"As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it, now or ever." - Reagan, January 20, 1981

"In Vietnam, we tried and failed in a just cause. No More Vietnams can mean we will not try again. It should mean we will not fail again." - from No More Vietnams by Richard Nixon

Thursday, July 10, 2008

7/11/08 - Reliable Sources - Universal Health Care (Sick in America)

The first part is from UPenn's Wharton Business School on the economics of UHC (October 17, 2007), the second part is from ABC 20/20 - "Sick in America", and the last part is a great discution i had about it on facebook

Presidential Candidates Push Health Care Reform, but Who Will Pay?
Published: October 17, 2007 in Knowledge@Wharton


As medical costs escalate and the number of Americans without health insurance continues to rise, the 2008 presidential candidates have responded by placing health care near the top of their agendas. Indeed, many candidates have already laid out fairly detailed programs to address the nation's health care problems, although their plans to pay for new coverage are less clear-cut, according to Wharton faculty.

Leading candidates are talking about the issue much earlier in the campaign and with greater specificity than in past years -- an indication that health care is more important to voters than ever before. As a result, meaningful change in the system seems likely to occur once a new president takes office, says Mark V. Pauly, Wharton professor of health care systems. "I'm optimistic this time that we'll get something. It won't be Armageddon for the health care system, but there is actually a chance of doing more good than harm, and I wouldn't have said that in some other years."

The plans tend to fall along partisan lines, with leading Democrats endorsing mandated health care insurance for all Americans in order to guarantee that the nation's 47 million uninsured receive coverage. Republicans also want to improve access to the medical system, but they place more emphasis on market-based solutions rather than government mandates. "Both sides are talking about universal coverage and both sides are taking on the issue of the uninsured. That's a step forward," says David Asch, executive director of the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at Wharton.

To pay for the added coverage, Democrats often suggest rolling back President Bush's tax cuts and ending the war in Iraq. Republicans tend to point to competition, deregulation and new efficiencies as ways to reduce costs.

According to Scott Harrington, Wharton professor of health care systems, the notion of mandating coverage is a new ripple in the health care debate. "It's a significant change. Historically we have had government funding through Medicare for seniors and the state-federal Medicaid system for the poor, but we have allowed people not to be covered. A mandate would be a fundamental change to the system."

Heading Off Harry and Louise

When it comes to individual candidates' plans, there is a wide range in specificity but some of the basic elements of the plans are similar, faculty say. Among the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, who spearheaded a failed attempt at major health care reform while she was First Lady, has outlined a $110 billion plan that mandates coverage and would provide subsidies for those who can't pay. "Hillary's plan this time around is scaled back substantially from the Clintons' 1993-94 proposal," says Wharton professor of health care systems Arnold Rosoff. "Their earlier Health Security Act plan was much more complex and ambitious, and they couldn't make it happen. I think [as a result] she has wised up."

Asch describes the current Clinton plan as more of a hybrid between free-market programs and her earlier proposal. That proposal was attacked famously in ads sponsored by the health insurance industry and featuring two characters, Harry and Louise, who raised concerns about government intrusion into the health care system. Clinton now emphasizes the notion of choice and would permit Americans to keep existing coverage or join the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program, which she says would provide greater coverage with no added bureaucracy.

John Edwards' plan, which is estimated to cost as much as $120 billion, also mandates coverage and requires employers to continue to assume responsibility for employee health benefits. His plan also calls for the U.S. government to help states and groups of states create regional Health Care Markets, which would act as non-profit purchasing pools offering a choice of competing insurance plans.

Barack Obama, too, calls for universal coverage and a mandate that all children be covered, but he stops short of extending the mandate to adults. His $65 billion plan also calls for the creation of a National Health Insurance Exchange, which would be a regulated marketplace of competing private health plans that would provide individuals with more affordable options for coverage within the private sector.

Only Dennis Kucinich endorses a full-scale single-payer system of government-managed health care similar to that in Canada. He has proposed extending Medicare coverage to all Americans.

The silence on a single-payer system shows that the candidates are reluctant to propose drastic change, according to Kristin Madison, a University of Pennsylvania Law professor and a senior fellow at Wharton's Leonard Davis Institute. "Five years ago or 10 years ago when people talked about health care reform, they were asking if it should include a single-payer system," she says. "You don't see that in today's proposals. These proposals are much more incremental."

On the Republican side, leading contenders -- including Rudy Giuliani, Tommy Thompson, John McCain and Mitt Romney -- have focused more on a continuation of the current private, market-based system without mandates. Harrington says Giuliani's plan emphasizes tax incentives and improving affordability to reduce the number of uninsured. "But the proposal thus far is not too sharp in terms of specifics. Giuliani is taking the gradualist approach and trying to work around the edges to improve things without starting to create a significantly greater role for government."

Romney's plan would shift charity care funds to subsidies for private insurance, emphasize high-deductible plans and make Medicaid a block grant allowing states more flexibility in developing health care programs. He does not, however, endorse a plan that includes mandated coverage as was enacted in his home state, Massachusetts, when he was governor.

David Grande, a senior fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute, says the Republican proposals lack force. "They reflect an ideological preference for a market-oriented solution but most serious health policy analysts would look at a plan like that and say it would have marginal impact on coverage rates. Any plan that relies on subsidies to purchase private insurance costs a lot of money. You have to give a lot of money to convince people to purchase insurance and that's where the lack of mandates becomes a real problem."

McCain has unveiled a plan that attacks the nation's health care problems from the standpoint of cost control rather than focusing on bringing the uninsured into the fold. The proposal also seeks better management of chronic conditions, such as diabetes or heart disease, which McCain says account for 75% of all health care costs. In addition, he calls for hospital and doctor compensation to be linked to performance, starting with the Medicaid and Medicare programs.

An important element of the McCain plan, according to Rosoff, is the elimination of the employer write-off for health care. Instead, McCain proposes a tax credit of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families that would go toward the purchase of health insurance. "A move away from employer-based health insurance would seem to be a good thing," says Rosoff, "but it's not clear that this is the best way to go about it."

Pauly suggests that many of the plans from both parties could lead to important changes in regulation of health insurance that are not so obvious in a swift appraisal of the proposals. "The thing to worry about is what's below the surface." The Democratic candidates' plans would likely entail new regulation of health care coverage, such as what services insurers could offer and what insurance could qualify for subsidies. "The real issue is the specter of more intense government regulation."

'We Don't Let People Bleed in the Streets'

While most plans make at least some attempt to address the problem of rising health care costs, the issue is enormous and will color the future of health care reform even if the candidates attempt to play it down, according to Wharton faculty.

"Universal health insurance is a great thing, but it is also very costly," says Wharton health care systems professor Guy David. "It's not very easy politically to talk about cost. It's fun to talk about the uninsured and access and making health care fair, but these are just slogans. At the end of the day we, the American people, pay for health care. No matter how we finance health care -- through taxes, subsidies, employers or subsidizing hospitals -- we're paying for it and we're going to keep paying for it."

David says that when health care is made more available, it inevitably becomes less affordable. He pointed to another sticking point for the candidates and their health care platforms: Most voters are not among the uninsured. "What people really care about is what health care costs. Premiums have gone up fast in the past couple of years and insurance is less affordable for those who have it. If we take 47 million people and give them an insurance card to walk into a hospital, the system will be more congested and more costly."

He also points out that the current system provides care for the uninsured through tax breaks for non-profit hospitals that, in return, must agree to treat the indigent. "We don't let people bleed in the streets. One way we do that is subsidies to nonprofit hospitals. It may be a very inefficient way to finance health care, but it exists. If we have universal health care, why do we need non-profits or why should they get exemptions?"

In an article titled, "An Uncertain Prescription: Are Tax Exemptions for Nonprofit Hospitals an Efficient Way to Fund Indigent Care?" David and co-author Lorens A. Helmchen, a professor of health policy at the University of Illinois at Chicago, write: "Poor people might be better off if they could decide for themselves how tax revenue earmarked for their medical care was spent. Under the current system, this decision is the responsibility of the hospital administrators who, in effect, offer the poor a take-it-or-leave-it menu of services."

Mandates would attempt to address the "free rider" problem in which people who tend to be young and healthy choose not to pay for coverage even if they have the money. Instead, they take their chances and depend on some form of charity care if they have a medical emergency. If those people were paying into the system, says Harrington, the added premiums would help underwrite the expenses of those who are sick.

He adds that any new plans to extend coverage to the uninsured must be viewed in the larger context of the nation's two other public programs, Medicaid and Medicare, which are expected to face "catastrophic" funding shortfalls as the Baby Boomers age. "To think about adding another program that conceivably leads to far higher costs and far greater subsidies begs the question: Where is the money going to come from?"

Is Technology the Answer?

Many of the candidates' plans turn to the promise of information technology as a way to reduce costs and improve quality. Even though the industry does lag others in developing electronic data systems, it is unclear how much savings new technology will be able to deliver, according to faculty. Microsoft recently introduced a new online service called HealthVault in which consumers can store their own medical information, such as blood test results and vaccinations. The company insists the free, ad-based service will maintain users' privacy.

Rosoff notes that in 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA),which created new standards for electronic medical data and was designed primarily to improve the efficiency of claims-handling. Along with these cost-saving provisions came elaborate privacy protections that have taken a decade to put into operation. "The perception of many in the health care industry is that HIPAA was a big cost increaser, not a cost saver." He also suggests that many of the "administrative simplification" provisions of the law have now been implemented; therefore it may not be so easy to wring additional cost savings out of new information technology.

Grande agrees that the cost savings resulting from electronic data systems are unknown, but that information systems could lead to improved health care quality. Insurers can already use data to look for ways to improve quality. Meanwhile, physicians' offices could also take advantage of more sophisticated technology to monitor patients in order to manage illnesses more effectively. For example, Grande says, it would be helpful for a practice to know if its diabetes patients had been referred to an eye specialist in any given year.

According to Rosoff, although the health care landscape remains complex, the momentum for reform has accelerated since the days of Harry and Louise. "What I think has changed from 1993-94 is that, although employers were struggling with health care, I don't think they had thrown in the towel." Now, he says, employers have been so beaten down by rising premiums and employees who are unhappy with paying more of their own expenses that they are ready to walk away from offering health care benefits. "The employers' willingness to stand their ground in the past reinforced various other stakeholders in the health care system who didn't want to see change come. The employers were a powerful block, but [these days] that block is shaky."

Now that the plans are taking shape, Asch predicts that the candidates' next step will be to market their health care solutions as the campaigns move into full throttle. He says he has been watching the way words are used to generate powerful messages attached to health care. Clinton, for example stresses "choice" and McCain has latched onto the word "freedom." In the past, he says, opponents of reform have invariably used the term "socialized" medicine to drum up voter concern about change. "It's so funny that the word has been connected to medicine in a negative way. What's wrong with socialized medicine? Nobody says, 'I drive my kids to our socialized school on our socialized roads.'"

Needed Above All: Leadership Ability

Grande argues that since the candidates' plans within each party are quite similar, voters who are deeply concerned about health care should not cast their votes on the nature of a candidate's plans, but for the candidate they think has the most leadership ability to get his or her program passed. "There have been many failed attempts before. What we need more than anything for health care reform is leadership that comes from a new president."

He says Clinton appears to be consolidating support and is emphasizing her understanding and experience with health care. "On the other hand," he continues, "one could easily argue that what the country really needs to achieve health care reform is fresh, new inspiring leadership. Obama brings that to the table."

Harrington imagines a scenario in which miscalculations in the cost to mandate universal coverage may ultimately trigger deeper reform than any candidate is endorsing at this point. "The devil will, in fact, be in the details and it is quite possible a mandate will make matters worse. In conjunction with the Medicare and Medicaid funding problem, mandates could create inexorable pressure for something really radical -- for a single-payer system or more formal or informal rationing of health care through budgeting, as is done in many countries."

For the immediate future, however, the prospects for health care reform seem to be moving along a more gradual continuum. "I think it's highly likely that the changes in our health care system will be incremental," says Rosoff. "There will be a series of steps, some significant perhaps, some just tinkering. But I doubt we will see sweeping reform. I just don't think we have the political will in this country for that, at least not for now."


ABC 20/20













Topic: healthcare ? for bethanyReply to TopicDisplaying posts 1 - 30 out of 55 by 11 people.1
2
Next

Post #1
2 repliesYou wrote
on Jul 1, 2008 at 5:09 PM
ABC 20/20 on healthcare (6 parts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I

what are your thoughts?
i'm asking you b/c you are intelligent and the most mature obama supporter on here

and just as a sidenote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6ZH1ps20WAReply to Your Post
Delete Post
Post #2
1 replyStephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) wrote
on Jul 1, 2008 at 5:09 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uKCWbq18bNkReply to Stephen
Report
Post #3You replied to Stephen's post
on Jul 1, 2008 at 5:29 PM
some of those millions could be overlaping, but even at the very least the % of those who purpasly opt. out of helth insurance that they can afford is still 40%, that is priy extraordinaryReply to Your Post
Delete Post
Post #4Bethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to your post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 2:09 PM
I'm at work, so I can't get onto YouTube, I'll look later tonight unless you would like to give me a text summary. Reply to Bethany
Report
Post #5
2 repliesBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) wrote
on Jul 2, 2008 at 3:14 PM
From part 2:

"If we take this individual into our health care system, along with all the working families and individuals that are already there, it means that, for them, their price will go up extraordinarily."

They go on to say that premiums pay for sick people... and the more sick people, the higher the premium.

My problem with that... without private health care systems, in government controlled health care systems, no one can be turned down because the premiums don't increase and you CANNOT be denied for coverage. I understand they need to make a profit... but that's what the whole idea behind UHC is. Health insurance companies are making a profit... but people who need health insurance the most can't get it.

When I was on my mom's insurance, I had a shoulder injury. I had to have surgery. I had the surgery, but the muscles in my shoulder wouldn't develop. When I left physical therapy I had a 15 lb. weight restriction on my shoulder. Now that I'm off my mom's insurance, I'm a potential liability. So last year, when I developed gall stones, I had to pay for my surgery. It came to $13,000+. I'm a married college student, and I'm unable to get insurance. I can be added to my husband's insurance... but it would cost us something like $900/month... that's almost as expensive as our rent.

I'm saying, that I understand it's everyone for themselves. However, what about when there is no way for people to help themselves. The health system needs to be reevaluated. Health care isn't a luxury item, it's a necessity. And when there's no possible way to get that necessity, something is wrong.

I know I'm getting ready to get a lot of ridiculous attack on this... but it's just my viewpoint.

The point I want to make... is if we had Universal Health Care, would you use it? I don't mind paying higher taxes for something that is guaranteed to me, something that I need. Reply to Bethany
Report
Post #6
2 repliesEric 'Danger' Peebles (Orlando, FL) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 3:25 PM
I agree completely.

Ive thought for a long time that our entire health care infrastructure(like many other kinds of infrastructures in the US) needs to be revamped in such a way that it becomes possible for it to handle greater levels of patients.

And this is a top priority job of the next pres.

The fact that our hospitals fall under the wieght of what is currently being thrown at it is BAD!!!!!

Its very bad. And it needs to be addressed.

In america children get.

Free police protection
Free education
No free healthcare

That is a disgrace and illogical and unethical.

So many problems could be addressed by this yes, costly, yes stressful, and yes LIBERAL idea and the gains and good that could be done by it are IMMESAURABLE.

Here's hoping.Reply to Eric
Report
Post #7
1 replyBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to your post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 3:48 PM
By the way, thank you for the compliment. I'm sure you disagree with everything I said, but it's nice that you asked.Reply to Bethany
Report
Post #8Eric 'Danger' Peebles (Orlando, FL) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 3:50 PM
He has a crush.Reply to Eric
Report
Post #9Stephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) replied to Eric's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 3:50 PM
This video, has some very interesting numbers, watch it and come back to me.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uKCWbq18bNkReply to Stephen
Report
Post #10
1 replyYou replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 4:17 PM
i wasn't aware that you had personal experience with this, but like every personal experience, there is another- equally insightfull one.
the kid who lived next to me in my dorm last year is from canada and his father had gall stones as well. however, in order to attain the surgery for it, he was put on a months-long waiting list. from my understanding, having gall stones suck, and he did not want to bear it for months, so he could do 1 of 2 things. 1. go to a private doctor up their, which is popular, but illiegal in canada. or 2. drive a few hours to new york state and have it done there. he of course choose 2.

the tax burden is an issue separate from what i was addressing, which is quallity of care, but i could get a great article from wharton buissiness school of upenn about the economics of the whole thing (my semi-famous friend heni is on wharton's mailing list and she has posted it here before)Reply to Your Post
Delete Post
Post #11
2 repliesBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to your post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 4:22 PM
See, everytime I hear something like that about a Canadian I don't understand. My friend Helen moved to Canada a few years ago. Her father has terminal cancer and they have never waited for a doctor's appointment. Her brother needed to have his tonsils removed, and they did it in a few days. I have a couple of other friends that live in Quebec. They believe it to be as snobby as stereotypes play it, but are in full support of their health care system. The same goes for my friends in France. I don't personally know anyone living in other countries so I can't speak for them. There isn't a large unnecessary wait in countries with UHC, because they know they can get care whenever they need it. It's not like they all rush to the doctor everyday and give long wait lists, because they know the system is always there when they need it. Reply to Bethany
Report
Post #12
1 replyJoe Burke (Central Bucks High School - East) replied to Eric's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 5:17 PM
"In america children get.

Free police protection
Free education
No free healthcare

That is a disgrace and illogical and unethical."

What's illogical or unethical about it. first of all, there is absolutely no comparison between police, education, and healthcare.

Police protection- a necesity, and one of the few true jobs of government is to enforce its own laws and keep its people safe.

education- not a necesity, but an extremely important component to the economy and our prosperity as a whole. also gives underprivleged chances to be successful.

Healthcare- not a necisity, not vital to the economy or to our prosperity as a nation.

"good that could be done by it are IMMESAURABLE."

You make it out to be as if everyone in the country is dying at 25 because of lack of healthcare. Something like 35% of people without healthcare make over 75k a year, more than enough to afford healthcare if they so desired. The benefits are in fact very measurable, and they arent that great. taking into account the painstaking beauracracy of the thing and the cost, there may not even be benefits.


But again, the big point is that there's no relationship between police, education, and healthcare. thus, what you said is just as logical as this statement.

It's a blasphemy, kids get

free police
free education
no free designer clothes

this is illogical and unethical.

Reply to Joe
Report
Post #13You replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 5:24 PM
i believe that the subject of europe is in the documentary, part 3 is actually the biggest reason i posted the video. it says that tony blair made headlines around the world because of a promise he made to make the waiting list no longer then 18 weeks <- wow. and that their are anual doctor protests in europe because they are underpayed by their government. one very big problem in this country is the shortages of doctors and nurses, and poor pay would not help the situationReply to Your Post
Delete Post
Post #14
2 repliesEric 'Danger' Peebles (Orlando, FL) replied to Joe's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 5:38 PM
You make it out to be as if everyone in the country is dying at 25 because of lack of healthcare. Something like 35% of people without healthcare make over 75k a year, more than enough to afford healthcare if they so desired. The benefits are in fact very measurable, and they arent that great. taking into account the painstaking beauracracy of the thing and the cost, there may not even be benefits.

Please show me where I "make this out".

"But again, the big point is that there's no relationship between police, education, and healthcare. thus, what you said is just as logical as this statement."

Lol. Yes there is a connection between rule of law, or lack there of in poor neighborhoods and that childs performance in school.

That you have not studied that issue and its implications is obvious.

Yes, there is a connection between a students health and there attentiveness and focus in school.

Yes, there is a connection between these things.

I think children need protection, education, and healthcare in order to meet their full potential. Yes, we have gotten along without healthcare for kids for a long time.

However, I think that just like public education was once seen as unneccesary, it is now seen as vital, and I beleive that we should start looking at healthcare for children that same way.

"It's a blasphemy, kids get

free police
free education
no free designer clothes

this is illogical and unethical."

Eh. Youve made no real point except for your continued dislike of healthcare. And that cool. But if you cant see how these issues are connected to a childs education and how that education lays a path for the childs direction in life, well I give up.

Nothing that Ive stated is new.

I dont advocate adults having free healthcare, but kids need this.

I mean, come on, its for kids.......kids man.

At the end of the day, if a parent should naturally be willing to do whatever it took to give their kid the best, I dont understand why this ideal cannot be applied to our society as a whole.Reply to Eric
Report
Post #15
2 repliesAndrew Olson (Iowa State) wrote
on Jul 2, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Is using taxpayer money to pay for socialized healthcare for illegal immigrants (who don't pay taxes and legally shouldn't be here) ethical?Reply to Andrew
Report
Post #16Eric 'Danger' Peebles (Orlando, FL) replied to Andrew's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 5:46 PM
No.

For their children born in the US?

Yes.Reply to Eric
Report
Post #17Stephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) replied to Andrew's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 5:46 PM
They make up 12 million of the 45 million uninsured. But they still receive healthcare through free emergency room free clinics etc.


Reply to Stephen
Report
Post #18Stephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) wrote
on Jul 2, 2008 at 5:48 PM
Lets also not forget that 14 million uninsured chose to opt out of medicare.Reply to Stephen
Report
Post #19
2 repliesJoe Burke (Central Bucks High School - East) replied to Eric's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:10 PM
You make it out when you state that the effects of having universal health care would be immeasurable.

"Lol. Yes there is a connection between rule of law, or lack there of in poor neighborhoods and that childs performance in school.

That you have not studied that issue and its implications is obvious."

My point was that you made a false analogy. Because education and police protections is payed for does not in any way support the argument for uiversal healthcare. they are completely different.

"I think children need protection, education, and healthcare in order to meet their full potential. Yes, we have gotten along without healthcare for kids for a long time."

They also need food, clothing, grooming, love and affection, money, among many other things to reach their full potential. should the government be providing all of that as well. Just because someone needs something doesnt mean it should be given to them for free. Police are provided by the government because the people cannot realistically police themselves justly. Public education is not a necissity. My parents pay enough in school taxes up here to send me and my brother and sister to private school. I dont disagree with public education and i think its very important, but if freed from paying school taxes, many parents could easily afford to send their kids to school elsewhere.


"I mean, come on, its for kids.......kids man."

this argument does not sway me in the least. It's an obvious appeal to pity. Why should children be entitled to something that adults are not. If a kid gets sick and misses 3 weeks of school, big deal, they'll get back and the world goes on for that family as usual. If a working father gets sick and misses 3 weeks of work, the implications on that mans life, family, and possibly the business he works for could be tremendous.

"at the end of the day, if a parent should naturally be willing to do whatever it took to give their kid the best, I dont understand why this ideal cannot be applied to our society as a whole."

seriously? are you communist? collectivist? For one, forcing an ideal on a society can in many ways be viewed as tyranny, even if its a seemingly innocent one like this. In addition, society as a whole is not responsible for taking care of someone elses shortcomings. It's really simply, if you cant afford to have kids, dont have them.

There should be safety nets for the unfortunate and unforseeable circumstances, i agree with that. But we shouldnt be playing babysitter for every moron and inadequate caretaker. Whatever happened to individual responsibility, is it really a value that our societie's lost? All these democrats seem to think that responsibility falls on society as a whole, and personally it sickens me.Reply to Joe
Report
Post #20
1 replyEric 'Danger' Peebles (Orlando, FL) replied to Joe's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:26 PM
There is no force in what Im proposing.

This program is a choice made by parents.

There will be many parent who will choose not to take it and that is fine.

Stop making narratives that I did not create. You keep making arguments for me that I didnt make.

All Im talking about is taxpayer funded healthcare for kids. Thats it. Im not even really for it being mandatory, but I cant understand why a parent who could not afford it themselves would not put their kid in the program.Reply to Eric
Report
Post #21
1 replyEric 'Danger' Peebles (Orlando, FL) replied to Joe's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:26 PM
Ive realized that you keep making slippery slope arguments out of what Im talking about.

Please stop doing that and just address the issue.Reply to Eric
Report
Post #22Joe Burke (Central Bucks High School - East) replied to Eric's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:29 PM
by force i means you're forcing soceity to pay for it. Unless you propose to make the healthcare appear out of thin air, then you are forcing society to pay for it.Reply to Joe
Report
Post #23Joe Burke (Central Bucks High School - East) replied to Eric's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:32 PM
no, im not making slippery slope arguments, re-read what i said. Im not saying anything will happen, im saying that, using your logic, the same arguments can be made for other things that hold the same logical validity as your argument for healthcare.

you said universal healthcare is vital to help kids grow to reach their potential and therefore should be taxpayer funded. I then said many other things that are vital for kids to reach their potential. Unless you can provide how universal healthcare is more important or notably different from those other things, then your argument about it being necesary for potential is moot.Reply to Joe
Report
Post #24Connor Sorensen (Portage Northern High School) wrote
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Don't forget that once doctor's are all paid the same the quality of their care drops quite a bit, once you take out competition then noone will care how well they do their job, they will be paid all the same. Do we really want a horrible health care system for all or a great one for most? Look at countries that do have UHC, their health care systems all suck! Their doctors are not nearly as good as ours. We already have one of the best health care systems, how about we don't mess with it and keep it that way.Reply to Connor
Report
Post #25
1 replyJesse Ritcey (Kelowna, BC) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:40 PM
The Quebec supreme court recently ruled that universal healthcare is in violation of that province's constitution because of the long wait times.

Getting your tonsils out and cancer care are pretty routine things that won't take too long.

Where you start to have huge waitlists is for any sort of medical testing - x-rays are no wait but MRIs and ultrasounds take months - and things like hip and joint replacement take years. Seeing any sort of medical specialist beyond your average family doctor takes months and months.


The statement that there isn't long and unnessecary wait lists in countries with UHC is just plain untrue. The Canadian government has made it one of the top five national priorities to try to reduce wait times because there's protests and complaints across the country.Reply to Jesse
Report
Post #26
1 replyYou wrote
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:40 PM
interesting disccution from youtube

milena4032 (1 year ago) Show Hide Marked as spam Reply Thanks for your comments: my intention was just as "yocallmed" described it. Universal health care for everyone NOW!
rabblewatch (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Ontario's healthcare is a death-machine. I've seen relatives of mine die a horrible death thanks to bureaucracy and basically waiting to die. Also, when I was willing to pay to expedite some treatments, I was told that this was 'illegal'. Thank you Health Canada. Thank you Tommy Douglas. I now can watch my loved ones die a horrible death.
lizzielou73 (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam agree rabblewatch. Trying for 4-years to get on a lung transplant list in Canada is exceedingly frustrating. Waiting 9 months to get in to see a specialist and get no where is frustrating, no to mention the other long waits. Watching your senior mother suffer and go untreated for a cat bite infection (6-months of suffering and no treatment) and we do have VERY LONG waiting lists in Canada. There are many, many problems.
mongobobo (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam I should say first of all that I'm a US citizen living in the USA. I've heard many negative stories as well from many Canadian friends, so I wonder why milena would make this video if it weren't true?
lizzielou73 (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Like in the United States some people receive good care. The same is true of Canada. I would not have made my comments if they also were not true. If you click on my name you'll see a video of my mom's video, she has Alzheimer's and clearly, I'm wearing O2. My family and I've had many experiences with Canadian healthcare - mostly negative. Thanks.
lizzielou73 (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam I did want to point out however that my mom does receive excellent care at the nursing home. Her care is however not fully government funded and certainly is not free. We pay every month towards mom's care. It this regard its somewhat private and not fully covered. We ran into problems with some care in hospitals, with long waiting lists, follow up care being denied for my lungs, and so on.
mongobobo (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam I lived in England for a number of years and I know for a fact that those who can afford it pay for private health insurance. To rely soley on the NHS is akin to a death sentance. However, if you need a check up or a prescription, it works very well and very fast.
milena4032 (1 year ago) Show Hide Marked as spam Reply The health care system in Canada does need some continuing attention; however, the experiences I described in the video are true and come from, on the one hand, one of the poorer provinces in Canada and, on the other, one of the richest. Having said that, I'm sorry about your lung, lizzielou73, and about your mom.
lizzielou73 (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Thanks milena, I just hope that I can get on a lung transplnt list in time. Hope your family members are doing well. :)
lizzielou73 (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam I live in Nova Scotia and my friend's father died of cancer. It took too long for the doctors to do anything. Some of our hospital ERs are closed on weekends, holidays and during the week, and QEII respirologists refuse to treat me and provide follow up care. In my opinion NS's healthcare is terrible.
filiusardentis (1 year ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam This whole issue has brought out some interesting debate among those willing to avoid "attack" responses. Seems like there is plenty of room to improve on all of the systems. Has anyone seen reliable, non-partisan polls for major nations concerning whether they would like to return to a US-style market system? I got some interesting stats from Wikipedia: en<dot>wikipedia<dot>org/wiki/Universal_health_car e#Health_care_economics
jscottupton (1 year ago) Show Hide -1 Marked as spam Reply | Spam I like your style...even though I oppose government run health care. My kids learned to read and write in a government run school. That doesn't change the fact that the government run schools are a mess. We need to get the government out of most of what it is doing. Liberty forever.
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Medicare, schooling, police, fire departments, postal services, and libraries are already 'socialized' in America. It works in every other industrialized nation. 9-11 resuce workers are REFUSED health care, thousands die or are left destitute in America... its utterly stupid to be against universal health care in the U.S. GREED is killing Americans.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide -1 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Utterly stupid? Try living in Canada and going without specialised care for a severe lung condtion, because of our medical system. Healthcare in Canada is not all its cracked up to be. In Canada people DIE waiting and trying to get care.
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Many Americans have to wait as well, and millions are DENIED care. I read that annually maybe 100 Canadians die waiting, while 18,000 Americans die. You would prefer NO health care for 47 million Canadians as with Americans? I doubt Canadians in ERs are denied attention as Americans die in the ER waiting room. Which system sounds more humane?
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide -1 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Americans are NOT denied care. I have many American friends with cystic fibrosis who are poor, middle class and wealthy. None are denied care. Americans in ERs are not denied care either. Legally, ERs are not allowed to deny care. As for the hospital Moore spoke about it was a government funded hospital - like Canada's - that has a long history of negligent care. People have tried to shut it down and lobbyists keep trying to keep King Harbor open. American system is more humane.
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide +1 Marked as spam Reply | Spam A woman just died in LA for no ER treatment. Wife and I pay $1100 monthly for 80% coverage in America. My heart surgery costs $365000 leaving $73,000 I owe AND they are partial denying the 70% too. Was stuck with $10,000 from previous insurance company denying coverage on broken leg. Everyone I know has a similar story. HMOs SUCK! Wait til you have major medical.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide -1 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Unfortunately, this lady died at King-Harbor Hospital which happens to be government funded (just like our Canadian hospitals). The money is available at this hospital to care for everyone. This hospital has been in trouble on many other occasions and still people are fighting to keep it open. It needs to close.
Canada's healthcare system works like the giant HMO's that you are hoping to avoid.
met66 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam You dont even live here and yet proclaim to know our system and that no one is denied because you know some people? WHat? Lizzie. You're beginning to appear not all that bright.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam I have some relatives and many American friends with chronic illnesses who receive excellent care (and even lung transplants) and have been to the US for medical care and one emergency - was supposed to be on vacation, Care was excellent. I have lived in Canada my whole life and "know" what the system is "really like here" and unless you live in Canada and must come to the US for care, because you are not receiving it in Canada than you are not in the position to judge me, met66.
met66 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam You make pronouncements about the US system but have no experience. Previously, you stated "no one dies from tooth infections" - wrong.." no one dies because they are denied care" - wrong. You said all thiswithout knowing OUR system. I made NO claims to know how things are in Canada because I've not experienced them.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide +1 Marked as spam Reply | Spam I've told you that I've received healthcare in the US and in Canada and can therefore compare both systems, and that I have American relatives and many friends in the US who are receiving excellent care - they are not rich. If you think that people do not die in Canada, met66 FOR A LACK of care you are sadly mistaken.
burtonchalmers (11 months ago) Show Hide -1 Marked as spam Reply | Spam are you trying to say that the us helth care system isn't broken
gergenheimer (7 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Obviously, the U.S. system has its problems, but the Canadian solution is 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Canadians have been able to sustain their system out of national pride and willing self-sacrifice, but they are getting tired of suffering in silence. That is why "illegal" private clinics are emerging all over Canada, much to the chagrin of politicians who want to maintain their stranglehold on individual liberties. Now it is being sold in the U.S. with the help of a complicit media.
Jakoliss (7 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam I don't think what bothers politians is important... so i am agreeing. but really that is a broad and very generalized assumption. i live in Canada, i pay for health care $44 dollars a month per person. whether i am working or not i get it. it is becomeing broken because less and less is covered. but i think universal health care should be the ultimate goal, affordable and universal. when anyone in need of treatment in either country is being left behind, the system had fallied. just ask them.
gergenheimer (7 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam I am categorically opposed to any system of universal healthcare, and here's why. To accept the premise you must believe access to healthcare is a right. It cannot be a right, however, because no person may claim a right that deprives another person of their life, liberty or the fruits of their labor. To believe in universal healthcare you must be prepared to look a doctor in the eye and tell them why he/she should be your indentured servant.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Google "Socialized Medicine Killing Hundreds Of Thousands In Scotland"
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam That may be in Scotland, but not in France, Britain, Canada, etc.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Actually, it is true in Canada. I happen to be Canadian and hear of people dying due to our long waiting lists. Stories have been on the national and local news and in our papers. I'm sorry to say it happens.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Mr. Rid: Sorry about your medical bills and I agree this is an obstacle. However, I'm actually coming to the US this fall, because I'm going without necessary respiratory care in Canada.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Sorry had to break comment up:

Expensive "medical" trip, yes. Worth it? Our hope (family, friends, doctors, nurses, mine) is yes. My point is that the Canadian model of UHC is not the answer. With the greater population in the US a Canadian model on its own will not work. Perhaps, the answer is a combination of European type UHC and American healthcare.
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Good luck, when 9-11 rescue workers cant get necessary respiratory care in the U.S.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Thanks MrRid, have had success before in the US and hope this is another successful medical trip. As for Michael Moore if he truly cared about the 911 Rescuers why not donate the profits from Sicko towards helping them and their families? Seriously, this would be an excellent idea and could help many.
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam How about you go make a movie about trying to save 47 MILLION people from having no basic health care, and stop greedy corporations from profiting billions off suffering and death of millions of Americans, and turn all the profits over to a small group of people. Then get back with us about your criticism of Moore.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Thanks MrRid, but you claim Mr. Moore has already done this with the exception of turning over the money to help the people who you claim to be uninsured. He's a multimillionaire and could afford to help others. At this time, I'm concentrating on my health and getting listed for a double lung transplant and hope one day to do more to help society.
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Good for you. Stop knocking Moore.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Thanks MrRid, but I still disagree with you about Mr. Moore. Until he tells the complete truth without distortions in making his films someone has to keep him honest.
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam So the girl who posted this video is lying too?
clemep (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam what are you? up michael moore's ass or something? why do you care so much if someone criticizes him?
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Moore's films increase awareness to change the crap in the world and attempt to help millions in desperate need, and people attack him for it. WTH? If U can do better then do it! Its not Moores responsibility to pay rescue workers health care, or mine or yours. Government cant keep excluding the poor from basic human services.
MrRid (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam lizzielou, about Moore helping the rescue workers- if you go to michaelmooredotcom, 11% of Sicko profits go to help the rescue workers. They also offer suggestions on what else you can do to help.
lizzielou73 (11 months ago) Show Hide 0 Marked as spam Reply | Spam Its good that he is helping, however he only publishes the "good' letters and not the "not so happy letters" on Canadian healthcare (on his website) My point is do not be mislead. I also wrote Moore a letter about my mom not receiving treatment for a severe cat bite infections and about specialists refusing to treat me. Interestingly, my letter and I'm sure those sent by others were ignored, because they did not favour his viewpoint.Reply to Your Post
Delete Post
Post #27Jesse Ritcey (Kelowna, BC) wrote
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Bottom line is that single payer universal healthcare is stupid.

It subsidizes the medical care of rich people via price controls - how backwards is that?

Everyone pays the same generally low amount and then you have Warren Buffet and Bill Gates getting unlimited medical care for a pricer lower than they afford to pay.

You need a private system alongside any public system as a safety release valve for long wait lists.

Let Bill Gates pay more, considerably more (money for a doctor to work overtime) so that he can jump to the front of the line - thereby reducing the wait lists without draining resources which is a win win situation.Reply to Jesse
Report
Post #28
3 repliesJesse Ritcey (Kelowna, BC) replied to your post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 6:52 PM
People die in hospital waiting rooms all the time in Canada.

When Michael Moore made the movie Sicko, which sang the praises of UHC without talking about the downside, everybody here thought the guy was a complete idiot. Reply to Jesse
Report
Post #29You replied to Jesse's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 7:00 PM
and he loved cuba's
a little fact check for him
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6ZH1ps20WAReply to Your Post
Delete Post
Post #30
1 replyJoe Burke (Central Bucks High School - East) replied to Jesse's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 7:00 PM
it's like ive said before, the usa has the best healthcare in the world for those who can pay. Your healthcare is fast, effective, and efficent. If i banged up my wrist at football practice, i could walk to the hospital, get an x-ray, and know whats wrong with it in only hours. In canada, id be extremely lucky if that was the case. A kid who i used to work with used to live in france and said he broke his shin playing soccer and it took 5 days to get an x-ray.
Displaying posts 31 - 55 out of 55 by 11 people.Prev
1
2

Post #31You replied to Joe's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 7:23 PM
i think we, the people who oppose uhc, are very lucky to have moore as uhc's spoacksman b/c he is soo stupidReply to Your Post
Delete Post
Post #32Eric Schiferl (Madison, WI) wrote
on Jul 2, 2008 at 9:45 PM
I'm tired of seeing the liberals in this thread saying "free healthcare" instead of "universal healthcare." Universal healthcare is NOT free healthcare. NO healthcare is FREE. It is payed for with OUR taxes, unless of course the democrats have some sort of magical money pit that will pay for it. Don't think that universal healthcare will take the burden of paying for it off your shoulders. You will just be paying for it with taxes instead.Reply to Eric
Report
Post #33
2 repliesBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to Jesse's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 9:54 PM
So instead of waiting.... we chose to let Americans go uninsured for the pure fact that they NEED the insurance? If not UHC... then something. Because it's not ethical to turn down people who are in most need of the insurance, simply because they need the insurance. There is no logical way to argue that that is ok. If not government controlled health care, then how do you suppose we fix this?Reply to Bethany
Report
Post #34
1 replyAshley Turner Galvin (Portland, OR) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 9:55 PM
"If not government controlled health care, then how do you suppose we fix this?"

anything but that. Pretty sure we already had this discussion, but when has the government ever done anything efficiently? Reply to Ashley
Report
Post #35
1 replyBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to Jesse's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 9:57 PM
People die in American hospital rooms too.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/02/waiting.room.death/index.html

Canada's deaths represent "long waiting lists". America's deaths represent lack of care. It's money more than care. I know this argument is a cornerstone of logical fallacy, but it doesn't take away the initial frustration of the whole thing. Reply to Bethany
Report
Post #36
1 replyBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to Ashley's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:00 PM
But the health care system isn't taking care of the people who need it. They drive up the costs because the insurance will pay whatever. However, for those of us unable to get health insurance, it just makes it impossible to do anything to help ourselves. It's so... pathetic to be so helpless, to see that you have problems and not be presented a solution.

We need someone to step in and say "this isn't working, let's fix it". If not UHC... then something. Because it's not ethical to only cater to the fix and the healthy. Reply to Bethany
Report
Post #37
1 replyStephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:02 PM
There is no problem with healthcare.14 million opt out of medicare that they could get, 17 million uninsured live in households that earn over 50,000, 9 million live in houses that earn an income over 70,000.

Look, they may have to cut back on luxury items a bit to pay for healthcare, but tough luck, we shouldn't have to pick up the tab for them, they ought to make healthcare more of a priority in their budget. Reply to Stephen
Report
Post #38
1 replyBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to Stephen's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:04 PM
I'm not talking about those people. Read my earliest post... I'm talking about people who can't get health insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Those people who NEED the insurance that can't get it unless they pay out the ass for it. When it comes to be almost $900/month for a two person household, it isn't cutting back on luxury items, it's impossible. Reply to Bethany
Report
Post #39
1 replyStephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:05 PM
They can go to health clinics and hospitals.

We shouldn't overturn a successful healthcare system for 7 million or so people.Reply to Stephen
Report
Post #40
1 replyBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to Stephen's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:07 PM
... what are you talking about. We shouldn't reevaluate a health care system for the people that need it the most.

And going to clinics and hospitals STILL costs money. Getting medicine STILL costs money. Having surgery STILL costs money.

--- quite a bit of it. I would know. Reply to Bethany
Report
Post #41
1 replyStephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Yea, it does cost money, deal with it. Deal with your budget accordingly, it shouldn't have anything to do with my pocketbook.

FYI,m there are free clinics and cheaper clinics, sure the care might not be first class, but it is pretty good. Reply to Stephen
Report
Post #42
1 replyBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to Stephen's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Wow... deal with it? Are ya serious kid? How does a married college student figure in 13K into their budget?

And why should I be denied first class care? Because I had an injury at one point that has NOTHING to do with my current injuries? What kind of messed up logic is that.

I've moved past the UHC... because it's obviously too much to ask for. I'm wondering how we solve the problem of the uninsured who want to be insured, just can't afford it or can't get it. Reply to Bethany
Report
Post #43
1 replyStephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:15 PM
Yes, you get what you pay for, the more you pay for something, the better it should be.

Stop mooching off me and the 250k classReply to Stephen
Report
Post #44
2 repliesBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to Stephen's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:18 PM
Wow, I'm done replying to you. I'll wait for a McCain supporter to reply that knows something about couth.

I'm not talking about mooching you idiot. I'm talking about solutions. But it's time for bed, and I don't really care what you have to say anyway. Reply to Bethany
Report
Post #45Stephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:20 PM
McCain is going to give everyone healthcare vouchers essentially, tax rebates worth thousands of dollars, stop trying to raise taxes on us in the upper middle class and take back you own money, you don't need to take ours. Reply to Stephen
Report
Post #46
2 repliesBethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:23 PM
By this I mean... perhaps not taxing anyone or having UHC. I'm not talking about "mooching" like the ever so eloquent high school put it. I'm talking about how we make sure health care is available to everyone. We won't tax anyone, and everyone will pay for their own... but we need to revisit the system itself, so that people who need it can't be denied. It's just so unethical on every level. Reply to Bethany
Report
Post #47Stephen Ceccon (Loyola High School) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:26 PM
You realize expansion of government healthcare cost money, and they get that money through taxes, c'mon, this is basic economics.

Reply to Stephen
Report
Post #48
1 replyAshley Turner Galvin (Portland, OR) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 2, 2008 at 10:26 PM
I hear ya. I don't have any solutions...but I do like McCain's plan. Sorry that kid is being a dick to you. He seems to do that to someone every night, and is apparently hasn't mastered the skill of debating and discussing like an adult.Reply to Ashley
Report
Post #49
1 replyKristen Massabni (Maryland) replied to Eric's post
on Jul 3, 2008 at 6:50 AM
I don't have that strong of an opinion on whether or not children should get free health care just because I've never really thought about it so I'm not saying I disagree with your opinion that they should. However, nutrition and sleeping habits mainly affects childrens performance in school. I know healthcare is a broad term, but the main issue in poverty stricken issues is that these kids are simply hungry or tired! That is why they may get sick...their immune system isn't working properly because they haven't been fed or haven't slept. I know of teachers that bring food to their classrooms to make sure their children get to eat so they can concentrate. Yeah, there are free/reduced breakfasts and lunch but some kids can't make it to school early enough to receive the breakfast. It is really sad. Kids pay for their parents mistakes in life..its not fair and it does suck but I don't have the answer for it because its not a simple answer! Maybe free healthcare for children is a start. Like I said, I'm not sure how I feel about it.

I learned in one of my education classes (I'm going to school to be a teacher-almost finished- yay!!) that the US is second to last (as in the rates are horrible!) when it comes to child poverty- out of the developed nations that is. Only Mexico's child poverty rates are worse. I couldn't believe it. Its really sad. We can't expect these children to do well in school when they aren't eating or sleeping at home. These children don't have supervision at home since their parents are either working all the time or participating in illegal activities (just wanted to put it nicely- there was this one women that was hoeing herself out in her home. she would kick her kid out of the house between 10-2 AM to "work"). Sorry, I'm getting a little off topic but my point is there are far worse issues affecting childrens performace in school then if they get to goto the doctors when they're sick. Reply to Kristen
Report
Post #50Kristen Massabni (Maryland) replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 3, 2008 at 7:05 AM
I just got finished taking a life/accident/health insurance class to get certified to sell insurance. You may have to double check on this (I haven't taken my test yet, I take it Tuesday so I'm in the middle of reading a very long/boring ass book that makes me want to fall asleep after every page I read), but I think a great way to ensure insurability for children is to purchase life insurance for them when they are young and do not have health problems. There are many policies that once they are purchased, there is no requriement for medical exams when you extend the coverage,change the policy type,etc. If you buy a policy that accumulates a cash value, when certain health issues arise, you are able to take money out of your policy. Now I know this doesn't help you at all since you are an adult, but it's just an idea for when you have children. I'm still in the life section of this book. When I get to the health part, I'll let you know if I have anything better then that that may help you out :-). Reply to Kristen
Report
Post #51Eric 'Danger' Peebles (Orlando, FL) replied to Kristen's post
on Jul 3, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Me too.

Yay!!

But what you are saying is the point that I was trying to make to Joe.

The evidence to support this is overwhelming.Reply to Eric
Report
Post #52
1 replyYou replied to Bethany's post
on Jul 3, 2008 at 11:04 AM
what happened to that individual was a crime and an outrage, a similar event happened a few months ago in la in which a woman was lying on the floor of a hospital lobby suffering and bleeding, and not only was she ignored, but a janitor was sent mop up the blood while she was still alive and suffering. but i hope you do realize that this is illeagal and not the norm in any way, that is why their is outrage about these individual insidents, and it is not really valid to judge such a vast and complex system as our healthcare system on rare individual incidentsReply to Your Post
Delete Post
Post #53Bethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to your post
on Jul 3, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Aye, I'm not naive enough to think this is a standard or even close to normal. I was just using it as an example (which is why I included my own logical fallacy clause). Reply to Bethany
Report
Post #54Bethany Ray Goodman (Kansas) replied to Ashley's post
on Jul 3, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Meh, I've noticed how his youth and partisan ignorance pans out every once in awhile. It happens.

I have a very good opinion of McCain supporters in general. You all, for the most part, are very debatable and knowledgeable.

No comments: