World Politics

[Anonymous]

In a civilized society, everybody deserves to be treated if they have a malady as an unalienable right, like due process, from the time they are born to the time they die. This belongs to the public domain and is the public's responsibility in any enlightened society.

Not everybody has the right, however, to own a car or a TV set. In democracy (as opposed to under say regime dictatorship), we would hope that more people have more access to the material comforts that make their existence more enjoyable, lessens the gap between the haves and the have nots, though this is a private affair, based on each citizens economic possibilities.

Removing healthcare from the public domain and placing it within the private sector is firstly uncivil, secondly unethical and thirdly demonstrates to what fanatical degree American society is predicated upon upholding so called individual freedom (I will not besmirch the word "right" by implicating it in this case) over the common well-being.

The rich in any society are a privileged class. After the French Revolution of 89, I see no reason why they shouldn't also be expected to pay for the health care of the destitute of society who would have no means otherwise to obtain treatment. Even after their taxes are spent they are still comfortably rich. Thus it is the very least they should be made to publicly give back for the privileged, no matter how hard they "worked for it", lives they live. Plus it reminds them that not everyone can "make it on their own", also because nobody really does or, as John Adams put it, for one American to be rich 500 people around the world need to be poor. What this means is, of course, the wealthy are only rich in relationship to how great the monetary/economic distance is between themselves and the masses. And privatized medical care caters to their economic means and interests, allows for the well-off to be legally to be free of any social responsibility toward the collectivity, and, worse, to the further detriment and exclusion of the poor and less economically capable. Such barbarity is simply indecorous in light of the class struggle and social advances of the modern democratic states, and yet it prevails to the great benefits of the private insurance industry.

If you feel that this is not the case, then I can only beg to differ with such a shallow and ultimately self-serving and egotistical world view. Because this is the prevailing view in my native land, it doesn't make me at all wonder,despite being the richest society on planet earth, why the US has such grave social welfare problems (for example it being the murder and crime capital of the First World community) that are not found to such a degree across the Atlantic, with the exception to a lesser degree of Britain (but only because of the Anglo-Saxon disease).

Not even the conservatives of of the Continent would argue that privatized health care is more righteous than socialized medicine, which only reinforces what a bunch of greedy, mendacious and self-centred folks the American conservative class is.

The Teaparty movement is only further confirmation of this.

PS: The argument about the poor "playing the system" is utterly pathetic, as if what are they supposed to do with the little cash they earn compared to the gargantuan sums enjoyed by the rich. Live responsibly? Not try to take as much out of the system as possible? I can only applaud them for doing so, considering the lopsided world we live in.

And, hey, guess what, socializing medicine means one less thing (if it makes you happy) the poor can buck the system on. Whereas privatized health care only gives them another reason to do it, terrible as this seems to you Scott SoCal. By contrast to me the way the Cheney's of the American society have accrued their personal wealth through lies, treachery, murder, guile, greed, BUCKING THE POLITICAL AND LEGAL SYSTEM in their favour (something which the poor could never get away with), controlling congress, the US secret service, Wall Street, the military, foreign puppet regimes and dictators, etc., etc., is far more problematical and the consequences far more considerable Scott SoCal.

The poor bucking the system, please.

Ok. Healthcare is a human right. Fine. How much should a neurosurgeon make and who's going to pay him or her? Should a family practce doctor make more or less than the anesthesiologist? I'm just trying to work this all out. Oh, and where does Pharma fit in? Or do they... being evil and all maybe we just don't need them... or perhaps a govt takeover is in order since the govt is so... pure and altruistic? Am I on the right path?

though this is a private affair, based on each citizens economic possibilities

You did not just write this. Surely you did not mean this. We are all the same, Rhub. If not a big screen for all, there will be a big screen for none.

I see no reason why they shouldn't also be expected to pay for the health care of the destitute of society who would have no means otherwise to obtain treatment.

Of course. How brave of you. After all, it's not your money the state is taking. I'm assuming your definition of "rich" is anyone who has more money than you. Do I have that about right?

Thus it is the very least they should be made to publicly give back for the privileged, no matter how hard they "worked for it",

Ok, this will be a one-time confiscation. The rich are not stupid. Assuming they "worked for it" only to have their labor taken from them they will not do it again. Imagine, Rhub.... a world in which their is no incentive to acheive great things. There will be very little difference between the haves and have nots.

So, I propose we start with your wealth. Hand it over right now. And then make sure you are back to work tomorrow.


On a more serious note, this;

PS: The argument about the poor "playing the system" is utterly pathetic, as if what are they supposed to do with the little cash they earn compared to the gargantuan sums enjoyed by the rich. Live responsibly? Not try to take as much out of the system as possible? I can only applaud them for doing so, considering the lopsided world we live in.

is perhaps the most disgusting thing I have read from you. Yes Rhub, if you were born to anything other than wealth, you have no chance so you may as well quit. Monumentally pathetic point of view.

 

[Anonymous]

friend in his early 40's has a Lens Crafters franchise. If you see the amount of work/money that he goes through to collect from both government/private insurance companies, it's amazing that even a pair of glasses for a child don't cost 700 dollars. Over beer he constantly cries about selling his bike shop in S.Cal and moving east to be closer to family

Look, the future is working for big government.

If your friend is anything like me he's tired of trying to make it work while being blamed for societal ills.

 

[redtreviso]

friend in his early 40's has a Lens Crafters franchise. If you see the amount of work/money that he goes through to collect from both government/private insurance companies, it's amazing that even a pair of glasses for a child don't cost 700 dollars. Over beer he constantly cries about selling his bike shop in S.Cal and moving east to be closer to family

Oh but seriously...f him..The access to government/private insurance funds are more why such things as Lens Crafters are in business at all compared to what they actually do.

 

[The Hitch]

Perhaps it is merely terrible coincidence that all of the 9-11 terrorists were Saudis, but not one came from Iraq and yet who did we invade?.

Afghanistan.

 

[rhubroma]

Of course. It must be this way otherwise the world makes no sense to you.

But why stop at insurance companies? C'mon, aren't all private for-profit companies evil?

In fact, it's true.

I had this experience, not too long ago, with a medic from the US who works in the emergency room department in a prominent hospital in Atlanta who also has had administration experience.

In discussing this issue, he was of the opinion that what Obama is doing is trying to fix the problem from the wrong end, that this isn't an issue with the hospitals, but with the insurance companies. It was in fact he that said they were evil, so I was quoting him to be honest. Here's why.

In the US private insurance solicits business from the hospitals by enticing them with retributions for taking their clients as patients. I honestly didn't get into the specifics of this, though he certainly was in the know. So that for an appendectomy that would normally cost say 15 k, a deal is made so that the insurance provider pays the hospital instead $500 on its clients' bills. Now when an uninsured patient needs the same treatment, the hospital naturally charges him the full 15 k, which, of course, he can't pay. He thus has to take out a loan through the hospital provided by, not surprisingly, the same insurance company, which then also collects the interest on top as further profit. Thus they save money on their paying customers and make up their "losses" on those that can't afford to pay them through interest collected on inflated loans! In a fixed profiteering game on peoples health! This is another proof of the perversion of treating everything in life as money making game, for which profit begets profit, so that self interest and exploitation run hand in hand.

So either way the insurance company makes out fine. While the uninsured patient, who is usually economically weak, is forced to pay way more for the same procedure than the insured and also penalty in interest.

The perversion of this is so evident that nothing else needs to be said.

Socialized health care eliminates this needles exploitation for profit.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Ultimately we can argue this until we are blue in the face(s) and not solve anything. Because in the end it is a question of the politics of Society versus the politics of Me Me Me.

 

[rhubroma]

Ok. Healthcare is a human right. Fine. How much should a neurosurgeon make and who's going to pay him or her? Should a family practce doctor make more or less than the anesthesiologist? I'm just trying to work this all out. Oh, and where does Pharma fit in? Or do they... being evil and all maybe we just don't need them... or perhaps a govt takeover is in order since the govt is so... pure and altruistic? Am I on the right path?



You did not just write this. Surely you did not mean this. We are all the same, Rhub. If not a big screen for all, there will be a big screen for none.



Of course. How brave of you. After all, it's not your money the state is taking. I'm assuming your definition of "rich" is anyone who has more money than you. Do I have that about right?



Ok, this will be a one-time confiscation. The rich are not stupid. Assuming they "worked for it" only to have their labor taken from them they will not do it again. Imagine, Rhub.... a world in which their is no incentive to acheive great things. There will be very little difference between the haves and have nots.

So, I propose we start with your wealth. Hand it over right now. And then make sure you are back to work tomorrow.


On a more serious note, this;



is perhaps the most disgusting thing I have read from you. Yes Rhub, if you were born to anything other than wealth, you have no chance so you may as well quit. Monumentally pathetic point of view.

Number one I'm in the teaching profession. It may never make me rich, but it fulfills my basic intellectual needs. And I pay every tax dollar the Italian State requests of me (which is significant) and, honestly, I'm happy to know that it is being spent on socialized things like medical care, education and pensions.

I don't even think about what the Italian State takes out, but rather how I can most enjoy myself with what I have to spend, which isn't much but for me it's so far sufficed. Maybe that makes me too simpleminded for you, but there are so many interesting things in life like friends, museums, films, meals, wine, books, passeggiate, architecture, research, bike rides, having a cafe at my local bar and saying two words to the bar tender that are quite affordable even on what I make (one just has to be interested enough to make them a priority), just to name those nice things that come immediately to mind, for me to spend my time thinking about my financial losses, or who is also making out (my god!) on my earnings. I couldn't care less. And there have been times when I didn't know if I was going to even make it to the end of the month. In these moments, by the way, it was indeed a relief to know my medical care was covered socially.

And that's just it Scott SoCal, disgusting to you as it may seem, wealth, that is having excessive amounts of money, isn't one of my preoccupations. If money weren't an unpleasant necessity, I would gladly hand over what little I do have to you if you're happy with it. But I already live at a decorous minimum so just be happy that I willingly make my social contributions. And I'm also happy that I'm not totally poor (at least studying paid off for something), though perhaps this makes me at the same time a bit more understanding of the difficulties faced by those that truly are.

As far as paying medics goes. I wouldn't know how much the neurosurgeon should be payed in respect to the family doctor. Both are necessary and probably deserve more money than a lot of useless professions that make much more, like Wall Street financialists.

However, and this is a point upon which I'm sure you're limited mind will surly not comprehend: that is perhaps the entire philosophy that medicine should be a profit making business like selling cars or anything else should be reassessed. So too should the huge sums surgery procedures cost as established by the insurance companies based on calculated risk and liability suits, which becomes another case for their indictments.

I know that doctors in Europe make, on average, far less than in the States yet the care standard, generally speaking, and for what most people will need to deal with, the same. Most I have encountered realize that it is the necessary price they have to pay to ensure equal treatment accessibility to everyone. Of course, they also have the option of private clinics and make-up ground on their American colleagues through this channel. However, the private treatment optional is just that optional . The rich can choose to spend their money to have more "refined" accommodations, if so inclined, without the need to wait for their turn in the public hospitals (if not a life-threatening cause) like everyone else if they so choose. Yet those without such means have the safety net of the public system.

Ethically it simply has to be that way Scott SoCal. And none of your insipid rantings, nor ridiculous apologies for wealth and private interests deciding who gets care and what it costs can change this.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This depends on how "poor" is defined. Poor as in having many modern convieniences including a cell phone plan and cable television? Or poor like living on the streets eating out of a trash can. So, I don't accept your premise and that's likely the crux of our disagreements.

BTW, thanks for the beer. Firestone/Walker Union Jack. It went down very well.

I was not going to get into this health care argument but I can not help myself.
I grew up poor but according to some maybe not poor? Let me explain…..My father worked for the Bakers, Confectionery, and Tobacco Union at a Major Brand Bread Manufacturer. He became disabled due to Lung issues / Cancer and Emphysema. When he became disabled it was one of those things that caused my mother to quit her job and provide 24/7 care for my father at home.

We had insurance when my father was a Union member but once he was disabled we lost our Health / Dental / Vision insurance. I was 13 years old and my sister was 14. We lived on our Land in a Whisky Tango special “House Trailer”. We had no cable (it was not even provided in that rural area at the time anyway) but we did have a telephone / electricity / and YUP a Television. Our only source of income was my father’s federal disability checks and since my sister and I were under 18 we both received Welfare checks.

During that time many health issues came up with my sister and I. We would either go to our family doctor or just put it off. When we went to the doctor my mom would usually pay something and then we would owe them later. The doctor knew our situation because my father was in and out of the hospital about 10 times a year. He would give us drug samples that would keep us from having to buy things at the Pharmacy.

From the time my father became disabled until he died was from 1982 to 1986. When he died we owed the hospitals and doctor a total sum of approximately 3 to 4 hundred thousand. I am not sure on the total but it might as well been a billion dollars. My mother spent years getting the Hospital off of her for payment.

We were poor but never should someone who works have to worry about situations like that. The sickness is bad enough but the worry but the stress those bills put on my father was tremendous. I feel like that should never happen to families in America. I am not for free handouts. But in my opinion my father deserved a system that was better. He worked from when he was not legal to work at 13 and never stopped working until he was physically unable to walk.

Why can we not have a national system that covers all workers that would come with a minimum cost but provide something to care for workers in the country? The private system is not affordable for Poor working families. I know because even at this present day MY SISTER has not had insurance since my father became disabled. She is divorced with 2 kids and works an hourly job that pays beans. She can not afford to cover herself or her kids. She still uses that old family doctor we had when we were kids 25 years ago.

The USA needs some option for the working poor.

 

[rhubroma]

PS: I forgot one other thing. The pharmaceutical industry?

That's even more evil than the insurance one.

 

[rhubroma]

...
During that time many health issues came up with my sister and I. We would either go to our family doctor or just put it off. When we went to the doctor my mom would usually pay something and then we would owe them later. The doctor knew our situation because my father was in and out of the hospital about 10 times a year. He would give us drug samples that would keep us from having to buy things at the Pharmacy....

Ahh, but those were the golden years.

Now, because of the lobby pressure the medical insurance companies placed on Washington's politicians, it is illegal according to federal law for any medic "to strike a deal" as you have described with the uninsured.

There is no further cause for indictment against the insurance industry for its crimes against humanity. And why leaving medical care exclusively in the hands of private profit interests, inhibits liberty and penalizes society.

But don't limit health care to a mere workers' right. They do not hold exclusive title to it, for it is a historical patrimony of all of humanity.

 

[Anonymous]

In fact, it's true.

I had this experience, not too long ago, with a medic from the US who works in the emergency room department in a prominent hospital in Atlanta who also has had administration experience.

In discussing this issue, he was of the opinion that what Obama is doing is trying to fix the problem from the wrong end, that this isn't an issue with the hospitals, but with the insurance companies. It was in fact he that said they were evil, so I was quoting him to be honest. Here's why.

In the US private insurance solicits business from the hospitals by enticing them with retributions for taking their clients as patients. I honestly didn't get into the specifics of this, though he certainly was in the know. So that for an appendectomy that would normally cost say 15 k, a deal is made so that the insurance provider pays the hospital instead $500 on its clients' bills. Now when an uninsured patient needs the same treatment, the hospital naturally charges him the full 15 k, which, of course, he can't pay. He thus has to take out a loan through the hospital provided by, not surprisingly, the same insurance company, which then also collects the interest on top as further profit. Thus they save money on their paying customers and make up their "losses" on those that can't afford to pay them through interest collected on inflated loans! In a fixed profiteering game on peoples health! This is another proof of the perversion of treating everything in life as money making game, for which profit begets profit, so that self interest and exploitation run hand in hand.

So either way the insurance company makes out fine. While the uninsured patient, who is usually economically weak, is forced to pay way more for the same procedure than the insured and also penalty in interest.

The perversion of this is so evident that nothing else needs to be said.

Socialized health care eliminates this needles exploitation for profit.

Yes, you can leave the insurance companies out of this. This story goes back to at least 2005 with dozens of lawsuits filed against non-profit hospitals for trying to discourage the uninsured from coming back for care. The lead attorney mouthpiece for this campaign was Dickie Scruggs (who is now in Federal Penitentiary doing hard time for bribing a Federal Judge in another property insurance "scam"), ye of tobacco litigation fame. Please excuse me if I'm not real impressed with your story or the accusation.

If you want to attach try and this behaviour to the insurance companies then be my guest.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Ahh, but those were the golden years.

Now, because of the lobby pressure the medical insurance companies placed on Washington's politicians, it is illegal according to federal law for any medic "to strike a deal" as you have described with the uninsured.

There is no further cause for indictment against the insurance industry for its crimes against humanity. And why leaving medical care exclusively in the hands of private profit interests, inhibits liberty and penalizes society.

But don't limit health care to a mere workers' right. They do not hold exclusive title to it, for it is a historical patrimony of all of humanity.

Do you realize that the illegal deals must be going on all the time? I said at the end of my post that my sister still uses that same setup?

In my opinion there is a place for both national and private healthcare.

I did not say that only the workers in the country should receive health care. I would say though that working folks should be able to obtain health care. Non workers / unemployed people in my opinion should also have a system that provides for their needs.

Nice how with my entire post you focused in on the workers rights part.

 

[rhubroma]

Do you realize that the illegal deals must be going on all the time? I said at the end of my post that my sister still uses that same setup?

In my opinion there is a place for both national and private healthcare.

I did not say that only the workers in the country should receive health care. I would say though that working folks should be able to obtain health care. Non workers / unemployed people in my opinion should also have a system that provides for their needs.

Nice how with my entire post you focused in on the workers rights part.

I'm sure it still goes on, perhaps not as commonplace as before. Though, not for this, does the illegality of it change.

I simply thought it rather crude of you, and tiring, to emphasize how hard working folk should deserve better. My point was simply that whether someone has worked or not is neither here nor there in regards to deserving medical assistance if necessary.

 

[rhubroma]

Yes, you can leave the insurance companies out of this. This story goes back to at least 2005 with dozens of lawsuits filed against non-profit hospitals for trying to discourage the uninsured from coming back for care. The lead attorney mouthpiece for this campaign was Dickie Scruggs (who is now in Federal Penitentiary doing hard time for bribing a Federal Judge in another property insurance "scam"), ye of tobacco litigation fame. Please excuse me if I'm not real impressed with your story or the accusation.

If you want to attach try and this behaviour to the insurance companies then be my guest.

Uhm, what??? It's all just Greek to me.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm sure it still goes on, perhaps not as commonplace as before. Though, not for this, does the illegality of it change.

I simply thought it rather crude of you, and tiring, to emphasize how hard working folk should deserve better. My point was simply that whether someone has worked or not is neither here nor there in regards to deserving medical assistance if necessary.

Same way I feel when reading your posts.

 

[Anonymous]

Number one I'm in the teaching profession. It may never make me rich, but it fulfills my basic intellectual needs. And I pay every tax dollar the Italian State requests of me (which is significant) and, honestly, I'm happy to know that it is being spent on socialized things like medical care, education and pensions.

I don't even think about what the Italian State takes out, but rather how I can most enjoy myself with what I have to spend, which isn't much but for me it's so far sufficed. Maybe that makes me too simpleminded for you, but there are so many interesting things in life like friends, museums, films, meals, wine, books, passeggiate, architecture, research, bike rides, having a cafe at my local bar and saying two words to the bar tender that are quite affordable even on what I make (one just has to be interested enough to make them a priority), just to name those nice things that come immediately to mind, for me to spend my time thinking about my financial losses, or who is also making out (my god!) on my earnings. I couldn't care less. And there have been times when I didn't know if I was going to even make it to the end of the month. In these moments, by the way, it was indeed a relief to know my medical care was covered socially.

And that's just it Scott SoCal, disgusting to you as it may seem, wealth, that is having excessive amounts of money, isn't one of my preoccupations. If money weren't an unpleasant necessity, I would gladly hand over what little I do have to you if you're happy with it. But I already live at a decorous minimum so just be happy that I willingly make my social contributions. And I'm also happy that I'm not totally poor (at least studying paid off for something), though perhaps this makes me at the same time a bit more understanding of the difficulties faced by those that truly are.

As far as paying medics goes. I wouldn't know how much the neurosurgeon should be payed in respect to the family doctor. Both are necessary and probably deserve more money than a lot of useless professions that make much more, like Wall Street financialists.

However, and this is a point upon which I'm sure you're limited mind will surly not comprehend: that is perhaps the entire philosophy that medicine should be a profit making business like selling cars or anything else should be reassessed. So too should the huge sums surgery procedures cost as established by the insurance companies based on calculated risk and liability suits, which becomes another case for their indictments.

I know that doctors in Europe make, on average, far less than in the States yet the care standard, generally speaking, and for what most people will need to deal with, the same. Most I have encountered realize that it is the necessary price they have to pay to ensure equal treatment accessibility to everyone. Of course, they also have the option of private clinics and make-up ground on their American colleagues through this channel. However, the private treatment optional is just that optional . The rich can choose to spend their money to have more "refined" accommodations, if so inclined, without the need to wait for their turn in the public hospitals (if not a life-threatening cause) like everyone else if they so choose. Yet those without such means have the safety net of the public system.

Ethically it simply has to be that way Scott SoCal. And none of your insipid rantings, nor ridiculous apologies for wealth and private interests deciding who gets care and what it costs can change this.

Again, all very fanciful. On a scale large enough for a industrialized nation not to go without, what should the proper incentive be to attract the best and brightest to medicine? I'll argue that alltruism is not sufficient and I could care less about profit, EXCEPT that it provides incentive to be and do better. I'll restate, I am no fan of corruption, public or private. However, I do not see the profit motive as 100% evil 100% of the time. Sorry.

Should a physician make more or less than a teacher? More or less than a baker? Tell me how this all works? Do you believe then the state should be resopnsible for the cost medical school and how much should the university be able to charge? Dammit, education is important, it is a right and it should be free. Right? And since you take your slice from education I will now go on record pointing my crooked finger at all educators with a proclamation that you are over-paid and for the sake of society should just work for... whatever your basic needs are. Fair?

If there isn't an incentive then what happens to the level of care? What happens to innovation? What happens to education? Do you really think that innovation and breakthrough continues in medicine out of the goodness of people's hearts? All innovation and quality of care all the time without any cost. Sounds peachy.

It will simply be the DMV-ization of healtcare.

Hugh is right. We can argue until we are blue in the face. You guys are bound and determined to throw the baby out with the bath water and who the F am I to try and stop you. Have at it.

 

[rhubroma]

So don't read them and stop wasting my time.

 

[rhubroma]

Same way I feel when reading your posts.

So don't read them and stop wasting my time.

 

[Anonymous]

Uhm, what??? It's all just Greek to me.

Of course it is. My grade is not dependent upon agreeing with you.

 

[Cobblestones]

Meanwhile in Egypt:

The cynical machinations of a morally bankrupt regime in its death throws.

This has to stop. Now.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Hugh is right. We can argue until we are blue in the face. You guys are bound and determined to throw the baby out with the bath water and who the F am I to try and stop you. Have at it.

Well thanks, but I am unclear as to how characterizing your point of view as the politics of greed means that the other side is "throwing the baby out with the bath water". I don't even know what that means with regard to this situation.

Well thanks, but I am unclear as to how characterizing your point of view as the politics of greed means that the other side is "throwing the baby out with the bath water". I don't even know what that means with regard to this situation.
Society= good thing
Socialization= bad thing
Socialism= really bad thing
Do I understand your position correctly?

 

[Anonymous]

I was not going to get into this health care argument but I can not help myself.
I grew up poor but according to some maybe not poor? Let me explain…..My father worked for the Bakers, Confectionery, and Tobacco Union at a Major Brand Bread Manufacturer. He became disabled due to Lung issues / Cancer and Emphysema. When he became disabled it was one of those things that caused my mother to quit her job and provide 24/7 care for my father at home.

We had insurance when my father was a Union member but once he was disabled we lost our Health / Dental / Vision insurance. I was 13 years old and my sister was 14. We lived on our Land in a Whisky Tango special “House Trailer”. We had no cable (it was not even provided in that rural area at the time anyway) but we did have a telephone / electricity / and YUP a Television. Our only source of income was my father’s federal disability checks and since my sister and I were under 18 we both received Welfare checks.

During that time many health issues came up with my sister and I. We would either go to our family doctor or just put it off. When we went to the doctor my mom would usually pay something and then we would owe them later. The doctor knew our situation because my father was in and out of the hospital about 10 times a year. He would give us drug samples that would keep us from having to buy things at the Pharmacy.

From the time my father became disabled until he died was from 1982 to 1986. When he died we owed the hospitals and doctor a total sum of approximately 3 to 4 hundred thousand. I am not sure on the total but it might as well been a billion dollars. My mother spent years getting the Hospital off of her for payment.

We were poor but never should someone who works have to worry about situations like that. The sickness is bad enough but the worry but the stress those bills put on my father was tremendous. I feel like that should never happen to families in America. I am not for free handouts. But in my opinion my father deserved a system that was better. He worked from when he was not legal to work at 13 and never stopped working until he was physically unable to walk.

Why can we not have a national system that covers all workers that would come with a minimum cost but provide something to care for workers in the country? The private system is not affordable for Poor working families. I know because even at this present day MY SISTER has not had insurance since my father became disabled. She is divorced with 2 kids and works an hourly job that pays beans. She can not afford to cover herself or her kids. She still uses that old family doctor we had when we were kids 25 years ago.

The USA needs some option for the working poor.

I don't know of anyone who is happy with a situation like what you describe. There are so many problems with the way American healthcare is conducted... I completely conceed this.

The way forward, imo, is not the publicization of it.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I don't know of anyone who is happy with a situation like what you describe. There are so many problems with the way American healthcare is conducted... I completely conceed this.

The way forward, imo, is not the publicization of it.

So privatization is clearly not working, but socialization (which is not at all what the new laws are really) is a bad idea?
OK what would you propose as a new way of doing it?

 

[Anonymous]

Well thanks, but I am unclear as to how characterizing your point of view as the politics of greed means that the other side is "throwing the baby out with the bath water". I don't even know what that means with regard to this situation.
Society= good thing
Socialization= bad thing
Socialism= really bad thing
Do I understand your position correctly?

Taking our healthcare system and not fixing the existing problems but creating a brand new entitlement combined with no recognization of the problems that exist with entitlements in my mind equal throwing the baby out with the bath water.

You characterize my point of view as the politics of greed. This is your characterization not mine.

 

[Anonymous]

So privatization is clearly not working, but socialization (which is not at all what the new laws are really) is a bad idea?
OK what would you propose as a new way of doing it?

Because our system has problems it should be scapped. Why? Are the problems so daunting as to not be correctable? Really?

So socialization 1) fixes all existing problems, and 2) is problem free?

Cool. Let's do it then.