Profile
Search
Register
Log in
So... what's up with healthcare exactly?
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8423
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

Every morning NPR is telling me about the spin the Republicans are putting on the plan, and the points the Democrats are inexplicably (lobbyists) not highlighting. Like this Republican mouthpiece said that the proposal would make it mandatory for the elderly to undergo counseling about ways to "end their life" every five years. The bill says nothing of the sort, although it allows for healthcare to provide in the event of such situations, but of course all the old folks are in a tizzy about things. All it really takes is one person of reasonable popularity to say something, and then it's distributed amongst the public like fact. Public opinion is weird that way. And now everything is so convoluted and misinformed that nobody really knows what the hell is happening. No one I've talked to can give me a clear idea of what this healthcare reform is actually about. I've heard a lot of different things from different people, which leads me to believe people are making assumptions based on their own opinions.
Post Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:10 am
 View user's profile Send private message
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6870
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

crash wrote:
http://exiledonline.com/colonel-klinks-tea-party-clowns-uninsured-rightwinger-fakes-injuries-seeks-donations-hires-ambulance-chaser/


What a racist piece of shit article. I'll sum it up:

Man injured during fight at Tea Party health care reform protest.

Man must have been a hired thug and/or faking his injury because OMG HE'S A BLACK REPUBLICAN!

Sorry folks, even though the skew on this stuff is towards entrenched, often racist white folks doesn't mean that people of different color and background aren't on their side. There's no reason to distrust an injured black man more than an injured white one. It is very plausible that racism was involved in the fight, he could have easily been attacked by people with the same dumb mindset as that author. It's a very bad look to decide that nothing here is genuine just because he's "you know, not of the Tea Party pigment."

He does make a laughable martyr, though.
Post Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:28 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5453
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

yeah, i don't really know why his color needed to be mentioned at all, but i didn't get the impression from the article that his being black had anything to do with him making a big deal out of the injury.

racist or not, it's a pretty shitty article. mostly i was just amused that someone protesting obama's plan doesn't currently have health care to get treatment for the injury he sustained protesting obama's plan.
Post Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:36 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6870
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

Yeah, I got really annoyed at that article. I think we're going to see a minority participation from all demographics on the anti-healthcare side [that's such a funny label, we should popularize it]. Obviously this will mostly be a white-out, but we should expect to see the small participation by those minorities to be focused upon as much as possible. Otherwise it's just too transparent what demographics stand to benefit least from this.
Post Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:45 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
neveragainlikesheep



Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 2536
Location: TKO from Tokyo
 Reply with quote  

I think the reason the righties always point out the race of black protesters who are against this bill is to make some sort of claim that the opposition to Obama and his policies isn't completely and entirely racist. The only problem is that for the most part it is.

It's the "Hey! This black guy (read: n word) doesn't like Obama either. I'm not a racist!"
Post Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:14 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
crash



Joined: 07 Aug 2003
Posts: 5453
Location: the chocolate city with a marshmallow center and a graham cracker crust of corruption
 Reply with quote  

this is a little better written:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
Post Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:04 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Stumbleweed



Joined: 09 Mar 2005
Posts: 9740
Location: Denver
 Reply with quote  

crash wrote:
this is a little better written:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

Great fucking article. Everyone who is taking part in the healthcare debate should read that. This isn't even about public vs. private insurance, it's about a fucked up system full of back room deals and profit motives that exists regardless of the insurance provider. For-profit medicine is just fundamentally untenable and makes victims out of patients. The comparisons between collaborative clinics in the Mayo model and the super for-profit model in Texas were striking... if we do get a public option, the Mayo model has to prevail because otherwise the country will be bankrupt paying all the same bullshit costs we currently are privately.

Thanks for that article... it was a long read but totally worth it.
Post Wed Aug 12, 2009 4:14 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
benjy compson



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 1179
Location: cliffs of opal
Re: So... what's up with healthcare exactly?  Reply with quote  

jstile wrote:
crash wrote:


a majority of americans still support universal care. but somehow, while supporting universal care, they also oppose obama's plan more than they like it. the disconnect is ridiculous. it really shows the effectiveness of the republican machine.



That's definitely the vibe I got from the report I saw. I don't pretend to know much about the system, and I'm not trying to shit on or make sweeping generalisations about the US here, but there seems to be this huge perception of entitlement going on.





make those generalizations; they
leap above the truest of truths




"i would rather pay an inflated amount
for my healthcare than other people
living in westernized countries!"

- below average, mis/uninformed americans
Post Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:15 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8423
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

On my way to work this morning I saw an old man in a jacket (it's 70 degrees and muggy) with a homemade protest sign by the on-ramp to the freeway. It was poorly constructed and said "Say no to National Health." Not healthcare, mind you buy National Health like he wants the nation to die. I don't get old people. Nobody wants to kill you!
Post Thu Aug 13, 2009 6:34 am
 View user's profile Send private message
redball



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 6870
Location: Northern New Jersey
 Reply with quote  

It's not a disconnect, it's the shady side of polling. A majority of Americans support universal healthcare when they are asked the right question with no lead-in or with the right lead-in. If you ask a similar sample of Americans the same question but then you lead-in with something that suggest that they would have to pay significantly more money, that this would somehow greatly benefit some group they believe shouldn't have these rights (illegals, criminals, people who bake cats), or that it would greatly lessen the coverage that they or their loved ones currently receives then they will answer the question very differently.

That was quite the run-on. Anyway, here's something that better elaborates my point. Who is asking and how they ask is just as important as a specific question. FWIW, I do think that the Republican machine has found some success in framing this debate. I wonder when Obama will get serious about backing this bill, probably after the legislature gives him a single bill to throw his weight behind.
Post Thu Aug 13, 2009 6:57 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
The Count



Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 1558
Location: Chapel Hill
 Reply with quote  

neveragainlikesheep wrote:

1. Veteran's health care.

2. There's no truth behind that particular fear. People are being denied claims NOW without the panels and that is a direct product of the broken system we have in place. So what are the death panels like in Canada, Norway and the rest of the world?

3. That's great, 50 million people in this country have no health care. What do you have to say to them?


See, this is the shit that pisses me off. No attempt to actually talk about the issues, just regurgiation of the talking points.

1. "Veterans's Health Care" is not an answer and does not discount the fact that social security and medicare (two government run programs that attempt to provide care for citizens) are about to go broke. Even if you want to use Veteran's Care as an argument, it's not a very good one. VA hospitals are in shambles and are places that veterans don't go if they can afford to go to private ones.

2. Perhaps you missed my point. People are being denied claims now in the private insurance business, if there was a public option (evenmore so if we ever went to a single-payer system) the government would have to set up some sort of agency to preside over the approval and denial of services and claims. So when the left-wing talking heads try to deny that the state would be in a position to deny medical claims, they are being dishonest. "Death Panel" is obviously a straw man argument.

3. I think you're also confused about this point. There are not 50 million people in the country with no health care, there are 50 million people without heath insurance. Those are two very different things. If an uninsured person were to show up at an ER in the US with an emergency, they would get treated.

Which brings me to my largest point. Because I have brought up concerns about this this reform, I will be labeled an insurance company shill and shouted down without heed paid to my points. The exact same thing happens when I point out the glaring deficiencies of the current system in the presence of a right-leaning crowd. It doesn't matter that I'm in favor of a massive overhaul and would support single-payer (if done right), people like NALS stick to the quippy one-liners in order to dodge actual discourse.
Post Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:25 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
neveragainlikesheep



Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 2536
Location: TKO from Tokyo
 Reply with quote  

The Count wrote:
neveragainlikesheep wrote:

1. Veteran's health care.

2. There's no truth behind that particular fear. People are being denied claims NOW without the panels and that is a direct product of the broken system we have in place. So what are the death panels like in Canada, Norway and the rest of the world?

3. That's great, 50 million people in this country have no health care. What do you have to say to them?


See, this is the shit that pisses me off. No attempt to actually talk about the issues, just regurgiation of the talking points.

1. "Veterans's Health Care" is not an answer and does not discount the fact that social security and medicare (two government run programs that attempt to provide care for citizens) are about to go broke. Even if you want to use Veteran's Care as an argument, it's not a very good one. VA hospitals are in shambles and are places that veterans don't go if they can afford to go to private ones.

2. Perhaps you missed my point. People are being denied claims now in the private insurance business, if there was a public option (evenmore so if we ever went to a single-payer system) the government would have to set up some sort of agency to preside over the approval and denial of services and claims. So when the left-wing talking heads try to deny that the state would be in a position to deny medical claims, they are being dishonest. "Death Panel" is obviously a straw man argument.

3. I think you're also confused about this point. There are not 50 million people in the country with no health care, there are 50 million people without heath insurance. Those are two very different things. If an uninsured person were to show up at an ER in the US with an emergency, they would get treated.

Which brings me to my largest point. Because I have brought up concerns about this this reform, I will be labeled an insurance company shill and shouted down without heed paid to my points. The exact same thing happens when I point out the glaring deficiencies of the current system in the presence of a right-leaning crowd. It doesn't matter that I'm in favor of a massive overhaul and would support single-payer (if done right), people like NALS stick to the quippy one-liners in order to dodge actual discourse.


1. Yeah, and why are they in shambles? Could it possibly be because of funding cuts from the last administration? Just saying, government run systems have and do work. Quit acting like there isn't a precedence. Also, why are social security and medicare running out of money? Let's see if you can get this one.

2. So because people are being denied claims now.. that means in the public option people would also be denied claims or would have some panel decide their care? The assumption is that if there is such a panel it'll be as cut throat as the private insurers are today. I think I'd like to see some evidence of this.

3. Actually, seeing as you need insurance so that you don't go broke with even the most basic health screenings ($400.00 for a physical?!). 50 million people without health insurance means a huge amount of debt being racked up from a trip to the ER. If people go to the place without insurance and still get treated, why not give them a publicly funded health care option so they don't go bankrupt when they need care? Makes no sense.

I'm not dodging shit, jimbo. You are bringing recycled fluff. I've read all this shit before, what you're saying is for the most part garbage dude.
Post Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:24 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Inedible Condiment



Joined: 30 Sep 2008
Posts: 1044
Location: Halifax, NS
 Reply with quote  

Just to chime in on #2 ... here in Canada, there defintely are times when someone needs a particular medcation or treatment to live and the government just say "sorry, it's too expensive.." To be fair to the government, a lot of times the treatment is considered too expensive because of american pharmaceutical companies putting exorbitant profit margins on drugs, but a "No" is still a "No". Also, the government will occaisionally bow to pressure publicly to cover the cost of something they wouldn't normally.
This isn't to say that there are death panels in Canada, or that our healthcare doesn't have many advantages over the American private system, it does. Just to point out that there are times when even a socialised/nationalised healthcare option will ration care. That's just the way it is.
Post Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:01 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Oh Daesu



Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 1847
Location: Vancouver
 Reply with quote  

Inedible Condiment wrote:
Just to chime in on #2 ... here in Canada, there defintely are times when someone needs a particular medcation or treatment to live and the government just say "sorry, it's too expensive.."


I have never heard of any case of this. Can you cite this, or give an example. I have heard of the government denying experimental treatments or where there are other alternatives that are cheaper. But never have I heard of treatments being denied for expense.


I'v e been enjoying the slackivist' s take on the Palin/Righwing Nutbar's lies about the matter.
Post Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:05 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Inedible Condiment



Joined: 30 Sep 2008
Posts: 1044
Location: Halifax, NS
 Reply with quote  

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2006/11/22/larkin-refuse.html

It's not the best case I can remember, but the only one I can find on the internet for some reason right now... I'll try to look for others later.
Post Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:18 am
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Fri Apr 18, 2014 4:51 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon