widow with no children, Azar, 57, is part of the unlucky majority. Her experience is a sign of what to expect if covid, as most scientists fear, becomes endemic: a permanent, regular health threat.
The carrier for her employee health insurance, UnitedHealthcare, reinstated patient cost-sharing Jan. 31. That means, because she got sick months later, she could be on the hook for $5,500 in deductibles, co-pays and out-of-network charges this year for her care in a Georgia hospital near her home, including her ICU stay, according to estimates by her family. They anticipate she could face another $5,500 in uncovered expenses next year as her recovery continues.
Bills related to her stay at the out-of-network rehab hospital in Tennessee could climb as high as $10,000 more, her relatives have estimated, but they acknowledged they were uncertain this month what exactly to expect, even after asking UnitedHealthcare and the providers.I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.
"Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"
-
09-19-2021, 11:44 AM #12956
“I’m not paying for anyone’s bad choices! Git yer own health care.”
Gets covid. Gets intubated. Asks for lung transplant. Gets flown 6 states away on special ICU plane. Goes on ECMO. Survives. Months of costly rehab. Who is paying for all this?
Numerous others infected at same time. Long covid everywhere.
Then idiots are all like….”let’s just look solely at death rates to see how states are doing.”
-
09-19-2021, 11:55 AM #12957
-
09-19-2021, 11:56 AM #12958
Includes updates on the Ohio case but NPR should not say the ruling was "reversed." A reversal implies that a higher court found that the lower court made an incorrect decision based on the evidence and law at the time the lower court made the ruling. That is not what occurred. Here is what occurred:
-8/20 plaintiff/wife filed complaint. Case assigned to Judge Oster, who would normally be making all decision on the case.
-8/23, due to the emergency nature of the request, court set an emergency temporary injunction hearing. Judge Oster is busy on this date so Judge Howard filled in. Because this hearing was only three days after the complaint was filed, the Hospital/defendant presented no evidence to counter claims made by plaintiff. Judge Howard issued a temporary order that automatically expires in 14 days ordering the hospital to give the guy ivermectin. Judge Howard set a future hearing exactly 14 days from his order (the date it expires) in front of the originally assigned judge, Judge Oster. Judge Oster and Judge Howard are the same level of judges (one is not a higher court).
-9/7, 14 days after the original temporary order, Judge Oster denies plaintiff's request for an injunction. Between 8/23 and the hearing on 9/7, the defendant/hospital filed substantial evidence outlinging the dangers and and lack of effectiveness of ivermectin (again, this evidence was not before Judge Howard when he made his decision). Also, after 8/23, but before the hearing on 9/7, the CDC, FDA, AMA all issued statements against the use of ivermectin for COVID, which was presented by the hospital and considered by Judge Oster. Finally, Dr. Wagshul, the plaintiff's star witness, testified that he had prescribed ivermectin despite the fact he had never met the patient in person and that he "honestly didn't know" if continuing to administer ivermectin would benefit the patient in any way. So Judge Oster made the easy and obvious choice to rule in favor of the hospital/defendant.
It may be semantics, but it is important for the media to accurately report what happens in the courts or Americans lose faith in the judiciary and decry activist, politicized judges. Judge Oster did not "reverse" Judge Howard (they were different hearings, at different times, and took in consideration different facts) In fact, if Judge Oster had been the judge at the first hearing it is completely plausible, and even likely, that he would have ruled the exact same way. Poor Judge Howard had this thrown on his lap and now America thinks he's a right wing nut job because of the media's poor reporting on the case. If there is any bad guy here it is definitely Dr. Wagshul. But America loves doctors and hates lawyers so Wagshul won't suffer any consequences.
NPR at least had the decency to link Judge Oster's ruling, which is the basis for all of the facts above:
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...87-oster-order
-
09-19-2021, 12:15 PM #12959Because leftists like Stern and CNNLOL and Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi and Anthony Fauci are deliberately looking to manipulate Trump supporters into not getting vaccinated.
If this is what it takes I say go for it.
-
09-19-2021, 12:16 PM #12960lysterine
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Posts
- 670
Thanks for the procedural write up altasnob. Journalists often struggle with explaining these processes and standards that courts must follow and much gets lost in the shuffle. Both of these hearings had different standards the court needed to adhere to at the time. It certainly shows how important the judicial standard being applied in a case can sway the outcome of the issue at hand.
-
09-19-2021, 12:18 PM #12961It may be semantics, but it is important for the media to accurately report what happens in the courts or Americans lose faith in the judiciary and decry activist, politicized judges.
-
09-19-2021, 12:25 PM #12962
Bullshit. NPR either has their own lawyers on staff to help them accurately report legal decisions, or they can reach out to attorneys to help them (who will assist for free if the media agrees to name drop the attorney in the article). This is law school 101/high school civics class stuff here. They know exactly what they are doing when they use the word "reverse." They want to paint a picture of a rouge, radical, idiot, lower court judge making an unpopular opinion and then get "reversed" by the intelligent higher appellate judge. The truth is boring and NPR's version helps them get clicks.
-
09-19-2021, 12:26 PM #12963
-
09-19-2021, 12:30 PM #12964
-
09-19-2021, 12:35 PM #12965
The antivaxxers sure are high on things like ivermectin and monoclonal antibodies, and certainly the latter at least is known to be effective, but doesn't it seem preferable to not get severe Covid in the first place? Luckily we have these things called vaccines that are very effective at doing just that. Would you rather play Russian roulette or just not have a gun pointed at your temple in the first place?
-
09-19-2021, 12:44 PM #12966
So the libs like vaccines and the MAGAs like monoclonal antibodies.
It's a matter of style--like skiing vs snowboarding.
Isn't it?
-
09-19-2021, 12:46 PM #12967
-
09-19-2021, 12:53 PM #12968
Judge Oster also ruled even though the parties did not address any harm to third parties or the public interest, "The public interest would not be served by issuing the preliminary injunction":
"While this court is sympathetic to the Plaintiff and understands the idea of wanting to do anything to help her loved one, public policy should not and does not support allowing a physician to try “any” type of treatment on human beings ... What is more, public policy in this case encompasses a number of broader issues including a hospital's standard of care decisions, mandating doctors and nurses to provide care they believe unnecessary, ethical concerns of all doctors involved, patient autonomy, fiduciary duty, accreditation standards for patient protections, obligating one doctor to carry out the treatment regimen/plan of another doctor, ... "
In other words, because Oster says as a first principle the court should not medicate or legislate from the bench it's more likely he would not have ruled the same way as Judge Howard.
-
09-19-2021, 12:59 PM #12969
-
09-19-2021, 01:07 PM #12970
-
09-19-2021, 01:11 PM #12971
In response to the original judge's emergency order the hospital administered 30mg of ivermectin a day to the patient. So semantics and blah blah aside, Judge Oster either reversed or dismissed or whatever the original action of 'poor' Judge Howard.
-
09-19-2021, 01:15 PM #12972
I disagree. Remember, there was no evidence in front of Judge Howard except what was presented by the plaintiff. A similar situation occurs in requests for domestic violence protection orders. To get a protection order, the plaintiff fills out a form saying what bad things the defendant did or is going to do and signs it under penalty of perjury. The judge reads that form and if it meets the requirement of the law, the judge issues a temporary order that automatically expires in, say, 14 days. The judge grants this temporary order without ever hearing any evidence from the defendant/domestic violence bad guy (because the plaintiff is making this request themselves, and has no legal duty to inform the defendant of the hearing at this stage). At a typical docket, the judge may here 10 to 30 of these requests and judges definitely errors on the side of granting the plaintiff's request, no matter how bs their claims may sound. Then, in 14 days, there is a "full hearing" where for the first time the defendant gets a chance to counter the plaintiff's claims. This second, full hearing is the important hearing where the court is considering all the evidence and making a ruling that will last much longer than 14 days.
The point being, at the first, emergency hearing, when there is very little evidence before the court, the court errors on siding with the plaintiff. The court wants to keep the status quo, and in the ivermectin case, the status quo is giving the guy the drug so his wife can't claim the court and hospital killed him. Then, at the full hearing 14 days later, when both sides now have have had time to make their case, the court can make a ruling based on the full facts, without defaulting for the plaintiff. This system works because what's the harm of giving the guy ivermectin for 14 days just like what's the harm of issuing a protection order for 14 days even if, in reality, the plaintiff hasn't met the burden? Again, the important hearing is the second, non-emergency, full hearing.
Judge Oster's ruling did a great job of explaining everything in the case and he definitely made a point of trying to explain Judge Howard's previous ruling. My guess is Judge Howard foolishly didn't realize his initial two page ruling was going to make international news, and he probably should have taken time to give a more full explanation of the ruling. But judges typically don't even draft the orders they sign. They make the prevailing party draft it and if the other side has no objections, the judge signs it, sometimes without really reading it. Judges, particularly trial court level judges like we have here, are actually busy. They are the ER doctors of the court system. In the trenches so to speak.
-
09-19-2021, 01:17 PM #12973
While you're entitled to your opinion, Judge Oster clearly says even though neither party addressed the issue, let alone presented evidence, the court should not medicate or legislate from the bench. That's his written opinion. It's not unreasonable to think he would have applied the same reasoning initially too.
-
09-19-2021, 01:19 PM #12974
That's not correct. The original decision has no bearing on the result of the second hearing. A judge can rule one way on the first hearing, and then rule a different way on the second hearing, and they are not reversing themselves. The original order automatically expired. There is no dismissing, there is no reversing. Same for protection order cases I described above.
I get it that it is easier for the media to just say Judge Oster "reversed" Judge Howard rather than explain the exact procedural history. But the procedural history is important here so Americans have a more accurate view of how their legal system operates. Both Judge Howard and Judge Oster and basically every other attorney would agree with me here.
-
09-19-2021, 01:20 PM #12975
Maybe they should have thought a little more about what they were doing, or just quit, if they didn’t realize ordering a hospital to deliver quack cures would be bad.
Bookmarks