Nice language Abercrombiekids. For those who disagree with the original complaint, how would you like to walk in the shoes of someone who can't take an extreme amount of perfume or an "attractive"? "scent" as you all have called it. How would you like to have a headache so bad that it makes you throw up, have a hypersensitivity to light, sound and put you out of commission for oh..about a day? I have the prescription imitrex so maybe there would be some relief in half a day but still remain nauseated. Suppose, during this severe headache that you had, I told you to, "suck it up". How would you feel? Never mind..you are a teenager. The marketing strategy for this store, I agree, will target the younger crowd. However, there is more disposable income from the parents of this targeted younger crowd. I will call them minors. If you are talking about college kids - from my observations and experience, these minors won't be spending money on high priced clothes and by then, older teenagers (minors) are moving on to more varied tastes in clothing. I know that when my child saves money from her babysitting and allowance, she desperately hopes that I will supplement her purchase with a little bit of monetary help from me. How is she going to do this when I am hopelessly benched outside the store because I want to breathe oxygen. The last thing I want to do is disappoint her, but somehow both Abercrombie and Hollister kill themselves to prevent people with sensitivity to smells to not enter the store. If I don't go in, neither does my wallet. I don't order online because if it is available in the store, I don't want to pay for shipping. Abercrombie is more obnoxious about spraying the clothes than Hollister. I had to cover my face with a jacket to get through the store one day and then when I saw some employee walking down the aisle spraying everything in sight, I had to leave- and with that I set down my purchases intended for my daughter. To taylor who mentioned that Bath & Body Works, Victoria's Secret, Macy's, Dillards, JcPenny's sells perfume- this is true. However, I don't feel that these companies have a policy that requires the employees to drench the entire store with scents that could be offensive and possibly dangerous to others. Oh! taylor what will happen if someday down the road you come down with some funky cancer related to breathing in toxic fumes? Two years is a long time to be exposed to breathing in stuff you really shouldn't at such concentrated levels. It's like a canary in a coal mine. I bet the canary would die in the Abrecrombie/Hollister store. One of the things that I think about when I purchase the clothes for my daughter - is there any perfume stains on the clothes because of "perfume patty" running around hosing down the store with Abercrombie/Hollister perfume. It's so dark in there, I can't look for stains. It can be loud, but I have noticed it has been better on some days, I can't talk to my daughter. This overload of sensory stimulii can't be good for anyone. It is what it is but looking at the stock market trends and the recession- these companies need to know that compromise and change could be a good thing.
I don't know if this will help but I have covered/scratched off the numbers on the back underneath the magnetic strip. If you have ordered online, you will know that those three numbers on the back (in addition to the front numers and expiration date) are pretty much all you need to complete a transaction. If you hand a card to someone that is cashing you out all they need to do is what is called skimming (illegally copying credit cards with a swipe device). Even a cell phone with a camera that will discreetly take a picture of your credit card. It doesn't take much. You can also contact one of the three major credit reporting agencies and add a fraud alert to your report. This will prevent additional credit being granted to anyone that may have got access to your identity. Mainly your social security number. You are entitled to one free report every year from each of the three of the major credit reporting agencies. These reports will tell you if there has been any attempts to open additional credit and flag any unauthorized purchases that you did not make. Hope this helps.
Fed Up With Stupid Complaints seems to have this knee jerk reaction to American posters. It doesn't matter how bad the legitimate complaint is, this individual certainly has an ax to grind. The underlying theme seems to be that of frivolous lawsuits. The second theme falls on the topic of racism, in my opinion, (s)he doesn't define the true term but when frustrated with a certain topic, we all get labeled racist. and thirdly- everyone but Fed Up With Stupid Complaints is stupid- well, that's what (s)he thinks. I guess if that means complaining about not getting treated with respect and having the utmost care given to our credit cards etc. The real stupidity here lies in the what if question. What if my mortgage check bounced because some hotel clerk kept charging my bank account with erroneous charges to the tune of not hundreds but thousands of dollars? Now how stupid would that be? I think it is reasonable to expect the Hilton to reimburse this individual for bounced checks, the time taken off work to straighten out the problem that he did not create, and anything else that the Hilton blatantly screwed up! How does this Hilton get off the hook for messing up this individuals account not once but several times. To correct the mistake should have been done immediately, not three days. That's just ridiculous!
Jack_Hollister said: "well actually hollister DOES have an image to uphold about girls from california being skinny because its true! surf girls from cali. are skinny and fit and have a healthy lifestyle." **GAG**
Does that mean no one else outside "cali" can't have a healthy lifestyle?
did you ever think that their lifestyle might include daily trips to the bathroom to throw up their meals so that they fit that image that you have conjured up in your mind. How your simple minded statements make young girls feel like that have to live up to your (and people like you) impossible image. Do you ever think your stupid statements could lay the groundwork for a serious condition that could lead to something fatal?
OH RIGHT! and they all have perfect hair and sparkly eyes and low IQ's. They are dumb and blonde and real skinny... is that what you mean? Hollister caters to a stereotype? A judgement? Hollister has an image to uphold? And wouldn't you think that if they have a target market of a "california girl/guy", wouldn't they just sell exclusively in California? I don't see any oceans or surfing in Kansas or Iowa or Wyoming? So what business do they have setting up shops in states that don't have the California "lifestyle." Now what point would it be selling california clothes outside what you called the "target market". So what you are saying is that ALL surfer kids are (usually- I think is the word you used) slim? What if there was a surfer kid who lived in California, and was blonde and had a low IQ. What if (s)he liked to eat a whole lot and it was the kind of food that made him/her fat. This kid wouldn't meet your criteria for what your stupid theory states. I guess that's where your "usually" word comes in.
Do you know what is really bad for the Hollister stores? It's narrow minded people like YOU! and I would tell you what to do with one of those ###ed surf boards in the store but y0u'd probably just go surfing not knowing what I am talking about anyway.
Carry on in your vapid lifestyle. You have no depth.
I'd rather listen to any newscaster from ABC all day than sit listening to Katie Couric for even one torturous minute. Like fingernails on a chalkboard she is! Ick!
This has to do with their cellular service but I am assuming it's the same company. It's pretty sad when I had AT&T and couldn't get a signal in my own home. I would walk around and hold out the phone like it was a metal detector looking for some paranormal signal. I bet I looked pretty stupid. When it was really bad I would have to stand outside in 19 degree weather just to finish a call that was breaking up getting ready to drop. And good ole' Rico- I spent two hours on the phone dickering with him about why my phones were shut off and that I needed to reactivate four phones for a lot of money per phone. As it turned out, he claimed that I was in arrears $9.00 on my account. Never mind the money that I applied to the current bill. It didn't go to satisfy the $9 in arrears, it just paid the current bill. A mix-up on my part but prior to my phones getting shut off, I talked to a representative. She gave me a reference number that addressed this billing problem and I am thankful that I wrote it down. During this two hour conversation, the lightbulb finally went off with this knucklehead and that reference number saved me from the astronomical charge of $35 per phone and he finally had to reconnect the phones for free. He probably had the reference number but without me reciting it, he was going to make me pay for it dearly. I let him know that the minute I was released from my two year contract, I was going back to Verizon. That's exactly what I did. With Verizon, I never have my calls dropped and the customer service has been very good to me. One phone number had to be changed because the prior owner of that number was calling and sending harassing text messages. Maybe once or twice a year I will get a dropped call- I can handle that. What was worse, was when I went to pick up my children from school, I would lose service in the parking lot of the school-the time when I needed it the most. Not with Verizon. AT&T (also called Cingular) is not interested in service and making sure the customers needs are met. It's all about money and they will never get a dime from me again.
here! here! jeffersontr75 ...you couldn't of said it better.
Your post is funny! I don't think they would call their newest scent, "dog crap"-but they should. I know what you mean. Tide has a tendency to fix things that weren't broke in the first place. They have this new detergent that is supposed to be better for delicate clothes. I used it once and my clothes wreaked and gave me a headache. I was embarrassed about what the neighbors might think about the disgusting smell coming from my dryer vent! I usually stick with the old tried and true scents. I also have noticed the liquid fabric softeners with Febreze scents are awfully putrid smelling too!
Hold on there cowboy! cowgirl! or cowperson! I don't think the fact that you were asian had anything to do with it. I have gone into some very good chinese restaurants and have never seen any blacks or whites employed there. But I believe that's good because it adds to the charm and ethnicity. The real deal, you know? But I don't think race is the issue. "I was literally shaking b/c of what had happen to me". Are you kidding? I think sometimes in life you need to pick your battles and this wasn't one to be causing a ruckus over. The only humiliation in this situation is that of what you brought on to yourself. It will take some soul searching and a few glimpses into the mirror to figure that one out. The security guard was only telling you what the powers that be on the inside was telling him what to do. Getting out of your car presented a danger because if it was crowded as you say it was, you put yourself in danger of possible getting hit by a car or whatever. How is security going to know that you aren't some crazed lunatic (and they come in all shapes, sizes and colors)? After all, it was kind of crazy to wait 50 minutes for a Sonic car spot "experience"? I would like to assure you that you did not miss anything. Nope! The food was HORRIBLE when I went and not anything that I would wait for. It's not like in the good ole' days when you placed your order and they would bring a tray out to you with the grub on it and you could help yourself. The place doesn't even trust you with the trays. You place your order, they bring it out to you and hand the stuff to you. Kind of like if you ordered it through the drive through. The only difference is that you are parked in a parking slot and some employee walks your order out to you and not paper bags like a take out order. Trust me, you will be able to find a spot once the novelty wears off and it will. That's only if you want to go back. Really! How long would you have waited for a sonic experience?
Question...Why would you want to work at a place like that?
Have you ever heard of the song, "Take this job and -shove it?" by Johnny Paycheck. Listen to it. Unless you want burger flinging to be your lifelong career, I would study like crazy in HS school and college so you don't have to resort to working in places like that. You can't change the boss but you can change you and the place you work at. I would spend time looking for another job before you lose this one. Here's a secret- Keep the drama out of work. Nothing in life is fair and you will go through your entire life with jobs where people get treated unfairly.
Ok...anl1221 smartypants. They were eating precooked partially frozen, cold chicken. Mmmmmm mmmm good! I think the customer wants a Chicken Club sandwich cooked thoroughly through so it doesn't taste cold and raw. Cold and/or raw- even if it was precooked, there is still a chance of bacteria growth because health department standards require meats to be served at a specific temperature to prevent the consumption of tainted meat. I don't think these sandwiches would come even close to passing a health department inspection.
A finger? Wow...Did you find it's owner?
Define "heartbeat of America". Sounds all too cliche' to me that means nothing. Scam- Did you check out the Acorn videos on youtube? I can understand why he is saying virtually nothing about the crooked agency that helped him get bogus votes. Keep talkin' Americanmike.
How about that Summber Olympic bid for 2016. How egotistical for Obama to assume that the United States would be a shoe in!? Why did he think his presence would help? Oprah thought she could throw her weight around and get herself some respect. How'd that work for them? Look at all the potential revenue they lost for the City of Chicago. Yup! Change is a coming! Yuck! Yuck! A better country? He's running it into the ground.
Rory Cooper: Gives 10 reasons why Health Care Reform is wrong.
1. Millions Will Lose Their Current Insurance. Period. End of Story: President Obama wants Americans to believe they can keep their insurance if they like, but research from the government, private research firms, and think tanks show this is not the case. Proposed economic incentives, plus a government-run health plan like the one proposed in the House bill, would cause 88.1 million people to see their current employer-sponsored health plan disappear.
2. Your Health Care Coverage Will Probably Change Anyway: Even if you kept your private insurance, eventually most remaining plans—whether employer plans or individual plans—would have to conform to new federal benefit standards. Moreover, the necessary plan “upgrades” will undoubtedly cost you more in premiums.
3. The Umpire Is Also the First Baseman: The main argument for a “public option” is that it would increase competition. However, if the federal government creates a health care plan that it controls and also sets the rules for the private plans, there is little doubt that Washington would put its private sector “competitors” out of business sooner or later.
4. The Fed Picks Your Treatment: President Obama said: “They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier. … If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that’s going to make you well.” Does that sound like a government that will stay out of your health care decisions
5. Individual Mandate Means Less Liberty and More Taxes: Although he once opposed the idea, President Obama is now open to the imposition of an individual mandate that would require all Americans to have federally approved health insurance. This unprecedented federal directive not only takes away your individual freedom but could cost you as well. Lawmakers are considering a penalty or tax for those who don’t buy government-approved health plans.
6. Higher Taxes Than Europe Hurt Small Businesses: A proposed surtax on the wealthy will actually hit hundreds of thousands of small business owners who are dealing with a recession. If it is enacted, America’s top earners and job creators will carry a larger overall tax burden than France, Italy, Germany, Japan, etc., with a total average tax rate greater than 52%. Is that the right recipe for jobs and wage growth?
7. Who Makes Medical Decisions? What is the right medical treatment and should bureaucrats determine what Americans can or cannot have? While the House and Senate language is vague, amendments offered in House and Senate committees to block government rationing of care were routinely defeated. Cost or a federal health board could be the deciding factors. President Obama himself admitted this when he said, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller, ” when asked about an elderly woman who needed a pacemaker.
8. Taxpayer-Funded Abortions? Nineteen Democrats recently asked the President to not sign any bill that doesn’t explicitly exclude “abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan” or any bill that allows a federal health board to “recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package.” Currently, these exclusions do not exist.
9. It’s Not Paid For: The CBO says the current House plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. And that number will likely continue to rise over the long term. Similar entitlement bills in the past, including Medicare, have scored much lower than their actual eventual cost.
10. Rushing It, Not Reading It: We’ve been down this road before—with the failed stimulus package. Back then, we also heard that we were in a crisis and that we needed to pass a 1, 000-plus-page bill in a few hours—without reading it—or we would have 8% unemployment. Well, we know what happened. Now, one Congressman has even said it’s pointless to read one of the reform bills without two days and two lawyers to make sense of it. Deception is the only reason to rush through a bill nobody truly understands
Not my words but a Newsweek article from: Robert J. Samuelson says it all.
It's hard to know whether President Obama's health-care "reform" is naive, hypocritical or simply dishonest. Probably all three. The president keeps saying it's imperative to control runaway health spending. He's right. The trouble is that what's being promoted as health-care "reform" almost certainly won't suppress spending and, quite probably, will do the opposite.
A new report from Obama's own Council of Economic Advisers shows why controlling health costs is so important. Since 1975, annual health spending per person, adjusted for inflation, has grown 2.1 percentage points faster than overall economic growth per person. If this trend continues, the CEA projects that:
*Health spending, which was 5 percent of the economy (gross domestic product) in 1960 and is reckoned at almost 18 percent today, would grow to 34 percent of GDP by 2040 -- a third of the economy.
*Medicare and Medicaid, the government insurance programs for the elderly and poor, would increase from 6 percent of GDP now to 15 percent in 2040 -- roughly equal to three-quarters of present federal spending.
*Employer-paid insurance premiums for family coverage, which grew 85 percent in inflation-adjusted terms from 1996 to $11, 941 in 2006, would increase to $25, 200 by 2025 and $45, 000 in 2040 (all figures in "constant 2008 dollars"). The huge costs would force employers to reduce take-home pay.
The message in these dismal figures is that uncontrolled health spending is almost single-handedly determining national priorities. It's reducing discretionary income, raising taxes, widening budget deficits and squeezing other government programs. Worse, much medical spending is wasted, the CEA report says. It doesn't improve Americans' health; some care is unneeded or ineffective.
The Obama administration's response is to talk endlessly about restraining health spending—"bending the curve" is the buzz—as if talk will suffice. The president summoned the heads of major health-care groups representing doctors, hospitals, drug companies and medical device firms to the White House. All pledged to bend the curve. This is mostly public relations. Does anyone believe the American Medical Association can control the nation's 800, 000 doctors or that the American Hospital Association can command the 5, 700 hospitals?
Oh! and there's more...
The central cause of runaway health spending is clear. Hospitals and doctors are paid mostly on a fee-for-service basis and reimbursed by insurance, either private or governmental. The open-ended payment system encourages doctors and hospitals to provide more services—and patients to expect them. It also favors new medical technologies, which are made profitable by heavy use. Unfortunately, what pleases providers and patients individually hurts the nation as a whole.
That's the crux of the health-care dilemma, and Obama hasn't confronted it. His emphasis on controlling costs is cosmetic. The main aim of health-care "reform" being fashioned in Congress is to provide insurance to most of the 46 million uncovered Americans. This is popular and seems the moral thing to do. After all, hardly anyone wants to be without insurance. But the extra coverage might actually worsen the spending problem.
How much healthier today's uninsured would be with that coverage is unclear. They already receive health care—$116 billion worth in 2008, estimates Families USA, an advocacy group. Some is paid by the uninsured themselves (37 percent), some by government and charities (26 percent). The remaining "uncompensated care" is either absorbed by doctors and hospitals or shifted to higher private insurance premiums. Some uninsured would benefit from coverage, but others wouldn't. Either they're healthy (40 percent are between ages 18 and 34) or would get ineffective care.
The one certain consequence of expanding insurance coverage is that it would raise spending. When people have insurance, they use more health services. That's one reason Obama's campaign proposal was estimated to cost $1.2 trillion over a decade (the other reason is that the federal government would pick up some costs now paid by others). Indeed, the higher demand for health care might raise costs across the board, increasing both government spending and private premiums.
No doubt the health program that Congress fashions will counter this reality by including some provisions intended to cut costs ("bundled payments" to hospitals, "evidence-based guidelines, " electronic recordkeeping). In the past, scattershot measures have barely affected health spending. What's needed is a fundamental remaking of the health-care sector -- a sweeping "restructuring"—that would overhaul fee-for-service payment and reduce the fragmentation of care.
The place to start would be costly Medicare, the nation's largest insurance program serving 45 million elderly and disabled. Of course, this would be unpopular, because it would disrupt delivery patterns and reimbursement practices. It's easier to pretend to be curbing health spending while expanding coverage and spending. Presidents have done that for decades, and it's why most health industries see "reform" as a good deal.
Does anyone know the author of this brilliant synopsis?
Let me get this straight.
Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese (Dr. Regina M. Benjamin), and financed by a country that is nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
And...what has he done to earn that Nobel Peace Prize? Nothing...the only explanation that can come close to any explanation is that it was offered as an "incentive." for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” That’s efforts, not achievements. The absurdity of the prize decision will harm Obama politically in the United States, contrasting his role as international celebrity with his record devoid of accomplishments. How is that going to play out in the United States?
I have never been to Subway restaurant that had a drive thru service.
Americanmike, your ideas don't seem to be as popular as you would think. You keep puking up the same copy and paste statements in your two complaints but have no solid facts to back them up. Do you really believe what your "friends" are telling you. But since you like to post the same drivel on two posts, I must do the same but mine seems to be backed up with facts. It's amazing how this turned from a Chevy complaint to an Obama one.
Rory Cooper: Gives 10 reasons why Health Care Reform is wrong.
1. Millions Will Lose Their Current Insurance. Period. End of Story: President Obama wants Americans to believe they can keep their insurance if they like, but research from the government, private research firms, and think tanks show this is not the case. Proposed economic incentives, plus a government-run health plan like the one proposed in the House bill, would cause 88.1 million people to see their current employer-sponsored health plan disappear.
2. Your Health Care Coverage Will Probably Change Anyway: Even if you kept your private insurance, eventually most remaining plans—whether employer plans or individual plans—would have to conform to new federal benefit standards. Moreover, the necessary plan “upgrades” will undoubtedly cost you more in premiums.
3. The Umpire Is Also the First Baseman: The main argument for a “public option” is that it would increase competition. However, if the federal government creates a health care plan that it controls and also sets the rules for the private plans, there is little doubt that Washington would put its private sector “competitors” out of business sooner or later.
4. The Fed Picks Your Treatment: President Obama said: “They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier. … If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that’s going to make you well.” Does that sound like a government that will stay out of your health care decisions
5. Individual Mandate Means Less Liberty and More Taxes: Although he once opposed the idea, President Obama is now open to the imposition of an individual mandate that would require all Americans to have federally approved health insurance. This unprecedented federal directive not only takes away your individual freedom but could cost you as well. Lawmakers are considering a penalty or tax for those who don’t buy government-approved health plans.
6. Higher Taxes Than Europe Hurt Small Businesses: A proposed surtax on the wealthy will actually hit hundreds of thousands of small business owners who are dealing with a recession. If it is enacted, America’s top earners and job creators will carry a larger overall tax burden than France, Italy, Germany, Japan, etc., with a total average tax rate greater than 52%. Is that the right recipe for jobs and wage growth?
7. Who Makes Medical Decisions? What is the right medical treatment and should bureaucrats determine what Americans can or cannot have? While the House and Senate language is vague, amendments offered in House and Senate committees to block government rationing of care were routinely defeated. Cost or a federal health board could be the deciding factors. President Obama himself admitted this when he said, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller, ” when asked about an elderly woman who needed a pacemaker.
8. Taxpayer-Funded Abortions? Nineteen Democrats recently asked the President to not sign any bill that doesn’t explicitly exclude “abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan” or any bill that allows a federal health board to “recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package.” Currently, these exclusions do not exist.
9. It’s Not Paid For: The CBO says the current House plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. And that number will likely continue to rise over the long term. Similar entitlement bills in the past, including Medicare, have scored much lower than their actual eventual cost.
10. Rushing It, Not Reading It: We’ve been down this road before—with the failed stimulus package. Back then, we also heard that we were in a crisis and that we needed to pass a 1, 000-plus-page bill in a few hours—without reading it—or we would have 8% unemployment. Well, we know what happened. Now, one Congressman has even said it’s pointless to read one of the reform bills without two days and two lawyers to make sense of it. Deception is the only reason to rush through a bill nobody truly understands
Not my words but a Newsweek article from: Robert J. Samuelson says it all.
It's hard to know whether President Obama's health-care "reform" is naive, hypocritical or simply dishonest. Probably all three. The president keeps saying it's imperative to control runaway health spending. He's right. The trouble is that what's being promoted as health-care "reform" almost certainly won't suppress spending and, quite probably, will do the opposite.
A new report from Obama's own Council of Economic Advisers shows why controlling health costs is so important. Since 1975, annual health spending per person, adjusted for inflation, has grown 2.1 percentage points faster than overall economic growth per person. If this trend continues, the CEA projects that:
*Health spending, which was 5 percent of the economy (gross domestic product) in 1960 and is reckoned at almost 18 percent today, would grow to 34 percent of GDP by 2040 -- a third of the economy.
*Medicare and Medicaid, the government insurance programs for the elderly and poor, would increase from 6 percent of GDP now to 15 percent in 2040 -- roughly equal to three-quarters of present federal spending.
*Employer-paid insurance premiums for family coverage, which grew 85 percent in inflation-adjusted terms from 1996 to $11, 941 in 2006, would increase to $25, 200 by 2025 and $45, 000 in 2040 (all figures in "constant 2008 dollars"). The huge costs would force employers to reduce take-home pay.
The message in these dismal figures is that uncontrolled health spending is almost single-handedly determining national priorities. It's reducing discretionary income, raising taxes, widening budget deficits and squeezing other government programs. Worse, much medical spending is wasted, the CEA report says. It doesn't improve Americans' health; some care is unneeded or ineffective.
The Obama administration's response is to talk endlessly about restraining health spending—"bending the curve" is the buzz—as if talk will suffice. The president summoned the heads of major health-care groups representing doctors, hospitals, drug companies and medical device firms to the White House. All pledged to bend the curve. This is mostly public relations. Does anyone believe the American Medical Association can control the nation's 800, 000 doctors or that the American Hospital Association can command the 5, 700 hospitals?
Oh! and there's more...
The central cause of runaway health spending is clear. Hospitals and doctors are paid mostly on a fee-for-service basis and reimbursed by insurance, either private or governmental. The open-ended payment system encourages doctors and hospitals to provide more services—and patients to expect them. It also favors new medical technologies, which are made profitable by heavy use. Unfortunately, what pleases providers and patients individually hurts the nation as a whole.
That's the crux of the health-care dilemma, and Obama hasn't confronted it. His emphasis on controlling costs is cosmetic. The main aim of health-care "reform" being fashioned in Congress is to provide insurance to most of the 46 million uncovered Americans. This is popular and seems the moral thing to do. After all, hardly anyone wants to be without insurance. But the extra coverage might actually worsen the spending problem.
How much healthier today's uninsured would be with that coverage is unclear. They already receive health care—$116 billion worth in 2008, estimates Families USA, an advocacy group. Some is paid by the uninsured themselves (37 percent), some by government and charities (26 percent). The remaining "uncompensated care" is either absorbed by doctors and hospitals or shifted to higher private insurance premiums. Some uninsured would benefit from coverage, but others wouldn't. Either they're healthy (40 percent are between ages 18 and 34) or would get ineffective care.
The one certain consequence of expanding insurance coverage is that it would raise spending. When people have insurance, they use more health services. That's one reason Obama's campaign proposal was estimated to cost $1.2 trillion over a decade (the other reason is that the federal government would pick up some costs now paid by others). Indeed, the higher demand for health care might raise costs across the board, increasing both government spending and private premiums.
No doubt the health program that Congress fashions will counter this reality by including some provisions intended to cut costs ("bundled payments" to hospitals, "evidence-based guidelines, " electronic recordkeeping). In the past, scattershot measures have barely affected health spending. What's needed is a fundamental remaking of the health-care sector -- a sweeping "restructuring"—that would overhaul fee-for-service payment and reduce the fragmentation of care.
The place to start would be costly Medicare, the nation's largest insurance program serving 45 million elderly and disabled. Of course, this would be unpopular, because it would disrupt delivery patterns and reimbursement practices. It's easier to pretend to be curbing health spending while expanding coverage and spending. Presidents have done that for decades, and it's why most health industries see "reform" as a good deaLet me get this straight.
Obama's health care plan will be written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who smokes, funded by a treasury chief who did not pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese (Dr. Regina M. Benjamin), and financed by a country that is nearly broke.
Can a judge accept money? I must say.. I don't believe a word you say. I hope you will get a jail term because stealing is stealing. You are corrupt and your deviant thinking is wrong. My advice: You don't deserve a green card- Go back home.
Stop using race as an issue and make your daughter accountable for the material fact here. She stole Barbie dolls and Polly Pockets- black, white, yellow, red, purple green, orange. I am so sick of this...stealing is stealing-there is NO justification for it. How are you going to excuse the real issue here- maybe it's because Mom is raising daughter and letting her off the hook because obviously everything can be blamed on race. JUST STOP! It's not going to help when she becomes an adult and faces real consequences for everything she does in life.
The statement, "The store security does not mean he's a rent-a-cop or can't make the force. They are trained security specialists. He was doing his job." Is hilarious.
How do you think they become store security. That's exactly what happens. They CAN'T make the force and they want to become wannabe law enforcement in the special investigations unit. Oh! the authority at the Kohl's store must be intoxicating! some of them are downright drunk with "power".
Have you seen the movie Paul Blart: Mall Cop? although it's supposed to be silly, funny but I see a bit of painful truth in the laughs.
blues3531 you are wrong. When I did an exchange, they needed my driver's license.
