Socialised Medicine the myths and the facts - page 8

The first and the most obvious concern is the cost to the patient and their family, we all know how devastating an illness can be for patients and their family many times I have witnessed the despair... Read More

  1. by   XB9S
    Quote from maritesa
    :wink2: I looked up infrared sauna------ this sounds investigational or no back up research, except it simply does not have the suns "harmful" rays. I do not feel comfortable w/ this claim. they had no back up research to support the claim. If it is like the sun, then why not use the sun ( use a sunscreen ) , instead of this "infra red " sauna. fo detox , you sweat , and thus is the reason for the "CLEANSING" of which the regualr sauna does the same thing. I could be wrong , but this will not be covered whether government or private insurance as , " investigational ".
    I guess it would depend on what your GP felt, but it would be unlikely to be covered. Having said that more and more alternative therapies are being offered by the NHS so it may just be a matter of time.
  2. by   talaxandra
    Quote from jynxa17
    our government is so ineffectual it's pathetic. and a national plan is great in theory, but i'm telling you in practice it would never work. how would checks and balances work? if the gov. runs the program, how do we as citizens complain, make changes, etc... how would we fund this? raise taxes? whose taxes and by how much?
    would people without citizenship get access even if they don't contribute the same to american society?
    what about people that increase their risk of needing medical treatment? drug users, alcoholics, etc...
    what about smokers? are they covered even though they engage in behavior that is all but guaranteed to run up medical bills and cause complications?
    and what about politicians? are they going to same doctors as us common folk?
    It's always amazing to me how many of you distrust your government. I'm not saying it's without cause - I don't know enough about how things work there. It's just such a strong contract with Australian attitudes toward our elected officials, which is more benign.

    Anyway, back to the thread. In Australia there are health ombudsmen who manage complaints. My hospital has a complaints officer who's independent of the chain of command and certainly takes the most ridiculous complaints seriously. I know this because the other day I saw a letter about a patient who complained because he'd been woken up overnight when he thought he needed to rest. We had gone with the antibiotic-therapy-and-observations approach... I imagine all public hospitals have a similar office for this purpose.

    The US health care system consumes a vastly bigger percentage of GDP than any other country. Though all health care systems are costing more every year, it seems unlikely that replacing your current system with a universal program would cost more than the current combination of tax revenue and private insurance (employer paid or privately finded). I have previously posted how much health care costs me each year, both in percentage of tax and actual examples, with or without optional private health insurance.

    Only permanent residents and citizens of Australia, and citizens of countries where we have a reciprocal agreement, have access to Medicare. We certainly don't have the same issues with illegal inhabitants as you do, so that's significantly less an issue here, but I know it's a problem in the UK.

    Everyone has equal access, regardless of participation in risky activity, be in unprotected sex, drug use (including tobacco and alcohol) or hang gliding. I suspect the majority of poiticians ahve private insurance, if only because they earn over the additional levy threshold. However, as most consultants work in both the public and private systems they do see the same doctors at that level. In addition the biggest hospitals are public, and we take the sickest patients. It's not uncommon for private hsopitals to send their sick patients to us, and I've looked after a number of wealthy patients as well as a couple of politicians.
  3. by   jynxa17
    Quote from talaxandra

    Anyway, back to the thread. In Australia there are health ombudsmen who manage complaints. My hospital has a complaints officer who's independent of the chain of command and certainly takes the most ridiculous complaints seriously. I know this because the other day I saw a letter about a patient who complained because he'd been woken up overnight when he thought he needed to rest. We had gone with the antibiotic-therapy-and-observations approach... I imagine all public hospitals have a similar office for this purpose.

    The US health care system consumes a vastly bigger percentage of GDP than any other country. Though all health care systems are costing more every year, it seems unlikely that replacing your current system with a universal program would cost more than the current combination of tax revenue and private insurance (employer paid or privately finded). I have previously posted how much health care costs me each year, both in percentage of tax and actual examples, with or without optional private health insurance.

    Only permanent residents and citizens of Australia, and citizens of countries where we have a reciprocal agreement, have access to Medicare. We certainly don't have the same issues with illegal inhabitants as you do, so that's significantly less an issue here, but I know it's a problem in the UK.

    Everyone has equal access, regardless of participation in risky activity, be in unprotected sex, drug use (including tobacco and alcohol) or hang gliding. I suspect the majority of poiticians ahve private insurance, if only because they earn over the additional levy threshold. However, as most consultants work in both the public and private systems they do see the same doctors at that level. In addition the biggest hospitals are public, and we take the sickest patients. It's not uncommon for private hsopitals to send their sick patients to us, and I've looked after a number of wealthy patients as well as a couple of politicians.
    but that still leaves a lot of concerns to me...

    and i should clarify about my question about complaints, i have heard (don't know if it's true) that doctors in a universal program may make recommendations you don't like, but you don't get to have other options. something like a different course of treatment, different meds, etc... so if you want something different than what your doc reccomended, you have to really struggle to get what you want instead. and i am also curious about malpractice... how would cases be handled? who handles cases, the waiting time, etc... i would fear that if the gov is in charge a person would have to wait forever for some resolution, provided they got anything resolved at all... and sorry for my earlier rant about the gov, but i just wanted to let everyone know why i'm so distrustful.

    about the immigrant thing... so what happens if someone who doesn't have papers gets hit by a car, and rushed to the e.r.? are they not treated? or if they are, who pays for it? i can't figure out how that cost isn't passed on to the rest of the population some way or another.

    i would have to think that a universal program would cost more, because there would have to be a major increase in taxes to fund this type of program. not only would taxpayers continue to pay for the unemployed and underemployed (and the rates are really high right now, which would put an even bigger strain on tax payers), they would also continue to pay for seniors, the disabled who can't work, and in addition to that pay for millions of illegal immigrants, and then get around to paying more for themselves, their families, and everyone else. it seems like such a huge burden! especially if you include problems we have in america other countries don't have. i think we have the highest rates of obesity and that shoots up our other diseases and costs... heart disease, diabetes, etc... as well as secondary problems due to weight, bad knees, back pain, all the kinds of things people see doctors for. even if these people were covered, i can guarantee there will be a huge chunk of the population who will be livid about having to pay tax money to cover people who have what may be considered "self induced" illnesses... obesity esp. if it leads to diabetes, liver disease brought on by alcholism, lung cancer brought on by smoking... i am not saying that people don't deserve treatment, but it also seems unfair to make other people who live healthy lives pay for bad choices by others. it's a sticky issue with no clear answers!
  4. by   MaritesaRN
    Quote from jynxa17
    i agree that the insurance companies are shady as can be, and yes everyone should have affordable insurance. i really wish that we could do something to fix the problem, but i truly don't believe the socialized medicine theory is it. our government is so ineffectual it's pathetic. and a national plan is great in theory, but i'm telling you in practice it would never work. how would checks and balances work? if the gov. runs the program, how do we as citizens complain, make changes, etc... i apologize because i am quite the cynic and distrust the gov on almost every level. but honestly look at state insurance programs, the whole FEMA/ red cross/ katrina disaster, the inability to give halfway decent care to vets, the amount of people who can't into rehab programs, etc ad nauseum. anytime a large chunk of the government tries to help people they usually just make a mess. i think a national plan would make it even worse than it is now. and even if the gov were competent enough to pull this off (which they aren't) there are so many other big questions...
    how would we fund this? raise taxes? whose taxes and by how much?
    would people without citizenship get access even if they don't contribute the same to american society?
    what about people that increase their risk of needing medical treatment? drug users, alcoholics, etc...
    what about smokers? are they covered even though they engage in behavior that is all but guaranteed to run up medical bills and cause complications?
    and what about politicians? are they going to same doctors as us common folk?
    again, i apologize for my cynicism, but i come from chicago.... a place where tollways were supposed to be temporary, yet still exist and the rates keep increasing, where they cut funding to schools, while our aldermen make make 6 figures, and where we engage in 'pay to play' politics which has left us in so much debt we have to raise taxes (again) while our senators get paid overtime to figure out how to balance the budget, and the money we didn't have to start with is now going to be paying to send yet another governor (4 of the last 8) to jail. and on top of that the b.s. and corruption, and waste of dollars, our current president came from this political background. not saying he's a crook, but just about everyone else here in illinois is, so i am even more paranoid about him trying pass something like this.... the gov couldn't pull it off as it is, but an illinois politician pulling it off is just scary...

    Hi I feel the same way as you do . Here in California, we are so much in debt....and the governor is trying to cancel a health safety net for those who do not have any means of insurance, including some children health program and school grant for those who can not afford to get an education....I can see a state w/ lots of illiterates and very sick people. The CDC will be very busy trying to take care of all kinds of plague. Crayz huh? Especially at this time ? Dear Lord, where are we getting this politicians? Most of them do not even know how we, the ordinary people live? What was that saying about royalty not understanding as to why the french people revolted? " If they have no bread then why not eat cake?" ---- this is the mentality of some of these rich politicians who have no idea what it is like to be the ordinary people--- the people who have paid the big majority of the taxes, and is now burdeing the economy meltdown. Where is my certificate of shares for the automobile
    companies? That was my money, your money, our money. They have relief, how about giving that money to the people? You will see economy improve; they can pay mortgage, they have purchasing power, credit cards will be paid, etc. We need change, and I think us nurses need to participate and not passive anymore. Nursing associations need to instigate this and support the rights of nurses, including descent pay and a discounted education in this area----this is what must be done!
  5. by   XB9S
    I may be able to help with some of these questions

    Quote from jynxa17
    but that still leaves a lot of concerns to me...

    and i should clarify about my question about complaints, i have heard (don't know if it's true) that doctors in a universal program may make recommendations you don't like, but you don't get to have other options. something like a different course of treatment, different meds, etc... so if you want something different than what your doc reccomended, you have to really struggle to get what you want instead.
    In the UK you are entitled to a second opinion or third opinion if you don't like the options that you are offered, as long as the course of treatment is recognised for your condition there would be no reason that it would be denied. I guess if your going to question your doctors rationale for offering treatment options then your going to have researched and will be able to provide evidence to support your preferred choice of treatment in which case you can discuss it with your physician.

    Quote from jynxa17
    and i am also curious about malpractice... how would cases be handled? who handles cases, the waiting time, etc... i would fear that if the gov is in charge a person would have to wait forever for some resolution, provided they got anything resolved at all... and sorry for my earlier rant about the gov, but i just wanted to let everyone know why i'm so distrustful.
    Complaints have to be dealt with within a specified time, you will receive a acknowledgement of your complaint within 2 working days and then you receive monthly reports of progress until your complaint is resolved, this should be within 6 months. I have been in a position where responding to complaints was part of my job and most were resolved within 3 months. There is also the patient ombudsman that patients can get assistance from whos remit is to oversea and investigate hospitals response to complaints, this organsiation is independent of the hospital and the government.

    Quote from jynxa17
    about the immigrant thing... so what happens if someone who doesn't have papers gets hit by a car, and rushed to the e.r.? are they not treated? or if they are, who pays for it? i can't figure out how that cost isn't passed on to the rest of the population some way or another.
    Everyone who attends the emergency unit will be treated regardless of thier nationality or ability to pay. Hospitals have an overseas pateints departments who will then deal with the financial aspects of this care once the patient is in a position to be able to deal with it. Having said that of course there are those that can't pay and who abuse the system, I have had patients pitch up in the EU from another country with a 2 year history of abdominal pain wanting to have thier cholecystecomy on the NHS because they happened to be "visiting" family here



    Quote from jynxa17
    i would have to think that a universal program would cost more, because there would have to be a major increase in taxes to fund this type of program. not only would taxpayers continue to pay for the unemployed and underemployed (and the rates are really high right now, which would put an even bigger strain on tax payers), they would also continue to pay for seniors, the disabled who can't work, and in addition to that pay for millions of illegal immigrants, and then get around to paying more for themselves, their families, and everyone else. it seems like such a huge burden! especially if you include problems we have in america other countries don't have. i think we have the highest rates of obesity and that shoots up our other diseases and costs... heart disease, diabetes, etc... as well as secondary problems due to weight, bad knees, back pain, all the kinds of things people see doctors for. even if these people were covered, i can guarantee there will be a huge chunk of the population who will be livid about having to pay tax money to cover people who have what may be considered "self induced" illnesses... obesity esp. if it leads to diabetes, liver disease brought on by alcoholism, lung cancer brought on by smoking... i am not saying that people don't deserve treatment, but it also seems unfair to make other people who live healthy lives pay for bad choices by others. it's a sticky issue with no clear answers!

    The NHS in the UK is by no means perfect, there are so many things I would like to change and I don't for one minute think that we have the perfect system, having said that I wouldn't want to be without healthcare that is free at point of delivery. I don't mind paying the taxes that I pay to get that benefit or even subsidising those who abuse the system (because in truth those that abuse are in a minority) and to me personally the benefits are greater
  6. by   dlatimer
    Thanks for the info from UK, Aus.
    I just want to make one point. If the profit was taken out of healthcare would it be more affordable and more inclusive? Insurance companies are publicly held companies and therefore are in business to make money for shareholders. If insurance companies, and lots of healthcare companies, are stating they put patients first, I it hard to accept their sincerity since their stated airm is to make profit for their shareholders.
  7. by   dlatimer
    We elect our officials and therefore (if the electing system is not fraudulent) we get what we deserve. We are all responsible for our own society.
  8. by   Fourhundred27
    Wow Ambermichelle! That is awful and sad. We need the option in this country to have state covered medical care. If that doesn't happen did you and your family consider moving to Canada? His quality of life would greatly improve, given that their government cares enough about it's people to offer medical coverage. Good luck to you and your son. I am angry after reading your post. You shouldn't be placed in that situation.
  9. by   Sade
    Hello. In my opinion the reason why Americans have such a strong distaste for Federal Government funded health care is not because they are greedy or selfish. It's difficult for me to see the logic in blaming insurance companies and physicians just because they make more money than you. Heck, business is business. The bottom line and profitability is what counts in business.

    No, the real reason why Americans have such a strong distaste for government funded health care is because it flies in the face of our countries roots and foundations.

    Beings many of you are from different countries I know you may find this extremely boring. But in my opinion it's vitally important to understand since most of the threads either overtly or inadvertently express America as the focus of this thread.

    America, as originally intended to be, consisted of a bunch of independent and self sufficient states. These states had total sovereignty over their laws, religions, culture, and way of life, unless otherwise specified within the Constitution. For example, New York didn't really care much if Massachusetts had a State established Christian Puritan religion because it was a sovereign state, independent from New York. Who was New York to tell Massachusetts how to run their state? The states were joined together as a country for purposes of protecting the liberties and sovereignty that each enjoyed collectively within their states. This sovereignty has incrementally through the years eroded to the point where today states think they are now cities and the country now thinks it's a state. Many Americans abhor the idea of government funded health care because it flies in the face of the roots and foundations of our country. Whether your talking about business, health care, religion, family, culture, or laws, many Americans still believe in our roots and foundations. This is also the reason why many Americans are so distrusting of and disgusted with our government. Because there is such a sharp contrasts between our roots and foundations and the contradiction we currently see from our governmental systems. Our Federal and State Constitutions were never intended to entwine, but to be separate. I hope this gives some a new perspective to the reasons why many vigorously oppose Federal Government funded health care. Take care.
  10. by   dlatimer
    This is from an article by Micheal Kristof, NYT.
    Diane Tucker, 59, is an American lawyer who moved to Vancouver, Canada, in 2006. Like everyone else there, she now pays the equivalent of just $49 a month for health care.
    Then one day two years ago, Ms. Tucker was working on her office computer when she noticed that she was having trouble typing with her right hand.
    "I realized my hand was numb, so I tried to stand up to shake it out," she remembered. "But I had trouble standing."
    A colleague called 911, and an ambulance rushed her to the nearest hospital.
    "An emergency room doctor met me at the door, and they took me straight upstairs to the CT scan," she recalled. A neurologist explained that she had suffered a stroke.
    Ms. Tucker spent a week at the hospital. "The doctors were great, although there were also a couple of jerks," she said. "The nursing staff was wonderful."
    Still, there were two patients to a room, and conditions weren't as opulent as at some American hospitals. "The food was horrible," she said.
    Then again, the price was right. "They never spoke to me about money," she said. "Not when I checked in, and not when I left."
    Scaremongers emphasize the waits for specialists in Canada, and there's some truth to the stories. After the stroke, Ms. Tucker needed to make a routine appointment with a neurologist and an ophthalmologist to see if she should drive again. Initially, those appointments would have meant a two- or three-month wait, although in the end she managed to arrange them more quickly.
    Ms. Tucker underwent three months of rehabilitation, including physical therapy several times a week. Again there was no charge, no co-payment.
    Then, last year, Ms. Tucker fainted while on a visit to San Francisco, and an ambulance rushed her to the nearest hospital. But this was in the United States, so the person meeting her at the emergency room door wasn't a doctor.
    "The first person I saw was a lady with a computer," she said, "asking me how I intended to pay the bill." Ms. Tucker did, in fact, have insurance, but she was told she would have to pay herself and seek reimbursement.
    Nothing was seriously wrong, and the hospital discharged her after five hours. The bill came to $8,789.29.
    Ms. Tucker has since lost her job in the recession, but she says she's stuck in Canada-because if she goes back to the United States, she will pay a fortune for private health insurance because of her history of a stroke. "I'm trying to find another job here," she said. "I want to stay here because of medical insurance."
    Another advantage of the Canadian system, she says, is that it emphasizes preventive care. When a friend was diagnosed as being pre-diabetic, he was put in a free two-year program emphasizing an improved diet and lifestyle-and he emerged as no longer being prone to diabetes.
    If Ms. Tucker's story surprises you, you should know that Mr. Scott's public relations initiative against health reform is led by the same firm that orchestrated the "Swift boat campaign" against Senator John Kerry in 2004. These commercials are just as false, for President Obama is not proposing government-run health care-just a public insurance element in the mix.
    No doubt there are some genuine horror stories in Canada, as there are here in the United States.
    But the bottom line is that America's health care system spends nearly twice as much per person as Canada's (building the wealth of hospital tycoons like Mr. Scott). Yet our infant mortality rate is 40 percent higher than Canada's, and American mothers are 57 percent more likely to die in childbirth than Canadian ones.
  11. by   elkpark
    Quote from Sade
    I hope this gives some a new perspective to the reasons why many vigorously oppose Federal Government funded health care. Take care.
    "Many" may be opposed, but certainly not a majority -- below are just a few citations (many, many more are available with a simple Google search) showing recent polls that indicate that a hearty majority of US citizens support a single-payor government system. For the first time in the decades of US debate on this topic, even a majority of US physicians support a single-payor system.

    http://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Pol...90312-353.html

    http://blog.sustainablemiddleclass.com/?p=1105

    http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...doctors_revolt
  12. by   Sade
    Quote from elkpark
    "Many" may be opposed, but certainly not a majority -- below are just a few citations (many, many more are available with a simple Google search) showing recent polls that indicate that a hearty majority of US citizens support a single-payor government system. For the first time in the decades of US debate on this topic, even a majority of US physicians support a single-payor system.
    From my experience when I've talked to people in the real world from the general public who support government funded health care, they really don't care that much about America's roots and foundations. I can already hear the blanket statement comments. But like I said this is from my experience.

    As far as the physicians report, I can honestly say I've NEVER talked to a physician who supports government funded health care. And I've worked at many hospitals. Even the majority of nurses I've been in contact with do not like the idea of government funded health care. So from my experience I'd have to say the statistics have some sort of bias because these majorities you speak of just aren't reality from where I come from. Take care.
  13. by   lamazeteacher
    "it's always amazing to me how many of you distrust your government. i'm not saying it's without cause - i don't know enough about how things work there. it's just such a strong contract with australian attitudes toward our elected officials, which is more benign." quote from

    gee, i wonder why there's a tendency to distrust american politicians......

    if you had any doubts that there are problems in the ethics of our elected representatives, especially about biased health care decisions, look below at this news flash.

    this explains it pretty well, i think!

    [color=#4485be]
    [color=#4485be]
    key health care senators have industry ties

    by larry margasak and sharon theimer, associated press writers larry margasak and sharon theimer, associated press writers 2 hrs 56 mins ago


    washington - influential senators working to overhaul the nation's health care system have investments and family ties with some of the biggest names in the industry. the wife of sen. chris dodd, the lawmaker in charge of writing the senate's bill, sits on the boards of four health care companies.
    members of both parties have industry connections, including democrats jay rockefeller and tom harkin, in addition to dodd, and republicans tom coburn, judd gregg, john kyl and orrin hatch, financial reports showed friday. .
    jackie clegg dodd, wife of the connecticut democrat, is on the boards of javelin pharmaceuticals inc., cardiome pharma corp., brookdale senior living and pear tree pharmaceuticals.
    dodd is filling in for ailing sen. edward kennedy, d-mass., chairman of the health, education, labor and pensions committee, which will soon start work on a health care bill.
    other publicly available documents show mrs. dodd last year was one of the most highly compensated non-employee members of the javelin pharmaceuticals inc. board, on which she has served since 2004. she earned $32,000 in fees and $109,587 in stock option awards last year, according to the company's sec filings.
    mrs. dodd earned $79,063 in fees from cardiome in its last fiscal year, while brookdale senior living gave her $122,231 in stock awards in 2008, their sec filings show. she earned no income from her post as a director for pear tree pharmaceuticals but holds up to $15,000 in stock in pear tree, which describes itself as a development-stage pharmaceutical company focused on the needs of aging women.
    the annual financial disclosure reports for members of congress are less precise. they only require that assets and liabilities be listed in ranges of values.
    dodd sought a 90-day extension to file his report covering last year, giving him until mid-august to submit his report, but released his report friday to the associated press.
    bryan deangelis, dodd's spokesman, said, "jackie clegg dodd's career is her own; absolutely independent of senator dodd, as it was when they married 10 years ago. the senator has worked to reform our health care system for decades, and nothing about his wife's career is relevant at all to his leadership of that effort." if anyone believes that, there's a bridge in alaska you might want to buy......
    deangelis said that mrs. dodd has hired a personal ethics lawyer to avoid any conflicts of interest and is not a lobbyist.
    other reports showed:
    * rockefeller, d-w.va., reported $15,001 to $50,000 in capital gains for his wife from the sale of a stake in athenahealth inc., a business services company that helps medical providers with billing and clinical operations.
    rockefeller is honorary chairman of the alliance for health reform, a washington nonprofit whose board includes representatives from the unitedhealth group health insurance company; afl-cio labor union; the aarp, which sells health insurance; st. john health, a nonprofit health system that includes seven hospitals and 125 medical facilities in southeast michigan; cigna corp., an employer-sponsored benefits company; and the united hospital fund of new york.
    * coburn, r-okla., is a practicing physician. he reported slight business income, $268, from the muskogee allergy clinic last year; $3,000 to $45,000 in stock in affymetrix inc., a biotechnology company and pioneer in genetic analysis; $1,000 to $15,000 in stock in pfizer inc., a pharmaceutical company; and a $1,000 to $15,000 interest in thomas a. coburn, md, inc.
    under senate ethics rules, coburn can't accept money from his patients. he doesn't need to!
    * gregg, r-n.h., disclosed $250,001 to $500,000 in drug maker bristol-myers squibb co. stock and $1,000 to $15,000 each in stock in pharmaceutical companies merck & co. and pfizer, the johnson & johnson health care products company and agilent technologies, which is involved in the biomedical industry.
    * kyl, r-ariz., the senate minority whip, reported $15,001 to $50,000 in stock in amgen inc., which develops medical therapeutics. kyl's retirement account held stakes in several health care businesses, including the wyeth, bristol-myers squibb, glaxosmithkline, pfizer and astrazeneca pharmaceutical companies; medical provider tenet healthcare corp.; cvs caremark prescription and health services company; genentech, a biotherapeutics manufacturer; and insurer metlife inc. there's the connection between health insurance and pharmaceutical companies!

    * harkin, d-iowa, has a joint ownership stake in health-related stocks. harkin and his wife, ruth raduenz, own shares of drug makers amgen and genentech, inc., each stake valued at $1,001 to $15,000; their largest health care holding, johnson & johnson, was valued at $50,001 to $100,000.
    * hatch, r-utah, a member of the finance and health committees, reported owning between $1,001 and $15,000 worth of stock in drug maker pfizer inc. he spoke to two pharmaceutical industry conferences last year. sponsors of the conferences donated $3,500 to charities instead of speaking fees, as required by senate rules.
    like millions of americans, several senators took a financial hit in 2008. a sampling:
    _sen. dick durbin, d-ill., lost some $100,000 in equity in his home in springfield and $35,000 in his chicago condominium. durbin, who released his tax returns, reported losing $32,259 in various investments last year, including more than $10,400 in berkshire hathaway and $5,535 in fidelity stock.
    _kennedy in 2007 had four trusts each valued between $5,000,001-$25 million. in 2008, only one trust was still in that category while the rest had slipped in value to $1,000,001-$5 million.
    _hatch's investments suffered from the banking crisis. in 2007, he reported assets of between $2,002 and $30,000 in countrywide credit industries inc. stock. his 2008 financial disclosure lists the value at less than $1,000.
    one of dodd's investments showed a vast improvement.
    a new appraisal more than doubled the value of his vacation cottage in ireland, which has been subject of a senate ethics complaint filed by a conservative group questioning if the undervalued property was really a gift.
    the property is valued at 470,000 euros, or about $660,000, on dodd's disclosure report.
    the previous year's report valued the seaside home, located in county galway, at between $100,001 and $250,000. deangelis, the spokesman, said dodd and his wife decided to have the property appraised because they felt it was time to update the information.


    copyright 2009 yahoo! inc. all rights reserved.

    no wonder barack obama's having to change the changes he sought to make to revise our health care system!

close