Hillary's plan failed because of paranoid MEN who were freakin' on a woman who had GOOD IDEAS and didn't immediately get down on her knees to suck cock. That's what those good ol' boys are used to women doing. You don't talk with that mouth, baby, you SUCK ME with it!

It's truly sickening. Where is Dana when I need that beeyotch?

I disagree. I don't have a problem with health care providers being motivated by $$. Emergency services are available for all regardless of ability to pay, and I'm cool with that. I see no long term success in turning over our entire medical system to the government though.

I think this is from a overall political hang over from 8 years of Bush and 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Regan/Bush and 16 years of McCain knocking on the door. Clinton and McCain are more of the same ole same ole politics as usual inside The Beltway. Obama has none of that hang over stink. New, young, fresh, sure few can verbalize what they like about him, but they know they don't want Hitlery and McCain is like that old jar of mustard you have had for 6 months on your refrig door. People want something new. Obama is new. JMHO.

If we did it would fail. The American public wants 1) a quick fix 2) everything for free 3) cover all illness and treatments 4) don't want to wait for care. None of those things would happen in an attempt to cover 100% of American health care.

At this point, I don't have a real problem with any of the 3 real candidates left being president, though I prefer Obama.

I think Hillary would make a fine president. But if she were elected, it would be like having Dubya in there, only with an edge to the left instead of the right. Some people just hate her, similar to the current president.

McCain...I dunno. Again, I think he would make a fine president. But he's old, he has a temper, the Dems wouldn't really want him and neither would the GOP.

I try to look at candidates based on what they're presenting to me and what I think they might do (given who they are and what party they stand for). I'll be the first to admit that I don't know a whole lot about Obama's detailed stances. I looked at some of them last week and generally agreed with them...and that works for me. I think I know where McCain stands as well as Hillary. Some folks are already complaining about "the cult of Obama," but the guy is doing something right...I haven't seen this kind of energy for a candidate since...Bill Clinton. (Maybe a little for Howard Dean, but he shot himself in the foot early).

I'm not naive. If Obama is elected, he'll get muddled down at least some by the culture of Washington. But I'm willing to give him a chance to try something different.

I predict that if Obama does win and eventually become president, he'll be assasinated.

Rhoda used to fear electing a black president because of that very concern.

Someone mentioned to me a few days ago that the KKK is the fastest growing 'club' in the world.

I haven't researched it, but it wouldn't surprise me.

As a black person in power, that would have to be frightening if it's true though.

So what you are saying is pay attention to whom he chooses to be VP.:3eye:

Well, no I wasn't saying that, but it'd probably be an idea.

If VP is Clinton, there will be those who will say she was in on it.

So, Aliantha, will you assassinate him?

No, I think he'll make a great president for you guys. I'd definitely vote for him over Hillary if I had the choice.

I suspect it'll be someone who doesn't like him. ;)

The FBI is visiting UT's house as I type this.

Heh, now there's a reason to vote Dem! :lol2: :lol2:

If the discussion continues to be misogynists versus racists the Dems have a good chance of alienating the electorate and screwing up what should have been an easy win.

The Hillary dynamic is interesting. NPR interviewed a bunch of boomer women at a rally. I forget what was said that implied she wasn't getting a fair shake because she's a women, but the other thing they leaned on was how because she's a women she understands and represents them. Pete says she doesn't speak to her as a post boomer. The things the older boomer women fought for have been largely won but older boomers are reluctant to heal the wounds, which is necessary to consolidate the victory. If they keep opening the wounds they feed the conservative backlash. To me Sen. Clinton represents conflict.

Obama may speak to me because he's about my age and has seen the cartoon conflicts over serious principles from a tail boomer perspective. He is left of me on much domestic policy, but he's generally been on the money foreign policy wise. He acts like someone who understands the opposition and would make sensible compromises. I don't buy the inexperience line because I think experienced politicians are one of the biggest problems for our system.

OK, all the black people are saying that "Oh, they just don't like Obama because he's black" and all that. But haven't people noticed that black people vote for Obama on an 8-1 ratio? Reverse rasicm? I think blacks are more racist than whites. I bet if you went to a random black person's house and you asked them what Obama wants to do, they would either not know or just say "Change." Well, what kind of change does our country need? Is there people dying on the streets? No, so I guess we don't need that much change. Most of the "Change" we need is the individual person's fault. And about the war, SUPPORT IT. People come up to me ALL THE TIME and say "well you don't know anybody in the war" Obviously they don't know me. 3 of my cousins are in Iraq right now. They always say that most of the soldiers want to stay in Iraq to defend America. Also, if we pull the troops out, do you think the terrorists will get mad because America attacked them and won? Oh ya i almost forgot. There is no war! Iraq surrendered did they not? America created the 1st democracy in the middle east. Hopefully the surrounding countries will follow and do the same.

so to sum it all up, VOTE JOHN MCCAIN!

I can't see doing that X. We are into our 16th straight year of insane POTUS. I just don't like the idea of continuing that streak. That he gave up his mental health serving is admirable but he is still bat shit crazy and should therefor never carry the nuclear football.

One of the really interesting points raised in Sicko, is the way 'socialised medicine' has become a bogeyman in American politics. It's something I find very difficult to understand. You (lookout)don't trust your government to run such a system, yet you do trust insurance companies: insurance companies which routinely try to deny their responsibility to pay for treatment. I saw a website, think it was from a link here, about how to fight insurance companies for what you need. It focussed on the way the companies would try to deny when they have no right to...the advice was good, it told you what to say and how to say it...but you shouldn't have to fight for routine medical care.

You say emergency treatment is available to all. Emergency treatment doesn't cover such things as chemo, oxygen for those with lung conditions, cortisones for those with chronic skin conditions etc, etc.

In Sicko Moore examined some attitudes towards socialised medicine, and looked at the way the medical system in the UK and Canada has been portrayed in America as a failed system. Yet the same people who think socialised medicine means gurneys in the corridor and year long waits for treatment don't seem to percieve the massive health inequalities which exist on their own doorstep.

Many millions of Americans have no health insurance. Yes, if they break their leg they can get emergency treatment (followed by a bill and chased by debt collectors), but what about when they develop diabetes, cancer or goiter problems? What about the routine medical care they need for chronic conditions like asthma, eczema, psoriasis or emphacaema? Unless they are amongst the rather small group of people who qualify for medicaid, those people cannot access such routine care.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: health care provided by private insurance companies, or private hospitals are blinded by the need for profit. Their main responsibility is not to their patienmts it is to their shareholders. The insurance companies have a goal: to take in as much money as they can and to pay out as little as they can. How can that be reconciled with the patients' need?

[eta] again this is something I've said before, but I think it's worth repeating: I find it very hard to understand how the richest country on this planet, the one with the most resources, both physical and human, can have so many millions of its citizens living in fear of illness because they are unable to access medical care should the worst befall them. Third world countries have a decent excuse for such a situation, the wealthiest nation on earth, in my opinion, has not. Don'y mistake this as an attempt to bash America. I believe that America represents much of what is best in the modern world. But it also represents some of what is worst. The willingness to allow fellow citizens to languish in distress, uncared for and untended because they do not have adequate finances, or the right job, falls into the latter category. Even for those who have played by the rules and done everything your system requires (Like Brianna) there are still monumental gaps in coverage.

Being sick, whether just dealing with pain or distress, or actually fearing for your survival is hard enough. Having to cope with a massive financial burden, fighting for every bit of coverage you get, or simply having no access at all to the treatment which will cure or ameliorate your condition must be appalling.

Some of your complaints are actually addressed by Medicaid.

I don't know the exact number but I have heard that government pays for about 50% of all health care in the US. Shrug. So instead of a market problem, it becomes a political problem. Shrug. Maybe that would be better.

The gap problem is in the middle class... as always

We don't know all of Bri's situation, but we do know that she is going to survive a massive veiny tumor through innovations in treatment developed in the U.S. in the last 20 years. That is the ideal outcome, and whatever we decide, we must protect that kind of innovation at all costs. Free cures are no good when they don't exist.

Oh and we also think that Bri is receiving treatment before source of funds is guaranteed. We have heard they are treating her, but we have not heard that she has sold her house.

It is. Appalling. My condition could never be treated in an ER situation---"call the ambulance! I need chemo!" I doubt that would happen.

Along with all the physical body-image disturbance (plenty---you all should see my eyes and skin---ungodly!) the pain, the fatigue (huge), the depression, the fear of death comes the knowledge that I am going to be completely financially ruined.

Lookout--what if there'd been no truck to sell? What if you had been poor during those times with your wife and son? What if all of your furniture was made of particle wood and you were two months behind on the utilities? Would your wife or son be here?

OK. I"m done. I'm just feeling v. depressed today as the skin on my face looks like a road map, the whites of my eyes are yellow-ish and bloodshot and my fingernails have finally succumbed to the chemo; they are yellowish and thick and peeling apart. I have never felt so unlovely in my entire life and that includes the akward 'teen' years, too. :(

That is quite true. I am receiving treatment and funds have NOT been guaranteed. I live in a house that is "mine" in principle but not "mine" on paper. Another member of my immediate family holds the deed, not me. If they sue, there are no assetts for them to get (Unless they want my 1997 Buick; and they might want it).

I am making monthly payments to my oncologists office; the financial co-ordinater there said as long as I do NOT miss even one month of payment, they won't turn me over to a collection agency. I DO have collection agencies, associated with the cost of this care, after me. My mailbox is crammed full of bills daily. The cost of the radiologist's reading, the labs, the cost of the ER docs and hospital when I have been to the ER (once for pain, once for hyperventilation that lasted five hours, once for shortness-of-breath---ya'll have NO idea how hard chemo is to endure--And I'm not exactly the poster child for mental health/strength of spirit and courage, am I?) So---I see a psychologist, a therapist (a breast CA specialist) and my pain management doctor! Every little thing has a price tag attached.

What would you do if you were me? (i.e. "Poor")

I was poor. I had moved across country, changed careers. Had no equity in my house, only had bedroom and living room furniture. At that time we had a $120/month food budget. I lived on peanut butter sandwiches and tuna before all this shit hit the fan. I had JUST gotten a good job after leaving my previously shitty one. That truck was the only think I had of value. I fell behind on my house, and every single bill I had. I had to cringe every time the phone rang because I knew I would have to explain to another bill collector what was happening and pray that give me another 2 weeks before shutting off my electricity. If I hadn't had the truck to sell I don't know what I would have done. If we had lost the baby I would have been gutted.

I still don't want nationalized, tax paid healthcare. It isn't the government's job to take care of every little issue I have. National defense, trade, etc? yes. healthcare? no.

Dana - Insurance companies may suck but you can deal with them. they are businesses. If you don't like what you have you can fire them and hire another. Try doing that with nationalized healthcare.

What if you can;t hire one in the first place?

we do have coverage for those folks. medicare, medicaid, and every state has their own welfare type medical system. In Arizona it is called ACCHS. no you don't have to be dirt poor to qualify.

Insurance co. today are being very, very, VERY careful of who they decide to cover. Many people are told, "sorry, you don't qualify." so you can't just "decide" to fire one and hire another---especially if you have an on-going or previous condition!

I'm not trying to change your mind, lookout. I'm just pointing out my dilemmas.

i know brianna, and believe me that i'm not as cold hearted as this makes me sound. i really do wish that A) you weren't dealing with your illness, and B) if you had to that you had 100% coverage for the best care in the world. unfortunately neither A or B applies, but I still don't believe that the US taxpayers/government are the right group to provide care.

If the insurance company won't cover you and you don't qualify for medicaid, who is the best group to provide care?

The doctors?

Who pays for it? How many people are treated for free unless it is emergency treatment?

"the doctors" won't be willing to give on-going care to someone who has no ability to pay. If you cannot pay, you go to the ER for emergent care. the ER cannot and willnot cover everything. If you are nuts, thanks to Kennedy, you can go to your community center. If you have CA and have no ability to pay but you do not fall into the medicaid-poor population, you sell your house, your car, your whatever. Ok. Let's say there are some docs out there who are compassionate enough to give you treatment. I guess they can write you off on taxes, or refer you to some over-burdened, understaffed, underfunded agency who might take you in (but you'd better be good at being your own advocate) or just hound you with bill collectors until you wish you'd just died instead. :yeldead:

Yeah, their receptionists wants co-pay up front.

What's health care worth?

I mean, how much do you think a doctor's appointment is worth? I have a $20 co-pay on my health insurance; when I didn't have health insurance, it was $110. $110 for 10 minutes with a doctor that seemed to have no time for me.

Rhoda probably cost the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Federal Government $500K during her time there...her first time in the hospital in 2001 was $97K. God only knows what she racked up after she moved back to Maryland.

I'm not sure where I'm going here...I'm just wondering what all this health care and technology and what not is truly worth in the end.

Along those lines...I was in the ER several times in '04...I believe every trip was to Frankford-Torresdale Hospital in Philadelphia. During one of my trips there, someone from the billing office came in before I left to advise me that I had a $35 co-pay and wanted me to pay it right then and there. Not that I didn't have the money to pay it, but it was just off-putting how they came in while I was essentially still being treated to remind me that I fucking owed them $35!

You forgot about the pharmaceutical companies who exits only for profit. I wonder if they are behind the push for national health care? I mean, if everyone could afford to go get prescriptions for all the latest patented drugs they'd be making even more money than they are now! I mean, food and shelter are much higher on the hierarchy of needs than health care, why wouldn't we make sure everyone gets those for free first unless there's a hidden agenda?

Dana I've actually experienced health care at: a private clinic (completely elective and paid for out of pocket), a private hospital in a wealthy area (with good insurance), and nationally known inner-city hospital where they treat lots of people on medicaid (with good insurance). Guess where the care was the best. Guess where I would never go again because it was so awful.

When I was young and didn't have kids I also didn't have health insurance. I "couldn't afford" it. Well, technically, I couldn't afford health ins and all the other stuff that I wanted a lot more. Health care wasn't a priority of mine back then. It worked out fine for me, and when I got an entry level office job I got really good insurance as a benefit. Lots of other people that I know personally who either got sick or got pregnant when they were uninsured went on medicaid and are also doing just fine.

my mom was always a nervous wreck when i was working construction with no health insurance. i didnt get it until i got my furniture store job. i still hardly ever use it for myself. but....now that i have a family to provide for, it makes all kinds of sense.....expensive as it is. and it is really really expensive.

I had a similar experience the other day. I was in a restaurant and the waiter came to the table and wanted me to pay for the food I'd eaten, right then and there. What nerve!

If we know that healthcare as a business is screwing people over in the pursuit of the bottom line, and if we know that healthcare as a government office would be a nightmarish clusterfuck, then what about a third option: keep healthcare as a business, but regulate the greed out of it the same way we've regulated other business to provide a baseline of humane treatment, IE not selling us rotten meat, food with poisonous ingredients, cars without seatbelts, or airplanes that aren't inspected for safety before taking off?

Is this the right place to post this? I was thinking about this in the shower this morning...

With all due respect, HLJ, that's hardly the same thing. You choose to go to a restaurant, or not. If you need health care, there isn't much choice involved (except for the fact that poor people tend to not seek out routine health care or even put off seeking care when they think they may be ill due to the cost. This factor actually supports the universal health care idea.)

Shawnee, you're getting all serious. Please don't pay attention to anything I say about doctors. I've only been about 3 times in my life. (But people are always saying, "You should really have that looked at!")

:lol:

I should know your sense of humor better, eh?

But, please, yes...have that thing looked at. I think it's gotten bigger and greener.

Bigger is good.

Greener is not good.

Ummmm, no, bigger is not good in this case. You seem to have delusions as to what I'm speaking of. :blush:

Oh, is Obama a Muslim? Funny, he sometimes dresses
like one, according to a Clinton press release picture to Drudge Report.. More incompetency from the Clinton campaign, as it showed Obama dressing like an Kenyan/Somali, and wearing the suit well. Bet we won't catch Hillary Clinton wearing a kimono, no matter how many times she visited China and Japan. More of this silly season.

I don't know.. imho with the socialized healthcare, I think it sounds good on top but once it comes down to it a lot of folks won't like it. You are still paying for healthcare - it's not free. It's just coming out of your paycheck in the form of higher taxes... and not only will you be paying for your own healthcare, but you will be paying the healthcare of everyone not paying taxes. Folks not paying taxes are really the only ones getting free healthcare.

I'd like to see how they are going to work it out and how much folks will be taxed. And how they will work around the problems that other countries with socialized healthcare have.. such as being on a waiting list for important surgeries that we can get immediately here. Lots of people travel here to the US to get surgeries because of how poor the universal healthcare in their country is.

Now Clinton supporters resort to stabbing Obama supporters? Who are the real zealots?

There should be a few bucks from defunding the Iraq War.

Isn't the private health insurance industry government regulated in the US?

Well, one of the reasons this country is so rich with the most resources etc.. is because we are a Democracy and have a 'work for what you have' mentality. Socialized medicine kind of starts the road of destroying that. Lots of doctors and medical facilities will probably go out of business with universal healthcare, and getting a medical degree won't be such a great thing anymore, because you won't be making any more money than any other doctor - no matter how much you study to be the best in your field with additional courses etc... They also need to address how malpractice insurance will affect things.

As I said, I would really love to see the specifics of whatever plan they want to enforce so that we can possibly see the consequences that come with it, because I am sure there are many.

Haha, I know, right? Unfortunately they will probably tax us. At least, that's what they have said they would do.

Now Clinton is demonstrating the latest Saturday Night Live as evidence of bias against Clinton. Funny, unless one can say that a show Tina Fey making the best pro-Clinton statement of anyone else in the campaign season and Barack Obama in Blackface (ok, Indianface) exhibited signs of bias against Clinton.

I think I have more respect for Tina Fey, than Ted Kennedy.

Many of our NHS doctors also work in the private sector. We have socialised medicine, with everyone guaranteed medical care regardless of income; however, we also have private medicine for those who can afford it and choose to use it. Many jobs carry private medical insurance as one of their perks. Just because there is socialised medicine doesn't mean doctors can't make a mint.

Actually, the Washington Post, in its style section, dug around for a silly picture of Clinton it could run in order to compare something to the Obama photo.

They found this one to run.

Those are the worst Halloween Conehead costumes I've ever seen.

Even the process of regulation would be a nightmare. Which part are we going to regulate the hell out of and which part of the system (think business) are we going to allow to tank. There are so many elements involved. The providers are only one link in the chain. I don't have the answers but since I work in health care I see the problems every day.

All aspects of any insurance industry are regulated by the State. But that is a loose term, regulate, in the since they can charge what the market will tolerate, but they cannot over charge or discriminate in how they charge.

And if we go to universal care we will get the same thing. Just what people here are bitching about. A two tiered system. Sure you can get that knee replaced in 9 months, or you can go down the street to my office when I get off at noon and we can do it next week.

I know, I'm just trying to imagine a third, less evil option than the two evils that are always debated.

If the current system is said to be greed-driven, and a socialized system is foreseen as being operationally hamstrung, then maybe we could keep the operational structure of our current system but remove some of the profit motive. I know, that takes us out of the free-market, may-the-best-man-win arena, but in this case it's a response to the observation that maybe medicine shouldn't be treated like any other for-profit consumer product. And, in response to the observation that the government can't manage a business effectively (we all know to ship by UPS or Fed Ex, not the post office) we let the business continue to be handled by people who do business. The better players will adapt to the new rules, and rise to the top.

On a detailed level, I have no idea how you would accomplish this. But I know that there are problems with the current system that lead people to discuss the possibility of socialized medicine. And I know that there is strong, well-founded resistance to socialized medicine. Maybe, my thought is, there could be some kind of hybrid system. Let business do what it does, and the government do what it does.

There is precedent for the government "interfering" with business, for the common good. This would be a case where I think we could apply that.

The hybrid system you are talking about is sort of the ideas being floated by both the Demoncrats running now. A lot of people do not understand how the system works now other than there are people who are insured and those who are not, and that the poor get free care now, while those who work and pay taxes do not. This is the bit we need to fix and continue to keep it profitable for those of us who do it for a living to make a living. The system is so very complicated. The idea that we can in some way adopt a system from a country with the GDP of Vermont is fantasy. It isn't going to happen. So many other parts of our system would be effected by a radical systemic change. I say we work towards some sort of coverage like GAP insurance or something government sponsored and fix our TAX system, see where things fall out from that. I don't know the answers but I know where it is broken.