American Medical Care

[richard taylor]

I love the American people and have freinds there. I realise this
is a time bomb but here goes. Being English I have never understood the payment for Medical care in America the leader
of the western world whose hard working people many on low
wages being afraid to go to the doctor [because of money]
I have tried to figure this out, and think it goes back before the
Civil War. Each state being like their own little country in
themselves. To make a humane long awaited plan work now would be a nightmare. why not put a little on the taxes
throughout the whole country. In England the taxes are high, but
if are ill we go to our doctor [we can change doctors any time we
wish] the doctor sees you [No Charge ] he may give you prescription [No Charge ] if you are working you do have to pay
a little, £6 per item whether its 200 pills or ten. If the doctor sends you to hospital [No Charge ] you are seen you may be
siting next to a rich person it does not matter. We of course
can go private but thats our choice [thats freedom] I know its
said America is the land of the free. I am sorry but in my opinion
its not. I can even go into schooling, after normal school[No Charge] we can go to collage [No Charge] the goverment even
gives loans for living expense which you pay back only when you
get a job. American states being a law unto themselves are so
tangled up in insurance [Blackmail in fancy clothes] and private
hospitals that at this late date it will take some very fine
senators to end this horror you poor people continue to live with
in regard to Medical care. Until then I feal you do not live in the
land of the free, A small island far away in the north sea takes
that particular title.

[Rachel Bunting]

Sigh.
Another America-bashing thread?

Yes, our medical system can be viewed in an awfully negative light. I used to work for an acupuncturist, and spent a large amount of my employment there on the phone with insurance companies, haggling over which code to use to make sure that this particular treatment got paid for the same percentage as that one. A ridiculous waste of time.

Yes, living in America has its costs. Yes, medical care is expensive. I received an insurance statement after the birth of my first son: One ultra-sound, one amniocentesis, and a 2-day stay at my local hospital for the birthing process cost upwards of $50,000. I thanked God repeatedly for health insurance;
I also thought longingly of Anna, who was in England when her children were born - no charge for that!

However, we do have a lot of freedoms, ones that you can't put a price on.

I know it's this particular attitude - "I'm a flag-waving, staunch American" - that earns us our reputation of arrogance and conceit. But I am blessed to live in this country. I'm more than willing to pay the prices I'm asked at this point, for the ability to say what I think and feel.

Of course I know that America is not the only free country in the world - I look close to home, to our lovely neighbor, Canada. Of course I know that there are other places that offer many of the same freedoms that America does, and at a lower cost. But I like America. Sure, some of the things government decides don't make sense. Some of the things Bush does are stupid. Some of the words he says don't exist.

But it doesn't matter. Honestly, it really doesn't. We live where we live, and we have what we have. It's easy, of course, for me to say that, seeing as how I have a heck of a lot more than my next-door neighbor, for example. But really, what's grumbling going to do about it?

Rachel
forgive if I sound miffed. Am tiring of the States-bashing I've been encountering lately.

[richard taylor]

Hi Rachelb
Please belive me I am not America bashing I like Americans very
much, I just don't understand, when a young lady from this site
tells me she was worried I looked into the mess your great
country is in. Did you just say $50,000 for two days in hospital.
I am in shock.
all the best Richard.

[Kristi]

I'm on my third year of paying off a medical diagnosis that the insurance company deemed a "previous condition." Perhaps when I finally pay off this bill by possibly early next year I will have a bit of money to actually treat the condition.

OR I could use the wee bit to pay for a sampling of parent's medication / who with their 4 part time jobs still don't have medical insurance or the money to pay for one doctor's visit.

I hope ye holders-of-insurance-cards understand how extremely blessed you are!

[arthur_henry]

I'm with Rachel on this one.

Unlimited health care for everyone is not without its flaws either.

[Tony Smith]

Richard,

In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

Taxes in the U.S. are the redistribution of wealth. Approximately 80% of personal federal income tax is paid by 10% of the population - the wealthiest. The portion of the taxes collected which are not applied to general funds (funds which benefit all citizens, such as education, defense, and infrastructure) are then reassigned to thousands of benevolent programs both domestically and internationally. Money for a national health plan would be allocated from the balance fund. Easy enough - raise taxes, cut spending, whatever.

But it's not completely about the money. It's also about class struggle. Many with wealth feel they are already paying for programs which support the poor - housing, food, medical assistance, etc. - and in return get nothing more than higher taxes each year. They feel the welfare state never improves so there is no end to the government taking more. Many also feel that politicians wave these programs in front of their constituents in exchange for votes. The poor, on the other hand, simply want assistance in any way they can get it.

There is not an easy solution to this problem. Everyone currently has equal access to health care, but not everyone has the money. So, who pays for those who don't? And how much are the poor entitled to? Two classes, two differing opinions, both sides fighting their positions vigorously. I personally support some form of national health care, but only for those in the lowest income brackets. The lazy need to fend for themselves and those who cannot control their personal spending need to revisit their priorities.

Tony

By the way, insurance companies created this problem by eliminating competition in the medical fields.

[mattj]

I once heard it said (albeit rather tongue in cheek) that our healthcare system works great as long as you don't get sick.

I read somewhere (& I've done absolutely nothing to verify the accuracy of it) that 95% of our wealth is controled by 5% of our populace.

I also am familiar with the theory that conflict of the working & wellfare classes in the USA was created by & benefits, the above 5%.

matt

Originally posted by Tony Smith


Taxes in the U.S. are the redistribution of wealth. Approximately 80% of personal federal income tax is paid by 10% of the population - the wealthiest. The portion of the taxes collected which are not applied to general funds (funds which benefit all citizens, such as education, defense, and infrastructure) are then reassigned to thousands of benevolent programs both domestically and internationally. Money for a national health plan would be allocated from the balance fund. Easy enough - raise taxes, cut spending, whatever.

But it's not completely about the money. It's also about class struggle. Many with wealth feel they are already paying for programs which support the poor - housing, food, medical assistance, etc. - and in return get nothing more than higher taxes each year. They feel the welfare state never improves so there is no end to the government taking more. Many also feel that politicians wave these programs in front of their constituents in exchange for votes. The poor, on the other hand, simply want assistance in any way they can get it.

[richard taylor]

Hi Kristi
To me your reply is a Horror story I am very sorry for you.
I am in a state of shock.
take care Richard.

[Kristi]

Thanks, Richard, I wasn't fishing for sympathy, but I appreciate it all the same! The real horror is that after a year of being layed off, a sixth month temp job, 5 more months of unemployment, and finally another temp job -- I am working alongside single mothers with no insurance and the promise of never being hired on at this particular company. There are so few companies actually hiring employees right now -- My last position was opening the mail, where I (accidentally) discovered that the company I was working for was paying the temp agency TWICE what I was making each week just so they wouldn't have to give out another set of insurance benefits.

I would gladly pay higher taxes not to have to worry about what will happen if I break a bone or catch the sniffles.

[Norman_D_Gutter]

Hi Richard:

I'm a bit puzzled as to why this has suddenly come up. Perhaps there is some news story of the last day or two that I missed, and this resulted. Whatever, I guess in the Watering Hole this is appropriate at any time.

I have lived under the US system for 46 of my 51 years. The other five years were split evenly between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. In Saudi in the early 80s, I broke my thumb playing softball and required an operation to put it back together again. The Abdullah Fouad Hospital demanded I pay $1,000 up front for the surgery, the rest covered by the government. In Kuwait, in 1988 till Aug 2, 1990 (till Sadaam drove me out of my comfortable expatriate home), I had many encounters with the health care system. Despite 100 percent government payment of health care costs, and despite the world's highest per capita income, the health care stunk. The controls that came with the government program (one of life's four great truths: he who pays the bills calls the shots) made the system terrible, despite competitive salaries for health care professionals and some excellent medical staffs, facilities, and equipment.

But, that is merely annectodal. I never want to live under that kind of system again. I never want to think that the government owes me health care, or that I should be so foolish to think it is to my benefit to have someone else pay for my health care. I will be careful with my health, frugal with my resources, and pay for my own health care, relying on catestrophic insurance for what I can't pay for.

I think, though, that your original post requires some translation [in [COLOR=red]red[/COLOR]].

"Being English I have never understood the payment for Medical care in America the leader of the western world whose hard working people many on low wages being afraid to go to the doctor [because of money, [COLOR=red]i.e. they don't know the incredible amount of help available for the poor; it's so much that no poor person should go without any health care in this country[/COLOR]] I have tried to figure this out, and think it goes back before the Civil War. Each state being like their own little country in themselves. To make a humane long awaited plan work now would be a nightmare. why not put a little on the taxes throughout the whole country. In England the taxes are high, but if are ill we go to our doctor [we can change doctors any time we wish] the doctor sees you [No Charge[COLOR=red]-because the cost was pre-paid with your taxes[/COLOR] ] he may give you prescription [No Charge [COLOR=red]-because the cost was pre-paid by your taxes[/COLOR]] if you are working you do have to pay a little, £6 per item whether its 200 pills or ten. If the doctor sends you to hospital [No Charge[COLOR=red]-see above[/COLOR] ] you are seen you may be siting next to a rich person it does not matter. We of course can go private but thats our choice [thats freedom] I know its said America is the land of the free. I am sorry but in my opinion its not. I can even go into schooling, after normal school[No Charge[COLOR=red]-because the cost was pre-paid by your taxes[/COLOR]] we can go to collage [No Charge[COLOR=red]-because the cost was pre-paid by your taxes[/COLOR]] the goverment even gives [COLOR=red][actually nothing is given--unless payback is not required] [/COLOR]loans for living expense which you pay back only when you get a job. American states being a law unto hemselves are so tangled up in insurance [Blackmail in fancy clothes[COLOR=red], i.e. due to workers demanding such extraordinary benefits that insurance has become nothing more than prepayment of costs called "managed care"[/COLOR]] and private hospitals that at this late date it will take some very fine senators to end this horror you poor people continue to live with in regard to Medical care. Until then I feal you do not live in the land of the free, A small island far away in the north sea takes that particular title."

If freedom is define by having someone else pay your way, I want no part of it. Give me the satisfaction that says I paid it myself any day. I hope a few more senators don't throw the public good away to expediency of buying votes.

Best Regards,
NDG

[earthshoes]

I am among the uninsured of the nation. It is not a pleasant situation to be in.

Oh. My husband has access to insurance through work, but the deductible is so high that the insurance company will wind up paying for next to nothing--unless we have some major medical catastrophe, at which point they will pay for something like 80% of it (after the deductible)--leaving us with the other 20%--which can amount to so much money we might as well pay it all. Then there are all the limitations--which doctors we can go to (an hour or more away) and what it will and won't pay for.

What does this mean? This means that our family and thousands upon thousand like us just don't go to the doctor unless we have no other choice. It means that when the doctor determines that what we have is indeed serious enough for further care, he then asks, "Do you have health insurance?" When we reply that we don't, he then says something like, "Well, then your best option is . . . " (To wait and see . . . To try this antibiotic and hope it works . . . To let me run one blood test and hope that we can find the answer without running more . . .) instead of offering us the best option available.

Fortunately, my kids are healthy apart from the occasional bout with the flu, tummy viruses, and that kind of thing. So far (knock on wood) there have been no broken bones. We are fortunate to have no cavities, no ear infections, no strep throat, and no chronic health problems.

Am I a fan of socialized medicine? I don't know. I do know that I resent paying premiums to a company who then looks for excuse to avoid paying any of my medical bills--which is the reason why we pay the the premiums in the first place. It is hard not to see it as a scam. I don' t see anyone holding the insurance companies accountable for their high rates and poor coverage. It seems to me that it is time for some kind of a change.

[mattj]

I'm not sure what the solution is, but it does seem to me that there must be a fundamental problem with a system where a large percentage of the populace isn't insured through their employer (or can't afford their bills if the cost of their employer-insurance is deducted from their wages) & can't afford outside medical insurance or the price of medical care if not insured. I know that limbaugh says "...just go to the emergency room, you'll never be turned away..." but that wi;; only take you so far.

Our experiences as expatriots in the KSA were quite different Norman (but having different experiences is not unusual in itself). I spent a couple of years in Ryadh working for a Swiss/Saudi company in the mid eightys when ronnies trickle down theory wasn't making it as far down as I apparently was. I had a tonsilectomy which turned into a bit of a medical fiasco (I guess there is credence to getting it done young) & although the bills were quite high I didn't pay a dime out of pocket. I've a friend who went to the (pronounced Al-Korea) hospital for surgery on his cervical vertebrae, & although I'm not absolutely certain, I don't think he spent any money out of pocket.

Although our experiences as expats were different, perhaps the 1000$ up front was because you were an ex-pat?
matt


Originally posted by Norman_D_Gutter




I have lived under the US system for 46 of my 51 years. The other five years were split evenly between Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. In Saudi in the early 80s, I broke my thumb playing softball and required an operation to put it back together again. The Abdullah Fouad Hospital demanded I pay $1,000 up front for the surgery, the rest covered by the government. In Kuwait, in 1988 till Aug 2, 1990 (till Sadaam drove me out of my comfortable expatriate home), I had many encounters with the health care system. Despite 100 percent government payment of health care costs, and despite the world's highest per capita income, the health care stunk. The controls that came with the government program (one of life's four great truths: he who pays the bills calls the shots) made the system terrible, despite competitive salaries for health care professionals and some excellent medical staffs, facilities, and equipment.





I am sorry but in
If freedom is define by having someone else pay your way, I want no part of it. Give me the satisfaction that says I paid it myself any day. I hope a few more senators don't throw the public good away to expediency of buying votes.

Best Regards,
NDG

[garyg]

Just a few first hand experiences:

I've lived in Canada for over 20 years.
Four years ago my son almost died from a rather severe bout with viral meningitis. He was airlifted out to the nearest city. He was in intensive care for two weeks, and in the hospital for another three weeks after that. I had to pay less than $100 to the provincial ambulance service for the airlift. A realistic estimate of the total medical costs for this little adventure was between 45,000 and 60,000 Canadian dollars, maybe even more than that. People pay a monthly medical premium which is pegged to total family income. Those below a certain income pay nothing at all.

I lived in the United States for over twenty years, and still have friends and family there.
I know people who have serious medical problems who don't go to the doctor because they can't afford to.

Most North Americans regard Greece as a second world country. We lived in Greece for a year when my son was an infant. He was running a high fever and was having trouble breathing one night, and we took him to a hospital in downtown Athens. They treated my son, gave him a chest x-ray and prescribed some medicine. We were certain that there would be some user fees as we were foreigners. When we asked the doctors how much we should pay, where we should pay, etc. they looked at us like we were fucking insane. Of course there was no charge whatsoever. One of the doctors spoke excellent English. He asked us, "What kind of society would charge money to treat a sick child?"

The Canadian healthcare system is in serious trouble, and it seems like some user fees are going to be a reality in the near future. I think we might be headed toward the British National Health model of the parallel public/private systems.

I don't think the US will ever have universal health care of any kind; if any of you don't know the reasons why, you should do a little research.

Spare me the jingoism.

Richard, learn to proofread, your writing is painful to read.

"What kind of society would charge money to treat a sick child?"

[Kristi]

"...just go to the emergency room, you'll never be turned away..." They certainly won't turn you away, but they will charge you $600 for one steroid shot.

I feel so naive having read this thread. I had no idea medical care was so much more available in other countries.

[Jordana]

Originally posted by garyg
I don't think the US will never have universal health care of any kind; if any of you don't know the reasons why, you should do a little research.


Did you mean this as written?

Or did you mean "I don't think the US will ever have universal health care...?"

J
(genuinely curious)

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jordana
Did you mean this as written?

Or did you mean "I don't think the US will ever have universal health care...?"

J
(genuinely curious)


That was a bad typo which I just fixed.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Maybe I should learn to proofread.

[Jordana]

Thanks for clarifying.

(I'll admit I was intrigued as to where the debate would have gone had you meant the former, though.)

[Kristi]

Ditto, Jordana, I was waiting for someone to enlighten me about how things were going to get better.

Shucks.

[Nanphi]

I have an American friend here, aged 62, with a chronic health problem that he says would make him uninsurable in the US; he worked there in his youth for a few years, but never paid in enough Social Security to qualify for any retirement benefits or for Medicare. Therefore, he says, he can never risk going back to the US to live. He intends to remain in Italy, where he has a residence permit and access to the Italian health care system, which is similar to the one in the UK: a parallel public/private service.
The public no-frills service is more than adequate and covers all necessities except medicines not administered during a hospital stay (although particularly expensive ones or "life-saving" medicines are generally free or available at a greatly reduced cost). Some analyses, specialist visits, and services require a small, fixed "contribution" that most people find affordable.
Generally, one gains access to the public health service either by working (thereby paying in a small percentage of one's salary every month) or by being the family member of a worker, but it's also possible to sign on as if to a private insurance company and pay a yearly fee. Retired people or the unemployed (as long as they stay registered as such) pay nothing. One can opt for a mix of public/private: free surgery, for instance, but a private hospital room that is charged for (the ordinary ward would be free).
Earlier this year my husband was in the hospital for 15 days for a serious operation; we paid absolutely nothing. We tend to pay volontarily for some things, such as our dentist and occasionally analyses, just to avoid waiting in line to make appointments and thereby cut some of the red tape associated with the system, but in my experience I've found it reasonably efficient. When I need something that's not too expensive and don't want any hassle or delay, I pay; otherwise I use the public health services.
The US "system" scares me. Last time I visited there, I first took out a short-term insurance policy just in case "anything happened". I can understand my friend, who isn't wealthy, not daring to go back there for his old age.
- Nanphi

[mattj]

Kristi,
I'm inclined to feel that in certain sectors of our society things are not going to get better any time soon.

I also feel that there are other sectors of our society that are well enough insulated from what some of us percieve as a problem, that they don't feel a need for change.

I think this division plays into the hands of the establishment quite well.

later
matt

Originally posted by Kristi
Ditto, Jordana, I was waiting for someone to enlighten me about how things were going to get better.

Shucks.

[Dunc]

Australia in the early 70s moved from a subsidised insurance model to a two-tier sort of thing called Medibank (which under one of its numerous revisions got renamed Medicare). In the original model, you went to the general practitioner of your choice and he treated you at 100% govt fixed subsidy. Some specialists and all hospitals were also free to the user. If you wanted the specialist and hospital of your choice when something serious happened to you, that would cost more but you could insure fairly reasonably for it. But by not increasing the subsidies over the years as inflation eroded their value, the government has let everyone except hospitals put a premium on top of the govt subsidy. Instead they encourage, by ads and tax rebates &c, people to take out medical insurance, which has the same benefits as of old but takes some heat off the public purse. Depending on what you insure for, and how old you are when you join, it's about two or four thousand a year.

Even so, the system is pretty cheap at practical levels, and very good overall. I saw my GP for annual check-up - a 20 minute visit - recently, and paid $Aus 40, of which the government will refund me $28. (You can, though, find more expensive GPs than mine.) The govt also paid for one blood-test that was involved. And if I wanted to go to a hospital and wait for a few hours, I could get medical care for nothing.

We also have a government subsidy for pharmaceuticals. Once the drug you need has been put on the list - not all drugs are, but some very pricy stuff is there - AIDS, arthritis, most of the cancer stuff - then you pay whatever it is (I think I paid $Aus 23 for my last prescription) and the govt pays the rest. Even cheaper if you're a pensioner.

All health care here is under two pressures. One is the increasing cost of medical care, as techniques and machines get more expensive and the market sends specialist fees up and up, and everyone thinks of ways to increase their income eg nurses doing special courses &c. But the other is the Baby Boomers bulge in the Australian demographic, and indeed in most of the First World's demographic. A whole lot of people are reaching the age when, even though probably delayed, they retire or can't continue, and become as costly to the government - in medical care and pensions - as they'll ever get. When they're all dead in twenty years' time, things will, I gather, ease off.

So a strong sub-text of the present conservative government in Australia is the management of these costs - by sneaking back to politically unpopular user-pays where it can, by encouraging folk not to retire if they don't have to, and so on. No doubt it's similar elsewhere. Regards / Dunc

[Kristi]

Kristi,
I'm inclined to feel that in certain sectors of our society things are not going to get better any time soon. Hey, Matt~ Actually my "religion" gives me reason to believe that nothing will get better, right before it all gets worse. Of course, that's a different thread entirely!

Kristi
*Not pessimistic, just realistic

[Rachel Lindley]

Since we are in the process of having a very large aging population in the First World, most medicare systems are feeling the strain, be they private or public, and most of them will have to do some serious restructuring and rethinking of their approach to healthcare when these changes get into full swing.

Whatever happens, I vehemently hope that Canada never realizes a fully private health care system, because like the Greek doctor, I am baffled by it. I have had a number of major surgeries due to injury and disease, the worst of which was brain surgery of a very delicate kind. I am not a wealthy person. Neither are any of my family members. If I had been in the US, there are 2 possibilities I may have run into: I could have had surgery performed by a doctor in a less-than-superb hospital, or I could have owed hundreds of thousands of dollars for the rest of my life because I almost certainly would not have been able to afford insurance premiums at that time. In Canada, I had one of the best neurosurgeons in North America perform my surgery, and I paid nothing. Now, I would have been willing to pay monthly premiums or somesuch, and I hope that Canadian legislators make some hard decisions, regardless that they're going to lose some votes. However, I am glad that I was not in the United States when this happened, because I can't help but think that I would have been dealt decades' worth of punishment with huge debt or, worse, with possible brain damage from badly performed surgery, just for getting sick when I was poor.

Rachel

[mattj]

Actually I think most of the things the govt. does actually do make sense. If you're in the correct 5% of the population that is.
matt

Originally posted by rachelb
Sigh.

Sure, some of the things government decides don't make sense. Some of the things Bush does are stupid. Some of the words he says don't exist.



Rachel
forgive if I sound miffed. Am tiring of the States-bashing I've been encountering lately.

[Rachel Lindley]

Originally posted by rachelb
Sigh.
Another America-bashing thread?

Rachel
forgive if I sound miffed. Am tiring of the States-bashing I've been encountering lately. OK, I don't understand this. It's been coming up for the past year or two, and it's ridiculous. Neither now nor in the past have I noticed criticism of social, economic, or political issues in the United States being any more pronounced than the criticism of social, economic, or political issues in any other country. All I can figure is that a number of inhabitants in the US have only recently become aware of any such criticism at all, which is why they're overly sensitive and start tossing around the "bashing" banner. Frankly, it's childish. It reminds me of a five-year-old on a playground grabbing his ball when his little friends won't play the way he wants to and running home, crying. This criticism you're reading, hearing, watching -- you think the US is somehow special in how it's being targetted? You think it's any worse than it ever has been outside the US? You think we don't say the same and worse about our own countries? If so, I suggest you start reading, watching, and listening to some non-US news. It isn't.

Informed criticism of any system is absolutely imperative in order to have a healthy, open, non-corrupt environment, be it in the workplace, at home, or in government. Whether or not you agree with the criticism is your own prerogative, but don't take the easy way out and put the bashing card on the table. Provide legitimate debate, concrete rebuttal, something that has weight and that other people will be more likely to listen to besides "you're bashing, you're bashing!", which just reads like a lot of whining.But really, what's grumbling going to do about it?It's called "change". And "grumbling", as you put it, instigates change. No major discovery, no new nation, no great anything was ever built by lots of really happy people. Including the United States of America. It was formed, and its constitution was formed, from, among other things, a deep-seated discontent and criticism of the status quo, of how things were being run in the US by the British Empire. New nations are born from discontent. Existing nations are changed by discontent. If there's a problem, say so. Otherwise, nothing changes.

Rachel

[Tony Smith]

Originally posted by Rachel Lindley

Informed criticism of any system is absolutely imperative in order to have a healthy, open, non-corrupt environment, be it in the workplace, at home, or in government.

Well-stated, Rachel. Change comes slowly in the U.S., but change does come. Unfortunately, the issues can sometimes be so sensitive on both sides that lines are drawn and civil unrest sparks radical movements. We've been through one civil war, as have many other countries, over issues which tested cultural and ideological strengths. Fortunately, we as a country survived. Others haven't been so fortunate. I've believed for years that this country is headed once again in that direction.

Although the generally well-intentioned founding leaders of the U.S. put a good deal of thought into our constitution, drawing from both their collective experience with the British government and the will of the new citizens, they were not visionaries who could reach 200+ years into the future and draft the document based on today's issues. These matters are vast, complex and have both positive and negative impacts. As a matter of law, this issue should be mute. However, the constitution no longer provides basis for the law of this country. Politics do. This political battle can be summed up on the conservative side by the words of South Carolina Senator William Draden: "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?" Draden made that comment in 1828. In the 175 years since, battles over this very issue - appropriations - have been fought from the House and Senate floor all the way to the Supreme Court, and the battles have always been political.

Even though the majority here would benefit from an organized, government-supported health policy, many of them already have (sometines-worthless) insurance through their employers and would rather join the ranks of the wealthy in their battle against national health care than put their trust in the government to properly manage the system. In short, they don't want their health care to go the way of other mismanaged government agencies such as the Social Security Administration. In the end, however, change will come by way of compromise. Or we fold.

Tony

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tony Smith

Well-stated, Rachel. Change comes slowly in the U.S., but change does come.


"Democracy is comin'
to the U S A."

Leonard Cohen

[arthur_henry]

Just thought I would add one current advantage to the US system (although I don't advocate the system that we currently have in place).

If the US were to go to socialized medicine a la Hilary Clinton's plan about 10 years ago, that would mean that the government would force the pharmaceutical industries to provide drugs at practically cost.

Currently, one the biggest pharmaceutical companies, MERCK, spends about 1 billion dollars in research and development of new drugs every year. Everyone talks about how a drug costs a few dollars to make and then is sold for hundreds of dollars, but what they neglect to include is the cost of R&D which is practically everything (estimated cost of bringing a single drug to market is in the hundreds of millions). Of that 1 billion that Merck spent in 2001, they had not a single drug hit the market. That means someone has to eat that cost, and it sure as hell ain't gonna be them, and if it is gonna be them (ie, socialized medicine) then they aren't going to be spending the money on R&D because it just won't be profitable.

While we would all like the pharmaceutical industries to have a heart and make drugs because it would benefit mankind, the reality is that they are a company, and are looking only for profits (well, not only, sometimes they do make a drug that won't be profitable, but that is seldom).

On a side note that is why a cure for AIDS would cripple the industry, because a great deal of its profits comes from selling massive quantities of expensive treatments.

Anyways, take away the companies profits from R&D, as would happen should the govt. take over health care, and you take away the impetus to research and develop new drugs.

That doesn't mean that I agree with the current system of healthcare which really sucks. My brother is also currently a medical student and he tells me that some experimental drugs they prescribe in a last chance to save someone's life, often don't even have a chance of working, as they are a primer that would effect a later experimental drug, or, frankly, are some scientist's intellectual masturbation ("gee, wouldn't it be neat to see what would happen if we tried this").

Just thought I would add that.

[Tony Smith]

Originally posted by garyg

"Democracy is comin'
to the U S A."

Leonard Cohen

Democracy as defined by dictionary.com:

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Although Items 1, 2, 3 & 5 loosely describe our nation's governing format at the federal level, Item 4 does not. The U.S. is a republic comprised of 50 *independent* democracies sheltered under the umbrella of a single constitution. This is precisely why Gore gained the popular vote but lost the election.

On a personal note, sorry to hear of your son's problems. Happy it worked out for you, though.

Tony

[Harry R]

It's interesting. I can sympathise with (though I don't, in the end, agree with) all the general arguments against a welfare state - why should the hard-working and prosperous pay taxes to support the idle and feckless?

But if the question is - why should the hard-working and healthy help the sick and injured? it seems a rather different thing.

Any of us might become sick, through no fault of our own. If we're unlucky enough to have the kind of illness that needs radiotherapy, or CAT scans, or neurosurgery, or 24-hour long-term nursing care, or newly-developed drugs, or a helicopter airlift to the hospital, then very few of us could easily find the money. What better use of the tax system could there be?

Harry

[Porter Doran]

Hear hear. I wish only for my country what I wish in myself: justice, integrity -- and compassion.

[richard taylor]

I would like to thank you all for the interesting replies to this
serious subject. I was particularly impressed by Krispy's
comments. In regard to my own country the day the then government in office passed the national health bill, was one
of the great days in our society. One last note, I was wondering
how doctors are paid. My niece works in a large doctors has a
medical receptionist. It seams the doctors receive a fee for each
person registered with the practice, this is their basic salary.
They supplement this by working at the local hospital, and
emergency-twenty four hour on call [visiting patents at home]
Hospitals receive income from the government yearly, the
hospital managers then divide this in respective departments.
I know they are many faults but I have never paid to see a
doctor and I never will.
regards Richard.

[Urizen]

Originally posted by Rachel Lindley
OK, I don't understand this. It's been coming up for the past year or two, and it's ridiculous. Neither now nor in the past have I noticed criticism of social, economic, or political issues in the United States being any more pronounced than the criticism of social, economic, or political issues in any other country. All I can figure is that a number of inhabitants in the US have only recently become aware of any such criticism at all, which is why they're overly sensitive and start tossing around the "bashing" banner. Frankly, it's childish. It reminds me of a five-year-old on a playground grabbing his ball when his little friends won't play the way he wants to and running home, crying. This criticism you're reading, hearing, watching -- you think the US is somehow special in how it's being targetted? You think it's any worse than it ever has been outside the US?


Anti-American sentiment has increased worldwide over the past two years. Type the words "Anti-American sentiment" into any search engine and see what you come up with.

Obviously, and maybe with fair enough reason, this is due in large part to the war in Iraq. The criticism might not be any "worse", as you say, but it's certainly more pervasive. To deny that is simply an evasion. And a lot of the criticism can justly be regarded as "bashing", if it's based on sheer prejudice, misinformation, or heavy-handed alarmist rhetoric. Or do you suggest that all of the criticism directed at the United States is objective, fair, and reasonable? We may be obliged to acknowledge criticism, but we are also at liberty to expose bullshit for what it is. If I see people suggesting that seven year old kids expressing simple gratitude for their good-fortune are being methodically and diabolically indoctrinated into some evil system or "machine", I'll wave the "bashing banner" as obnoxiously as I please. But since I have a high respect for other people's property, if Bela tells me to shut up, you won't hear a peep out of me, at least not here.

I don't resent honest, informed criticism of this country or any other. And I really don't know many people who have "only recently become aware of any such criticism at all", except for children. I suppose such people exist here, since ignorant and naive people exist in every country, but I haven't encountered any of them. If I had a dime for every time I heard someone start a sentence with "That's what's wrong with this country...", I'd have one big-ass pile of dimes. I grew up listening to my father explain to me in detail why "this country" was going "down the tubes", or "into the shitter". I've become a bit like my father myself, and have more than my share of unflattering critical opinions of the U.S.A.

Two years ago something pretty nasty happened over here. People were scared and upset, and suddenly there were more flags. It's natural that the patriotic sentiments of a people will be more in evidence after such an event. After the initial sting wore off, it seemed apparent that a lot of Americans wanted to take the blame on themselves. There's a lot of guilt here, and that was really no surprise. But there are also a lot of people who simply refused to roll over and take it up the ass like a good little American. I'm one of those. I refuse to take on any guilt over what happened in NY two years ago. And for those who don't like that, tough darts.

I'm not a flag-waver. In fact, I don't own a single flag, not so much as a sticker or a pin. I do feel a measure of gratitude for being American by accident, and a degree of pride in being American by choice, at least in so far as what my conception of "American" means to me personally. If some Americans feel that "American" means something somehow inherently superior, I can only say that I adamantly disagree with that definition.

I think one of the biggest, if not the biggest, problem which people (outside and in) perceive with the United States is the unfortunate marriage of individualism and capitalism with good ole' time Religion. Obviously, there are enormous contradictions at work here. Anyone who claims that America's general prosperity is the result of divine providence deserves to have that delusion examined thoroughly and unmasked. We've earned any and all criticism in that regard.

And in other areas as well.

[Porter Doran]

I must just say on behalf of my country that the U.S. Medicaid program is quite good in what range it has. Of course only the poorest are eligible for it. The U.S. welfare programs could certainly be expanded and indubitably made more effective; however, I've much less complaint about the programs than I have about citizens who take pride in hard-heartedness in their conversations and in their politics -- I do pray such never gain more power than they have in this country.

[gecian]

Originally posted by arthur_henry
That means someone has to eat that cost, and it sure as hell ain't gonna be them, and if it is gonna be them (ie, socialized medicine) then they aren't going to be spending the money on R&D because it just won't be profitable.

Anyways, take away the companies profits from R&D, as would happen should the govt. take over health care, and you take away the impetus to research and develop new drugs.


I don't see why the drug companies should be made to pay: it's the government -- and, ultimately, the taxpayer -- that ought to pay for public benefits. (In exceptional cases, like South Africa / AIDS, the decent thing is for rich country governments to pay.)

The only argument against having some form of universal health coverage is that the upper classes would pay for more than they get out of the system. Not everybody wants to pay for treating other people's sick children, and some people feel more strongly on the matter than others.

And, of course, people would have more incentive to work hard and earn money if they knew that otherwise they'd die of the next throat infection because they wouldn't be able to afford a doctor.

[Gabe1]

Originally posted by Urizen
Anti-American sentiment has increased worldwide over the past two years. Type the words "Anti-American sentiment" into any search engine and see what you come up with.


Hey, this was actually very helpful. Although, it did lead to some rather harrowing discoveries. Appearantly bleeding eyeballs and giant mutant space prawn are also reaching epidemic proportions.

[Tony Smith]

I typed in Anti-American Sentiment, Anti-Arab Sentiment, Anti-European Sentiment, Anti-Western Sentiment and Anti-Red Sentiment. The results are the same - everyone pretty much hates everyone.

There is some good news: I typed in Anti-Easter Bunny Sentiment. All's cool with Mr. Big Ears.

Tony

[Porter Doran]

Originally posted by gecian
The only argument against having some form of universal health coverage is that the upper classes would pay for more than they get out of the system. Not everybody wants to pay for treating other people's sick children, and some people feel more strongly on the matter than others.

Yes unfortunately this is the ubiquitous -- and the execrable -- argument against a nationalized health program of some sort. However there are other arguments -- and arguments more apropos. For this argument could be made to any form of assistance to the poor -- even cash assistance, which would be as far from a nationalized health program as could be. No, the more pertinent arguments have to do with managing such a program: How do we insure the best and brightest continue to be drawn to the medical profession? How do we perpetuate the enthusiasm to find "miracle drugs" begun by venture capitalists a decade ago? How do we guarantee commensurate services to illnesses? How do we prevent political and private abuses of a system which would comprise such vast influence and vast wealth? Over the course of the last century-and-a-half, private medicine has grown to become one of the most stellar, prestigious, and financially-rewarding fields. Do we risk abandoning the benefits of post-Victorian medicine if we abandon the highly private structure that gave it us?

[sweetpersimmon]

I had an incident with the health care system that took me 14 years to pay off. I was working two part time jobs for 55 hour work week. Part time did not get health benefits at either company. I had an appedicitis and didn't go in because I just thought it was a stomach ache and didn't have the $200 they would charge me for an emergency room visit. I was finally taken in by my roommate after 48 hours. Two emergency surgeries and a 6 week stay with massive antibiotics and I was was in debt almost $100,000. Lost both my jobs, too. No question about whether I could get treatment, but for years and years, I could not qualify for a car loan or get a mortgage because of the hospital debt. Finally paid it off, but it took a long time to dig out. I am interested in the health insurance debate since I went through this experience.

sweetpersimmon

[Rachel Lindley]

Originally posted by Urizen
Yes, it is. Anti-American sentiment has increased worldwide over the past two years. Type the words "Anti-American sentiment" into any search engine and see what you come up with.Attention to anti-American sentiment has increased worldwide in the past two years. There's a difference between these two statements. A big one. The former means there's more hate for the US now than 2 years ago, and the latter means more of us are paying attention to how people hate the US. Believe me, the way people feel about this Iraqi war isn't much worse than the way people felt about the last one. It ain't much better either. That's just it. It hasn't changed all that much, and people in other countries are not targetting the US for criticism any more than usual, or more so than they target their own country or other countries. There's plenty of criticism to go around.And a lot of the criticism can justly be regarded as "bashing", if it's based on sheer prejudice, misinformation, or heavy-handed alarmist rhetoric. Or do you suggest that all of the criticism directed at the United States is objective, fair, and reasonable?Where? What is it? In this thread, what is it? Where's the heavy-handed alarmist rhetoric? If it's there, point it out, give us something substantial to show it for what it is, and we'll thank you. Run around waving your arms yelling "you're bashing, you're bashing!" and we'll point at you and laugh unsympathetically. Where did I suggest all criticism directed at the US is objective, fair, and reasonable? Nowhere. You're jumping to conclusions and placing your own misconceptions into my mouth where they don't belong. Criticism, any criticism of anything, be it the US or otherwise, should have some weight to it other than a lot of hand-wringing and blather, regardless of who or what it's for or against. When I see blather, I point it out.

*points*

Since you make quite a speech about bashing, I'd like to ask --based on your definition, where in this thread, exactly, is anyone "bashing" the United States? Last time I checked, we were criticising / rebutting criticism about private health care vs. public.If I see people suggesting that seven year old kids expressing simple gratitude for their good-fortune are being methodically and diabolically indoctrinated into some evil system or "machine", I'll wave the "bashing banner" as obnoxiously as I please. At first I had no idea how this related to health care. Thankfully, someone was kind enough to point me to another thread, and there I found the source of your disgruntlement. In other words, I suggest you air your problem where your problem occurs, which isn't here.

Actually, something struck me about that thread, and your response in this one -- I see no mention here nor there of "evil system" or "diabolically indoctrinated". I also see no mention of me stating that all criticism against the US is fair and justified. This is a problem: criticism is turned into something it isn't, blown out of proportion, then used as evidence to justify not believing in such preposterous statements -- statements that were never actually made in the first place. This is true of criticism in general, regardless of what you're arguing. Are there silly things said about the US? Yep. Silly things are said about pretty much everything, and have been for longer than 2 years. Saying more silly things in response to these silly things generally results in a whole lot of silliness. It degenerates to "you suck", "no, you suck", "mom, he's poking me", "am not", "are too", and that's neither criticism, debate, rebuttal, or anything else that might be useful to anyone.

Rachel

[Seremba]

Every country has different ways of approaching health care
that is say not all of them are working. I do find it frightening that people in the US are faced with big decisions when it comes to their general health, not all of those decisions can be taken lightly particularly when there are gross ammounts of money involved for those who aren't covered. What price would anyone put on their health and the health of their family. There isn't much of a parallel with Ireland, we too pay for healthcare or insurance cover which seems to triple ever year, however we are kinder to those who can't afford it and based on income you could be considered for free medical if your earnings are low.
Also our elderly are treated with a little more respect, free travel, low fuel bills, free phone line rental, free healthcare and dental, etc. However the health care system is in chaos here and has reached quite frightening proportions, so whether you are entitled to free medical or you are paying high insurance premiums it still won't make you climb the endless waiting lists or gaurantee you a bed in our over crowded hospitals.
Richard the NHS has many problems too and I am sure those who could afford it would welcome a stay in a private hospital over a visit to a public one.

And as to America maybe more money for health and less for war could be a starting point.

Seremba
waiting for the pigs to raise their flaps!

[Porter Doran]

Originally posted by Seremba
And as to America maybe more money for health and less for war could be a starting point.

Precisely; and thank you extremely for the bravery to say it. Dislike paying taxes, O fellow Americans? We'd pay no more taxes than we do and still double or triple free healthcare for the less-fortunate were we simply to redirect the billions-a-week we spend killing brown people.

[Gabe1]

I think we're all overlooking the very serious issue of the growing threat of giant mutant space prawn here. Really, get some perspective people.


-Gabriel
Capt.
USS Red Lobster

[Rachel Lindley]

http://www.aquietcorner.com/poetry/prawn.jpg

Run for your lives!

[HowardM2]

It seems we need to keep an eye on the sky.

[Steven]

I don't know what Americans have to grumble about. If it is a feeling everyone hates them they must be lucky.

A lot of people passionately hate Manchester United in this country; it is because they are the best at what they do, and they know it. Arrogant buggers.

At the end of the day, fans of United don't give a flying f**k as long as the trophies are won in May.

Citizens of the US must be like those fans. Concentrate on being proud of your country, let the fawning politcians keep France etc sweet and thats it.

Steve

[Kristi]

I don't know what Americans have to grumble about. We all have plenty to grumble about. The Americans in this house grumble about completely different things than the Americans in the house next door, let alone the Americans across the country. I'm sure the folks basking on the beaches in the south of France have something to grumble about as well.

Maybe we should all just shut up. Everyone here has the ability to type and can at least see well enough to join in the conversation. Let's just count our blessings, eh?:D

[mattj]

Is the reason the person who works 2 jobs (55 hr.s a week) & is getting no medical insurance winds up in dept to the tune of $100,000.00 in medical bills because she doesn't work hard enough?
matt

Originally posted by gecian


And, of course, people would have more incentive to work hard and earn money if they knew that otherwise they'd die of the next throat infection because they wouldn't be able to afford a doctor.

[Urizen]

Rachel,
Not that I think this will do any good at all, but here are some comments from the other thread which caused me to respond:


And, just think. In a few years, Mrs. Moss's self-esteem fattened brats will be in Junior High. [bold type mine]

***

Start 'em young, I think Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of our machine.

***
a class of little pod-people.

***

It will be with great effort at a later age that some few of these children may hope to recover the souls with which they were born, and which such as Mrs. Moss has robbed from them.

***

You can make of them what you will. I felt that such comments deserved a rebuttal. In fact, they deserve a rebuttal much stronger than the one I gave. One has to look under the surface of those types of comments to see where they are coming from and what they imply. Please bear in mind, I'm not saying people shouldn't be free to make such comments, but if they do I assume they are prepared to have them challenged.

I find it odd, and insulting, that you feel that I haven't backed up my objections with any kind of argument other than name-calling and hand-waving. My posts in that previous thread and in this one were quite lengthy and rather sedate. The only thing I will apologize for is calling that other thread "idiotic." It was, of course, but I shouldn't have said it.

And, yes, Anti-American sentiment has increased worldwide. There are various articles about it effecting global trade, the technology industry, etc.

That's all. I've said my peace.

Time for that long walk in the woods.

[Alasdair]

Originally posted by Tony Smith
I typed in Anti-American Sentiment, Anti-Arab Sentiment, Anti-European Sentiment, Anti-Western Sentiment and Anti-Red Sentiment. The results are the same - everyone pretty much hates everyone.

There is some good news: I typed in Anti-Easter Bunny Sentiment. All's cool with Mr. Big Ears.

Tony
I always hated that floppy-eared freak.

Giant mutant space prawn would be great, but where would you find the barbecue big enough?

I don't want to inflame an already red hot subject...

...but on a more serious note I think that there has been an increase in the perception of anti-American sentiment, probably a real increase as well. In certain African, South American and Arabic countries there is a strong dislike for what is perceived as US meddling in their countries. The destruction of the WTC showed, among other things, the depth of feeling.

Oh, and Tony? I'll kick the Easter bunny's ass next time I see him. What are you going to do about it?

Alasdair the diplomat.

[gecian]

Originally posted by mattj
Is the reason the person who works 2 jobs (55 hr.s a week) & is getting no medical insurance winds up in dept to the tune of $100,000.00 in medical bills because she doesn't work hard enough?
matt

It's because she didn't work hard enough at school to get a scholarship to a university where she could have majored in chemical engineering and got a high-paying job. But mostly just that she's evolutionarily unfit and deserves to die out.

As I understand it, anti-nanny reasoning says that the harder you make life for people who do badly, the harder they will try to do well. That is, if she didn't need to save up for paying off her debt she might just do one job and work just 40 hours. Which we really wouldn't want, would we?

It's a disgusting logic, of course, but it's quite easy to mask it with nonsense about people "paying their own way".

[mattj]

I told Urizen in another thread that I'd never call differing opinions idiotic. I guess I lied. This is about the most fucked up thing I ever read.
matt

Originally posted by gecian
It's because she didn't work hard enough at school to get a scholarship to a university where she could have majored in chemical engineering and got a high-paying job. But mostly just that she's evolutionarily unfit and deserves to die out.

As I understand it, anti-nanny reasoning says that the harder you make life for people who do badly, the harder they will try to do well. That is, if she didn't need to save up for paying off her debt she might just do one job and work just 40 hours. Which we really wouldn't want, would we?

It's a disgusting logic, of course, but it's quite easy to mask it with nonsense about people "paying their own way".

[Rachel Lindley]

Originally posted by Urizen
Rachel,
Not that I think this will do any good at all, but here are some comments from the other thread which caused me to respond:Like I said, Bill, this doesn't relate to this thread. It relates to the other thread, and frankly I haven't even read that one in detail -- I only visited it when you brought it up here for some inexplicable reason. You're arguing to the wrong person about the wrong issues.

Some of the comments in that thread are incredibly stupid and silly. Yours is a more reasonable response there. I don't see mention of "evil systems" or "diabolically indoctrinated", and although some silly responses could be interpreted that way - NO. You don't have to "look under the surface" because that's where misinterpretation and exaggeration come into play. Deal with what was actually said, not what you think was said. And say it in the right thread, for pete's sake.

I asked you to point out in this thread where you saw "bashing". This one. You know, the one where we're talking about health care.

I find it odd, and insulting, that you feel that I haven't backed up my objections with any kind of argument other than name-calling and hand-waving.

This here, this is hand-waving. Your previous reply, in this thread, had no concrete substance but was all about your personal feeling. In both cases, it's unrelated to this thread. This thread, where Rachel complained about "bashing". Where, in this thread, are people bashing? See how that works?

My posts in that previous thread and in this one were quite lengthy and rather sedate.

That's nice. What, exactly, does that have to do with this thread?

And, yes, Anti-American sentiment has increased worldwide. There are various articles about it effecting global trade, the technology industry, etc.

What articles? Where? By whom? See, that's a concrete. If there is documented evidence of an increase in such sentiment, point me in that direction and I'll appreciate it.

Rachel

[garyg]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tony Smith

Democracy as defined by dictionary.com:

(lexicographysnip)

Thanks for the Civics lesson, Tony.
Take it up with Leonard.

[Donner]

Do tinfoil hats protect against giant alien space prawns and will my medical insurance pay for it? That's what I want to know.

[Kristi]

Apparently so...
http://www.freespeechradio.net/signspube.jpg

[dagonee]

Here’s your example of heavy-handed alarmist rhetoric, Rachel:

Originally posted by Porter Doran
Precisely; and thank you extremely for the bravery to say it. Dislike paying taxes, O fellow Americans? We'd pay no more taxes than we do and still double or triple free healthcare for the less-fortunate were we simply to redirect the billions-a-week we spend killing brown people.

Sure, the allocation of resources between military expenditures and national health care is a certainly a matter ripe for debate, but this kind of rhetoric is ensures a debate won’t happen. It hardens everyone’s position and makes meaningful dialog impossible.

Believe it or not, some rational people who are earnestly trying to do good think that war is sometimes necessary. I’m not going to try to debate that issue in this thread, but refusing to acknowledge others good intentions ensures that the others will not ever listen to you.

Dagonee
PS, and for the record, I don't think the allocation between the two is correct. The point is how these topics are discussed, not the merits.

[richard taylor]

The responce to my thread has been amazing, this morning I
had a phone call from my nephew Steven, he asked me if I would
pick up Hollie from the hospital. Hollie is six months old she has
Golden Har Syndrome. If any of you care to look it up you will
find a real nightmare. when I first saw my great neice I was shocked.
She has a rolled up ear, and a small hole going through her
face,an indentation on one side of her head, and I found these
are the least of her problems. Steven is only a very shy eighteen year old with a young face and Andrea Hollie's mother the same
the nurse told them to take Hollie home to enjoy her, but our
Hollie is a real fighter. We took her to the Freeman's children
hospital [40 miles from us] this hospital is I am told the best
you will find anywhere. Hollie had a tube put into one nostril
for feeding and liquids, she constantly whizzes when breathing.
At the freeman's the Specialist came straight to the point.
[I had my arm around steven and andrea] Hollie's heart is on
her right side he told us but worse it is blocking Hollie's right
lung which is not working at all, and her left lung is only working at 40 percent which is why she is whizzing, the first problem
then is to keep Hollie alive until she is stronger at which time he will operate and free the one lung which is partly working.
He then looked at us and said you do know Hollie's heart can
stop at any time. Taking her home again a nurse said enjoy her while you can, but our little Hollie is a fighter that was three months ago, today taking steven andrea and hollie home after they had spent two days in hospital [hollie is prone to colds]
I played with hollie on the beading she has on the floor
she was smiling and holding my finger. The one thing my nephew and andrea do not have to worry them is bills [hospital] steven had to leave collage because hollie needs 24 hour care.
The government have granted them disability care benefit which is helping them a great deal. I am a coward when the phone
rings and its steven to be frank I am afraid, but today he said richard will you pick us up. Yes our girl is a fighter and God willing this time next year she will have a lung working.

URIZEN I am sorry it seams my thread upset you, I for one do not hate or dislike America. I love reading history and I know what we owe to America and the American people.

RACHEL Your replies have been heartfelt, it seams you and
Urizen are freinds I hope I am not the course of upsetting you both.
Richard.

[Porter Doran]

Originally posted by dagonee
Here’s your example of heavy-handed alarmist rhetoric, Rachel ...

The statement was economics and simple arithmetic my man. Read it again and you can't fail to see that there is no inkling of the merits or dismerits of either increasing free healthcare for the less-fortunate or killing brown people.

[Rachel Lindley]

Originally posted by dagonee
Here’s your example of heavy-handed alarmist rhetoric, Rachel:Too bad Rachel's remark about bashing, and my response, AND Bill's, came well before that was ever posted, huh? Kind of makes it hard to relate to the issue at hand when it happens after it occurred. Also, there's no value judgement in the statement itself. You surmised one. The budget for the military is larger than health care in the US. War was undertaken in Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanis and Iraqis did die, and Afghanis and Iraqis are brown people. The statement is, in my opinion, crass, but whatever conclusion you come to as to its relative negativity towards the United States is subjective.

However, getting back to the majority of the content in this thread, which relates to health care, the majority of the conversation was both civil and informed, on various sides of the argument. Therefore --

It hardens everyone’s position and makes meaningful dialog impossible

-- appears to be proven inaccurate by the dialogue in this thread on the subject of -- surprise surprise -- health care. Seems that people's positions on health care were being dialogued rather meaningfully, thank you very much.

Believe it or not, some rational people who are earnestly trying to do good think that war is sometimes necessary.

That's nice. This thread's about health care.

I’m not going to try to debate that issue in this thread--

Thank goodness. Maybe we can back on topic. In case you still haven't figured it out, the topic is health care.

--but refusing to acknowledge others good intentions ensures that the others will not ever listen to you.

Tinfoil hat. I don't acknowledge intentions one way or another. I acknowledge words and actions. I read what I read, and go from there. You want to try and read the minds of those who write, rather than their words, you go right ahead. That's what gets you nowhere and leads to less than productive dialogue.

Rachel

[dagonee]

Originally posted by Rachel Lindley
Too bad Rachel's remark about bashing, and my response, AND Bill's, came well before that was ever posted, huh? Kind of makes it hard to relate to the issue at hand when it happens after it occurred.

That would be relevant if I were agreeing with Rachel’s and Bill’s characterizations of the dialog at the time they made their comments. I was 1) pointing out a post that I think is heavy-handed and alarmist and 2) making some comments about the usefulness of the tone and attitude of the post in a policy debate. My original intro to my post said “Ask and you shall receive, Rachel:” but I edited it before posting.

Also, there's no value judgement in the statement itself. You surmised one. The budget for the military is larger than health care in the US. War was undertaken in Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanis and Iraqis did die, and Afghanis and Iraqis are brown people. The statement is, in my opinion, crass, but whatever conclusion you come to as to its relative negativity towards the United States is subjective.

Since the use of the word simply indicates that this step could be taken easily and without negative consequences (indicating that the military actions had no positive consequences), and it emphasizes the race of the people involved (as if conducting a race war is the motivation underlying the military activities), it seems pretty heavy-handed and alarmist to me.

However, getting back to the majority of the content in this thread, which relates to health care, the majority of the conversation was both civil and informed, on various sides of the argument.

That would be why I didn’t say anything about the majority of the posts in the thread, just the one I took issue with.

-- appears to be proven inaccurate by the dialogue in this thread on the subject of -- surprise surprise -- health care. Seems that people's positions on health care were being dialogued rather meaningfully, thank you very much.

See if you can keep up here – I didn’t say the whole thread was bad, I was pointing out one post to answer a question YOU posed. Granted, the post in question was made after yours. That’s why I didn’t say anything about the tone of the dialog until then.

That's nice. This thread's about health care.

All hail Rachel, keeper-of-threads-on-topic! If someone proposes paying for health care by removing funds from some other activity, don’t you think the relative value of that activity might have some bearing on the topic at hand.

Thank goodness. Maybe we can back on topic. In case you still haven't figured it out, the topic is health care.

Really? I couldn’t tell from your earlier diatribes. My response to you was as much off topic as your response to Bill was. We can go to off-topic purgatory together.

Tinfoil hat.

The standard PFFA Ad Hominem attack. I’ll ignore it instead of saying “nanny-nanny-boo-boo”.

I don't acknowledge intentions one way or another. I acknowledge words and actions. I read what I read, and go from there. You want to try and read the minds of those who write, rather than their words, you go right ahead.

Hmm, you’re suggesting I not take tone and word choice into account in trying to determine someone’s meaning? You’re honestly trying to say that he doesn’t think the Afghani and Iraqi conflicts were racially motivated?

Dagonee

[Tony Smith]

Originally posted by garyg
Thanks for the Civics lesson, Tony.

Anytime, Gary. Let me know if you need help napeirian logarithms.

[Harry R]

OK, I'm calling it, people.

Time of death - 10.45am.