Health Care per Person - NOT per Employer!
Tying health care to employment was a way that companies lured workers after World War II. But now look where it's led: Health Care has become entangled with gay rights! And not only that, the ridiculous question is being asked: Will Obama ensure the gay partners of government workers?
Why are we even in this position? If health care benefits were rights of each person, then whether you are gay or straight or celibate, man, woman, child, transsexual, bisexual - it would not matter!
So instead of simply advocating for single payer health care which functions like Medicare (tied to your social security number, not an employer), we would not have a ridiculous article in the New York Times this morning - woefully worrying: "What will Obama do? Will he ensure gay partners?"
Health care should not be something you have to marry to get! It should not be something you have to find a job to get! It should not be connected to your sexual orientation! It should not be something you have to worry about getting! FULL STOP!
Heath care should just be there! No questions asked. Except - may I see your Public Health Card?
Otherwise, look at the new issue that's being dreamed up here. Will gay partners be insured by the federal government?
Why are we even in this position? This just proves how insane the whole health care debate has become!
We need one simple refrain: Health care, a civil right, for each man, woman, and child!
Why are we even in this position? If health care benefits were rights of each person, then whether you are gay or straight or celibate, man, woman, child, transsexual, bisexual - it would not matter!
So instead of simply advocating for single payer health care which functions like Medicare (tied to your social security number, not an employer), we would not have a ridiculous article in the New York Times this morning - woefully worrying: "What will Obama do? Will he ensure gay partners?"
Health care should not be something you have to marry to get! It should not be something you have to find a job to get! It should not be connected to your sexual orientation! It should not be something you have to worry about getting! FULL STOP!
Heath care should just be there! No questions asked. Except - may I see your Public Health Card?
Otherwise, look at the new issue that's being dreamed up here. Will gay partners be insured by the federal government?
Obama Is on the Spot
In separate, strongly worded orders, two judges of the federal appeals court in California said that employees of their court were entitled to health benefits for their same-sex partners under the program that insures millions of federal workers.
But the federal Office of Personnel Management has instructed insurers not to provide the benefits ordered by the judges, citing a 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act.
Why are we even in this position? This just proves how insane the whole health care debate has become!
We need one simple refrain: Health care, a civil right, for each man, woman, and child!
Advertisement
Thera,
Terrific! Your last sentence should be the mantra for our healthcare program.
Thanks.
March 13, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you, Aunt Sam!
Thanks for your endorsement! :)
March 13, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Health care, a civil right, for each man, woman, and child!"
... except for those without the ID card.
Maybe I will write a post on Marginal Health Care Reform...
Meanwhile, where is your essay on the social responsibilities which go along with the social right you proclaim?
March 13, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims it. Please see quote below.
March 13, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please reread the question.
March 13, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.
March 13, 2009 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
As you know TheraP, I am fully in support of universal, single-payer health care as the only reasonable solution I've seen.
And you are right to call out the employer provided health care system we presently have as an anachronism that presents unnecessary problems, such as this nonsense about gay partners being afforded health care. If there was universal care as there should be, this would be a non-issue.
The transition from employer-provided health care to universal, however, will be a bit tricky to realize. It is vitally important that we not get some kind of cruel compromise here that could undermine both affordable health care as well as the middle class standards of living, such as they are now.
For example, let's say we move the responsibility for premium payment from the employer to the government. This would represent a windfall for the employer, one which would not be expected to be shared with the employee. The employer isn't likely to increase the wage rate for the employee in direct proportion to the savings realized. Yet, it is probable that the employees' tax rate will be increased to help pay for universal health care.
What is perhaps even a greater threat is the fact that once employers are relieved of payment of health insurance premiums, there is considerably less control of those costs. It would now essentially become an issue affecting only the workers, and we've seen how much clout workers have these days trying to stand up to all the other monied interests. I would expect the private insurance carriers - if still in the game - would react vigorously to the opportunity to extort more monies from workers to fatten their bottom line.
Ultimately, what I'm saying I guess is that you are right to call for universal, single payer health care. As the plan unfolds, we must be careful we do not accept anything less than that, or the insurance companies will be positioned to have our lunch even more than at present.
Keep up the good fight! I'm with you.
March 13, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your well-reasoned comments, Sleepin'. These are important issues. Nevertheless, it is crucial, to my mind, that health insurance be severed from employment status. It is all too easy for folks who become disabled to fall through the cracks. It is already an unfair situation that a married individual merits "more healthcare benefits" than a single person - thus, in effect, getting a higher wage.
I understand there may be a need to raise taxes. But already Obama is looking at taxing the wealthy. Also, if the govt insures everyone (or simply provides care) we won't need separate health programs for veterans or active military or the elderly or the poor. Fold in "public health" as well. Fold in Worker's Comp. Fold in the NIH.
Already we have a situation where the Obama administration has suggested that veterans who are employed and have insurance should use their insurance for health care, not the VA. Or pay a co-pay to the VA. If each person just has a Public Health Card, then you don't need to worry about HOW a person became sick or disabled or depressed or whatever.
Under our current crazy system, who you are, where you are employed, and how you got your problem for which you need health care becomes an issue. Was it a car accident? Sue the other guy's insurance! Was it Iraq? Go to the VA! Are you active military? Go to your base! Are you married? Can you marry? Did it happen at work? Or at home?
Nonsense!
If a person needs health care, there should not be so many systems set up - all of which turf the problem if they possibly can.
In my view, if we agree to single payer, then we solve the problems that arise. But many other problems that we currently have will disappear!
I know we're on the same side. I'll keep fighting. And you're bringing up good problems to be solved. We can solve them!
March 13, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am with you too on this TheraP. You point out the fact that reforming the health care system would get rid of issues we should not be spending our time and money on.
Jughead on mornin joke goes on an on about how the country cannot afford 300 million MRI's every year.
There are 250 million people who have some health insurance coverage and those 250 million do not have a right to get MRI's either. It is a stupid argument. But all jughead wishes to do is confuse the issue and that is what he is instructed to do when he receives his talking points memo from the rnc.
If you broke your leg, you need treatment. It does not matter that you broke it in your car, or on the sidewalk, or getting mugged or walking in your sleep or getting coffee for your boss.
Keep up the good fight like Sleepin says.
March 13, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been saying for a long time. It should not matter how you broke your leg! Or your mind!
Really, other countries must shake their heads and think: These guys are headed for a cliff!
March 13, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your premise is correct Thera, and there is no logical argument against universal health care, (or single payer IMO). I can't help but think this is all just smoke and mirrors, being parlayed by those with economic interests at stake in an effort to thwart the advance and acceptance of a universal single payer health care system in the US. The issue of insuring same sex partners is a 'hot-button' issue for some segment of the US population, that in the overall picture would have very little economic impact on the federal employee health care costs. It is a political gambit by the special interests to bait and switch issues from Universal health care to gay rights. In this case, the special interests are not just the insurers, large for-profit health care providers, and pharmaceutical companies, but also include the media outlets who profit by and depend on the BILLIONS of dollars in advertising revenues spent by those others. There will certainly be a major shift in the advertising revenue and employment distribution in the US WHEN universal single payer health care is at last instituted. The re-employment of multitudes of health insurance employees in other capacities will necessarily have to take precedence in structuring the shift. The advertising revenues will likely sort themselves out by themselves, and the media outlets will have to find other sources of income, or readjust operating expenditures in order to adjust to the coming paradigm. Those are the real issues on the table with the Universal health care debate. The rest of this is just political smoke and mirrors, to distract the American public from the real issue of wasted health care dollars lost to a 'for profit health care system'. As usual, Thera, thanks for posting.
March 13, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well put, amigo. :-)
Bait and Switch!
Smoke and Mirrors!
March 13, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
We will have to find a way to get there. I doubt it will be easy, and it's sadly obvious that it won't be in one step.
I do also agree that unless we do, at some point, and sooner rather than later, we are headed for the edge of the cliff.
March 13, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the meantime, we have nonsensical issues to deal with!
Maybe the Daily Show can take this one on too!
March 13, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Two words . . .
Human right!
~OGD~
ps: . . . and of course recommended
March 13, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thx. :)
March 13, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with health care as a right is it differs from all other rights in that no one else is required to pay for your right to free speech, or to bear arms, etc. Health care costs money, you assert that people have a right to something that someone else must provide. It is not free, and putting the gov't in charge does not make it free, it just means I will pay more for less, and some bureaucrat will decide how to ration care to me. No longer will I decide if I need a new hip joint, the gov't will say if I am young enough to deserve one. No thanks. I think the 85% of the country covered now are better off under the present system, and I don't want to do without for the 15% that choose to be uncovered.
March 13, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're paying for healthcare for the 18% of Americans that were uninsured in 2007 anyway dog. But we're going about it all wrong, by waiting till those uninsured condition deteriorates to the point where hospitalization will be required, thus driving our health care costs up. Compared to providing universal coverage to all, and being able to control a respiratory infection with a clinic visit and antibiotics, the cost of hospitalization for the poor, or indigent, or unemployed, or those who have slipped through the cracks of our current system due to pre-existing conditions, for full blown pneumonia pales by comparison. Your hip joint example may bea bit counterintuitive, in that the lifespan of a artificial hip joint is about 15 years, so, the cost of funding said surgery would effectively be decreased by delaying it for the young person who may need multiple replacements over his or her lifespan. You say, "No longer will I decide if I need _________". You really don't decide now. You still have to get approval from your carrier, who has a financial incentive to deny or delay your treatment. You further state, "putting the gov't in charge does not make it free, it just means I will pay more for less". Actually by expanding the pool of insured, removing bureaucratic waste, and taking away the profit driven modus operandi, health insurance costs should decrease. Why do you think Americans pay almost twice the per capita costs for health care that Canadians do? Do we get treatment that is twice as good? Why are our healthcare costs the highest of the OECD nations? Why are our health care costs growing at a greater rate than any other oecd nation, predicted to reach 20% of our gdp by 2016? It's time for change.
March 13, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is not insurance, it's cost. Increase the supply of doctors (force med schools to increase enrollment, allow doctors to immigrate easier), and off load some work to pharmacists and nurse practitioners. That would make more care available at a lower cost. Other countries have issues as well, like waiting times, lack of services, etc. People are routinely given a lower standard of care to save money, like xrays vs mri, etc. Or teeth pulled instead of filled. People die waiting for treatment in many of those gov't run systems. The wait for angioplasty is 6+ months in Canada, here its 24 hours.
March 13, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. The problem is cost. The wasted revenue in our private, for profit insurance 'system' is estimated to be between $480 Billion and $700 Billion per year, in overhead costs alone. Advertising revenues spent in the US by pharmaceutical cos. amount to another 70 Billion per year. And you think hiring more docs is gonna solve the problem? While we do have only 2.4 physicians/1000 people compared to 3.1/1000 for other oecd nations, I haven't seen any analysis of the problem that attributes our increased health care costs to physicians salaries. Source please? You say, "People are routinely given a lower standard of care to save money, like xrays vs mri, etc". The United States appears to have more magnetic resonance imaging machines per capita than many of the other nations examined, but the machines are used only 10 hours daily in the United States, compared with a median of 18 hours daily in other nations. The cost of an MRI in Japan is about one fifth of the US cost. You say "People die waiting for treatment in many of those gov't run systems". They die here too doggie. The United States spent $5,267 per capita for prescription drugs, hospital stays and physicians visits in 2002, compared with $3,446 per capita for Switzerland, the next highest spender. United States does not get commensurate value for its health care dollar.
March 13, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
In addition to increasing the supply of doctors, I should have also specified eliminating the ridiculous lawsuits they face. These lawsuits drive up the cost of care and the cost of drugs. If a drug gets FDA approval, and nothing was hidden in the application, then it should be immune from lawsuits. Doctors who are negligent should be forced to take additional training, or have their license revoked for repeat or serious offenses. Giving money to the victim simply punishes everyone with higher costs, and allows incompetent doctors to continue to practice. That's stupid.
March 13, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The average medical lawsuit in the US is lower than the same in Canada and Britain. That could mean several things, but regardless, frivolous lawsuits don't account for the difference between our health care costs and these two countries. You put a lot more confidence in an FDA approval of drugs than I do, (and I worked in the pharmaceutical industry for 6 years in a previous life). Pharmaceutical companies routinely exclud studies of their products in their pursuit of FDA approval that didn't support their claims of efficacy for their product. The FDA doesn't require them to do differently, so this is completely legal. The result is that we get a bunch of new drugs that are marginally if at all more effective than ones that all ready exist on the market.
March 15, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Free public education! It's a right!
March 13, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And shouldn't the families of all children have a right to free public health care?
It would be so easy to put a clinic in every school!
March 13, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm ok with putting a clinic in each school. Staff it with doctors who got their education paid for by a gov't grant in exchange for service.
BTW, education is also not a right, but a service. It is not listed in the BOR's.
March 13, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article 26
As for medical education, I completely agree that should be paid for partly or largely by the govt.
See my whole proposal for health care here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2008/11/obama-transition-asks-what-con.php
If you read that, you will see how this all fits together.
It's easy to criticize. Put together a whole health care proposal as a blog. And do a bunch more blogs on health care as many of us have. Show us your program.
March 13, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Link for Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html#a1
If anyone wants to put up a blog trying to argue that education should not be free, compulsory, and a right of every child, I look forward to having that discussion here at TPM!
March 13, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Free? Last time I looked I was paying thousands per year for that free education, and I have no kids. Why not charge the people using the system? Why should the parent of 9 kids renting an apartment pay zip and a single person with no kids pay thousands? It is ludicrous to claim education is free just because you have passed the bill off to someone else.
March 13, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take it up with your local municipality.
March 13, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You also pay for roads you may never choose to drive on, that are used to deliver food you purchase to eat, from stores staffed by the children you helped to pay to educate.
The reason education is a fundamental responsibility of a first world nation to provide to its citizens is that it CREATES a new workforce that otherwise would cease to exist. Imagine the environment in the nation if we had a whole generation of children with no skills because education was not provided to them, but only to those that could afford it. Health care is a responsibility of the society in much the same way, to insure that our workers can be healthy and efficient. It would have the added side effect of reducing overall cost, and availability of care in under served areas.
I do greatly understand the argument that better care could and should be provided to those that work to better themselves, and I understand the reason that people are against providing services to those who choose to not provide for themselves, but there is a better way to make an incentive for people to work than to refuse them health care and education. I would have 0 problem with forcing people who were unwilling to work to live in larger, cheaper, group homes rather than in government provided single homes. I would see no issue with restricting food purchases to a smaller approved list of items with food stamps, so that they were not allowed to purchase items that could be a luxury, like sodas or candies and cakes. I'm for stiffer penalties for fraud against welfare agencies, and finding ways to operate a government job placement agency, in the way that a temporary company operates, to get these people to working. I get it, people need to work for what they get, and we need to HELP with that problem.
You, frankly, are addressing the problem in the wrong way. People need education and health care as a way up and out into the workforce to better themselves and the country. Take away the things that are unnecessary, not the things that will help the lower class out of the situation they are in. There are smarter ways to cut costs, for some reason people just look at the issues in such a way they miss the real problem.
March 14, 2009 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Social Capital. Investing in education and health care is promoting the social capital of our nation.
On the other hand you've made some pretty outlandish claims, without any backup whatsoever. If you want to make claims as if they were factual, please provide links. Otherwise, your assertions about people not wanting to work appear to be your opinions. Not facts.
March 14, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can call them opinions if you want. At my business we have up to 8-12 people per month that come in around 2 pm on a friday to ask if we are hiring, and don't ask for applications. They know if they come in that way they can go back and say they were denied an application or job at one of their 2 places per month so they won't have to get a job. It is the same people every month. We offered to hire a couple of these regulars, they just didn't show back up on the property when they were supposed to start working.
I'm not sure how many people you know in my state that are on welfare or social entitlement programs, but by in large there IS work, it just isn't easy or great paying work. Given the choice between welfare/food stamps and free housing and a job paying minimum wage, a lot of people pick sitting at home.
I do understand that this is anecdotal evidence, that it wouldn't hold up to close scrutiny, but it is part of the actual problem. It is part of the republican argument. I can SEE their side of it, from personal experience, I just don't believe that they're right about where the cuts need to be made and how to solve the problem of people thinking it actually makes their situation worse to go to work. What I'm saying is, don't cut education, don't cut health care, don't turn people out on the street, just that there isn't much justification for the level of spending on lifestyle luxuries that is being paid for out of tax dollars, and that is where cuts need to be made to reduce the cost of social service programs. I'm saying he's attacking it from the wrong angle.
I'm sure its gonna be hard to find many mathmatically based studies showing this to be true, its not 100% of the problem either, I'm not claiming it to be. This problem existed BEFORE the economy took a dive, it still exists in part now, and it will exist after.
March 14, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your further thoughts and clarifications. I agree that cutting luxuries is the way to go along with making sure folks get education, health care, and the basics.
Peace be with you.
March 14, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Hmmmm . . .
I have no idea about you, but I pay dearly to provide for our country's citizen's combined rights to free speech and right to bear arms.
You ever heard of the defense budget?
Funny how some folks can't see that.
Go away ... You're bothering me.
~OGD~
March 13, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a stupid response. You would still be paying for a defense budget if the constitution were re-written and those freedoms eliminated, just like people in many other countries pay for their gov't. Health care is a product that is provided by other people, it is not a right like free speech.
If you want heat care to be cheaper, increase the supply of doctors. Offload work to pharmacists and NP's. Supply and demand works.
March 13, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Oh really ???
It's only deemed "a stupid response" due to the ignorant opinion of a moron.
Now back on your blanket and keep licking that third eye of yours under your tail.
~OGD~
March 15, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, and we give them health care, right along with uniforms and housing and so on! We house their families. We give health care to their families. Education too. Govt provided health care, good enough for our troops, is good enough for us too!
March 13, 2009 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Government provides the wonderful health care at Walter Reed. Thanks but no thanks. I'd much rather be free to choose my own health care provider.
March 14, 2009 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
.
But that's a red-herring . . .
If, and this is a big IF, HR 676 were to be implemented you wouldn't be receiving your health care services from Walter Reed, nor from a federal government controlled health provider.
It's apparent that you're blowing smoke through your asteroid orifice and you have never read the particulars of the HR 676 bill.
So ... If your personal health care provider is a qualified and licensed practioner within your particular state, then that shoots holes in this ignorant statement:
Next . . .
~OGD~
*Pissing in the cereal of the ignorant here at the Cafe since June 2005*
March 15, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like the record to show that, until I just rec'd this post, that the top 3 posts in the Cafe had to do with Cramer v. Stewart.
Damn you TheraP for writing such clear and coherent arguments for what's truly important in our lives!
March 13, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I accept the damnation! With pleasure! ;)
March 13, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post! One more very clear illustration why single payer is the only option that is a reasonable or even rational choice at this point in time for our country and our people. All other choices are impractical, unrealistic, will cost more and provide less. Why are we even fooling around discussing this at this point? The time has come!
March 13, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb, if only every senator and congress rep had to listen to you! :)
March 13, 2009 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
♪,
Forgive me in advance for the language I am about to use:
Until we DESTROY the FUCKING parasites of
AHIP and the FUCKING leeches known as Health
Insurance Companies we will be stuck in this
situation.
Heaven help "U.S." ALL.
I will keep pounding on these systemic cancers until... well.... I can't!
March 13, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have such a varied vocabulary! ;)
Thanks for stopping by. :)
March 13, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well... it's Friday afternoon, and I've logged off LeatherNunDiary.com long enough to peruse the Wikipedia entry for "universal health care". Aside from the grating details we all know too well (i.e., the U.S. is the only country unaccustomed to rat meat entree' without such coverage, Germany's had it since 1880, etc.), the arguments against national insurance in the U.S. is right out front: Health care is not a right. (They left out the unavoidable conclusion: If it's not a right, it's a product.) You'd think employers would be in favor of this coverage, since it would be a big burden off them.
March 13, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Health care in America. A product hardly anyone can afford!
Thanks, Curt!
March 13, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is really so disgusting, isn't it, Curt? Where is the "product" called health care? It's a service. Not a product!
A service like education is a service. A service provided to people, in every other industrialized country, as a right.
March 13, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great tag line Curt... 'Health Care: It's not a right, it's a product'. or... 'For-Profit-Health Care: Who's the sick bastid in this equation'.
p.s. Luv leathernundiary!
March 13, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fucking parasites is exactly right. Millions of desperate sick Americans living stressed and hopeless lives as bankruptcy and illness crush them in the prime of their lives. Americans have a moral blind spot the size of a mountain. The very idea that life and death is a "profit opportunity" is just a nightmare to the millions of honest hardworking people who's lives are crushed and wasted to make a handful of greedy soulless "businessmen" filthy rich. When do we take the blinders off and admit the moral bankruptcy of a system that REWARDS PROFITEERS FOR DENYING CARE TO SICK HUMAN BEINGS!
March 13, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thera, do you think it's OK to have whole industries making profit in the areas you consider RIGHTS?
Does the right to education include ballet dancing classes and lessons in etiquette?
Why is there a distinction between compulsory elementary education and merit-based higher education? Does UN charter mean that stupid or lazy people have less rights?
Does the right to healthcare include botox treatments and dental veneers? Colonic irrigation?
The problem with defining these things as rights is that these are services, provided by commercial or non-profit organizations, and they extend far beyond the minimum necessary for maintaining human dignity and life.
I don't have a solution to healthcare problem.
But I understand those who say people shouldn't be led to believe you can eat junk food and then have a free heart surgery, because the government will take responsibility for your actions.
In the end, I will support single-payer and most other ways to change the system. But you don't need to dress it up as a human right to force it through.
Everyone, except Democrats, hates taxes, but we all pay them. At some point everyone will accept that this is what we decided to do as a country and that's that.
March 13, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try to get any of that stuff from a typical, private, pay-as-you-go insurance plan today, and HMOs from around the country will line up to laugh in your face.
March 13, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Botox and Dental veneers? What about universal care would PREVENT anyone from going out and buying any vanity or luxury service? Nothing at all. The idea that basic care is held hostage to luxury extras is not at all suggested. Any rich person in America can surely find someone willing to take their money and buy happiness with botox.
The fact is we are being cheated now by paying the highest costs in the world for some of the worst outcomes in the world. Why don't these conservatives complain they are paying for a Mercedes and driving a Chevy?
March 13, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me the concept of healing as a human right dates at least back to the New Testament. You feed the hungry and heal the sick. Can't comprehend how we can't sell this in the Bible belt.
March 13, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup, I think you've put your finger on it. The claims of the nay-sayers are becoming so outlandish even the fundies won't buy them!
March 14, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a blog about health care. Not ballet dancing. If you want to discuss ballet dancing, please put up a blog for it!
As far as plastic surgery and other beauty treatments, those are beauty treatments. (Unless someone has been in a terrible accident or born with a cleft pallet.)
As far as health care not being a right, you are in an argument with the UN. Please go have it there!
People will argue till the cows come home over what to include in health care. My blog is not going to argue over minutiae. I simply am not going to waste my time arguing every little point. Please put up a health care minutiae blog if that's what you want to discuss.
Apparently you have a very circumscribed view of human rights. That's your choice! But guess what? When I call it a right, I'm fighting for you. I'm also fighting for trolls. I'm not excluding anyone!
March 13, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo's got a long, trollish history.
March 13, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a life. Posting against your own best interests. Thanks for the info. (I recall the avatar.)
March 13, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK then, when a pregnant woman gets high on ecstasy and causes a driving accident that requires facial surgery among other things, does that qualify as a tragic accident?
Unless you have the government actually investigate, you would be forced to choose: either continue with your blanket access approach or start excluding people just like the current system does, based on your subjective definition of what is a beauty treatment is.
On second thought - you wouldn't really care.
You're all about passionate blogging for the big beautiful ideas, as long as you don't have to get your hands dirty trying to figure how to make it work. That's not your thing, because you have no clue and it doesn't work well with lots of bold underlined sentences and exclamation marks.
I'm sorry I dared to disagree with you on your own blog. I should have read your responses to other people's comments first and figured out that you only welcome those who agree with your pretty pictures of how the world should be.
So, good luck talking to yourself, you're pretty good at it.
March 13, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peace be with you. I have no more to say.
March 14, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am for a single-payer system. I'd like for it to be in place now now now. I'm impatient for a health policy that covers everyone at a price they can afford.
And I'm getting plenty pissed at those who whine about people like me wanting 'something for nothing'...wanting 'free' health care. I never said I wanted free health care, dammit!
I'll gladly give a portion of my income for health coverage. But not $1839/mo! I have a friend in Canada with similar pre-existing conditions as mine. She pays $106/mo. And she didn't wait 6 months for angioplasty either. That's just bluster and bullsh*t from the pro-insurance groups. I don't give a crap about the insurance companies! They've been collecting our premiums for decades. They've made enough bucks off us.
I want my health care dollars to go towards the care of my health! Not to stockholders!!! I have the right to pursue happiness! How can I do that if I'm scared sh*tless all the time about having to sell my house to pay some outrageous bill because I had a f*cking chest pain????
I'm tired of fighting this fight, TheraP! I'm tired of all the mealy mouthed arguments in Washington,D.C. I know roadblocks like the same sex partner issue are gonna be thrown out there...there's gonna be dozens of piddly fart things like that to confuse the issue...but for cripe's sake! Somebody bust through 'em! Give us a health care hero to get behind. There are many with good intent and good ideas, but we need somebody loud and noisy outside of the Beltway that won't give up! Who is that person? There's got to be somebody.
Pardon my ventification. Maybe I should go take a pill or something. Oh, nevermind. I can't afford the prescription.
March 13, 2009 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have every right to be upset, flowerchild! Every right! Your words express the frustration of many who are voiceless. So it's good you have given them voice.
It is a tragedy and a travesty that a nation as rich as ours should have discarded so many human beings as if they were rubbish! It is a disgrace that so many people are "going without" at the same time that others are greedily lapping up far, far more than their share of the nation's wealth. It is shameful that some people are so selfish that they would deny care to their fellow human beings.
So thanks for your words. Of course you're tired of fighting. And you're tired that too many of the healthy and the wealthy are not fighting for you, but instead are fighting against you.
It should never be this way in the United States of America. How can people hold their heads high when so many are suffering?
March 13, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now you have me worried about you Flower. This is not fair. This injustice must stop. There are so many stories here. Bwak and Miguel come to mind right away. DAMN
March 13, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you, dd. Many people. Too many.
March 13, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink