I've had it

[aelfgyfu_mead]

I know this is the second time in about four weeks I've said "I try to avoid politics" on my blog only to touch on what might be considered political, but I've been pushed a little far. As I've mentioned before, I have ties to St. Vincent de Paul, a Catholic lay society working to help the poor: I have family members with literally decades of service through SVDP, a relative who had a paid job with them for a number of years, and I myself have worked with my own parish's chapter sometimes, as well as donating financially on a regular basis.

The last straw in the health care debacle debate is that I'm hearing members of SVDP and some other Catholic organizations are getting shelled because the SVDP US National supports health care reform (read statements here).



I'll put my cards on the table. I support health care reform. I think the Obama plan is the best we can do right now, although frankly I would support far more. I have a number of friends in the UK. I know National Health has its problems, but honestly, none of them have told me they'd trade it for our system, and a few have told me they never would. (Feel free to comment if you're one who would trade and simply never mentioned it, because it's not on LJ that I've had these conversations!) I've even been treated in the UK: I became ill while in England for a conference, spent the night in A&E, and would compare it favorably with my treatment in US hospitals. Yes, I had to wait three hours for treatment: but a) that three hours included getting much of my information before showing me to a cubicle; and b) I waited five hours for an emergency appendectomy right here in Tampa, folks. I didn't pay a dime for my treatment or the medication they handed me before I left in the morning; they didn't even charged when they faxed my medical records to my doctor back home.

I say this so that I have no hidden agenda. I know people disagree with my position; I know friends disagree. I'm not primarily interested in arguing about health care here.

I am sick of the lies. The Obama plan would not give us "death squads"; it would neither encourage nor require euthanasia and abortion. I have heard of SVDP and other Catholic organizations fielding angry calls and letters asking them how they can be Catholic and support murder. A relative even told me of a pastor who almost refused to commission his parish's SVDP members because of the issue. These accusations are insane, and they are lies. The Obama plan offers voluntary end-of-life counseling...free. That's currently something people get by paying, and many health insurance plans do not cover it.

I am pro-life (if you're new to my journal, please do read my other entries on the topic to find out what that means to me, because often people jump to conclusions because of extremists they've heard claiming that name). I would not support a plan that introduced euthanasia and increased abortion. Indeed, I think extending insurance to women who do not have it may well decrease the incidence of abortion and make women's legal choice whether or not to bear a child a freer choice--it's not really a "free choice" if one feels one must have an abortion because giving birth would lead to poverty for mother and child.

Many other lies have been spread. My favorite is the idea that Stephen Hawking would be dead if he were in the UK using National Health. Yes, you read that right; follow the link. The piece to which I've linked has a tone that I don't agree with, but I have read the facts elsewhere; they are correct. I'm not going to debunk them all. I've actually just taken a short break from work because I've been getting distracted by this issue.

And I'm hearing about health care being rationed under Obama's plan. What? About 18% of Americans have no health insurance. In my county, the number has reached 21%. I have friends with no coverage. I have friends with poor coverage. I have a friend who needed medication for herself and her baby on a Friday afternoon; she got to the pharmacy at 5:15 pm and was told her insurance company would have to speak with both doctors before she could get the medications covered, and that wasn't going to happen. She paid out-of-pocket; she could afford that. What happens when the patient in question can't afford to pay out-of-pocket?

We already have rationed health care in this country.

By all means, let's debate health care (though don't compelled to do it here!). But let's be honest about what's at stake. You can argue against universal coverage, or you can argue against Obama's plan. But please don't tell me Obama's plan will set up death squads or tribunals, will start rationing health care in this country, or would kill Stephen Hawking.

Thanks for tolerating the rant. It may be that none of you needed to hear it, but I needed to say it.

Comments

[or-mabinogi.livejournal.com]

It may have sounded a bit "preaching-to-the-choir" but when you hear these lies spread around so much it's comforting to finally hear someone else speak against them. I actually just watched a segment from Rachel Maddow (over at this blog if you're interested) where she clarified this end-of-life counseling amounts to (but likely not limited to) the creation of a living will. And then showed clips of Right wingers exposing them for their lies.

I keep hoping there are enough rational people out there who will see how... irrational these "opponents" are. And I had meant some time ago to make a post explaining several different forms of health care in use around the world.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

I think there are lots of us in this position. I wasn't sure I should post because it seemed kind of unnecessary, but I just couldn't keep my mouth shut fingers still any longer.

I'd like to see your post.

[cleothemuse.livejournal.com]

I have determined that we live not in the Information Age, but the MISinformation Age, and unfortunately, far too many people are willing to believe all they hear on talk radio or see on a 24-hr cable news channel instead of finding out for themselves.

I just discovered this week that one of my brothers worships at the altar of Rush Limbaugh. It has not been pretty.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

You have my sympathies for your brother! It's hard enough when it's in-laws (and not the nearest ones, either), but someone with whom you grew up? That's gotta hurt.

[http://users.livejournal.com/traycer_/]

OMG This is exactly what I've been wanting to say for at least a week! I've been trying to avoid listening to those idiots rant about "death squads" and how everyone agrees with them and how the government is trying to make us a socialist nation and so on and so forth. The lies flat out upsets me so much that I end up screaming at the TV or radio or my computer screen for that matter. :) I hate to say this, but some people just can't see past their own selfish, paranoid fears!!

Whew! Like you, I too support Obama's health reform plan, because I want what's best for all Americans, not just those who can afford the current health insurance premiums. But more importantly (and for my own selfish reasons), so that my daughter and her children will finally be insured. She doesn't make enough to be able to afford health insurance, and makes too much for State paid welfare insurance. I guess you can say she's between a rock and a hard place. :D Still, there is nothing scarier than having uninsured loved ones who can't afford to go to see a doctor.

You know, I wonder how fast those people who are spreading the lies would change their tunes if they were suddenly put into that situation. It's sad that they can't even imagine it.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

You know, I wonder how fast those people who are spreading the lies would change their tunes if they were suddenly put into that situation. It's sad that they can't even imagine it.
I missed it, but Brilliant Husband told me about a piece he heard on NPR the other day where a reporter spoke with a couple who had lost their small business when their economy went south. Of course, their health insurance went with it. They confidently told him they'd rather have no insurance than this 'socialist' stuff!

Yet then it came out that they have friends who are taking on the cost of their children's health care, so they really aren't without a safety net--not like many! If they can eat their pride enough to let their friends pay for their kids, I wonder how they'd handle it if they had no such friends but government health insurance was an option.

What makes me angry is that some of these people must know better. I'm not sure about Sarah Palin, whom some credit with starting the phrase "death squads", but I know some of these conservatives must be lying.

What makes me sad is how easily people believe them. I don't know whether to be more angry or sad.

[loriel-eris.livejournal.com]

The only thing I had/have heard about Obama's health reform is in the form of this essay - upon reading the essay/post I realised that is was not a random US Healthcare essay, but rather a response to something Obama had done, but I have to admit, I didn't follow it up.

I also read/saw somewhere else the quote, "Stephen Hawking would be dead if he were in the UK using National Health" (no context/nothing else) and I had a very visceral and immediate, "Oh hell no", "I call bullshit" and "Oh hell mend you" (with 'you' being the poster and/or the person who originally made the quote) reaction(s). Basically I was pissed on behalf of the NHS, and righteously (regardless of whether I was actually right) pissed at the American (I'm not sure if I knew or just assumed the nationalities of either the quoter or source of the quote) who could say that about my health service (ie people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones). And mixed in with all that was the instinctive thought of, "Isn't Hawking British?!" My fury was very short lived, but it was enough that I didn't even contemplate reading the link/post/finding out more.

All of which is a long winded way of saying thanks for enlightening me!

And as you may have gathered, I wouldn't swap my NHS for the US healthcare system. *g*

Also. This is possibly tangential to what you actually posted about (mostly because my entire reaction is "Oh my god. *stares at the crazy people*" - the crazy being the ones talking about death squads and requiring euthanasia, and I can't believe that people are actually believing them...), but I'm curious/clueless about part of what you said. Thus...

Firstly, from what little I've read, I get the impression that Obama's plan is a healthcare for all type thing? Or making it so that everyone can afford health insurance? Not quite the NHS, but somewhere closer than what you guys have at the moment, yes? I don't think the precise details are important for what I'm asking, but I might as well be upfront about how little my understanding is!

What I was wondering about. I read the two SVDP statements here here. Now, my reading comprehension is shot to pieces, but it seems like SVDP are in support of Obama's plan/universal healthcare/healthcare for all, so long as it doesn't provide abortions. Have I translated that correctly? Now, I have absolutely no religiously convictions (beyond being 'culturally Christian (protestant)) but it seems to me that that's kinda cutting off your nose to spite your face, and I just don't understand that.

I'm mostly getting the above from this quote (from this statement):

"[...]we will continue to work with [various groups] to ensure that any legislation will continue to support the conscience clause protection to health care
workers and that the Hyde exception continues to ensure no abortion can be funded with federal funds."

I have no idea what the Hyde exception is, but context of it, along with the rest of the quote and the rest of the two statements led me to my above conclusions/queries.

I'm not expecting you defend them (or not), I think I just wanted to be clear about it all, as it seem from your post like you were supporting SVDP (and their statements?) and yet, would support 'The Healthcare Plan' providing abortions.

[sg-betty.livejournal.com]

(mostly because my entire reaction is "Oh my god. *stares at the crazy people*" - the crazy being the ones talking about death squads and requiring euthanasia, and I can't believe that people are actually believing them...)

This is what the majority of Canada is doing, too. We have some right wing types that are pushing for 'Public-Private partnership' in my (for Canada) ultra right wing province, but almost no one questions the idea of a single payer system.

There are people who would like to pay for private insurance as well to skip ahead of everone else in the line, which says something about what they think money should entitle them to. Regardless, at least a third of the country doesn't think 'socialist' is an insult, and even the far right is to the left of the blue-dog Democrats, so, yeah, most of us think this is nuts. Pretty freaking selfish, too.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

I am not in full agreement with SVDP's statements, although very sympathetic, for reasons I'll explain. What I want to express above all is that I support Vincentians. It seems insane to me that people doing volunteer work to help the poor are being accused of crimes tantamount to murder!

Yes, SVDP wants the health care plan only as long as no federal money is used for abortions. In an ideal world, I would support that. I don't want my money used for abortion. I firmly believe that abortion takes a human life, and I cannot support that (although my means of countering it focus on helping women in difficult pregnancies and families who already have children, rather than protesting or many of the other means people who call themselves "pro-life" adopt).

At the same time, I don't want my money used to take human lives in other ways. I don't want my money used for the death penalty, but I live in Florida. The state executes people; my tax money contributes, and I don't withhold taxes (though I do write letters against individual executions). I don't support much of what the US military has done; I know my tax money contributes (though I've written letters against certain actions). Finally, I'm pretty sure I already financially support abortions, even though I very much want not to. I contribute to my own health insurance, and I couldn't find any provisions against abortion, so I'm guessing that it's covered. (I might be wrong. The insurer's website went down while I was looking into what my plan covered. Did I break it?)

This is not an ideal world. I would rather people couldn't get abortions for which I help pay under the Obama plan, but I do suspect any plan that did not include any funding for abortions would have no chance of passage because it would alienate many of its potential supporters. If I see a reasonable plan that includes abortion, I would probably support it as the lesser evil (as I have voted, with regret, for candidates who support increased access to abortion, the death penalty, one or more wars, or some combination). (You can read about the Hyde except here. Aside from the rare cases included under the Hyde exception, federal funds may not be used for abortions.)

Perhaps I am wrong; since the federal government still manages not to fund abortions directly, perhaps a health care plan can be crafted that won't. I would honestly prefer that. I also support rules and laws that allow doctors and nurses to choose not to offer abortions; we currently have those in our country so that pro-lifers like me can still be doctors and nurses and never be forced out of a job for refusing to perform an abortion. (Pharmacists and their assistants are a very different case; they aren't writing the prescription and don't bear responsibility in that way.)

What I know of the Obama plan so far fits my sense of "a reasonable plan." In many ways it's not what I want; I really want something far more like your NHS! That just can't happen in this political climate, however.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

Sorry--your side query may have seemed tangential, but it was very important to me, so I wanted to clarify aspect (and hope I did). I'll continue just briefly here (I feared I was hitting the character max above!): For those of us who believe fetuses are indeed full human beings, abortion is a very serious problem. Some Christians would see a plan that paid for abortions as more a cutting off the nose to spite the face than not getting universal coverage--protect some groups of the vulnerable by killing another group of the most vulnerable. I see it differently: abortion is legal and will continue for the time being. (Call me crazy, but I hope one day we will manage to end it and only use alternatives.) I don't have to help abortion continue; I do have an obligation to contribute to alternatives. I think better and more inclusive health care will reduce abortion, because the costs of prenatal health care, giving birth, and health care for children are a major factor in some women's choice to have an abortion. Thus I would not require but much prefer that health care reform not use my money to pay for abortion.

Obama's plan is really not much like your NHS at all. All the private plans in place would continue, with everyone getting the patchwork of coverage that we already do—with some significant improvements. He would add a plan so that anyone currently without, or anyone who loses coverage, would get coverage. His plan would also end insurers' practice of denying coverage for certain conditions that people had before they got coverage; their ability to charge patients a copay for preventive care; dropping customers who become seriously ill; and several other points.

I don't know the details as well as I'd like, so I don't want to say too much more because I might make mistakes. You can see an overview of guiding principles and some key points; both those links are official White House pages, of course, so they're putting a positive spin on everything.

I did like Ferret's major points, though I only had time to skim that entry to which you linked. I'm very much in agreement with those.

[redbyrd-sgfic.livejournal.com]

The Hyde exception is the clause that says abortion is permissable in cases of rape, incest and when the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. It's the exception to the rule that federal funds can't be used to pay for abortions. Anti-abortion interests wanted this restriction placed on any private insurance plan sold through the 'public marketplace' that they're talking about to ensure that there is healthcare for everyone. The problem is, this would have the effect of denying insurance coverage to many thousands of women who currently have this coverage through private employer-sponsored health insurance. (It's expected that a lot of people are going to be forced into this marketplace once it's available because for many businesses, it will be cheaper to pay the proposed healthcare tax than continue to provide an insurance through the company.)

Apparently the restriction was in one of draft versions of the bill and was then removed, leading right-wing nutcases to jump up and down screaming that this whole healthcare reform thing is a ploy by the pro-choice lobby to get federal funding for abortions. *sigh* And this is apparently why people are attacking the SVDP for their support of healthcare reform.

Regarding SVDP supporting the legislation but not coverage for abortion- The way that the federally-funded medical subsidies work now is that they don't directly pay for abortions, but they support some medical institutions (like hospitals) that might also perform abortions. This is controversial, since some taxpayers want the government to withdraw any money to anyone that provides abortions (effectively forcing the providers to stop offering the service because they can't do without federal support). And also, we have some hospitals that are partially funded by Catholic or other religious groups that want to ensure that none of their money goes to support things they don't approve of. Which isn't an unfair thing to want, but in some areas the religiously-affiliated hospital is the only hospital- so any services they don't want to provide aren't available. (I have this issue myself, as my doctor is affiliated with a Catholic hospital- she'd have to refer me to another doctor for services her institution wouldn't perform- but we at least have another hospital in the city where I live.)

[delphia2000.livejournal.com]

I'm in agreement with you, but I figured most of my flist was intelligent and has informed themselves already, so as mabi said, preaching to the choir.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

Yeah, I really don't expect anyone to argue against me; as I said, I just had to get it out. Having people post to agree with me just makes me feel better.

I haven't f-locked this entry, either, so I could get readers I don't really know, and I'm open to that. (I did, however, minimize my LJ's results on search engines! I'm not completely open to debating all comers!)

[lukadreaming.livejournal.com]

The NHS has plenty of faults, but I would never swap it for the current American system. And the lies that are being told about it (including the Hawking one) make me livid.

An American friend of mine is dying of cancer. She and her family are now living hand-to-mouth trying to pay bills. Other people I know seem to have ongoing rows with insurers over what will and won't be covered. So it horrifies me hearing that Obama's opponents want to block the reforms.

As you might have gathered, I am an atheist with political views somewhere to the left of the present New Labour British government *g*. And I'm pro-choice (although I do think the present time limit on when abortions in the UK can be carried out could be reduced slightly, as medical advances mean very premature babies could perhaps survive).

I suppose what I find the most uncomfortable about the pro-life stance (and I don't know where you stand on this part of it) is the thought that women who have been raped, for example, could not have an abortion.

I'm not in favour of allowing any professional person, be they a doctor, or whatever, to opt out of parts of their job. As you say in a previous post, choose carefully where you work. There was a case in the UK where a registrar refused to conduct civil partnerships for gay couples. I'm pleased to say she lost her appeal against being sacked. I don't believe you can allow people to pick and choose bits of their job. Hey, I've just decided I'm never going to faculty meetings ever again *g*.

Very interesting issues raised! I usually steer clear of discussing politics and religion on LJ, but reading what's been written above, it's all been civilised and very thought-provoking *g*.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

My fundamental problem with abortion is that I firmly believe that fetuses are living human beings with rights. This puts me in direct conflict with many whose politics are otherwise very similar to mine.

The Hyde exemption allows even federal funds to be used for abortion in cases where the mother has been raped. I don't like it, because I still believe an innocent life is being taken, and that society must protect life. However, I do see it as a different situation than other kinds of abortions: pregnancy can be difficult for many reasons, but such a pregnancy imposes hardships that others don't. So I don't like it, but I fear the exception may be necessary.

I'm not in favour of allowing any professional person, be they a doctor, or whatever, to opt out of parts of their job.
The problem here may lie in job definition. In the States, doctors and nurses can choose to work in hospitals or surgeries, and even to have specialties in OB/GYN, and not include "abortion" as one of their job responsibilities. Some define their jobs as saving human life, and they could no more take a fetus's life than deliberately give a fatal overdose to an adult patient. I think that's a good thing, and they should have that choice, as long as they make their position known so that they're never scheduled for such a procedure and don't cause hardship by bowing out. I know I've had at least one pro-life doctor who would not be involved in abortions. He also donated some of his time to treat women and children who couldn't pay (maybe men too; I don't know or remember all the details). It would be a terrible loss to the profession if he were not allowed to practice because he refused to do abortions. I think abortion is a very special case, and there aren't many like it. In the case of doctors and nurses involved in abortions, they have a direct role in taking life. If they believe that is a fully human life, how can you compel them?

On the other hand, a doctor who prescribes birth control for some patients but not for others isn't facing the same crisis of conscience. I'd put that in the same category as the registrar who wouldn't conduct civil partnerships for gay couples. A pharmacist who refuses to give medication that has already been prescribed by someone else also does not face the same moral quandary. So I'd say that a doctor who, say, is willing to prescribe birth control for married couples but not unmarried ones, should find a different specialty (but not leave the profession). A pharmacist who won't dispense birth control pills or RU-486 may need to leave the profession.

I mostly focus my LJ on fandom, books and tv, and my life (yes, it's almost all about me!). Occasionally I can't help myself and I get into political matters (I have, or would like to think I have, deep commitments to life and to alleviating poverty and ignorance). I'm very grateful to have a flist at once civil, informed, and intelligent.

[gatechic.livejournal.com]

I agree with you 100%. I haven't posted much because I do have a few Republicans on my flist and they follow Fox News, Beck, and Rush faithfully. But, I did come across an article this morning that I will post. You inspired me.

My mom was denied to have a preventive test that would basically prevent a stroke. It really angers me when I hear people say they don't want Government between them and their doctor. But, we already do have someone between us and our doctors - the insurance companies.

It just boggles my mind how people don't want to take the time to do simple research. But come November, when they have to renew their policies and their premiums and deductibles have gone up but their coverage decreases. Then they'll be quick to blame Obama for not doing more with the health care problem.

In the end, if this bills fails, they'll claim victory. However, the real winners in this will be insurance companies.

[aelfgyfu_mead]

My mom was denied to have a preventive test that would basically prevent a stroke.
That's so obviously wrong I don't understand how companies can do that! Even if they don't care about your mother as a person (though if they don't, why choose that industry?), they should care that a stroke ends up being far more expensive for them than the test!

Brilliant Husband and I are convinced that people are very much not rational actors (though I saw a semi-scholarly article, interestingly, that argued people with Aspergers are the closest we can get to rational actors). Thus they put more trust in insurance companies, many of which are for-profit and so have a financial interest in denying treatment in many cases, than in the government, which has less of an interest. Sure, there will be pressure on government to keep costs down--but no one will get bonuses as a result of claims denials. The weirdest thing, though, is that we aren't even talking about nationalizing health care, and a lot of people seem to think we are!

I think even without doing a lot of research, people should notice the insurance companies getting hysterical--and suddenly offering to provide more and better coverage than before. If Obama's plan can't work, why do they feel so threatened? And if they're really doing all they can, why are some suddenly offering huge discounts on drugs and increased coverage?

I've got at least a few Republicans on my flist, though I don't know that any are the Fox News or Rush varieties. I'm glad to have such a great group of friends (and the entry isn't locked, but so far all my commenters are friends)--but I also think it's easier to be civil when conversing with people you know (even if you haven't met them all face to face) than in a crowd or on a big discussion board.

[nialla]

The only way Republicans can attempt to hold any resemblence of the power they had is to lie. And lie a lot. Outright lies, not misunderstandings. They've had a lot of practice over the years, and now they have a whole new way to play.

From "Obama's gonna take your guns!" to "Obama's gonna put you in a detention center and have death squads killin' the old folks!", it's all designed to attract those on the fringes who cling to any conspiracy, but also includes more mainstream people who might very well be the most in need of healthcare reform.

The irony is this fiction is created by people who so aren't going to ever let anyone else sit at the table. A table bought and paid for by corporations such as insurance and pharmaceutical companies, who don't want everyone to have equal access, because it will reveal a truth everyone knows: Insurance is a scam to get people to pay money upfront, promising to pay their health bills when the time comes, but instead using it to come up with any way to not pay. Something was put on the wrong line of the claim form, denied, do not resubmit, the end.

My parents have never had health insurance, I've been without it for long stretches too. For general doctor visits, doctors technically charge more for those who have insurance, in hopes of getting something out of the insurance. What I paid out of pocket didn't change when I got insurance, they just asked for more from insurance hoping to defray costs for uninsured patients like I had once been. It's not all that different from what we have now.

I've been denied coverage before too. I have TMJ syndrome. My insurance covers medical and dental, but this falls into a gray area because it involves the jaw joint (which sometimes falls into the pervue of dental specialists), but also involves other issues such as headaches/migraines and nerve and muscle problems.

I finally found a treatment that worked. A special nerve block that left me relatively pain free for over a year. Meaning I had to use my insurance less because I didn't have to go to the doctor for pain treatment and medication.

Insurance refused to pay because the treatment was provided by a dentist. I was left with a few thousand to pay off, and by that time, I needed another treatment, but couldn't afford it and then got worse.

Finally found a doctor who could do a similar treatment and have insurance pay, but things had progressed and it didn't work very long. All because they wouldn't allow the treat that worked continue. Now they have to pay more for my annual meds than what follow-up treatment would have cost them in the first place.

Sorry for venting, but this stuff is angry making. I'm thankful that while neither of my parents are huge supporters of Obama (not fans of Bush either), their Bullshit-O-Meter has gone off the charts over the nonsense being shouted on TV.

My mother has always said the more anyone shouts, the less substance to their argument. They're trying to intimidate you into shutting up, giving the appearance that you agree with them or at least bow to their superiority. With the advent of 24/7 news, I have yet more proof that my mother is always right. *g*

[aelfgyfu_mead]

You're welcome to vent here; that's what I'm doing! I'm sorry you and your family have been through so much! And the insurance companies don't even look at the long term: as you say, it would have been cheaper over the years to continue the original treatment for your TMJ, but they tend to look at the bottom line annually or more often.

[pepper-field.livejournal.com]

The whole thing is driving me slightly crazy, and it's not even going to affect me personally. Well, except for the distant family I have in the States... I saw a protester on the news this evening with a sign that read "Healthcare is not a right" - well, in one of the richest countries in the world, it OUGHT to be. What the heck is wrong with these people?!

Absolutely the NHS has its faults (I won't get into what I've heard and read about how much that is due to reforms in the 80s that put the focus on money rather than people). On the other hand, I work for the NHS, and I know there are people in it who passionately believe in its founding principles - meets the needs of everyone; free at the point of delivery; based on clinical need, not ability to pay. I think those are AWESOME goals.

But besides all that, whether the NHS is good or bad is almost irrelevant. Publicly-funded healthcare varies hugely across the world, and the UK system isn't the be-all and end-all. The US doesn't have to structure its system in the same way, no doubt it'll be significantly different. Make something better than the NHS. I dare ya.

...Sorry, was feeling a little ranty, too. :)

[aelfgyfu_mead]

"Healthcare is not a right" - well, in one of the richest countries in the world, it OUGHT to be. What the heck is wrong with these people?!
Tell it! That question is one I find myself asking daily, although I tend to use the word "frell" where you have "heck" (and I'm strongly tempted to use stronger, which is pretty radical for me).

Make something better than the NHS. I dare ya.
I feel like I should get an "Amen!" choir going as backdrop to your comment.

Don't apologize for ranting! (I didn't apologize for it in the initial entry, did I?)

Hee hee. I finally went ahead and made an icon of just Carson because I think we need him here, and I do like the still I found. This is Carson's reaction to the US "dialogue" on health care.

[redbyrd-sgfic.livejournal.com]

The Stephen Hawking article is, wow- just unreal. Morons. Our country is full of morons.

On health care rationing- the idea that we don't have a rationed system is ridiculous. The idea that we have choice is ridiculous! For most of my life* my situation was this: My employer offers a health plan. I can take it or leave it. If I get laid off, I lose my insurance. And if I get too sick to work? I lose my insurance. If I don't have a job, there's no insurance I can afford. And if I *was* very sick, I couldn't get insurance anyway! And, as we're hearing in the news now, a lot of people are finding that they pay into insurance for years, and then when they get seriously ill, the insurance company finds some excuse to terminate their coverage. It's the old 80-20 rule- 20% of the customers use 80% of the service- but insurance companies bump up the bottom line by finding ways to disallow people with expensive illnesses. I was reading an article about a medical study where they were looking at genetic predispositions for dementia. Some of the folks in the study found out that they had higher than normal risk, so they went out and bought long term care policies. The insurance companies were outraged! "If people do that, there will be no long term care!" they said. Insurance is the wrong model for delivering healthcare. You just can't get a good result when the incentives for the service provider run counter to the interests of the customers.

And point 2- and I really, really want to see someone stand up and say this- what the opponents of reform are saying is: "I think it's perfectly okay for the middle and upper class to have healthcare and poor people to die." Because that's the system they're defending.

*I actually do have a choice now, since I got married. So because my husband also is employed, I have an option. To get pretty much the same policy with the same company I have now.

Here's another silly thing-- there was a time when my sister was without insurance (she worked a job that didn't have it, and didn't pay enough to afford it). I had a decent plan. I would have *happily* paid for a family plan so I could have covered her. But insurance rules won't allow it. Isn't that *stupid*? You have friends/partners/family members that would be happy to pay the premium but it's not allowed? I bet a lot of young people who aren't covered now would be if parents had the option to extend coverage.

Okay, I'm stopping now. They look at me funny at work when I start frothing at the mouth. (Yeah, I'd support a single-payer system, if you haven't already guessed.)

[aelfgyfu_mead]

Yes! Yes to everything you said!

I can only imagine that the idiots at that Investor's Business Daily thought that since Hawking was a famous scientist, he must be American!

I would totally support a single-payer system, but I'll settle for less, just to get better than we have right now! Which is indeed "perfectly okay for the middle and upper class to have healthcare and poor people to die."

[with-apostrophe.livejournal.com]

Trade the NHS for the US system? NO WAY! NO! NO! NO!

As someone who is not on benefits, there are certain things I have to pay for: prescriptions (which are billed at a flat rate, so if your drugs cost £5.00 you pay the £7.20 rate, but if they're worth £50.00 you also pay the £7.20 - but if you can buy them off prescription cheaper, you can do that), dental services and optometry.

This I think is fair. Yes, I haveto pay for the dentist, but it's at a greatly reduced rate - e.g. a first consultation with a private dentist might cost £54 - on the NHS it's £16.20 - same dentist, same service. Oh and the British media tells its own lies about NHS dentists. "They're all full. You'll have to go on a waiting list" they say. Not in my experience! I registered and got myself an appointment for the very same day!

Here's what I get for free - appointments with the doctor, appointments at the clinic for the taking of and testing of blood, smear tests, mammograms, treatment in hospital, referals to specialists, operations, etc.

It's NOT perfect. And yes, abortion is legal here, and yes my tax pounds go toward paying for it. I, like you, for reasons that have everything to do with my faith would prefer that no one got an abortion (apart from those exceptional circumstances) but knowing that abortions would happen anyway, would prefer then to be done properly than by back alley butchers. But still, I'd rather the NHS.

I'd prefer to pay £7.20 for a £5.00 drug in the knowledge that the difference is helping someone pay for something they couldn't afford - like the £50.00 drugs, or the £2.00 tub of emoliant the single mother on benefits needs for her young son so he doesn't cry himself to sleep as he scratches his dry, itchy, ezcema.

That the US has a system wherein nearly 20% of its population have no healthcare other than emergency medicine (without follow-up treatment) has got to change. I was shocked when I first heard that Americans had to pay for their health care, and therefore that some didn't get it. I'm still appalled.

The "Death squads" - well there's some spin doctors out there who are getting a fat pay check for that. I wonder if it will be enough to cover their medical bills for the rest of their lives?

[with-apostrophe.livejournal.com]

I must add that not everyone has had the same positive experience of NHS dentistry as I have. There are plenty of places (and these are the ones the media focuses on, of course, and makes it seem as if it's like that everywhere) where it is impossible to see a dentist on the NHS because they've all gone private - and apparently the service is NOT the same.

So yes, we have tiered medical services here too according to what you can pay for - and I think this is unavoidable - the rich will always get better healthcare - I don't like it, but that's capitalist society. But at least even the poorest can go see a doctor and get their prescriptions and not have to worry about the cost.

[flingslass.livejournal.com]

Your health care system is a crock! I'm glad I live in Australia. Medicare is what I live with. The poor are bulkbilled for doctors visits and people like me tend to have to pay a co-payment of about 20 odd dollars. I am happy to pay the bit extra to ennable those that can't afford it to access a doctor. Our public hospitals might be a bit stuffed at the moment but ALL people are entitled to be treated in hospital, unlike in the US where you can die on the steps of a hospital if you don't have insurance. (Sorry to be a bit insulting but I was so excited to hear about the Obama Plan. I have people on my flist who have SO MUCH trouble if they are LUCKY enough to get insurance let alone the one's who can't GET insurance because they are unemployed.) This should not be about what the medical field can't do but what they CAN do!

Oh btw, when we were working on a free trade agreement with the Bush Gov't, the US tried to get rid of our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. This scheme is the only thing that helps some people be able to afford necessary medication.

AND I thought that Stephen Hawking was British? I know he lives in the UK *shakes head*

[aelfgyfu_mead]

Actually, the steps of the hospital are the ONE place you can't die because you don't have insurance. Emergency rooms are required to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay, and they must admit such patients if medically necessary.

Of course, that policy does nothing for people who need medications, or follow-up care.

the US tried to get rid of our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
Yes! I vaguely remember that. That was pretty outrageous.

[a-phoenixdragon.livejournal.com]

I'm with you...we need this - ALL of my friends don't have healthcare. I seriosuly think they fudge the numbers - because you can't reach quite a bit of the poor, really...

*hugs you*