SCRANTON, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- They came from around the world hoping to spend a high school year immersed in the culture and joys of America. Exchange student Carlos Villareal of Colombia says he was underfed and kept in "an unsafe environment." Instead, five young foreign exchange students found themselves caught in a nightmare of neglect, malnourishment and abandonment by those supposed to protect them. Now those five -- natives of countries stretching from Norway to Tanzania to Colombia -- are back home telling friends of a different America than they expected. And their brief visit reverberates in America as a United States senator demands accountability and reform, a Pennsylvania district attorney seeks criminal charges and the U.S. State Department concedes it failed to protect kids coming to America. "We at the Department of State recognize [because we] are responsible for this program we have to make sure we are aggressively overseeing this program and make sure children are well-suited," said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley. "This is a program that is very important to the Department of State," Crowley said. "We are talking 15- to 18-year-old children. We are introducing them to the United States. We are trying to put our best foot forward. We recognize in this incident in Scranton and also elsewhere around the country we have failed to do so." What happened in Scranton, according to Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, District Attorney Andrew Jarbola, is a crime. He has convened a grand jury to look into the families where some of the 12 students who came to Scranton were placed, as well as the company who placed them there and its officials.
SCRANTON, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- They came from around the world hoping to spend a high school year immersed in the culture and joys of America.
Exchange student Carlos Villareal of Colombia says he was underfed and kept in "an unsafe environment."
Instead, five young foreign exchange students found themselves caught in a nightmare of neglect, malnourishment and abandonment by those supposed to protect them.
Now those five -- natives of countries stretching from Norway to Tanzania to Colombia -- are back home telling friends of a different America than they expected. And their brief visit reverberates in America as a United States senator demands accountability and reform, a Pennsylvania district attorney seeks criminal charges and the U.S. State Department concedes it failed to protect kids coming to America.
"We at the Department of State recognize [because we] are responsible for this program we have to make sure we are aggressively overseeing this program and make sure children are well-suited," said State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley.
"This is a program that is very important to the Department of State," Crowley said. "We are talking 15- to 18-year-old children. We are introducing them to the United States. We are trying to put our best foot forward. We recognize in this incident in Scranton and also elsewhere around the country we have failed to do so."
What happened in Scranton, according to Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, District Attorney Andrew Jarbola, is a crime. He has convened a grand jury to look into the families where some of the 12 students who came to Scranton were placed, as well as the company who placed them there and its officials.
A group of freemasons have had to spend a night in jail in Fiji, after local villagers complained they were practising witchcraft.The 14 men, including eight Australians and a New Zealander, had been holding a night-time meeting on Denerau island. The New Zealand man told reporters he had spent a "wretched" time in jail, and blamed the mix-up on the actions of "dopey village people". Police also seized wands, compasses and a skull from the freemasons' lodge. Freemasonry is a centuries-old club that practises secret rituals and has more than five million members worldwide.
A group of freemasons have had to spend a night in jail in Fiji, after local villagers complained they were practising witchcraft.
The 14 men, including eight Australians and a New Zealander, had been holding a night-time meeting on Denerau island.
The New Zealand man told reporters he had spent a "wretched" time in jail, and blamed the mix-up on the actions of "dopey village people".
Police also seized wands, compasses and a skull from the freemasons' lodge.
Freemasonry is a centuries-old club that practises secret rituals and has more than five million members worldwide.
The Financial Times editor, Lionel Barber, has predicted that "almost all" news organisations will be charging for online content within a year.Barber said building online platforms that could charge readers on an article-by-article or subscription basis was one of the key challenges facing news organisations."How these online payment models work and how much revenue they can generate is still up in the air," Barber said in a speech at at a Media Standards Trust event at the British Academy last night."But I confidently predict that within the next 12 months, almost all news organisations will be charging for content."
The Financial Times editor, Lionel Barber, has predicted that "almost all" news organisations will be charging for online content within a year.
Barber said building online platforms that could charge readers on an article-by-article or subscription basis was one of the key challenges facing news organisations.
"How these online payment models work and how much revenue they can generate is still up in the air," Barber said in a speech at at a Media Standards Trust event at the British Academy last night.
"But I confidently predict that within the next 12 months, almost all news organisations will be charging for content."
You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much? If you can afford it, you probably would pay that much, or more, to live longer, even if your quality of life wasn't going to be good. But suppose it's not you with the cancer but a stranger covered by your health-insurance fund. If the insurer provides this man -- and everyone else like him -- with Sutent, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is a good value? Suppose the treatment cost a million dollars. Would it be worth it then? Ten million? Is there any limit to how much you would want your insurer to pay for a drug that adds six months to someone's life? If there is any point at which you say, "No, an extra six months isn't worth that much," then you think that health care should be rationed. <...> Remember the joke about the man who asks a woman if she would have sex with him for a million dollars? She reflects for a few moments and then answers that she would. "So," he says, "would you have sex with me for $50?" Indignantly, she exclaims, "What kind of a woman do you think I am?" He replies: "We've already established that. Now we're just haggling about the price." The man's response implies that if a woman will sell herself at any price, she is a prostitute. The way we regard rationing in health care seems to rest on a similar assumption, that it's immoral to apply monetary considerations to saving lives -- but is that stance tenable? <...> Rationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse. If we ration we won't be writing blank checks to pharmaceutical companies for their patented drugs, nor paying for whatever procedures doctors choose to recommend. When public funds subsidize health care or provide it directly, it is crazy not to try to get value for money. The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable. Then we can ask, What is the best way to do it? ...
If you can afford it, you probably would pay that much, or more, to live longer, even if your quality of life wasn't going to be good. But suppose it's not you with the cancer but a stranger covered by your health-insurance fund. If the insurer provides this man -- and everyone else like him -- with Sutent, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is a good value? Suppose the treatment cost a million dollars. Would it be worth it then? Ten million? Is there any limit to how much you would want your insurer to pay for a drug that adds six months to someone's life? If there is any point at which you say, "No, an extra six months isn't worth that much," then you think that health care should be rationed. <...>
Remember the joke about the man who asks a woman if she would have sex with him for a million dollars? She reflects for a few moments and then answers that she would. "So," he says, "would you have sex with me for $50?" Indignantly, she exclaims, "What kind of a woman do you think I am?" He replies: "We've already established that. Now we're just haggling about the price." The man's response implies that if a woman will sell herself at any price, she is a prostitute. The way we regard rationing in health care seems to rest on a similar assumption, that it's immoral to apply monetary considerations to saving lives -- but is that stance tenable? <...>
Rationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse. If we ration we won't be writing blank checks to pharmaceutical companies for their patented drugs, nor paying for whatever procedures doctors choose to recommend. When public funds subsidize health care or provide it directly, it is crazy not to try to get value for money. The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable. Then we can ask, What is the best way to do it? ...
While the Senate continues to struggle over its approach to health care reform, House Democratic leaders have unveiled a bill that would go a long way toward solving the nation's health insurance problems without driving up the deficit. It is already drawing fierce opposition from business groups and many Republicans. This is a bill worth fighting for. The bill would require virtually all Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty. And it would require all but the smallest businesses to provide health insurance for their workers or pay a substantial fee. It would also expand Medicaid to cover many more poor people, and it would create new exchanges through which millions of middle-class Americans could buy health insurance with the help of government subsidies. The result would be near-universal coverage at a surprisingly manageable cost to the federal government. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2015, 97 percent of all residents, excluding illegal immigrants, would have health insurance. <...> The bill makes a mockery of Republican claims that the Democrats are pushing a hugely costly government takeover of medicine. This bill is clearly not hugely costly. It would expand the government's role in financing and regulating coverage but would also bolster private coverage. It would increase employer-based coverage, mostly by requiring employers to participate. And it would send more clients to the private insurance industry. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that perhaps 10 million people might enroll in a new public plan, while twice that number might enroll in competing private policies. ...
The bill would require virtually all Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty. And it would require all but the smallest businesses to provide health insurance for their workers or pay a substantial fee. It would also expand Medicaid to cover many more poor people, and it would create new exchanges through which millions of middle-class Americans could buy health insurance with the help of government subsidies. The result would be near-universal coverage at a surprisingly manageable cost to the federal government.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that by 2015, 97 percent of all residents, excluding illegal immigrants, would have health insurance. <...>
The bill makes a mockery of Republican claims that the Democrats are pushing a hugely costly government takeover of medicine.
This bill is clearly not hugely costly. It would expand the government's role in financing and regulating coverage but would also bolster private coverage. It would increase employer-based coverage, mostly by requiring employers to participate. And it would send more clients to the private insurance industry. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that perhaps 10 million people might enroll in a new public plan, while twice that number might enroll in competing private policies. ...
It's s different thing if it's a cure. But simply delaying the inevitable for a couple of months or so is less justifiable.
It's difficult. None of us get out of here alive. I thik we should accept that there must be a level of reasonableness about efforts to sustain us. keep to the Fen Causeway
