Quote :

"Here's a cold truth: Despite much media hand-wringing on the subject, most of us give about as much thought to those who lack health coverage as we do to soybean subsidies.The major obstacle to change? Those of us with insurance simply don't care very much about those without it. It's only when health care costs spike sharply, the economy totters or private employers begin to cut back on benefits that the lack of universal health care comes into focus. Noticing the steadily growing ranks of the uninsured, the broad American public -- "us" -- begins to worry that we'll soon be joining the ranks of "them." [...] The reality, however, is that only a minority of the uninsured are either the typical Redbook reader or that nice shopkeeper down the street. Two-thirds of those without health insurance are poor or near poor, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. And there are clear disparities in how different racial and ethnic groups are affected. Only 13 percent of non-Hispanic white Americans is uninsured, compared with 36 percent of Hispanics, 33 percent of Native Americans, 22 percent of blacks and 17 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders. Politicians understand what this means in practical terms. If a lack of health insurance were truly a white middle-class crisis, then conservatives and liberals would long ago have joined together, carved out a compromise and done something. Instead, we're served a constantly recycled set of excuses for legislative stalemate. The unofficial Republican attitude toward universal health care can be boiled down to the three "nots": not our voters, not our kind of solution and not our priority. None of the Republican presidential candidates even pretended to present a serious plan for universal coverage, nor did Republican primary voters demand one. The only candidate who had actually worked successfully toward universal health care -- former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney -- apologetically disowned his own groundbreaking achievement. Presumptive nominee John McCain's recent health care proposal doesn't make anything more than a start toward covering all the uninsured. Meanwhile, Democrats play their own "us vs. them" games. Although high-profile party leaders are loudly calling for universal coverage -- recall the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton slugfest over their respective plans -- they reassure the middle class that the cost of compassion will be covered by repealing tax cuts for the wealthy. This "free lunch" approach may tax credulity, but it does avoid the need for discussing other taxes. To be fair to the politicians, the interest groups representing the public have exhibited little appetite for genuinely grappling with the uninsured problem. AARP, one of the most powerful consumer groups, is running a high-profile ad campaign advocating a vague health care "reform." But imagine the revolt if the organization's leaders had asked its elderly membership to insist that those with no health insurance, including 9 million children, should be guaranteed basic care before Congress spent hundreds of billions of dollars adding a Medicare pharmaceutical benefit. Though the American Medical Association has been a consistent voice for covering the uninsured, it reserves its political muscle for issues that excite its members. And the blunt truth is that the percentage of physicians who actually provide care to the uninsured or to Medicaid patients has been steadily declining for a decade. When the American Cancer Society decided to focus its marketing budget on coverage for the uninsured, some supporters grumbled that it wasn't "our fight." The society responded that cancer patients without health insurance are diagnosed later and have a far greater chance of dying. [...] When the general public talks about a health care crisis, what they're generally talking about is rising costs, a constant complaint since the Hoover administration (though Richard M. Nixon was the first president to officially declare a health care "crisis"). In response to this public clamor for cost control, those who advocate for the uninsured have decided to talk not only about the 22,000 of "them" who die annually because of a lack of access to care, but also to emphasize the money that providing coverage to "them" could actually save the rest of "us." The Commonwealth Fund recently tallied the ways in which universal health care would save hundreds of millions of dollars, most of which were related to lowering the societal costs exacted by the greater burden of illness among the uninsured. The list was an exhaustive and exhausting one that nonetheless had the whiff of desperation, as if civil rights activists had appealed for support against segregation because it was reducing the pool of qualified candidates for the Selma, Ala., police department. A survey last year by the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that more than two thirds of Americans were willing to pay 1 percent more in federal income taxes to make sure that everyone had health insurance. This counts as progress, as does the bipartisan Healthy Americans Act, a significant step toward universal coverage proposed by Sens. Ron Wyden and Bob Bennett. Over the years, our society has gradually provided a medical safety net for the elderly and disabled (Medicare), the poor (Medicaid) and veterans. At one time, these commitments were controversial, and there's no doubt that they're expensive. Yet Americans from all walks of life understand that the true value of these programs must be weighed on a moral scale as well as a financial one. It's our willingness to be our brothers' keepers that in part defines who we are as Americans. It has been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican running unsuccessfully on the Bull Moose Party ticket, boldly became the first presidential candidate to promise universal health coverage. That was in 1912. Nearly a century later, we're still waiting for a leader with the courage and skill to break through our fears and successfully lead the charge up that particular hill."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/AR2008060603498.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

also feel free to post porn and make fun of TSB kids...

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 9:23 PM. Reason : highlighted for ease of reading]

6/9/2008 9:12:27 PM

that's a lot of words im not going to read

6/9/2008 9:13:27 PM

words

6/9/2008 9:13:49 PM

i like the idea but apparently my version doesnt jive with what a lot of people are willing to do

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 9:14 PM. Reason : not letting fat people eat mcdonalds and other fattening foods etc]

6/9/2008 9:14:07 PM

that's a lot of words im not going to read

6/9/2008 9:14:07 PM

Wrong section fecal

6/9/2008 9:14:19 PM

^neg

6/9/2008 9:15:29 PM

works well in canada, just ask one that is here for healthcare.

6/9/2008 9:17:40 PM

or ask the elderly americans crossing the border to fill prescriptions.

6/9/2008 9:18:26 PM

yes bc dying of a brain tumor is the same as not getting your erection.

Whats the average wait time for an MRI in canada? Still like 12 weeks? Yeah, no thanks.

You will get the same thing with healthcare you get with any other govt program, rationing. Ill pass.

6/9/2008 9:21:03 PM

6/9/2008 9:22:38 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

6/9/2008 9:25:32 PM

blah blah blah


fuck poor people

6/9/2008 9:29:24 PM

poor people have healthcare, free healthcare called medicaid. Actually everyone in the states has access to healthcare. Amazing isnt it.

6/9/2008 9:31:41 PM

as a poor person, i can attest to the fact that we do not have free healthcare--try again

6/9/2008 9:33:50 PM

really? SO you have a car accident and are rushed to the hospital.. they just throw you in a dumpster or do you get treated?

If you are as poor as you say, why not on medicaid?

Do you have any health ins? Why not? I bet you have a cellphone and internet access huh. Priorities my friend.

6/9/2008 9:38:12 PM

you might wanna check the eligibility requirements for medicaid, and emergency care is not free--whether you choose to pay for it or not

6/9/2008 9:41:35 PM

do you have access to medical care? Right now, if you want to see a doctor can you see one? The answer is yes.

6/9/2008 9:44:46 PM

Quote :

"you might wanna check the eligibility requirements for medicaid, and emergency care is not free--whether you choose to pay for it or not"

of course it's not free, but people who can't pay aren't denied healthcare. so essentially it is free for those who cannot afford it. you just might not be willing to give up your last few pennies and subsequently go into debt for your health, but that doesn't mean you don't have access to it.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 9:49 PM. Reason : ]

6/9/2008 9:48:04 PM

it depends on what kind of medical care we're talking about, and that's not the same as universal health care--e.g. if i found out i were schizophrenic and needed daily antipsychotics, i probably couldn't afford them and going to the ER wouldn't do me a lot of good

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 9:55 PM. Reason : &c]

6/9/2008 9:50:53 PM

yes. everyone could quit their jobs to qualify for medicaid.

6/9/2008 9:56:22 PM

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibility/02_AreYouEligible_.asp

that's not how it works homie

6/9/2008 10:01:19 PM