 |
| |
|
|
DRoseDARs
|
 |
"My god, it's full of peas..."
Jul 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
My mom: 75,000,001
My stepdad: 75,000,002
Me: 75,000,003
He lost his job in mid-December (but wasn't told until the 29th of that month) and has decided NOT to do the Cobra Insurance, since he believes he can get another job in the next few months, hence insurance. The company he worked for kept changing from one crappy insurance plan to another every few months, looking for ever-cheap garbage being passed off as "coverage." The few times we've need to use the insurance, it's been hell getting the "flavor-of-the-month" plan to help us. They constantly try to weasel their way out of living up to their obligations as spelled out in their already weasely contracts. Point being: free-market insurance coverage is a craps-shoot, but always know what you're going to get...plenty of crap.
Anyone who says the United States DOESN'T need and is better off without a national health insurance plan needs to get a clue...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Good book title I saw at a bookstore - "Private choices, public consequences." It talked about how a person's choices, let's say, to not eat a healthy diet and to become morbidly obese had huge overall costs to the medical system. I skipped because it was already old hat.
The problem right now with health care in the United States is three fold. First, already well discussed by other posters, is that too many people have their noses to the trough. Everybody wants to balance the system on someone elses profits or taxes.
So this hideously inefficient system produces people getting basic delayed health care in emergency rooms, which results in very high hospital fees for everyone concerned. A BASIC health care plan, along the way of public clinics, would cost less than the passed on cost of this kludge. Except some states would underfund it so the poor would leave and go to states with better benefits, or politicians would use it to show how "derelicts" are abusing the system and too lazy, etc. to get votes and find the one 800 pound never-employed photo-op for an attack ad, and companies would dump their workers onto it rather than fund real health insurance, AND MOST AMERICAN VOTERS AS A WHOLE ARE TOO LAZY TO RESEARCH THE ISSUES AND VOTE IN PRIMARIES AND LOOK AT REAL COSTS AND PAY THE NECESSARY HIGHER TAXES OR ADMIT THEY DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS  .
quote:
People get the government they deserve. -- Adlai Stevenson |
As long as the majority of voters don't bother to research exactly who is paying off politicians, or bother to look at the party platform, look at the consequences of what "their" party stands for, and looks at how their representatives voted (rocket science), we will continue with this mess. It's hardly unique to the year 2003 in the United States, and somehow I don't expect a surprise in 2004 .
The last problem is that from the other side we don't want people to pay for the consequences for their actions - leaving out comprehensive health care for children, anything less is idiotic, they're our FUTURE for goodness sakes. I come from a family with a terrible history of heart disease. My heart doctor loves me, I do almost everything I'm supposed to. I'm a cook, a pretty good one by the amount of friends who want to visit when I do so, and damn it I MISS butter, bacon, cheese, ham bones (or any pork, for that matter), steaks with lots of tasty fat, I'd better stop or I'll end up drooling on the keyboard.
So I am compliant to my cardiac regimen, and I resent the morbidly obese sod on MY health plan who grill steaks for lunch parties at work, almost always brings in mega-helping of fast food, while my low-fat diet brings derision from my male coworkers (the women just think having a man who cooks is nice  ). Socialized health care doesn't deal with that issue either, and nobody in the United States is talking about COMPREHENSIVE health care for kids, basic health care from a "its cheaper than emergency room pass-on costs", and maybe some consequences for your actions, i.e. why did Mickey Mantle get a liver transplant after destroying his old one with alchohol. Oh well, I'll vote for the kids and hope the other two issues get solved along the way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus
|
 |
flying too low to the ground
May 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
Uber, this might shock you but the vast majority of the unemployed aren't ghetto/urban people with 10 kids that have babies simply to collect welfare. This kind of opposition to such health-care programs comes from a lack of understanding of poverty in America. |
I don't see why a governing body should support something that doesn't support it directly. I see the humanitarian view point, and I point and laugh at it.
quote:
And despite DD's and your cold, heartless views of what human rights' are, no child should be without medical care in a civilized society. You want less government? Move to Somalia or some other African country where warlords and militia factions reign free because of a lack of a strong central government. Anarchy is the equivalent of war. Freedom and democracy require a strong government to protect the people from the evils of society. |
I never said I wanted less government. Infact, I believe a universal health care system is quite feasible and desireable, but I simply don't see why people who aren't supporting such a system should benefit from it. Universal health care system for WORKERS 
quote:
Che summed it up. Health care is a very profitable industry. The informed objection to nationalized health-care is motivated by greed. The ignorant objection to nationalized health-care comes from people that don't understand how the industry works and are unaware of the injustices of poverty in America. |
tricksie hobbit called me ignorant with style and finesse. kudos.
yes. the industry is lucrative. yes. people are greedy.
this IS a capitialism, thats how it works.
if you're going to mix and match ideologies, I'd like to see a large-scale plan, rather than a "hey, this looks pretty cool, lets make our government do it too!".
good points all around though. one of the better debates in recent memory.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SirTweek
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker
Despite what you've read here, most Canadians don't even want a 'two tier' system where the rich could pay more to 'que jump'.....let alone an American style free-for-all!
In Korea your employer and you split the cost of health insurance in half.
The unemployed seem to be thrown on the much talked about, but little seen 'Christian charity' I've heard about.... (at 35% Korea is the most Christian country in Asia, although one suspects it may be mostly for tax purposes)
I guess in the US anyone unlucky enough to be unemployed without rich relatives must be a teenage dope addict gangmember, so it's OK if those people get sick and die or something...or at least that's the impression I get when Americans hear the subject of social responsibility towards the unfortunate.... |
Christian charity LOL you want to see the biggest scam artists and theives look towards christian charities. I could only imagine a health system payed for by them. I work for the Salvation Army and any of you would be suprised by the level of corruption and stupid little petty things they do to make a extra buck. Hey if you can't steal from the poor and the government in the name of Jesus then who can you steal from.
The way I've seen healthcare work where I live is that the teenage dope addict gangmembers unless they are in dire need are almost always the last on the list, as it should be. Most of the hospitals around here provide service according to need and the person. Health care professionals know who is paying thire wages and the unemployed rubby that comes in every week isn't one of them. The derelict that comes in every week to get a few pain killers to kill his hangover, the gang member that needs stiches from being stabbed are going to wait a lot longer then I will in the ER at least that's been my experience. Universal healthcare for all but with some discretion is the way I go.
Conservatives ranting about single mothers popping out babies to collect bigger welfare cheques are right in some ways, a lot of these people do exist. I have no sympathy for a person that doesn't want to work we have enough social programs in Canada to help anyone that wants to get a job and the ones that do use these services are unemployed for a short time. Others choose not to use the services and barring serious illness in my opinion they should be working in labour camps. It's unfortunate that we don't have the money to be able to review everyone on a case by case basis.
I've met people at my job that in there 20's and 30's that haven't worked a day in their life. They get their treaty money then go out and blow it and spend the rest of their life floating between living in jail and living off crime. I've also met these single mothers who seem to think welfare is their right and sadly enough for them welfare is set up so that it is their right. Yet there are men that are seriously mentaly ill that can't get it together enough because of their sickness to apply and get assistance.
The reason Canada's healthcare system is doing poorly now has nothing to with ideology but has to do with the fact that the senior population is beginning to rise without an equivalent rise in youth to take up the jobs to pay the taxes to keep healthcare going. I've heard that this is a problem in many western countries.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DRoseDARs
|
|
"My god, it's full of peas..."
Jul 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
Imran: Yeah, I know.  I don't get why he's decided that, but methinks the Cobra plan is like regular unemployment in that it runs out after so-and-so time. I think you can only use it for so long before you're SOL.
Uber: I have class not too long from now as well. As far as what you've said in that last post yes, these things I know. You've stated the problems eloquently. "Economics" wields too much influence in "Social" and "Political" issues. People bleet on and on about "American Values" and "American Ideals" like so many sheep, but they are refering to socio-political values and ideals, not economics per ce. So why do we continue to allow economics determine what is right and what is fair? (<--Rhetorical question)
People poo-poo the idea of higher taxes to finance all manner of social programs and rightly so, but only just. Besides being uncaring slobs who couldn't give a rat's arse about their fellow Human, the look at various government programs and see corruption and waste. But that's what you get when you have too many cooks in the kitchen...and not a single cook among them. Politicians aren't doctors; politicians aren't social workers; politicians aren't law-enforcment agents; politicians aren't pilots and on and on and on...point being politicians are experts in NOTHING, except politics. So why are they medeling in social programs instead of sticking with the political stuff? (<-- Another rhetorical question) Lazzai-Faire economics is the absence of politicians to muck things up. They leave much of the market up to people who are experts in economics, not career politicians. A similar approach should be taken with social issues: experts make the guidelines/policies/rules-and-regulations and politicians make it happen. There would be some corruption, I'll grant that because that's Humanity for you  but at least SOME effort to build a social system influenced by social experts is better than NO effort or half-assed effort by politicians influenced by the economic system.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SirTweek
|
|
Well there are many examples. I'll start with employees. They use 'donations' off your paycheques as a disciplinary measure, this is illegal currently it is in the polcies binder but it has never happend to me or it would go to court. They collect two dollars a month for a social fund that has never been used in the years I worked there. There health plan is very expensive because the provider donates to the salvation army in assurance that all employees subscribe to this plan. They hire mentally challenged people on as full time volunteer workers to do menial tasks with no intention of ever putting them on a salary knowing that the guys are to handicapped to realize the diffrence. During a strike in another province they payed out residents cigerattes and movie passes to do the employee's work. During a strike in Ontario they had a judge rule against them for using methods that are unethical. Such as hiring a security firm to harrass and curse at female strikers and to attempt to forcefully run them onto the road. The judge said it was hard for him to believe that an orginization with a reputation such as the Salvation Army would use such tactics. I think the biggest thing was two years ago when it was really cold and the paper went to the Salvation Army to see what they would do about the homeless situation. The Salvation Army PR guy that works at the headquarters building told them that "We won't let anyone freeze on the streets we will have them sleep on the floors if we have to". This was of course straight BS we were told to only let the ten 'free' beds be filled and to turn anyone else away. Incidentally ten beds is all the municipal government was giving us to provide for free beds.
Now to the clients. If someone gets a voucher (this is a payment for rent by social services) late they have the guy pay for the days until the voucher shows up. Thereby ripping off social services for the monthly payment and the guy by taking his money issued for personal needs by the social worker. They frequently find reasons to kick guys out strangely enough right after the vouchers and welfare payments come in. This has since stopped because one jilted resident that used to be lawyer and had fell on hard time sued them under the landlord and tenants act. They now have to give two weeks notice before booting someone and have to return any unused money back to social services. There are other things that are one time rip-offs such as a guy got a $47 overpayment of rent by social services. The social worker and the residence management agreed they would give him the extra money to help him buy food when he moved out. When he moved out the residence kept the money and gave him a bunch of donated cans and stale bread.
That's all I can think of for now. I'd also suggest you take a look at who funds your local christian homeless shelter. Rarely does the money come from the charity usually the shelters are fully funded by the government. This is good for both parties as the shelter gets to look like it is providing charity while making some cash and the government doesn't have to pay unionized workers.
My mother a devout christian and now married to a minister used to work for them. When she finished at her bible college they phoned her and her husband offering a job to them since she used to work there. My mother's response was "I'd rather work for God then the Salvation Army!". She likes to call them the christian mafia.
Maybe it was harsh to say christian charities are the most corrupt but they are hardly any more efficient or any less corrupt then any other orginization run by humans.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-03-2003 22:19
|