Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_Enough_for_Me, Aug 31, 2009.
I guess this is one way to get your point across: Hot Air Blog Archive Video: The Chicago Way
Ah there's always going to be a few bad apples. LPSGtards love to find the odd-lots and blogs and hold them up as representative of conservatives/libertarians.
No this is how you get your point across:
Americans United for Health Care and Insurance Reform
'Pro-health care protester'? Has the debate in the US become so warped that being pro-health care is now seen as controversial?
Do you know anybody who's anti-health care?
You might argue that weirdos who think that prayer alone is enough to ward off sickness and disease are anti-health care, as they believe that health is independent of human care.
But everyone else is pro-health care.
That is, obviously, not the same as being pro-government or pro-socialist health care.
Being in the UK, I don't know anyone who is anti-healthcare. Most of us believe that healthcare is a right not a service. I'd say those who are happy for the poor to not have health cover and to die agonising deaths because they lack access to treatment are anti-healthcare.
I know that some in the US see the NHS as a socialist system. I don't know what that means. I have a doctor. If I need to see her, I phone up and usually I am seen the same day. I have had a few operations recently, and yes there was a waiting list, but it was not urgent and it was only a few months. I was given a choice of dates. I survived. I suppose the socialist part of it is that the cost of my treatments were far higher than what I paid for from my taxation, "to each according to his needs" and so on, we call it the National Insurance system. But that isn't proposed by Obama, so I don't understand why the NHS is raised at all in the US, unless it's an attempt to confuse the population.
The USA is rather odd, in many ways, but during the last 30+ years a generation has been led to believe that as members of a western industrialized society we have no moral obligation to help one other. And the idea of not helping members of the USA's society that work two or three jobs and still cannot afford for-profit health care is somehow fair and just. No, the new morality is that it's fair and just to make a profit off of disadvantages of others. If you get cancer and don't have insurance, well too bad for you. You'll just have to pay for your medical care until you're in poverty. You already are poor? Tough shit. You must want to be poor. No soup for you!
Nope, making a profit on illness is very 'Mericuhn. Health care is not a basic human right in the USA, it is a privilege that only those with health insurance deserve.
The general population (not all) but the part of the population that does have insurance cannot understand the concept of a wealthy modern nation such as the USA needing to guarantee health care for its citizens. So far it appears that even those hundreds of thousands who have lost their jobs and cannot afford their COBRA payments, or the COBRA payments have elapsed and they are unable to find affordable group insurance still believe that a national health care system subsidized by the United States' government is the death knell of 'Mericuhn democracy and all that we hold holy.
It amazes me how many glass jars one sees in supermarkets, fast food restaurants, gas stations, convenience stores, just about everywhere one might be near a cash register, where the jar has a photocopied plea to donate change so a local policeman can get the continued therapy he or she needs from an on-the-job injury (a bullet to the spine, maybe?) who is no longer covered by their great and wonderful group insurance. Or more often it's to help a family pay for a organ transplant (livers, lungs, and hearts run about $200,000 each) for their child. But that's OK. In the USA that's the way it is done. And God forbid you contract a chronic illness that your insurance carrier will use as an excuse to cut you from their rolls.
I received an e-mail from an old coworker who has been told she needs to lose weight to help control her blood pressure or she'll lose what few medical benefits she has. She weighs 110 pounds! I suppose her insurance, Humana, won't be happy until she's that perfect weight -- 2 pounds above organ death? But that's the way it is. And that's the way Cigna, Aetna, the various iterations of Blue Cross/Shield, Kaiser Permanente, and Humana, among others, as well as the pharmaceutical companies will ensure that it remains.
There is really no reason not to provide universal health care in the USA except pure greed because of the odd status corporations have acquired, thanks to a combination of several Supreme Court Rulings since the 1970s that now give corporations the same rights as tax-paying, individual citizens.
"pro-socialist health care."
You know, thinking about it, this makes even less sense. Every single insurance scheme is socialist. You don't get back only what you paid in, in fact if US healthcare was truly capitalist, you would pay directly for each treatment.
Do these Americans even understand what they are opposing?
I thank God (or, would, if I beleved in him/her/it) that we have what Americans term "socialized" health care, even though it's more of a cross between UK and US systems. We have five US news stations on cable here and they are IMO bombarded by the selective use of headlines, quotes taken out of context, half-truths and outright lies. I don't understand what so many of them think they will "lose" through the adoption of universal coverage. The right to die broke and miserable?
We're pro-save cute puppies too... but we have to draw the line somewhere...
"nationalized healthcare" is devolving into "health care reform", and now just flat out "pro-health care" vs "anti-health care".
Before all this crap, a VERY large majority of Americans were ok with their healthcare and the cost thereof.
You are mixing up the other liberal disaster, known as "social security" with nationalized healthcare... please get it straight Canuck. Most Canadians I know get their healthcare from private "big evil corporate coverage. Nuff said.
No, most argue that Blue Cross/Shield, Kaiser, CHW at $350/month does just fine to word off sickness and disease. Call us hardworkin' folk crazy... but...
Not going to get into this argument again as I've already had to explain it ad nauseam on this forum, but virtually all Canadians except those who elect to opt out have their basic healthcare needs met with single-payer, universal coverage funded jointly by the federal and provincial governments, with variations from province to province, i.e., Alberta Health, OHIP, BCHIC. Each province makes its own rules and administers its own programs within the guidelines of the Canada Health Act. Most provinces do not charge premiums for basic coverage. In my province supplemental health insurance (drugs, dental etc.) is available for groups from any number of private insurers, and non-group is generally available from Allberta Blue Cross, which is a not-for-profit organization which also offers group coverage. One cannot be denied coverage for any reason, at least in my province. Subsidies are available according to income level.
My reference to dying broke and miserable is regarding those who are wiped out financially by catastrophic illness, or are denied coverage for treatment, and is not a comment on Social Security. So right back at you, "Yank".
I severely doubt it in most cases
Okay, so I'm very new here, and somewhat new at the healthcare debate, but allow me to attempt it:
There's far more broken in the American system than a single-payer model will fix.
The fact is, healthcare is just too expensive. Costs for healthcare in this country have skyrocketed, yet the quality of care hasn't much improved. How do we fix this? By offering to have the government pay for it?
Not at all. Well, yes, actually, but not entirely. Let me explain. The "cost of care" has, truly, gone through the roof. The healthcare industry is the most corrupt industry in this country, second only to insurance itself. What the Obamacrats are proprosing is to pay for the care at the rates the healthcare industry currently commands. This will drive America broke, and quickly. (And you thought our Social Security problem was bad!)
Rather than simply introducing a single-payer system, we need to substantially fix healthcare. "Fixing" healthcare sounds great, and paying the bill for it sure sounds like a fix to me ... until the bill comes due a few years down the road.
I'm not anti-healthcare. I don't want the poor to have to suffer. But, the current Obama plan doesn't seem to make the problem any better -- it only moves it to our already huge deficit problem.
Please advise if I'm mistaken.
Faceking knows Canadians? Surely, his encounters are purely "anecdotal" and do not reflect the real world. Just another guy (or maybe he wears dresses?) spreading lies about about a country he's most likely never visited and a health care system he knows nothing about. He's never worked with Canadians in Canada. He's never been outside his protective shell, even if he espouses having "travelled the world." It's obvious he didn't absorb much during his travels and carries the biases of a truly uneducated/unexperienced 'Mericuhn.
I don't hate my native country, the USA, but I have very little patience with liars and bigots such as Faceking regardless of their nationality.
You are absolutely correct. As I have pointed out numerous times elsewhere, most doctors in the United States do not even computerize their patients' medical information so that it can be easily shared with other doctors.