Some risky legislation

[DarthRetard]

So, as I've been following Clinton and Obama, while hoping Ron Paul doesn't drop out, I've come across some disturbing, IMHO, anyways, discoveries:

Clinton and Obama voted to affirm:

A resolution to allow Illegal Aliens to Qualify for Social Security Benefits

Obama himself cosponsored a bill that would force pregnant women to take preventive post partum depression meds.

Clinton and Obama both have voted in negation of a resolution to determine a national language for the US officially, being english.

Obama has shown himself to be a big talker, with already the most liberal voting record in the senate (nothing wrong with being liberal, just a point), passing Kerry and Kennedy in only two years of service in our Congress?

McCain has a flip-flop reputation worse than Kerry's, because it involves his voting record and not his stances.

How is the media allowed to continue to ignore the actual legislation at hand in our government's hands?????

[Zyanya]

---Clinton and Obama both have voted in negation of a resolution to determine a national language for the US officially, being english.---

Excellent point in their favor.

[AFPheonix]

Soooo.....any sources for any of this?

Like ones from the voting archives from Congress, and not whatever the DailyKos decided to vomit out today?

[Boozy]

Obama himself cosponsored a bill that would force pregnant women to take preventive post partum depression meds.

This is completely incorrect information. The idea is laughable, as any such bill would obviously be overturned by the Supreme Court.

Obama's bill provides funding for programs that advise and counsel pregnant women about postpartum depression. These programs were in desperate need of funding. These programs do not force women to take pills against their will. They simply present anti-depressants as a possible option, and will prescribe them if need be.

One woman, who suffered from postpartum depression and was in the very small minority of women for whom anti-depressant medication worsened the condition, has started an internet campaign against the bill. She believes that the whole point of this bill is to push drugs. She maintains that no anti-depressant has ever helped any woman ever.

Instead of ignoring this nut, certain libertarian websites decided to purposely spread this disinformation in an attack against Obama.

This kind of thing drives me nuts. There are plenty of valid arguments against Obama. Or Clinton. Or McCain. There are serious flaws in each and every one of their plans for Iraq, for example. But instead we're all focusing on dumb shit. Dumb made-up shit.

Citizens in a democratic nation have the duty to question what they read, research the issues, and keep themselves informed. We need to stop letting others tell us what is true, what the issues are, and what to think. If the internet community had stopped for one second and used their brains, this story would have gotten no further than one nut job's home computer.

[DarthRetard]

So, Obama can do no wrong then? My point was really more about him being the media's golden child, and how all of the candidates have some skeletons legislation wise in the closet. What upsets me is that most mainstream Americans, don't know half of what goes on in congress, and i met a gentleman last night who up till i told him, didnt know we had an african american man running for the oval office. Here's a link for The Mothers' Act legislation, inculding a list of cosponsors:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1375

[Boozy]

So, Obama can do no wrong then?

Did I say that? Did anyone say that? In fact, I just said in my previous post:

There are plenty of valid arguments against Obama.

My point, since you completely missed it, is that the democratic process should not be turned into a campaign of lies, half-truths, and misinformation. Where is the integrity? There is absolutely no real debate about real issues because of crap like this.

[IDrinkaRum]

One way to find information about the Candidates and the issues they want to focus on are to go to their Official Websites.

Obama wants to do more by way of children with Autism (a cause close to my heart because of my daughter). On the down side, he wants universal health care.

McCain - I would have voted for him in 2000, but not now.

Clinton - I don't like her. Period.

Not sure whom I'm going to vote for. We could always do a write-in vote of some sort.

I really wish Guiliani and Romney never dropped out.

[DarthRetard]

Could always vote for a candidate who stands for the constitution, fights for what our constitution truly says and has a voting record to reflect it. The media just seems to ignore Ron Paul altogether, no matter what we do to support him.

No, boozy, please dont misconstrue what I said. I wasn't saying that you said Obama can do no wrong, I was saying that the media seem to treat him that way. This whole thread was meant to be more directed to how the media is derailing the election process by covering who they want. Don't we have a right to know who is who?

NOt everyone can research on the internet, thats why we do canvassing (door to door, essentially) and phone drives. I just feel like media shouldn't be playing such a big role. Sorry if that was taken in the wrong context. Sorry. I'm trying to step a little more lightly.

[Boozy]

No, boozy, please dont misconstrue what I said. I wasn't saying that you said Obama can do no wrong, I was saying that the media seem to treat him that way.

There's another thread around here somewhere (and I can't find it right now) in which I said the exact same thing. Once again, we find ourselves in ferocious agreement. :rolleyes:

I agree that Obama has not been questioned as aggressively as I'd like. Its seems like no one wants to do the work. Clinton and McCain have very long public records, whereas Obama is a relative newcomer.

Personally, I would like nothing more than for him to come out as squeaky clean as he appears. Deep down, I want desperately to buy into his "hope" rhetoric, but I'm a little too jaded to fall for it.

[AFPheonix]

Here's a link for The Mothers' Act legislation, inculding a list of cosponsors:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1375

Did you read the link you posted? I fail to see anywhere in the bill's text where new or expectant mothers would be "forced to take preventive post partum depression meds."
More like they would be informed of the very real possibility of post-partum depression and an expansion of mental health services available for mothers suffering from the condition.

Ron Paul ignored? Are you kidding me? He gets mention in even larger rags like Time.
He gets better air time than Mike Gravel.

[Boozy]

On the down side, he wants universal health care.

Why in heavens name do you not want universal health care? Are you a billionaire? Do you maintain controlling interest in a major HMO? What gives?

[Saydrah]

Yes, I'm sure someone concerned about the government doing more for children with Autism wants a candidate who will dismantle social programs for the assistance of people with disabilities entirely....

Really, Darth, for a debate coach, you are using some very dubious facts and giving a very poor recommendation.

I like Ron Paul. I really do. I think he'd make an excellent VP for Obama, in my ideal world, but that would never happen in real life. So, I hope he gets a nice speaking tour out of this deal and talks at colleges. He has some excellent ideas. He also has some misguided, wrong-headed ideas that went out centuries ago.

"Most Liberal" is also a ridiculous designation for Obama's voting record. Off the top of my head I can think of several times he has collaborated with Conservatives and Moderates on legislation, as well as at least 10 Senators and Congresspersons with more liberal records.

If you mean "Most Often Smeared," Obama gets that designation- but he's like a duck, it's all water off his back.

[AFPheonix]

That's what I was thinking.

Yeah, it would be a rocky transition initially from the private system we have now, but I really think over time costs would go down and quality of care would go up overall.
I think I went into a rant on another thread somewhere that I'd like to see something instituted like the Aussie system, where one could have the option of purchasing private coverage for fancier care if they so wished.

Also, if I were queen of the world, I'd ban drug companies from advertising direct to the consumer. One, that would get rid of some godawful erectile dysfunction ads, and two, a good portion of the costs of meds are allocated to marketing, and that portion needs to be reduced in order to have more affordable meds.
I'm still cool with drug reps going around to doctors and pharmacies, though. Advertise to people who will actually understand the chemistry behind your product, not a lay person who likes the graphics on your packaging best.

[Greenday]

Why in heavens name do you not want universal health care? Are you a billionaire? Do you maintain controlling interest in a major HMO? What gives?

Probably thinking about the nice jump in taxes it'll be for us.

We were just talking about this in my Politics of Diversity class today. Like, when an ad comes up about how some candidate voted down a bill or something. What these stupid ads DON'T say is why. Each bill has like 50,000 clauses and other things, and while the candidate MAY support the original reasoning of the bill, there could be one or to amendments to the bill that the candidate REALLY doesn't agree with that forced them to vote against the bill. Hooray BS mudslinging.

[Boozy]

Probably thinking about the nice jump in taxes it'll be for us.

What's the average family's health insurance premiums running them?

[Greenday]

What's the average family's health insurance premiums running them?

Heck if I know. My dad is stuck paying my health bills until I graduate college.

[CancelMyService]

Obama has shown himself to be a big talker, with already the most liberal voting record in the senate (nothing wrong with being liberal, just a point), passing Kerry and Kennedy in only two years of service in our Congress?


I stopped reading here. It seems like this was copy/pasted from a right wing nutball site where calling Obama a liberal would be seen as a bigger slur than dropping the N-word.

I personally want someone liberal in office for a change. 8 years of "compassionate conservatism" haven't left us with much to show for it. I think it's time for someone who's pro-worker, pro-health care, pro-common sense (ie: no bullshit scare tactics).

[Amethyst Hunter]

Clinton and Obama voted to affirm:

A resolution to allow Illegal Aliens to Qualify for Social Security Benefits


I'm inclined to doubt your source(s). Clinton, I could maybe see doing something like this, but it's well-known that the Republican attack machine has a fondness for throwing out "statistics" like these.

Obama himself cosponsored a bill that would force pregnant women to take preventive post partum depression meds.


Disagreed, as someone else pointed out. Obama supports health care reforms; also, given that antidepressants, much like any major medication, can screw with pregnancy, I doubt that any such reforms would include mandatory ingesting of drugs that could produce serious effects on a developing pregnancy.

Clinton and Obama both have voted in negation of a resolution to determine a national language for the US officially, being english.


Which IMO is a good thing. Even taking into account the vast array of Spanish or other language-oriented alternatives, English is already the de facto national language and isn't about to die out anytime soon. The ones pushing for this kind of resolution are often also going "O NOES TEH FURRINERS R TAKING OVAR!"

I do think that any immigrants into the US should learn English. But passing pointless laws like that don't help the problem. And what do you do with the other languages? Do we outlaw them and punish those we catch speaking anything other than English? There's a big difference between patriotism and pride in one's country, and nationalism - the latter doesn't work out very well.


Obama has shown himself to be a big talker, with already the most liberal voting record in the senate (nothing wrong with being liberal, just a point), passing Kerry and Kennedy in only two years of service in our Congress?


Again, I'm inclined to doubt this "statistic." While I can agree that it's a mistake to think of Obama - or any Democrat, for that matter - as a "messiah" or "savior" (the next Prez will inherit a festering shitpile that will take far more than a mere 4 - 8 years to repair, assuming any of it even CAN be fixed, thanks to the current assholes), I also think that he's not given enough credit for what he has done and what he wants to do. Short of completely destroying the country, I don't think he can do any worse than the fuckwit before him.

And if there's nothing wrong with being liberal, why did you feel the need to label his alleged voting record as such? You could have simply said there were discrepancies in his record, or that it was "extreme" or some such. Liberal is not a dirty word, nor should it be used as such.

How is the media allowed to continue to ignore the actual legislation at hand in our government's hands?????

Take a good long look at who *owns* the media. That will tell you everything you need to know. (Hint: It isn't liberals, and I would bet serious money on that.)

I have to agree with CancelMyService - if this last near-decade is considered "compassionate," I'd hate to see what the current jackasses call out-and-out assholery. And as someone with no health insurance whatsoever, I'd frankly like to see a little universal coverage.

[Gravekeeper]

What was the % again? Something like 90% of ALL the news in the US is controlled by one of four companies? I find it scary watching from up north here and seeing the difference between CBC and MSNBC or Fox.

As for your candidates, speaking from the outside perspective:


Obama:

Him I like. First politician I've seen the US cough up in the last 8 years that gave me even a shred of hope for your future. Handles himself extremely well in the face of all the ridiculous crap flung at him. He's not a polarizing figure either. Even if you don't like him you don't HATE him.

Did you see that Ohio voter panel? One knob, on national TV no less, said he was leaning towards Obama but was worried because he was a Muslim and wouldn't touch the Bible blah blah etc etc and all that other ridiculous bullshit the rightwing nutters keep puking up. The host corrected him right away, thankfully.


Clinton:

Despise her. I didn't at the first, I was actually all for a woman in the Whitehouse, but the more I watched the more my opinion fell She's an old fashion political animal through and through. She says whatever the polls tell her people want to hear on any given day even if it contradicts what she said last week. She also seems oblivious to the fact the Internet can fact check her 5 minutes after she says something.

Everything about her just strikes me as so...fake. Fake smile, fake laugh, fake outrage, fake tears, fake whatever the polls say she needs to be this week. She's also extremely polarizing. If you don't like her you probably hate her. She won't win the party any independents. Also, feels like being yelled at by my mom/ex-girlfriend/elementary school teacher whenever she goes into shrill mode. ><

She's also spun into this "Well if I can't be president, no one can" mood now that she's down delegates and seems to be trying to do whatever she can to tear the party apart. ( She basically endorsed Mccain over Obama earlier today. The party leads are NOT going to like that. )

I dunno, she has a very "Well its MY turn to be president because I deserve it" attitude and she's bent out of shape that anyone dared challenge it.

Besides, considering how badly managed her campaign is, how the hell is she going to manage the Whitehouse? ><



Mccain

Both sad, yet scary. Sad because he didn't use to be a pathetic Bush lackey. He use to be The Maverick(tm). But scary because he's basically Bush 2.0 and wants to continue on with the fail train that are Bush's policies albeit with a slightly higher IQ. Slightly.

Also....old. Very. Old. Old and white. The very image of the corrupt old boy's club that's already done so much damage to you guys the last 8 years.

I look at him and wonder if he'll live to the end of his term if he were president....which brings us to...


Nader

Arrogant, swarmy little twerp. Also, amazingly, older then Mccain. Wtf does he think he's doing at this stage in the game? Aside from masturbating his ego.



Then I look back at the amazing excitement <cough> that is Canadian politics and realize I'm god damn lucky to live up here these days. ;p

[AFPheonix]

Probably thinking about the nice jump in taxes it'll be for us.



As someone already pointed out, the premiums a person paid would instead be going to tax. Also, if I had my evil little way, deductibles would go away.
Furthermore, your employer, no longer burdened by having to pay for your ill ass could compensate you with more money instead of a benefits package, and be in a better position to innovate and be more flexible as they wouldn't be weighed down by legacy costs from retired workers that they are still paying health coverage for.

Yes, higher taxes, but no payments to a private insurer, and higher wages. Score.

Not to mention the fact that with a universal plan, you'd be free to visit any provider instead of being stuck to whatever list your old HMO had.

Oh yes, and with everyone covered, hidden costs that are typically added onto hospital bills like ye olde $25 band-aid to cover uninsured people that can't pay for their coverage would no longer be an issue.
But wait, there's more. There would be lower overhead costs for hospitals, doctors' offices and pharmacies due to not having to wrangle with multiple insurances to get crap covered. There would be one basic formulary. No guessing games as to which drug or procedure is covered.

[IDrinkaRum]

I grew up as a military brat. Military has a form of universal health care. Military/Military dependent all have to go to the Military hospitals/doctors/specialists/etc. They can't go anywhere else as the Military won't pay for it. My knees are messed up because of Military doctors. My mother's back is messed up because of Military doctors. My uncle's knee was also messed up for a long time because of a military doctor.

Universal health care =/= the nirvana of finding doctors who will give a darn about you and your illness. Universal health care =/= doctors staying public to help the poor unfortunate souls who will use it, but will go to private practice (because it's more profitable) which will not be covered by universal health care and thereby causing them to either find another doctor (who might have a long a$$ waiting list or having to find insurance anyway to stay with the same doctor).

Universal health care is not the answer. What we should have is something like our car insurance. You look at various plans, pick one that works for your needs/money issues (i.e., the less you need on your plan, the less money you need to pay per month, plus you can go to any doctor you like, you're not tied to an HMO, etc.). Also, if you lose your job, you won't lose your health insurance.

Boozy, for the record - my husband's insurance is for a PPO (Preferred Provider). I can go to someone on the list of doctors my insurance company will pay for (except co-pay which for me is $15) or I can go to another doctor where I have to pay anywhere from 10-40% of what are willing to pay for me.

[Boozy]

Military has a form of universal health care. Military/Military dependent all have to go to the Military hospitals/doctors/specialists/etc. They can't go anywhere else as the Military won't pay for it.

That's not universal healthcare. That's just another form of an HMO.

Canada has universal healthcare, and I can go to any doctor I want in all of Canada, as long as they are accepting new patients. Any doctor at all. Whenever I want.

That's universal healthcare.

[IDrinkaRum]

I still do not like the idea of Universal Health Care. I'm not talking of taxes being raised (though that is an issue). American specialists are sought after the world over. People who live in countries with Universal Health Care (and those who don't) come to America to go to specialists that can't be found in their countries. Why is that? Is it because the Health Care in their countries won't/can't pay for them? I'm sorry, I believe health insurance/care should be provided for everyone, but it should be at the employment level.

The US Government is not here to wipes our a$$e$, blow our noses and tuck us in at night. The government would essentially be saying what we can/cannot do with our bodies. To some Universal Health Care sounds wonderful. It could be, but there are too many problems and not enough solutions for it to be viable.

I like my insurance. I can see whom I want, when I want. I have a deductible that when reached, the insurance will pick up everything. (Like when my daughter was in the P.I.C.U. of the Women and Children Hospital in Northern Virginia. An almost 3 week hospital stay that was completely paid for).

Is it unfortunate that people have no health care? Yes it is. I've read stories about people having to resort to pulling out their own bad teeth because they can't afford to go to a dentist. I've read that it happens in Britain too (and they have universal health care - so what gives in that?).

Universal Health Care will not help everyone in the country. It's the employer's responsibility to give benefits to their employees. If they won't, it's shame on them. But looking to the Government to give us it is just ridiculous. When will it end?

[Greenday]

Ok, two things:

Boozy, this is something I've always wondered about. If everyone has health care coverage, and anyone can see a doctor, how easy is it to get an appointment for regular checkups and such?

IDrinkaRum, thanks for giving me some better, more valid arguments.

[IDrinkaRum]

Greenday - You're welcome for the better, valid arguments. I have a feeling my position isn't that popular. Maybe it's because I'm arguing whilst I have health care provided to my family through my husband's federal government job. I have worked jobs where I could not get benefits (like health care). Did I miss it? Sure. Did I go to work sick? Of course. Did I write to my senator, representative, President to demand they provide me with health care? No.

Sorry ... went off on a tangent. I'm one of the "Less Government in my life" type of person.

I will go back now and do my usual web surfing. :p

[Seshat]

I'm not talking of taxes being raised (though that is an issue).

In a different thread, I linked to the Australian Tax Office' web page. I think it's http://www.ato.gov.au/. Our tax rate includes a separate Medicare Levy, which covers our universal health care.

American specialists are sought after the world over.

So are some Australian specialists. Not bad for a country with a really small population.

People who live in countries with Universal Health Care (and those who don't) come to America to go to specialists that can't be found in their countries. Why is that? Is it because the Health Care in their countries won't/can't pay for them?

In Australia, it's usually because a population of less than 20 million doesn't have enough incidences of (rare disease X) to have a specialist in (rare disease X).


I'm sorry, I believe health insurance/care should be provided for everyone,

So do I.

but it should be at the employment level.

<sarcasm>And the US is doing so well at that!</sarcasm>

I'll believe health care should be provided at the employment level when those unable to work, minimum wagers, and the self-employed get the same health care (except for luxuries) as CEOs. Can anyone show me any country with an employer-provided health care system that does that?

Choosing and providing health care (or health insurance) for their staff is, in my opinion, an unreasonable burden to place on employers. Especially small businesses. How is a top plumber with a staff of ten plumbers and apprentices supposed to make an educated decision about the health care of his staff and their families? Or a hairdresser? They know pipes, or dye and scissors, not human bodies and health needs.

And the responsibility for providing health care (or health care insurance) has to discourage employers from hiring the disabled, or hiring people with disabled family members. I can't see how that can be avoided.

The US Government is not here to wipes our a$$e$, blow our noses and tuck us in at night.

But the government is entrusted with public health. And IMO, this is a public health issue.

The government would essentially be saying what we can/cannot do with our bodies.

You prefer your employer to do that?

In Aussieland, the government is responsible for administering the fund that pays for it, but the doctors are the ones who say 'yes, you need this treatment' or 'no, you don't'. And you (or if you're out cold, your next of kin) is the one who says 'do it' or 'no'.

To some Universal Health Care sounds wonderful. It could be, but there are too many problems and not enough solutions for it to be viable.

That's why those of us in countries with mostly-successful universal health care systems say 'look at our system, use what works, tinker with what doesn't'.

I've looked at the US system, and from the view over here, it looks much more broken than ours.

I like my insurance. I can see whom I want, when I want.

Many of my US friends have reported that for their insurances, that's not the case. And with their employers, they have no recourse to an insurance that does allow that.

My universal health care system allows that for everyone in the country.

I have a deductible that when reached, the insurance will pick up everything. (Like when my daughter was in the P.I.C.U. of the Women and Children Hospital in Northern Virginia. An almost 3 week hospital stay that was completely paid for).

If I get treated in a public hospital, it's all paid for. If I want a more luxurious experience, or my choice of doctor, I pay my deductible for my private health insurance and then it's all paid for.

Is it unfortunate that people have no health care? Yes it is. I've read stories about people having to resort to pulling out their own bad teeth because they can't afford to go to a dentist.
<snippage>
Universal Health Care will not help everyone in the country.

Huh? The first word is 'universal'. It's supposed to - that's the whole point.

Unless you mean that people who already have great health care are afraid that they'll lose it if a universal health care system is put in place. Which you can't be, because that would be really selfish and inhumane of them - preferring to have people suffer for fear of losing a luxury.

If rich people are scared of not having health cover they like if a universal health care system is put in place, they can study other countries' systems. Aussieland has a system where the snobs can visit their own snobby doctors and pay extra for the privilege of plush carpets and large consulting rooms, but the ordinary person still gets treatment when they need it. Feel free to copy it.

It's the employer's responsibility to give benefits to their employees. If they won't, it's shame on them. But looking to the Government to give us it is just ridiculous. When will it end?

Why is it the employer's responsibility?

The employer is responsible for providing a safe working environment, paying the employee, and compensating the employee for problems caused by the employment. The work contract is 'I give you labour, you give me money'.
He isn't responsible for housing or feeding the employee, why is he responsible for the employee's health care?

From a culture which hasn't had employer-provided health care (ever, as far as I know), it looks ludicrous to place the burden on the employer. And I certainly wouldn't want any employer choosing something as personal and as vital as my health insurer! Especially if we didn't have Medicare.

On the other hand, the government IS responsible for public health. Therefore, the government is responsible for seeing to it that the public has the ability to be healthy. It looks logical to me.

I'd be very interested in seeing some sort of comparative study: two sufficiently similar environments, one with employer-based health care, one with government-provided universal health care. I'd love to see the incidences of contagious illness, people working while sick, time off for illness, illness-based homelessness, untreated mental illness, and other public health indicators. My instincts tell me that public health, social welfare and social productivity would all be better in the environment with universal health care; but I'd be really interested in a study.

(Unfortunately, I think there's too much social mobility in the only country I know of with employer-based health care (the US) to have a good pair of matches. The unemployable in the US tend to migrate to places with a cheaper cost of living, so it'd be difficult to have true matches. Not necessarily impossible, just difficult.)

I suspect this is as much a cultural variation thing as anything else - but I also think I've provided some interesting things for you to think about.

And I appreciate a more thorough argument against universal health care than any other I've seen. It's always looked to me like it was one of two things: fear of higher taxes, or greed from selfish Haves who don't care about the well-being of the Have-Nots.

Boozy, this is something I've always wondered about. If everyone has health care coverage, and anyone can see a doctor, how easy is it to get an appointment for regular checkups and such?

I'm not Boozy, but in Aussieland: will today do?

Okay. It actually depends on how busy your doctor of choice is. But I've only had two GPs who I couldn't see for non-urgent matters within a few days, usually as week. Urgent matters they'll fit you in today, tomorrow if it can wait.

(Both of those GPs are only technically GPs - one specialises in pain management, the other in difficult syndromes like chronic fatigue, irritable bowel and chronic pain.)

So non-specialising GPs? Today or tomorrow if you're in pain or could get worse, within a week otherwise. If the GP is having a quiet patch, sometimes you can get a non-urgent appointment the same day.

Also, in my city there are 24-hour medical clinics (not emergency rooms) that I can go to if a cold suddenly turns into maybe-bronchitis or maybe-pneumonia. Or if I get a severe earache that's keeping me up, or whatever. And unless there are a lot of people with problems, I may well walk in and be seen in the length of time it'd take me to fill out the new-patient details. (Name, next of kin, existing illnesses and meds, allergies - standard medical stuff.)

[Gravekeeper]

I dunno, comparing Canada's system to the US makes the US's look pretty bleak. Not saying ours is perfect or anything but its definitely damn well preferable. I never have to avoid the doctor because I can't afford it and even if my doctor isn't awake/nearby there's always a walk in clinic I can go to and be checked out in pretty short order. I have access to the same level of care and the same specialists as every other Canadian whether they be richer or poorer then me.

Is ours perfect? No. Do we bitch about it a lot? Yes, and that makes it seem like its worse then it is, when in fact its the opposite. Do we love it? Hell yes.

Our specialists are sought the world over too, what's your point? -.-

Some Canadians go south for non-critical surgeries simply because they can skip to the head of the line down there if they have the $. MRIs as well, you can get those a bit faster in the US if you're willing to shell out for it.

But at the same time Americans flock to Canada in droves for all their prescription drugs because it costs a fourth of what it does down there thanks to our system.

I'd honestly like to see you guys get universal health care down there. You need it, imo.

[Seshat]

How is the media allowed to continue to ignore the actual legislation at hand in our government's hands?????

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Emphasis mine.

I suspect you recognise the text, and don't require the attribution.

[IDrinkaRum]

Seshat - We will have to agree to disagree.

I do not believe Universal Health Care is a good thing.

My husband and I are not rich, but we do have health insurance through my husband's work. I say health insurance should be on the shoulders of the employers because to create a safe work environment and a desirable place to work, insurance should be one of the priorities an employer should think of.

Government, as I've said, is not here to take care of us from cradle to grave. This smacks too much of a welfare/nanny state. Can't get a job? Government will pay you to sit around the house. Can't get health insurance? Government will pick and chose whom you get to see and what will be done for you. Can't get a private nursing home? Government will put you in a substandard, sub par nursing home because they can. Can't afford a burial? Government will put you in a pauper's grave with a bunch of other bodies (not unless you're in the military and then you're buried in the military graveyards).

And when I say that universal health care won't help everyone, I mean: People will think OMG!!! I can see any doctor! Any specialist! My <whatever I have> will be cured. And then, they find out they can't because the Government doesn't have that specialist /treatment/whatever listed and they'd have to go to a private doctor and they don't have the money so it won't be taken care of no matter what.

The American Government (or any government in my opinion) cannot/should not be trusted to make personal decisions for us.

It's not a matter of the haves and the have nots. It really isn't. Our government is so far in debt (and don't tell me, no one knows that), that our taxes would be way up, to defray the costs of everyone going to see the doctor.

Again, Big Brother doesn't need to know the reason I'm taking birth control pills is not to prevent babies but to help my body have my periods so my innards don't get any worse. Because OMG ... birth control keeps you from having children and children is the good for the society so birth control is bad and shouldn't be allowed at all.

As I said: Everyone for Universal Health Care will have to agree to disagree with me on this one.

[IDrinkaRum]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Emphasis mine.

I suspect you recognise the text, and don't require the attribution.

We do have the law that states that one cannot shout "FIRE!" in a crowded public place (thereby somewhat limiting our free speech).

Plus, the press, either in spoken word or written word can be held liable if what they write/say is found libel or slanderous against people. (As in, they can be sued individually and will be forced to pay if it's proven what they said/wrote is erroneous).

But yeah, the Government cannot say "We're looking over everything each newspaper does/says and if we don't like it, you're no longer in business" or whatever.

[Seshat]

Seshat - We will have to agree to disagree.

Fine with me.

I say health insurance should be on the shoulders of the employers because to create a safe work environment and a desirable place to work, insurance should be one of the priorities an employer should think of.

I say workplace safety is independent of the employee's choice of doctor, hospital, or health insurance. And I don't want to have to choose my employer carefully to get good health insurance - I'd rather get my own good health insurance, and be able to choose my employer based on whether they'll be good employers and whether I like the work.

Cultural variation, I suspect.

This smacks too much of a welfare/nanny state.

Not to me - but again, cultural variation.

Also, in a different thread, there was a discussion between me and someone else about different cultural meanings for both 'welfare' and 'nanny state'.

Can't get a job? Government will pay you to sit around the house. Can't get a private nursing home? Government will put you in a substandard, sub par nursing home because they can. Can't afford a burial? Government will put you in a pauper's grave with a bunch of other bodies (not unless you're in the military and then you're buried in the military graveyards).

Unrelated to health care, with the exception of the nursing home. And admittedly, some of our public nursing homes aren't great either. But we're working on that.

Can't get health insurance? Government will pick and chose whom you get to see and what will be done for you.

And as I stated - do I need to say it more loudly? - the government only pays the bills. The doctors and patients pick and choose who we get to see and what gets done.

I think this is to do with cultural differences in understanding about welfare systems and 'nanny states'.

And when I say that universal health care won't help everyone, I mean: People will think OMG!!! I can see any doctor! Any specialist! My <whatever I have> will be cured. And then, they find out they can't because the Government doesn't have that specialist /treatment/whatever listed and they'd have to go to a private doctor and they don't have the money so it won't be taken care of no matter what.

Then you're envisaging a broken system. Australia's system is not like that.

The American Government (or any government in my opinion) cannot/should not be trusted to make personal decisions for us.

And the type of system we have in Australia doesn't ask the government to.

Heck, your HMO system as I've heard it described to me is unbelievable! How have you people not stood up en mass and torn it down? You let your insurers make personal decisions for you? You let your insurers even know what illnesses you have?

Our system is not like that. Only the doctors and patients make decisions about treatments.

It's not a matter of the haves and the have nots. It really isn't. Our government is so far in debt (and don't tell me, no one knows that), that our taxes would be way up, to defray the costs of everyone going to see the doctor.

That may be a problem. It's probably worth investigating how other countries have universal health systems without raising taxes way up. Maybe there's something your government is paying for that they won't need to be, with a universal health system in place.

Again, Big Brother doesn't need to know the reason I'm taking birth control pills is not to prevent babies but to help my body have my periods so my innards don't get any worse. Because OMG ... birth control keeps you from having children and children is the good for the society so birth control is bad and shouldn't be allowed at all.

Again: our system is not like that. The government gets told stuff like 'pay doctor X for a Y-minute consultation' and 'pharmacist Z sold fifty packets of epilum today'.

As I said: Everyone for Universal Health Care will have to agree to disagree with me on this one.

Which would be really and truly fine with me, if you were opposed to real universal health care systems. But some of the things you're opposed to aren't happening in Australia, Canada or the UK. (Mostly because we'd be opposed to them too.)

But where it's purely cultural variation - eh, fine. Different people, different systems, no big.

Okay?

[Seshat]

But yeah, the Government cannot say "We're looking over everything each newspaper does/says and if we don't like it, you're no longer in business" or whatever.

DarthRetard was complaining about the press' choice of coverage of political news. He asked why the press is allowed to publish its choice of news.

I thought the paragraph I quoted was a particularly apt response. :D

[IDrinkaRum]

DarthRetard was complaining about the press' choice of coverage of political news. He asked why the press is allowed to publish its choice of news.

I thought the paragraph I quoted was a particularly apt response. :D

That's very true. But one should read a wide variety of newspapers to get the full picture and people don't (me included). Some newspapers are leaning towards the right. Some to the left. There isn't a really good median paper anywhere, I don't think.

[IDrinkaRum]

Seshat - What you have to understand about the American Government, they want to be in everyone's business. From what I understand, in the American version of Universal Health Care, the Government wants to be right there with you. That is what I don't like. If the Government would butt its nose out of my business and everything, then that's fine.

I like my insurance. I do not have an HMO. I have a PPO. I go where/when/who I like, and no questions asked (really). Local government - State - can mandate employers to give health care. And if the employers with the $hitty insurance can't find workers, then guess what? They're going to up the ante.

But in America, Big Brother is still watching us, still wanting to know everything we do, and still trying to convince us that the only way we can properly live is by listening to them and only them and they know what's best for us.

[AFPheonix]

It's not a matter of the haves and the have nots. It really isn't. Our government is so far in debt (and don't tell me, no one knows that), that our taxes would be way up, to defray the costs of everyone going to see the doctor.


As I stated in an earlier post, the amount we'd be paying in taxes would be offset by the fact that your husband would no longer be paying premiums to a private company (unless you choose to supplement with private coverage), nor would you have to meet a deductible, and his pay would be HIGHER since his employer would not be having to put out a portion of his income to pay for your family's health care.


I have read a fair amount about the Aussie system and I do really like it, I'd love to see it implemented here.
Having worked in a pharmacy long enough to see how ridiculous it is to work with a lot of private companies (tricare peeps have it pretty easy compared to a lot of people with private coverage) and also volunteering in a free clinic for the uninsured and watching people let problems that could have been easily treated in their early stages go until they were really bad, I'd love to see a system enabled here to let people get preventative care easily and cheaply.

Our urgent care clinics and ERs are overloaded with the uninsured. We'd be increasing our response times for emergency services if people could get in with a GP without having to debate whether they can afford it or not.

Furthermore, our national debt can be directly attributed to the sitting president squandering the budget surplus we had at the end of Clinton's administration. We're also running 2 wars without having increased taxes to help pay for it.

We're always told it's a terrible idea because insurance companies are a huge lobby. Yes, they'd lose out a lot if anyone ever got a decent program passed, although government would probably have to contract through them to use the infrastructure they've already got for billing and helpdesks.

[DarthRetard]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Emphasis mine.

I suspect you recognise the text, and don't require the attribution.

Ah, but I bring you back to Reagan's Fairness Doctrine from many years ago, that mandated that airwaves were public property, and we deserved to hear all sides of anything. I'm not asking congress to abridge our first amendment by any means. You don't have to quote my own constitution at me either. I do know most of it by heart. :-)

Good old Nancy Pelosi, whom I've disagreed with morally for years, has been workign to get the fairness doctrine reinstated.

And As for Ron Paul being ignored, I'd like you to show me one pres. debate where he got more than three questions. I've watched every one, and counted. I'm a campaign precinct leader for Paul in my area, so I'd like to at leas think I've done SOME research on the project?;)

Idrinkarum, give the Washington Post or The Christian Science Monitor a shot.

[crazylegs]

I'm not Boozy, but in Aussieland: will today do?

Okay. It actually depends on how busy your doctor of choice is. But I've only had two GPs who I couldn't see for non-urgent matters within a few days, usually as week. Urgent matters they'll fit you in today, tomorrow if it can wait.


In the UK, if you're out of hours the Dr. comes to you if its urgent. How does that sound?

[Boozy]

I can see my doctor within a day if its urgent, never more than four or five days if its not. If I want, I can go to the walk-in clinic down the street and be seen within 2 hours.

I've never had to wait longer than a few weeks to see a specialist when my doctor feels its important. We have some wait times for elective procedures, but no one really cares. The triage system means the operating room and the surgeon's time is not being used for some spoiled brat's tennis elbow when there's a not-so-wealthy person on death's door down the hall.

I can confidently say that the Canadian health care system is better than the US system in virtually every way. Now, I'm not one of those people that thinks their country can do no wrong. I believe that Canada can learn a lot from the US in many respects. But not on this issue.

[TheRoo]

With regards to the fairness doctrine, a Reagan appointed FCC chief, Mark Fowler, led the charge to repeal it in the mid 80's after 35 years. In 1987, congress passed a law to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, but Reagan vetoed it. How is the fairness doctrine Reagan's?

[Boozy]

How is the fairness doctrine Reagan's?

Because certain conservative media personalities are constantly giving credit to the Republicans for policies and laws that turn out to be popular, regardless of how they originally came down on the issue.

[Greenday]

I also think that besides being a few trillion bucks in debt and having over 300 million people makes things a lil more complicated.

[CancelMyService]

I always find it a bit odd that the people who are against universal healthcare seem to harp on how broken such a system would be, as if the alternative is so much better. It would have been really neat to have a universal system in place so my parents wouldn't have had to spend their life savings because my dad's cancer was diagnosed 6 months before Medicare kicked in and as such was a "preexisting condition".

Would universal healthcare be perfect? No, and no one who's in favor of it argues that it would be. The people against it seem to construct strawmen to try to scare people away from wanting everyone to have access to health care.

[DexX]

My beloved Australia has had universal health care, at least for the essentials, for over thirty years, and our economy is stronger than ever. An Aussie gets cancer, they go to hospital to get better and face no gigantic bills at the end. Wealthier Australians have the option of going to a private hospital, which they may fund with private health insurance, but despite our recently-voted-out PM's best efforts, private health is not compulsory, and money will never be an issue for Australians seeking treatment for serious illness. The worst thing is that non-life threatening elective surgery is a choice between immediate private care or a wait for public care, but that's about it.

If teensy little Australia can do it, surely "the world's only superpower" can manage it...?

[AFPheonix]

I also think that besides being a few trillion bucks in debt and having over 300 million people makes things a lil more complicated.

Why would you think this would be affected by economies of scale?
A certain amount of national debt is actually good, by the way. It keeps money circulating. The amount of debt we have at the moment is ridiculous, yes, but it could definitely be reduced if there was a mandate to do so.

The other reason I'd like to see universal health care instead of health care provided by employers is the fact that it would move us even more towards a meritocracy. The system we have now actually kind of punishes employers who take on people with health risks or disabilities or who have dangerous hobbies or habits. The end up paying more on health care as does the patient. It also leads to crap policies like higher premiums for smokers. (with no added incentives to quit, mind you)
Removing that barrier would allow businesses to hire on whoever they thought could do the best job, regardless of whether they were at higher risk for stroke or cancer or what have you.

[Seshat]

Seshat - What you have to understand about the American Government, they want to be in everyone's business. From what I understand, in the American version of Universal Health Care, the Government wants to be right there with you. That is what I don't like. If the Government would butt its nose out of my business and everything, then that's fine.
<snip>
But in America, Big Brother is still watching us, still wanting to know everything we do, and still trying to convince us that the only way we can properly live is by listening to them and only them and they know what's best for us.

Okay. So what I'm hearing now is that your two major objections are cultural (you believe employers should be responsible) and USA-specific (the above-quoted Big Brother situation).

Not a problem. I'm not in the USA, I don't know enough about the USA to make any educated arguments about either of those matters. You are, and presumably do, so I defer to you and to those with more knowledge of the US than me.

Until something comes up that I can discuss intelligently, I bow out.

[IDrinkaRum]

Seshat!!! I'm sorry. :( I didn't mean for you to bow out of the discussion. It's just ... aaaah ... what the heck. I'm bowing out too. I just don't like the fact that in America there are some people who think the Government needs to give them everything without them having to work for it. (i.e., Welfare which was started to get people out the holes they were in during the Great Depression, meant as a one-time thing that would be discontinued after the Depression was over with but never went away). But that's just me and that's a discussion for another topic.

[Seshat]

No, no - no need to take it that way! I'm bowing out of the universal-health-care thing because of lack of knowledge, not lack of interest! I appreciate knowing and understanding your reasons - at least to the extent that someone without deep knowledge of your culture can understand.

As for welfare loungers: we have them too. I think every culture does. People who aren't socially conscious or aware enough to realise that civilisations work because everyone who is capable of contributing in some way does so. Or people who do realise that, but don't care and are happy to sponge off other peoples' work, and make the whole civilisation a little bit poorer.

Australia's attitude towards that is (or seems to me to be) 'well, we have a percentage of louts and assholes that bludge off the system, but better to protect almost everyone and have a few freeloaders than to cause innocent people to suffer for the sake of dumping the freeloaders'.

It's a social choice, and only the society itself can make the choice: outsiders shouldn't make it for them. Australia needs to decide what level of cover to give Australians, America needs to decide what level of cover to give Americans.

Australia's welfare office does try to weed out the bludgers. I'm in the process of obtaining disability pension myself: and I had to have a doctor vouch for me, with two specialists backing him up. The doctor and specialists also had to state the likely duration of the illness. On top of that, an officer of our welfare system had an interview with me, to see for herself what I can and can't do. Once they're satisfied that I'm genuinely ill and not a bludger, they'll keep paying me until my doctor tells them I'm well, until I manage to find some sort of paying work I can do that puts me over the allowable-income threshold - or until I phase into aged pension. Which, unfortunately, is most likely. :(
(At least I've found ways I can do good things for society, even if they're small and unpaid. But I digress.)

Um.

Oh yeah, I remember one of my objections to employer-provided health care. When there's an employee's market, people can pick and choose employers based, in part, on their health care plan. But when it's an employER's market, the employers can - and probably will - scant on the health care. And people will take the jobs anyway.

Edit to add: also, employer-based health care means that people who are brilliant at and love careers (such as waiting or bartending) which culturally don't include 'benefits' have to choose between doing what they're good at and love, or having health care. Another thing I think is not really right.

And switching aspects of the topic again.

Everyone needs health care, and everyone needs the same thing for their basic (not luxury level) health care. If everyone who is capable of work and can currently find work is contributing to the health care system, then a significant proportion of the people who are left are going to be in need of the health care system - probably desperate need.

So let's take a look at the freeloaders. Many of them will be basically healthy, and therefore not using the system much.

Some will probably be hypochondriac or suffering Munchausens or some other attention/psychiatric disorder - but then, those are sick and need the system, and can be treated.

Effectively, an employer-based system bars the unemployable, those who can't find employment, those who get jobs without benefits for whatever reason, and the self-employed, from the health care system. And one of your reasons seems to be that you don't want to provide it to the group of freeloaders.

I'd suggest doing some research. Figure out what percentage of the not-insured population fits into the contributing/would-if-they-could category, and what percentage are freeloaders. Decide for yourself if you want to penalise X% of innocents for the sake of barring Y% of freeloaders.

Not my society. Not my decision. Yours.

[Amethyst Hunter]

better to protect almost everyone and have a few freeloaders than to cause innocent people to suffer for the sake of dumping the freeloaders'.

Everyone needs health care, and everyone needs the same thing for their basic (not luxury level) health care. If everyone who is capable of work and can currently find work is contributing to the health care system, then a significant proportion of the people who are left are going to be in need of the health care system - probably desperate need.

So let's take a look at the freeloaders. Many of them will be basically healthy, and therefore not using the system much.

Effectively, an employer-based system bars the unemployable, those who can't find employment, those who get jobs without benefits for whatever reason, and the self-employed, from the health care system.


I think that places like Australia and Canada have the right idea when it comes to said healthcare. Universal healthcare may not be the end-all be-all of things, but it's a damn sight better than what we have in the US as things stand now.

I just read this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7279540.stm) and it pissed me off bigtime. Aside from the other things that are horridly wrong with it, it REALLY fucking burns me that people can get freebies like that whereas someone like me CANNOT support themselves in the manner like most other normal people do, due to problems that are beyond my present ability to cope with.

I'm not asking for luxury stuff like cosmetic dentistry or such (been there and done that with braces as a kid and the damn things STILL didn't work, thankyouverymuch shitty genetics). I'm asking for a goddamned level playing field so that I can keep up with the majority of contributing society.

Basic healthcare lets people deal with the small shit before it turns into big shit and drags everybody down. Healthier population = happier population = better productivity and less crap like crime and the like. This guy, for instance, (http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/opinions/825002,2_4_AU05_WARD_S1.article) has it spot-on about mental illness.

I've had some people tell me I should apply for state assistance and the like, yet in the same breath decry universal healthcare. Well, guess what? Going on the dole means I'll be one of those so-called "parasites" that supposedly freeloads on the system. So make up your mind, you can't have it both ways. Either give me the tools I need to make a decent go of things, or don't complain about those who are on public assistance who just might actually NEED it.

[CancelMyService]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/03/new-estimate-re.html




New estimate: Retirees need $225K for medical bills

Is your nest egg big enough to cover the rising costs of health care?

Fidelity Investments says the average 65-year-old couple should have $225,000 set aside for medical expenses if they're retiring in 2008. That's a 4.7% increase over last year's estimate.

"With health care costs continuing to outpace wage increases and companies trimming retiree health benefits, financing health care has to be central to retirement planning," Fidelity's Brad Kimler says in a press release. "Given current economic conditions, this is especially true for those planning to retire in the next few years or before they qualify for full Social Security or Medicare benefits."



Truly, America must resist the Orwellian nightmare of not having gramma and grandpa spending their life savings in health care costs. Our taxes might get raised! Never mind that ever growing deduction on your pay stub where your premiums are taken out (if you're lucky enough to have company provided health care), we're talking about taxes dammit! They must not be raised at any cost! Hell, lets forget about public schools and road maintenance too, everyone should just fend for themselves and F anyone who can't afford it.

[IDrinkaRum]

Well, I've finally realized I have to buckle down and get help from "the system". My daughter is Autistic (which is one reason I like Obama with one of his issues being disability and one of the disabilities he touches upon is Autism). I can get disability checks from Social Security for my daughter to help out to pay for a speech therapist & an Occupational Therapist outside of school. Now I feel like I'm a freeloader. Am I? Am I a hypocrite for asking for this stuff? I'm not sure. I'm conflicted.

Universal Health Care is a good idea I suppose. I'm still not entirely convinced. And maybe I'm way too cynical (and don't take this wrong, I love my country and I will never really totally bash it) but sometimes our politicians can take a wonderful idea and completely destroy it. And that is what I'm afraid of. And I still don't like the idea of Government (and to an extent, maybe, big pharmacy companies) telling us what to do, what to take, and your health will be an open book.

[Seshat]

This guy, for instance, (http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/opinions/825002,2_4_AU05_WARD_S1.article) has it spot-on about mental illness.

I urge all of you to read that article if you haven't already. I've seen the slide towards insanity, and it starts very, very subtly.

And as the writer says, admitting to mental illness invites discrimination and social isolation. Continuing to take meds with unpleasant side-effects when you're feeling 'perfectly fine' is very, very hard.

Eh. Just read it.

[Rapscallion]

Now I feel like I'm a freeloader. Am I? Am I a hypocrite for asking for this stuff? I'm not sure. I'm conflicted.


Not at all. You have a genuince case. They provide assistance for those with genuine cases. You are not a freeloader.

You are also interested in giving your daughter the best possible chance in life. Take the assistance.

Rapscallion

[IDrinkaRum]

Thank you Raps. I'm going to be downloading the paperwork & filling it out this weekend and then going to the social security office next week sometime to talk to the people in charge there and see what else I need to do. I need to talk to my daughter's pediatrician too about getting a handicapped license plate as autism is a reason to get one. (I have nightmares of her running around in the parking lot - which she has done on one occasion and I don't want to repeat that).

[AFPheonix]

Well, I've finally realized I have to buckle down and get help from "the system". My daughter is Autistic (which is one reason I like Obama with one of his issues being disability and one of the disabilities he touches upon is Autism). I can get disability checks from Social Security for my daughter to help out to pay for a speech therapist & an Occupational Therapist outside of school. Now I feel like I'm a freeloader. Am I? Am I a hypocrite for asking for this stuff? I'm not sure. I'm conflicted.

Universal Health Care is a good idea I suppose. I'm still not entirely convinced. And maybe I'm way too cynical (and don't take this wrong, I love my country and I will never really totally bash it) but sometimes our politicians can take a wonderful idea and completely destroy it. And that is what I'm afraid of. And I still don't like the idea of Government (and to an extent, maybe, big pharmacy companies) telling us what to do, what to take, and your health will be an open book.

Well no, your health records will still be subject to HIPPA as it has been always. The only people who will be dealing with your health stuff will still be the people who should be: doctors and pharmacists. If anything, it may be easier to get ahold of what the doctor wanted you to have, since doctors and pharmacists won't have to play the games we do now to get stuff covered by multiple private companies.

And no, you're not being a hypocrite. You genuinely need the help, so get it. Don't feel bad, it's not like you and your husband haven't been paying into Social Security and Medicare. May as well get something back out if it.

[Seshat]

Well, I've finally realized I have to buckle down and get help from "the system".
<snip>Now I feel like I'm a freeloader. Am I? Am I a hypocrite for asking for this stuff? I'm not sure. I'm conflicted.

Freeloaders typically feel entitled to whatever they get, in the "why shouldn't I take from the system, everyone else does" sort of sense.
Genuinely disabled or otherwise needy people are entitled, in the sense of "this society has chosen to care for its disabled and needy citizens, and I'm one of them".

You're not doing this to "get while the getting's good" or to "look out for number one" or because "that's the way the world works". You're doing this because your culture and society have chosen to care for their disabled citizens, and you're the parent of a disabled citizen.

While you're at it, research what benefits your culture provides for carers. Caring for the disabled is a contribution to society, and is a damned difficult job, and the Australian society is becoming aware of just how much of a contribution carers make, and providing support for them. The American society may be aware as well, and may have support for you and your partner in caring for your daughter. You're entitled to that support, too. In the "society has chosen to provide this" sense. ;)

As for 'am I a hypocrite?", no you're not. Hypocrites aren't open-minded enough to think "maybe I'm wrong", or "maybe it's a situational thing". You've been open-minded enough throughout this debate to say "well, it works for you guys, but I don't think it'll work for us". It just took some time for your entire message to get through to us.

And you always said that society should be providing health care to all its needy &/or contributing citizens - you just disagreed with us on the method; and were/are wary of health care provision being abused by wilful & selfish non-contributors (as opposed to the disabled and/or mentally ill, who you at least seemed to be saying deserved care).

And I still don't like the idea of Government (and to an extent, maybe, big pharmacy companies) telling us what to do, what to take, and your health will be an open book.

None of us do. Our societies have avoided all of that, hopefully your society would also be able to develop universal health care while avoiding that.

[IDrinkaRum]

Thank you Seshat for the comforting & kick-to-the-head words. :D

I try to be as open minded as I can without letting my brain fall out. (That would be terrible).

I was raised by a family that they paid their own way with everything and have very little, if any, credit card debt. Heck, they even paid cash for the 2 cars they own! (A 2002 Mercury Sable, bought NEW paid cash and a Toyota Prius, can't remember the year, somewhere between 2004 & 2006 and they paid cash for that as well). They've never asked for government assistance so that's why I'm hesitant about the Social Security payments, but you're right. Hubs & I have been paying into Social Security for years & into Medicare. I should ask for some help. It might not be a lot, but it will help out some.

Thank you.

[Seshat]

We live without credit card debt or personal loans as much as possible too. Paid cash for our car (97 Ford Fairlane). We're trying to save for a car that will take my scooter - we didn't have it when we chose the Ford, nor were we anticipating getting one so soon.

If A and I were able to, we'd be working. We aren't. So D works, A and I try to contribute as we can and humbly accept the charity of society for the things we must have and couldn't otherwise get.

Pride is a good thing. But humility is a good thing too. Don't be so proud you can't accept charity when you qualify for the things your society has chosen to give charity to! That's like refusing to accept a gift your grandmother gives you: rude and ungracious.

People feel good when they give to charities they feel deserve them. Give them the gift of feeling good: accept the help they feel you deserve. Remember how you feel when you see news stories about people who've been hit with rotten luck, and you happened to be in a circumstance to give help. Maybe you donated food and clothing to the Red Cross in the aftermath of Katrina, or helped organise a picnic for the local 'special' school. Now it's your turn to be the helped.

You can thank your helpers by doing what you want to do anyway: raise your daughter as best you can, to be as happy and alive and independent as her disability lets her be. (Not that I'm saying 'don't say thank you!' For specific charities or individual assistance, I always try to express my gratitude clearly. But for social security and the like - well, it's hard to say 'thank you' to society as a whole without taking out a front-page ad in the paper. :) )

And don't forget that people choose to help carers, as well as the disabled. At minimum, join a carer support group and see if you find that helpful.

[DesignFox]

Chiming in a little late here...

I think the US could learn something from Australia, Canada and the UK. Universal Healthcare would be a godsend!

Take it from a girl who went from job to job and couldn't get insured for the longest time.

Ever fear your favorite activity because if you got hurt you know you'd go bankrupt?

Yea. I say screw a system that will allow hard working people to go bankrupt because they can't afford health insurance and their employers are too cheap to provide it for them.

No offense meant to anyone here, but the only people I see arguing against universal healthcare are people who are currently insured.

Greenday, wait until you get out of college. You will be dropped off your Dad's insurance plan like a hot plate, unless he pays for you out of pocket.

It took me two years to finally find a full time job that offered me decent benefits. And those benefits didn't kick in until after 3 full months of employment. It wasn't easy.

I went to work sick A LOT before I had benefits because I couldn't afford the trip to the doctor or the $100 or so for meds. It sucked. God forbid I choose to get another job, I would have to be without benefits for a three month period before I could get picked up on their health plan, or I'd have to pay $300-$400 per month for COBRA just to stay covered continually!

Health insurance rates are OUTRAGEOUS! I have done the research. It is despicable. If I was a single mom and dirt poor, I could have gotten help from the government, but working PART TIME and making $8 an hour I didn't qualify for public assistance. No way in HELL you can afford $400 a month on that kind of pay.

So, I believe in Universal Healthcare. We need something here to level out the playing field.

If I got paid more money instead of having benefits from my employer, I wouldn't mind paying out the extra bit in taxes. It would make up for the fact that at least I could keep myself HEALTHY and not fear bankruptcy if, heaven forbid, I require a trip to the ER.

:(

[rahmota]

I have to agree with Designfox. The way the system is here in america only the rich or lucky or those willing to forgo just about anything else can get good or any health insurance. I know I would love to see a universal or national health care system ala canada or so implemented in america.