After reading this article in the New York Times, I can see that we're finally taking steps in the right direction. Perhaps the hospitals in Texas cannot cover the basic health needs of the majority of the uninsured around them, but it is a step.
I think the main problem with our health system today is the insurance companies themselves. They make money by charging huge premiums, and tying up the time that it takes to complete a claim. Without the unnecessary paperwork and hurdles that physicians have to fill out and jump over to get paid for their tasks, healthcare will not only be cheaper for society at large, but we could cover those that are uninsured. Perhaps the dream I have of expanding the system of healthcare present in hospitals in Texas will not happen anytime soon, perhaps not even during my career as a physician, but we need to seriously reevaluate our health care system now, especially as the baby boomer generation ages and requires more and more healthcare. Perhaps we need to change the way we teach our physicians... teach them to not encourage costly operations and measures to save a life that won't last much longer anyway. Then again, perhaps we value the quality of life we have now too much.
I think our focus should be on preventative care. We need to bring the weight of the nation as a whole down... this will eliminate countless diseases and health problems. According to the article above, for every $1 spent on prenatal care saves $7 in treatment for a undernourished or underdeveloped child. The healthcare system in place in some hospitals in Texas may not be a huge step towards better quality of life for all, but it's a small step in the right direction. And enough of these small steps will result in a positive change in the future.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I love the idea of preventative healthcare, and revamping the healthcare system, but not the part about dumping the old people. I think that everyone deserves proper healthcare, and that educating physicians in preventative methods would work much more than not giving the elderly what they need to live a bit longer. They're precious individuals that should be alive as long as they can. America can afford to do that, too. That's my problem. There's so much we could afford that the government keeps us from. Did you know that in the UK, doctors get bonuses for getting their patients healthier? For encourageing them to quit smoking? That's what we need.
Medicare (or was it medicaid?) has been testing something like that.
I didn't say anything about 'dumping old people'. I said "teach them to not encourage costly operations and measures to save a life that won't last much longer anyway." That doesn't mean we shouldn't care for people. I'm talking about things like a bone marrow transplant to a woman who will die within a short time whether she gets the transplant or not. Or keeping someone on life support for years and years with no hope of recovery. Why not focus instead with helping alleviate their suffering, and leaving the resources (such as the bone marrow) to someone who will make a recovery with it? Old people were not at the top of my mind when I wrote that.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
LOL. Just a figure of speech/ joke. I don't mean that you would actually just refuse them care, but i still think that old people pay the same amount and deserve the same attention, you know? But i get what you're saying. It's more efficient technically, and more worthwhile I guess. Maybe it's selfish, but i was thinking about my own grandmother, and how i would want as much time as i could get with her. Life support? I say take them off if it will help someone else. It's just hard for me to place more or less value on certain lives. Isn't there a priority system that takes care of things like that? I don't know, I'm hardly a doctor.
I like both of your ideas. No Smoking and obesity incentives seem like a good idea that could be implemented in the US. How about a tax credit for anyone that doesn't smoke? How to regulate it? Require anyone purchasing cigarettes to have a smoker's license. It's a long shot, but at least it's an idea.
Cheers
http://progressiveu.org/blog/leslieq
Check it out...it's a work in progress.
National healthcare is a disaster waiting to happen. think about it.
If you spend a certain amount of money on healthcare now in order to insure only yourself and the nation instead natoinalizes the system, there will then be thousands of people who previously did not need healthcare who now are forced to have it. this means your overall need for health care will be inflated and you, the individual will end up paying more! Insurance is high not due to evil profit seeking businessmen but due to frivilous lawsuites against doctors. If you want your healthcare cost to decrease, stop youor physician from being sued so they don't need to charge so much for malpractice. This comes down to our outdated judicial system, in which anyone can make an enormaous amount of money at taxpayers expense.
as for prenatal care and obesity it is up to the individual. If you as a person need to be worried about wieght or health problems, it is your responsibility -not the governments to address the concerns. programs against obesity are proven ineffective and cost more taxpayer money. Lets cut health care benifits and give people back their own money to spend on health care if they need it. Don't force me to pay for something I don't need.
the best thing our government can do is to encourage competition amoung America's leading health care insurance companies so that the consumer gets the best deal possible. Allowing Americans to purchase their own health care wil encourage those without care to work hard, and spend money more wisely in order to afford lururies such as health care unavailable in other nations. Continuous research has shown that the more benifit programs put out by the U.S. Government, the more unemployment rises. It makes perfect sense! People will not work if the government will pay for them to live! Now these same people want some free health care and they want honest taxpaying Americans like us to provide it for them. America is not the land where life is free, It is the land of oppertunity and Its all available for you to get off your overwieght, overmedicated butt to take advantage of!
Wow. Just wow. Can you honestly believe that healthcare insurance companies raise their prices because of something that has absolutely nothing to do with their profits? lawsuits between doctors and patients are between doctors and patients. the healthcare companies are only there to pay, or try to get out of paying, the medical bills of the patient. insuring doctors against lawsuits will only allow them to slack off, and not give patients their proper care. if i think that i have a brain tumor, and i go to my doctor, and he gives me a faulty prognosis for his own benefit, hell yeah, i should be able to sue that guy!!
and btw, england's health care system has be instated since the end of WWII, and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. i don't seem to see the disaster there. if you're going to pay for health insurance, and feed the fat, growing monster that health insurance companies represent, then why not put that money into taxes to help out your neighbor and guarantee yourself treatment! because insurance companies are not a guarantee. their system is set up to give employees an incentive to refuse people care. they come up with all kinds of loopholes, calling one surgery cosmetic, or the other surgery experimental, even when it can save someone's life.
not everyone can afford healthcare insurance, and sometimes those who can, and do have insurance are refused care. if we had national healthcare, those people wouldn't have to worry.
and even if i don't like the way you view things, i would pay for your healthcare, just as you pay for mine. it's give and take. you never know if you need healthcare or not. Cancer does not discriminate. AIDs does not discriminate. Atkinsons and Parkinsons... how are you supposed to plan for that? and even if you tried to get insurance, those are preexisting conditions that insurance companies can use to refuse coverage.
think about that!
life is one of our inalienable rights. no one should be denied healthcare. and government should care about the wellbeing of its people.
Actually Englands healthcare system IS a disaster and people there are suffering terrible. The cancer survival rate is one of the lowest in europe due to waiting lists and government costs. Many people have end up coming to the U.S. for health care to avoid Englands. Imagine how long it takes to get your tax returns done, or how long it takes FEMA to respond. You want to put the same idiots in charge of my medicine???? I don't think so.
Englands health care: http://www.neoperspectives.com/britishhealthcare.htm
The truth is your government is less trustworthy than a company. With a company you have a choice, and you can drop it if you don't need it. The company benifits from serving you properly and you do not have to wait -which is a key thing when you have a life threatening illness. If our healthcare system is so bad, how do explain why the rest of the workd is still rushing here to get their treatment? Its because we have the best system there is and its called capitalism. working way longer than post WWII
*Check out my Blog, because you only know as much as your willing to accept*
I'm very happy that the US has the best cancer survival rate, but it's only 1.1% above iceland as far as women, and iceland has universal healthcare, as do the rest of the top five. the difference between us and them is that their patients get to go home without worrying about healthcare companies and medical bills, and ours don't.
capitalism doesn't always work, either. have you ever heard of trusts and big business? big business is what we're dealing with here, that those companies can drive the prices up so high and not have to deal with the consequences.
i thank you for the information, though, and i'll do a bit more research myself. but as the richest nation in the world, the US is capable of so much more, if only we would hold oour government to it. we put them in charge of our safety with free police departments, and we put them in charge of our education, but we let the gov. get away with more than they ever should.
we may have the best doctors and facilities here, as you pointed out, but that doesn't help anyone if they can't afford it. people can't be part of the statistics you cited if they aren't diagnosed because of lack of healthcare. you know? everyone deserves universal healthcare. everyone.
actually they do ahve to deal with bills, you see what happens when you create universal healthcare is everyone gets free healthcare -to a point. To cover the cost of paying for thousands of people who don't really need the healthcare the government has to cut back on its benifits and services. Which means the quality of service will go down. This trend will continue (as it has in europe) to the point that the government is only going to cover your simplest of needs. In communist Russia you could get asprin for almost nothing (they bragged about it) but if you needed heart surgery, a transplant, or expensive medication the government won't cover the cost. Did you read the excerpt about the man in England with an eye condition? He needs medication but the universal policy only covers him if he only has one eye. SO, what will happen is the big bad companies you don't like so much will end up with even more money, because those big bad rich people will go to them and buy private health care.
This is the system in england and canada, everyone gets "Basic" coverage but what they don't tell you is that "basic" only covers you so far. When you need anything expensive the coverage drops and you're left in the cold. So rich people who can afford to pay the higher taxes AND private health care get to enjoy life while poor and middle class families have to sell off their houses to pay for ridiculous med costs. People in britain are turning to private dentists (or at least those who can afford it) And because such universal plans are complicated the waiting lists leave dying patiants out in the cold while people who don't even need to see a doctor get FREE HEALTH CARE! Personally I am young and healthy I don't want health insurance but you are forcing me to buy it. You don't think thats violating my civil rights? I don't deserve universal health care because I know the quality is terrible but you don't care, you will force me to pay for it anyway. Its been tried and proven wrong. The reason your politicians want universal health care is because they can afford to buy their own private care if they need it. They are all rich. Even Barrack Obama. And if you think People like him and Hillary clinton will settle for the same care they will sell you your wrong.
Big business and trusts were something we had a problem with back in teh 1900's. But democrats would have you believe they are real today. They simply want your votes.
Universal health care, like socialism, is a failed system that would simply put a horrible blot on our nations history.
Capitalism is reality.
*Check out my Blog, because you only know as much as your willing to accept*
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mjconnor9
so what you're saying is that EITHER WAY people get left without healthcare, and only the rich can afford it? because that sucks, and i don't want to live in a capitalistic society where that is true. I do see your point, and if i thought that anyone would ever get the insurance companies to cut their costs and quit their practices of refusing people care and jacking up their prices, i would be quite happy and proud of the system we have.
but, as it stands, politicians seem unwilling to stop the nice supply of money into their pockets, and thousands of people in America alone die each year because of a lack of insurance. that includes children.
if we care about it enough, and we, as a people, don't skimp on the quality of our healthcare system, then universal healthcare CAN work. We have enough money to fund it.
And as for you being healthy and young, i don't wish you ANY harm whatsoever, but if you drive, you could be in an accident. if you cook, you could get burned or cut. there are so many things out of your control. and if you do get in an accident, and you're found in life threatening condition, they WILL take you to a hospital, and they WILL save your life, whether you want them to or not. And then they WILL give you a bill, one that you might spend the rest of your life paying for.
keep it coming though. this is fun!
HA! "we have enough money to pay for it" HAve you seen the budget lately? We can't afford to pay off social security much less national debt, there's no way we can afford it. And your mislead on the whole children dying thing. THe statistics on national healthcare are misleading because they only tell you how many people are without insurance. they count people like me who don't want it into their figures.
Once again you are violating my civil rights. I do not want insurance but you are intruding into my personal life and forcing me to buy it. What if i'm a careful person? Shouldn't I pay less than say some stunt junkie who risks his life everyday? I mean he will end up spending more money than me but we will both cover the cost equally. Capitalism is the only fair way. If people want health insurance, all they have to do is get a job. Jobs are all over the place in this country I mean they're shipping people in from mexico to fill them after all. People are simply lazy.
If you want lower insurance premiums why not start a new insurance company? Many people would enjoy the business because you could use all your profits to make rates lower. It would be great and the country would love you for it. Plus it takes advantage of capitalism and doesn't violate my civil liberties or put the government idios in charge of medicine.
National healthcare failed, failed, and failed again. We cannot give up the quality of life americans have worked so hard for simply because a few thousand lazy bums won't get up and get a job. Its insane.
*Check out my Blog, because you only know as much as your willing to accept*
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mjconnor9
1) Not all jobs have even relatively good health plans. Having someone cover all expenses over $5000 in a year is great, except when you want to take your kid in to get routine shots and can't afford that.
2) You already are paying for the junkie on the street. He gets hurt, goes to the ER, then skips out on even attempting to pay the bill, and the government, or the hospital itself, takes up the slack. That results in higher premiums for everyone using that hospital, higher costs for those who don't have insurance, and more money being taken from the government, which comes out of your pocket in some way.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
First off, children do die because of lack of adequate healthcare. Michael Moore details one particular case. I just heard a little over a month ago about a kid who died, a middle schooler who died from a typical dental problem because his parents couldn't afford care.
Second off, yes, we are shipping in cheaper labor. But what American do you know that can support a family on their wages? What single mother can make enough money doing those jobs to pay the rent, feed her kids, and still afford healthcare insurance?
Third off, it doesn't matter that you're careful. If you been foolproofed against cancer, tell me where i can get the same thing! If your car is so safe that you never have to worry about accidents, tell me where i can buy that! People don't plan to get sick. Sometimes, its beyond your power. And I think, that in the event of something like that, you should be guaranteed your inalienable right to LIFE. Because these things happen randomly, I wouldn't mind paying for you to be hospitalized, because it could very well be me. EVERYONE needs healthcare. Even you, you young thing, you! You will get old, and you might develop a disease, or back problems, and you're going to want to be taken care of.
Fourthly, I would love to be able to create a company like that, but unfortunately, there are laws that prevent companies from lowering prices so much. it would kill off the competition and leave me with a monopoly, which the government declare illegal. that is, of course, unless the companies lower their prices.
Fifthly, please think of all the elderly. Should they have to work the rest of their lives to keep healthcare coverage? What happened to retirement? What about those disabled people? How are they supposed to take the same jobs that mexican laborers are getting in the fields and at construction sites? Not everyone is just lazy. Should I not have coverage when i go to college simply because i want to focus on my studies? What about the children who can't help it if they aren't covered?
And I wasn't joking. You prevent convincing arguments, and maybe there will be one i can't counter. But so far, this seems like the typical argument of "I don't want to share! Get your own!"
About our ability to pay for this, a small raise in taxes would fix that problem, as would ending the war in Iraq as soon as possible, after we clean up our mess ( I don't advocate immediate withdrawal at all...), and maybe, just maybe, we can cut down on the Pentagon's Budget. I believe it's at about $300 billion. And I'm sure there are plenty of people getting paid more than they really deserve, if you know what I mean.
haha i love the debate. im not going to do the page long responce. my econ class has watched documentaries on both sides. while i am for national healthcare i understand it will have some draw backs. I think the benifits outway the problems though. It will certainly be a big issue this election though, which is obvious just from your thread
I am too. It's always refreshing to have someone challenge your ideas and make you think. What were the documentaries you watched? I'd like to check them out.
I do hope that this election does begin to focus more on issues. I'd like to hear talk about healthcare, public education, the economy, everything! I'm tired of the personal attacks.
I know there are drawbacks, but i hope that national healthcare is seriously considered and enacted in America, and that we learn from the mistakes of others. America can be quite ingenious when we put our minds to it!
I do hope I'm not overly optimistic...
First off, Anything by Moore is liberal propaganda and is biased beyond belief, I apologize for having ot bring this up but I simply refuse to allow him to be cited. He seeks to make profits, not to promote any type of logic.
Second off, a single mother is already recieving benifits from the government. In most cases it is her own fault of neglegence or carelessness. If her husband is passed away, then she is recieving even more benifits by not paying nearly as much taxes as i do.
Third, the point is not that I cannot get cancer, the issue I am bringing to mind here is that I should have a right to choose whether or not to buy something. The government is not responsible for my health nor should it be. Its the equivilant of communism. in which you simply pay everything in taxes and the government gives everything away for free. This may sound wonderful to you, however it provides no incentive to work. People who have money in the United states do so because they (or their ancestors) Have worked hard to earn it. By living in a country where you can work hard and earn success we become stronger as a nation. Why go to work when the government is handing everything out for free? then what happens? no one works, the government makes no money, and the supply of your wonderful healthcare stops altogether. yes this is on an extreem level, but its the proncipal of what your doing which worries me, not the morality.
Fourthly, you have the definitiion on monopoly completely wrong, in america you are free to start your own business with lower rates if you wish. THe government will not stop you (unless of course it is forcing you to by GOVERNMENT health care) unless you are the only company. It sounds as if you are taking the easy way out here.
fifthly, ever here of a 401k? Its called saving for retirement and its what everyone needs to do. The government ALREADY spends over half its budget on your poor old elderly people for their medicare. What makes you think you can just stop working one day and someone else will come along and start paying for you to live? It currently takes three people to pay off in taxes what one retiree gets in benifits. What makes you think socializing the rest of the population will work better?
Yes actually I do not want to share. I do not have to share. What I have worked for in my lifetime is my own business and no one elses. Do I not have the right to live in a free country and work to earn a profit? What right does the government have to take away my medical coverage and distribute it? It sounds mean yes, but its reality. If you go around taking away what people earn they will eventually give up working. You cannot make everyone happy, it is simply impossible. What you can do is give people oppertunity, and if you socialize america they will have none.
YOu still have yet to explain to me how when socialized medicine has failed in every other instance it will somehow work now? Why do more people die of cancer in britain, canada, and other nations when they all have free healthcare? Its because free doesn't mean free, it means socialist and it means taking away from the middle class to give to the lazy.
keep it coming though
*Check out my Blog, because you only know as much as your willing to accept*
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mjconnor9
But back to it!! your response was so long and lovely that i'll just divide it into sections so that i can address it fully and properly!
As far as Mr. Moore is concerned, the attainment of profit does not mean deficiency of logic. while i may not be able to say that he wasn't biased, his documentary was logical. He presented his audience with plenty of facts and statistics to ponder, as well as real life examples of the hazards of the healthcare industry. If that's not logos with a nice touch of pathos, i don't know what is!!
But to speak more on these profits... i would agree with you that the desire for profits may have led mr. moore to be a bit more liberal or biased than necessary. would you not also say that the healthcare companies' obscene profits says something about them? i would say that it means that there is something wrong with that system, and that healthcare costs way too much. with profits as high as they are, those companies should not have a reason to refuse anyone necessary service.
I concede that a single mother would get benefits from the government. Nice point. But what (the hell!) do you mean by "her own fault of neglegence or carelessness"? Do you mean that it's a woman's own fault if her children's father is out of the picture, or dead, or in jail? is that her fault? And it's definately true that a single mother pays less taxes than you, because she has CHILDREN. but let's consider my grandmother, who had to raise her four kids in the projects on $1200 a month. Have you ever lived in LA? Even in the hood, rent was $600. Healthcare, even when provided by her job, was about $30 every pay period. AND she had kids to feed? Are you telling me that her life shouldn't be a little easier? That woman worked hard, and still does, to this day. Universalized healthcare wouldn't have given her a reason to quit her job. she had other expenses and responsibilities. but it would have helped her put her kids through college. her oldest son, my (step)father, had to put himself through college, working three jobs, and he's the only one that has gotten to go so far.
what would have happened if her job stopped offering her insurance? the percentage of companies offering it as part of an employee package is decreasing as insurance rates increase. from 2000 to 2005, the percentage dwindled from 69% to 60%, and is continuing to decrease. Should she try to find another job? I think not, with the job market in the state that it is. Things like that make me want universalized healthcare.
I understand about being angry to be forced to pay for something of somebody else's. But tell me, are you angry that you have to pay for my education? i'm deeply sorry for the inconvenience. it's just that, if we didn't have communistic educational systems, well, I can tell you right now that I wouldn't be in school. I think you're a little too nice to begrudge me an education, though. are you angry about having to pay for a house that may have caught on fire? because socialized firemen is what puts that fire out. And even though you're careful and whatnot, isn't it nice to know that you don't have to worry about something like that? that you don't have to worry what it's going to cost you after your home has been incinerated? Plus, not everyone can afford things like this. Private schools cost about $3,500 annually on average in the US. We pay for public education because it gives everyone a chance to better themselves. I think we should offer universalized healthcare so that everyone has an opportunity to live.
oh, and about working hard, i absolutely agree with you. but we're living in a US where debt is rampant, good jobs are scarce, and higher education is becoming increasingly costly. it's not so easy as working hard and getting to the top. the american dream is nice and all in theory, but sometimes, in practice, it misses it's mark.
The401k:
Consider my grandmother again... She, and the thousands, maybe millions of people in her position, making only enough to get by, are not making enough money to start a savings for their 401k. I don't personally have experience with not having enough, but there are plenty of people that DO. it's not so simple as saying, get a job and take care of it yourself. but i do agree that i am scared of the taxes i'm going to have to face in order to take care of the baby boomers.
moving on. socialism doesn't = evil. this isn't the Red Scare of 1918. People still have to pay bills and pay for college, and pay for luxury goods. they're not going to stop working, especially if they have children dependent on them. socialism doesn't mean lack of opportunity. there are plenty of people working as policemen and firemen and librarians- socialized jobs- and those jobs are opportunities to better their lives and maintain their standard of living. oh, and the taking away of money thing? that's called taxation, a power that our government was endowed with in order to take care of its citizens and the foreign affairs of the country.
you're so adamant that universal healthcare has failed indiscriminately. we're what, number 37 in the global ranking of healthcare systems? i will agree that the capitalistic system america has would be so effective if healthcare costs weren't so exasperatingly high, and everyone had a chance at healthcare. (if you have a pre-existing condition, and the list of conditions contains hundreds of ailments, you are not eligible for healthcare in most HMO's.) Most importantly, i would agree with you if everyone was guaranteed healthcare when they purchase insurance. but that's not the case. I went on the UN website, and found that United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden are the countries with the most responsive healthcare systems. Canada's system didn't seem failed to me. Not did the Netherland's or Sweden's. Guess what? They have universal healthcare! It can work. I think that if we initiated a gradual plan, we could have a system that works, too.
i sure hope i got everything! tell me if i didn't.
Its quite obvious now that you are getting all of your information from Moore and your family. I suggest using an unbiased scource to fully understand your topic. I have nothing against Moore himself though, because he is obviiously quite an intellegent entreprenuer. By skewing statistics he has been able to make millions. I'm sure I would do the same thing if I had the chance. But the difference between people like you and me and Moore is that when Universal healthcare fails ( yes it will and I will get to that in a sec), Moore will be able to afford to buy private healthcare and the rest of us will be left to deal with a loss in quality of life.
Allow me to clarify my point on the classic "poor single mother" story. I do not blame any single mother if her husband is deceased or imprisoned for her financial hardships. But it is somewhat her fault if she has children out of wedlock with someone who will not support her. Too many families are becoming broken in america and it is because of this that they suffer financial hardships. A movement for more conservative values when it comes to who you sleep with would solve the majority of these single mothers issues. EVER HEAR OF CHILD SUPPORT? Its required by law and it is meant to offset the cost by making the father pay every month or so.
As for your grandmother, there was a simple solution to her troubles. If the cost of living in L.A is too high, she simply should have relocated. There are millions of places around the nation with higher paying jobs and lower living costs. One need only look. I know high school students who already have jobs that will support them, so there is no excuse why the few Americans without healthcare shouldn't be able to get jobs as well.
Moving on, I do not believe communism is the spawn of satan, although many do. I believe it is an outdated philosophy which has been proven to fail time after time. I admit that our government does have some socialist aspects. But there is a clear difference between public schools, fire departments, and socialized medicine. Everyone benifits from having a Fire department, and almost 90% of the nation benifits from public schools. However only the few thousands of people you mentioned would benifit from universal healthcare while the millions and millions of others have to pay their cost and "enjoy" a cut in their quality of life. why should everyone suffer to help a small number of people?
Communist Cuba, for example is one of the worst places to live in the world. People are at this point attempting to turn their 1960's cars into boats so they can make a flee to florida illegally.
Which brings up your final point, those wonderful U.N. statistics that Moore prounces around with. I suppose you are unaware that over a fourth of the so called "Uninsured" according to the U.N., are in the country illegally? When you remove the factor of illegal residency from our numbers guess where we rank? Numero UNO! thats right, we are officially the worst country on the face of the planet in terms of illegal immigrants who don't buy healthcare because they know they are illegal! What the U.N. does not mention is that we have the highest cancer survival rate in the world. How would you explain that? since cancer effects the poor as well a the rich, it is a more unbiased statistic then the "uninsured".
Canada's system actually has failed. Ever been to a canadian E.R.? A good friend of mine was in a skiing accident and broke her leg while in Canada. When she arrived in the hospital she waited over four hours to be seen by a doctor. She waited in a room full of unfortunate canadians who who were bleeding, coughing, and throwing up waiting for universal healthcare to some through for them. It didn't.
Like I said before, I highly advise you to begin to get your information from somehwere you are sure is free of a large liberal media slant.
*Check out my Blog, because you only know as much as your willing to accept*
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mjconnor9
Just a note I'd like to throw out there. Our old roommate (meaning my family and mine, not just mine), is currently a single mother with two children by two different fathers. Now, I think she's an idiot for sleeping with the guys in the way she did, but that's not the point I want to bring up. The father of her girl has been living in Australia for many years, making it difficult for our government to track him down. He owes something like $30K in child support that he avoids paying because he quits his job as soon as the government starts garnishing his wages. He can afford to pay it as well, just doesn't want to.
The father of her son is currently in prison, meaning he can't hold a job, and thus can't give any child support to her.
You're right that women like her would be better off if they were a little more conservative in who they sleep with, but the fact remains that she's just SOL when it comes to child support.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
If she had considered who she slept with in the first place the entire delema wouldn't exist. Now she has to live with the consequences of her actions, consequences no government should interfere with otherwise she and others like her will continue to make bad decisions. On the subject of child support dogers I am fully behind any movement to track down such men of low morality. Our government can take less than a hundreth of what it was going to spend on healthcare and put it towards law enforcement to ease such a profound problem.
*Check out my Blog, because you only know as much as your willing to accept*
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mjconnor9
that women constantly think during sex, if i get pregnant with my second kid tomorrow, is this guy going to leave? i doubt that a lot of them think that they're going to get pregnant. I don't doubt that there are plenty of teenage girls with no child support or not enough of it. According to the US Census (unbiased enough for you? lol...) "in 1997 6.3 million custodial mothers were due an average child support payment of $4,200 but only an average of $2,500 was received, in aggregate the difference amounts to a $10.6 billion deficit per year."
Plus, if the guy is unemployed to keep from paying child support, what are you going to do? Some people just aren't good judges of character, teenage girls especially. How many women think that they're shacking up with a deadbeat until he leaves?
and marrying the guy doesn't make everything all better. there's no definative checklist to go through before you have kids with a guy that ensures child support...
I would hope women would think BEFORE sex rather than during it. Yes you have a choice and no its not the government's job to cover you if you have a bad judge of character.
If a guy is unemployed to avoid paying child support he shouldn't be making any money therefore should be in search of a job. If he can live on unemployment alone then obiously our welfare system needs to be cut quite a bit.
Any women who doesn't realize she's shacking up with a deadbeat deserves to get pregnant.
Marriage ensure's (to a large degree) that the guy is committed and is a safe alternative to living irresponisbly
So bottom line, your free to shack up with whomever you want, therefore your free to get pregnant, and your free to pay for it.
*Check out my Blog, because you only know as much as your willing to accept*
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mjconnor9
First, I would like to say that i consider the UN to be a fairly unbiased source, especially as it is international. Second of all, I would also like to say that personal experience is not something to be frowned upon. Rather than saying that I know people, or citing some random statistic that very well could be skewed by the both of us, I thought I'd give you a little taste of what life REALLY is like for the lesser priveledged of us. Statistics are impersonal, and my family is not. If you would like me to interview people that I don't know to prove my points, that could be arranged. Also, in case you worry that using my family as examples restricts me in any way, let me tell you, my family spans several countries, more than half of the United States, and half of the people i consider family aren't even really related to me other than by marriage. But i don't think you really care, so let's get to it!
About healthcare being so failed... You never really got to it. Personally, i think it's all in administration. Yes, some of the healthcare systems in other countries are failed. A friend of mine pointed out Canada. Ok. I get it. But not every system is failed. Every system is unique, with it's own ways of doing things. Every system is not doomed to failure. We can't know that. What we can know is that our system, as is, is not working either. When kids are not covered, when employers refuse to supply healthcare, when unemployment is high and the number of jobs is low, when 18,000 Americans die every year from lack of healthcare coverage, when HMO's can refuse to sell you coverage, when they can find ways to revoke your coverage when you become ill, the system is not working. I would like to find that happy medium between socialism and capitalism. (And what i mean by that is government pay with incentives to improve performance- competition without the greedy corporate schemes of the HMO's as it is now.)
About Moore being able to buy private healthcare. Moore can also afford to put any kids he may have through private school, hire his own bodyguards, and have a full team of firefighters at his disposal. Yet, he still pays for our policemen, my education, and those nice men who put out the fires of the American public. At the current moment, America has a wealth distribution worse than that of America right before the Great Depression. How did FDR solve that problem? He set up several goverment programs to help people out. That's what this is about. Yes, the super wealthy can afford things people like me could hardly dream about. But uneven distribution of wealth is not conducive to a healthy economy, and creates a wide gap b etween the rich and the poor. I don't advocate socialized clothing or food... That's ridiculous, and I don't think any American would go for it. I advocate the right for every American to be healthy... you know, that inalienable right to life? Plus, you're paying for healthcare anyway. The governmental total spent is like $200 billion. Universalized healthcare, believe it or not, could help lower that amount. I'll find the statistics later... Real life is in the way right now, and i have homework.
Everyone does NOT benefit from public schools. Not everyone goes to them. It's called expensive private school, or dorky home schooling. Not public education required. Everyone does not use the fire department. Me, myself, I've never had to call them, and neither have my parents, or my grandparents. My friend down the street hasn't had an encounter with them yet, and niether have several thousands of people who just haven't had to deal with fires or kittens stuck in trees. However, public safety is important, as is public health.
About my grandmother, picking up and moving from place to place isn't easy, and it's not feasible. And for at least 16 years each, her kids couldn't get jobs to support themselves. Where she's from, everyone helps everyone, so moving out of the LA projects could very well have meant moving into worse poverty. Let me reiterate- statistics are easy. Real life is not that easy. It's not as simple as get a job and work your way to the top, which is why there are so many poor people struggling and so many QuickCash! centers, and so many commercials about debt consilidation.
Lo siento, pero no estamos numero uno, porque...
And about UN statistics, those statistics were based on responsiveness (for which the US is #1, regardless of the number of uninsured illegal aliens), fairness of financial contribution (taxes), public health overall, and not the number of illegal aliens getting coverage. They were counting documented citizens. So, no I doubt we're numero uno, because our overall health is sickening, and part of that, i think, is due to our lack of preventative healthcare.
To begin, the KKK is also an international orgonization, therefore would you consider it fair and balanced? The U.N., like any orgonization serves to achieve its own agenda, which includes bringing the U.S. down.
I'm all for personal info here. It is actually statistics i am fighting, such as your claims from the "unbiased international" U.N. Numbers can be skewed but logic can't and logic clearly shows that universal healthcare is a failed system. You;ve seen it with canada and you've seen it with Britain, how many more nations will have to suffer for you to believe this is a bad idea???? I did get to it, it was the bit about canada, along with the logic i've stated in previous comments.
I like the idea of every system being unique. SO lets not follow by the example of our socialist fellow nations, lets be something different. Instead of going with the trend and failing with the rest of the pack and go ahead with a capitalist system of healthcare! Lets have a system where you are free to change jobs whenever you want! free to choose a job with healthcare included, free to CHOOSE your healthcare plan and insurance provider, free to live wherever you want, and free to move if living in LA is too expensive. Lets keep unemployment down by not firing the millions of people who work for the healthcare industry and replacing them with government goonies.
REgarding your whole speech from the 1930's. We are privilaged in america to have something called a middle class. Its that tremendous number of people across the nation who are neither rich nor poor. They have jobs and they depend on them to feed their families and pay for health care. WHen you sacrifice billions of tax dollars paid by the middle class (who you refer to as rich) you help the few thousands of people in america out of poverty but you bring the millions of middle-classers down closer to it. In democracy it is the majority who rules and your system benifits the minority and hurts the masses.
My point is that everyone CAN use public schools. Everyone CAN use the fire department. But everyone in america won't be able to use universal healthcare because it won't cut it. It just won't. I'm sorry, it sounds like a good idea sure. I'd love to help thousands of people out but I can't. Its the equivilant of giving a homeless drunk money to buy alcohol. The same irresponisble people will continue to rely on government to pay thier bills for them no matter what you do. They can only learn from experience.
Your grandmother didn;t take a chance of moving out of LA when conditions were bad. That was her decison and she had to live with it. My ancestors were living in Ireland about three hundred years ago. When there was not enough food to go around. They took a chance and moved to a new nation. They knew if all they did was complain they would die. Instead the risked their fortunes to come to america and hope for a better life. Sometimes you have to be willing to move in order to imrove your lifestyle. If you are living in an area you can't afford to live in, it is not the governments fault. You are FREE to relocate.
Yes, they were biased. Unfortunatly the U.N. considers "fairness" as a broad term. The number of uninsured americans is taken into effect in terms of "public health" and this includes illegals. Preventive healthcare is readily available in the united states and people simply need to get jobs and buy it.
Also a note on your "Unemployment" stats. Our unemployment rate does not take into account those not seeking jobs such as: married housewives (or housefathers), minors over the age of 16 (such as myself) who are dependants, or those who are not employed legally.
Estoy apesadumbrado, pero usted debe trabajar en este país legalmente si usted desea hacer el dinero. No damos las cosas ausentes para libre al perezoso.
*Check out my Blog, because you only know as much as your willing to accept*
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mjconnor9