Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Universal Health Care for USA

rickshaw, it might just be a matter of locale, but I frequently have a hard time telling the supposed partisans in The Great Red-Blue Divide from one another. Since I'm a 3rd-Party stalwart*, I tend to see liberals and conservatives as common foes, from a political standpoint. I wouldn't have trusted McCain any more than I trust Obama, particularly since both parties have carved a cozy market for themselves at both the national and local level, and they are very, very determined to keep it for themselves. Of course, they don't shoot Greens and Reds (or their counterparts on the Right), but why would they have to? It's much more cost-effective to just smother alternatives through media suppression and a ridiculous tapestry of complicated laws-- making it almost impossible for anyone who won't sign on with one team to get anywhere.

And I wasn't trying to mock Kent any more than I'm trying to mock you. (The "long pants" thing was just my little joke about his avatar.) I used to spend a ton of time on political boards, but at some point I decided that there were better ways to waste my time. So I cut way back.

Anyway, I agree with his last point. I just don't happen to think that it's a mentality we'll see taking hold anytime soon.

But I don't think that what you're getting is really "intolerance." You do have a flair for pushing people's buttons, so it shouldn't be a big surprise when they react the way they do.
-----------------

*Three-time Nader voter. McKinney in 2008.

Hey, I get that. I wasn't taking shots at anyone by my intolerance remark. But, when i talk about the "opposite side" I do get a lot of the generalizations like above.

I always thought that to have a political debate, both sides would have to have a say in it. Both would get to present their side, and both would have a chance to rebut. Doesn't always work out that way.

As to pushing buttons, its a gift that i don't really attempt to use. (trust me, five minutes in my presence can have a seemingly sane person ready to chew nails and spit tacks, just ask my wife) But if you want honest replies, you've got to be ready to hear rebuttal. I frequently do. And there have been a lot of times I've read things here and did not respond in the interests of harmony. I've even asked for my own threads to be locked when the veered wildly off course to keep harmony.

but, I've always felt that Harmony is like everything else, too much can be bad, just like not enough can be bad. And I honestly don't try to get personal with anyone.

And example, I was in a class in college and we somehow got on the afterlife. Everyone was having their say and when it got to me I simply said that I believed when you were dead, you were dead. If you subscribe to the bible and read it carefully, the aftelife didn't start til the end of time in one version. Another has you condemned to hell for ALL eternity for the most minor of infractions. Even a babe in swaddling can be condemned to hell simply for being born in sin in one version. This one guy at the front got all up in arms and started shouting. Turns out, his grandfather had died two weeks before. It was raw and intense and personal to him, but I had no way of knowing that it had happened, and still wouldn't have changed the way i believed.

I guess my way of speaking can be too blunt and straightforward for most folks. I should know that by the style of writing I prefer to read, lol. I just strike a lot of people the wrong way for some reason, but most folks that know me find me to be personable and reasonable, and kindly in most regards.

Trust me, I would never run for office, I wouldn't stand a hope in hell of winning that popularity contest, lol.

Double post, sorry.

I can only comment on how you come across, Rick, and it seems like a rant.

And "hate" was your mischaracterization of me, not a word I've used myself. that's your spin, "rant" or not.

maybe there's a reason you are so eager to see "hate" in the views of someone who differs in view with you. that's your hang-up, not mine.

Kent, I'm not eager to see hate. To be honest, I don't hate because its exhausting. And I'm old enough now to be rationing my energy rather than just flinging it around any old way.

But look at a lot of the responses. If I hold a different opinion, or explain one that someone else may hold, first thing mentioned is fox news. Some reason people cannot seem to fathom that a lot of what I read is not fox news, but the same stuff other folks read, but with different filters in place. Like the tread on tasing the old woman. I read the same thing they did, and approached it from a different viewpoint. I don't go out seeking media to agree with me. I haven't watched fox news in years, just like I don't watch the local news, the cable news outlets, or the sunday morning spinsters.

I do find it funny that others say "FOX news...those bastards" and seem to know what they are talking about though. If I hated something that much, I wouldnt be watching it.

As to the specific "gop hatred" thing I posted, hey, you sounded like you genuinely dispise them. Maybe I misread you, too.

This is a discussion board. I try to discuss rather than just throw out talking points and pithy one liners. If I'm wrong in that, let me know.

By the way, don't have cable, my local stations made the switch and suddenly where I was getting digital, I'm not, and in the truck when working I listen to sports radio or the oldies rock station.

When I get home, I'm mostly here on the boards or at two or three other comics sites, some home repair sites, and some plant sites. Or, I'm watching some older tv shows on the web. Where would I be watching the news at?

besides that, lets see...Fox news and Rush Limbaugh vs. ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, Most every large daily newspaper in the nation, CNN, Air America...Seems like ya'll have most of the coverage. You mean to tell me that conservatives cant have basically two outlets as you see it?

Kinda sad.

And as for blaming the GOP for the insurance companies, remember, the DNP held congress for forty years and the insurance powers that be became very very rich during those years. Aren't you going to blame the DNP as well?

GOP? DNP? Is this an American thing or is my brain just fried?

See? This is where we break down. The health coverage topic seems to have been diverted into personal politics..and it's always the Democrats fault no matter what the topic.

I keep accusing you of being a FOX watcher because somehow (even though you don't watch it) you repeatedly seem to be on the same page as the right wing pundits. It's uncanny. Besides that that whole "liberal media" thingy? Total myth.

btw, I said I didn't want to be in this conversation anymore and I think it's unfair to take a shot at me from a distance that way..or am I not supposed to know who "others" are?

To get this thread back on topic, has anybody esle seen Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days: Minimum Wage ? It's a real eye-opener in terms of how medical bills can derail the finances of people who are just barely getting by.

I don't know if universal health care will fix this problem, but I'm leaning more toward it. Our present healthcare system is not working.

YK, I wasn't taking a shot at you. However, you are in the subset that i mentioned. Your choice to return to the topic is just that, your choice. And again you are assuming. I never said everything was the "evil dems" fault. But, I don't give them a free pass on what they did either, just like you don't give the GOP one.

And again, You think that maybe, just maybe, a person that thinks and reasons can have opinions that overlap with another subset? I also have opinions that overlap with liberal ideas. Does that make me liberal?

He who, no, I haven't seen that. I'm guessing that is deals with individual stories? Since I'm not on HULU, I cannot access it from your link.

Look, God knows I don't claim that the current system is "fair", but then we all know how I feel about that. I don't even agree that it serves the people the best way possible. But, I cannot see spending at least $1,500,000,000,000.00, the cost of which will be passed on to my son Sam and his kids as well for a system that will a)NOT WORK b)keep the country in debt for so long economic recovery will be ground to a halt for around a decade according to the Congressional Budget Office's new report c)give control of a significant portion of people's lives over to some faceless, unaccountable government employee and d) not even include the costs of such programs as medicade and medicare already in existence. So, the cost won't be 1.5 trillion, but exponentially MORE than what the president is saying.

Thanks. Just added it to the queue at Mega-Flix. Sounds a little like the book Barbara Ehrenreich wrote during the Nineties about the dubious joys of masquerading as one of the "working poor."

Writing here the other day, it also occurred to me: My household paid around 10K just for insurance last year (no attendant medical costs; those are separate). This is a major reason we probably don't owe taxes this year. Whatever we do end up owing, it's not going to be anything close to 10K, I'm sure.

I could readily argue that this represents a private corporation filching from the public welfare. These companies make huge profits, and yet they can leech off individuals to the point where we can no longer contribute in a meaningful manner to public tax rolls.

Yep, it's a fantastic system we've got here. On so many levels. :rolleyes: <strike>I really think it's time to bring back the guillotine, personally. Or at least tar and feathers.</strike>

Registration on Hulu is free and is only necessary for this program because of adult content.

To summarize the relevant parts: Spurlock and his girlfriend spent 30 days working minimum wage jobs. He did manual labor for a staffing agency, she washed dishes in a restaurant. They both encountered medical problems--he an injured wrist, she a urinary tract infection. Her medical bill cost more than $500, including $300 just for the ER. His bill cost about $700, including $500 for the ER and $40 for a bandage.

His girlfriend also had to shell out about $24 for a prescription and then couldn't renew it for lack of funds.

In one telling scene, Spurlock tried to vist the free clinic and, after waiting in a very long line, was turned away because the clinic was understaffed.

During this time, Spurlock and his girlfriend lived in a cheap apartment (less than $400/month) in a "tough neighborhood." How tough? The landlord admitted that an apartment below them had been a crack house. They did not have a car, so he rode the bus to work and she walked. They obtained furniture only after visiting a free charity store.

Spurlock's gift to his girlfriend for her birthday was playing in the park and eating out. However, they discovered that the busses didn't run past 6 p.m., so they had to take a cab home. (More $$.)

Of course, Spurlock and his girlfriend were able to walk away from dire poverty after 30 days. Some of the people he interviewed were not so fortunate. One couple depended on the free clinic to help manage their diabetes. Without the free clinic, what other options would they have?

Another point: I watched this show with a group from my church, which includes two doctors. One said that hospitals (or her hospital, at any rate) must treat people who cannot pay. This means, of course, that the cost of treating those who cannot pay is passed on to those who can--which probably explains why Spurlock's bandage cost $40. It sounds like we already have "socialized medicine."

As the so-called wealthiest nation in the world, can't we do better than this?

I'm glad you mentioned this. Ehrenreich's book is called Nickel and Dimed, and I've taught an excerpt of it to my comp classes. Recommended reading.

By the way, I should point out that Spurlock's program first aired in 2005, before our current financial meltdown. One of the less realistic aspects is that he and his girlfriend were both able to find jobs on the first day. How much harder is it to find employment for people who don't have a film crew following them around and who are looking for work in the present economy?

Well, HWW, that's why I roll my eyes when the President and his apologists talk about what a breakthrough employment coverage is. Even in a sound economy, yoking medical care to employment is (to my mind) a particularly hateful brand of social control. Thinking about it could make any sensible person into a Marxist overnight.

Even in "good times," you have people who hate where they work, or who want to strike out on their own with their own business. But because it's such a tricky tap-dance to move coverage between jobs (COBRA being not-so-cheap or permanent, of course), they can't.

One particularly loathsome mutation of this was on display when I still worked for the County. PT workers actually paid a higher percentage for their coverage than FT workers did. It was a money-saving maneuver worked out between AFSCME and County Government officials. So people who made less money each week actually shelled out a higher percentage of their pay than those who made more.

You had library clerks, for instance, some of the lowest hourly earners in the food chain, scrambling to get those "magic 33-plus" hours every week so they wouldn't get dinged when it was time to access coverage.

This also led to considerable ill will between FT and PT workers, especially considering that a great many PT workers wanted FT work, and couldn't get it. (There were even a few folks like me for whom the reverse was true.) Oh, our Local meetings were a beautiful thing whenever this came up, let me tell you...

:rolleyes:

GOP= Grand Old Party = Republican Party

DNP= Democratic National Party = Democratic Party

Or, as American Greens and other smelly outcasts like to call them:

The Corporate-Funded War Party and The Other Corporate-Funded War Party

Hear Hear.

I blame Canada.

WHO statistics for health care spend per person in the major industrial countries:

# 1 United States: 4,271
# 2 Switzerland: 3,857
# 3 Norway: 3,182
# 4 Denmark: 2,785
# 5 Luxembourg: 2,731
# 6 Iceland: 2,701
# 7 Germany: 2,697
# 8 France: 2,288
# 9 Japan: 2,243
# 10 Netherlands: 2,173
# 11 Sweden: 2,145
# 12 Belgium: 2,137
# 13 Austria: 2,121
# 14 Canada: 1,939
# 15 Australia: 1,714
# 16 Finland: 1,704
# 17 Italy: 1,676
# 18 United Kingdom: 1,675
# 19 Israel: 1,607
# 20 Ireland: 1,569


Virtually all countries except the US provide universal health care. In countries like here in the UK healthcare is free at the point of use. We don't have people dying through lack of health insurance yet we pay less than half the US cost. Does that not say it all?

Moral - pay less, get more by adopting the UK formula.

Where are these statistics from, SAL?

(Free composition tip: It's always a good idea to cite your sources. )

Sorry - World Health Organization - a few years old but the latest I've seen.

But it leaves out your higher tax rate and unemployment rate, both of which are fed off a more socialist system.

And the health care ISN'T free. Someone may not pay out of pocket for it, but it isn't free. The cost is just transferred elsewhere.

No such thing as a free lunch, or health care.

True, there is no such thing as free health care. Our current system is unsustainable due to rising health care costs. Our options are to pay through:

1) our government;
2) our employers -- leading to higher costs for the goods and services we consume;
3) out of our own pockets;
4) Some combination of the 1 - 3.

Those who are concerned (as we all should be) about the projected price tag of the current Democratic plan need to consider the price is going up under any of the above options. At which point do you want to pay more? The current Democratic proposals are solidly #4. That isn't socialism. Socialism would be much less complicated.

(snip)

So you're still gonna' insist that under, say, SAL's system, I'd be shelling out the equivalent of 10K a year in taxes, or more? Without being actually able to access the care I'm paying for?

Uh, I'm really having a hard time swallowing that idea. Luckily, it doesn't matter, since under President Hope, "socialized medicine" ain't even close to what we'll get. What we'll get is a system where everyone will be required to pay gut-busting amounts of money into a private system that still will be under no legal obligation to do what they're paid to do.

Wheeeeeee... If you listen carefully, you can hear a bunch of corporate fat cats salivating as they imagine millions of fresh pigeons being chucked into a big net for plucking.

On the plus side, I'm sure this will drive the bankruptcy industry to new heights of prosperity. So if mr_cleome can just snag himself a few extra freshly-plucked pigeons in 2010, I might be able to buy myself a mammogram and a new pair of eyeglasses by 2011.

I feel kind of sorry for everyone in America who wasn't smart enough to bag themselves a bankruptcy attorney, though.

Oh, well. Freedom ain't free, and all that.

(snip)

I read in The New Yorker a few months ago that if we acquire Socialized medicine, Stalin will rise from the grave and slaughter us all. Obviously the Euroes and Canucks on the board know this, and they just urge this horror on us because they hate us for our freedom.

And after we singlehandedly saved them all in WWII... The ingratitude just sticks in my craw.