Some risky legislation

[Greenday]

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

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

[CancelMyService]

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

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

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

[Amethyst Hunter]

Clinton and Obama voted to affirm:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gravekeeper]

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

As for your candidates, speaking from the outside perspective:


Obama:

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

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


Clinton:

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

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

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

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

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



Mccain

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

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

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


Nader

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



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

[AFPheonix]

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

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

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

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

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

[IDrinkaRum]

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

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

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

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

[Boozy]

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

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

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

That's universal healthcare.

[IDrinkaRum]

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

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

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

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

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

[Greenday]

Ok, two things:

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

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

[IDrinkaRum]

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

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

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

[Seshat]

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

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

American specialists are sought after the world over.

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

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

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

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

So do I.

but it should be at the employment level.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You prefer your employer to do that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is it the employer's responsibility?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gravekeeper]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Seshat]

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

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

Emphasis mine.

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

[IDrinkaRum]

Seshat - We will have to agree to disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[IDrinkaRum]

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

Emphasis mine.

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

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

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

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