Stop Calling it Socialized Medicine!

[shantra 73]

Why is it interesting? I saw the rants and raves when I was looking through and saw the title and it is something I feel very passionate about. That is it. And if you read through you will have noticed that I am angry FOR

Americans and my husband IS American and a disabled vet who fought for this country.

I stand by my view because I have actually lived it.. for 44 years of my life before I came here whereas you have never experienced it so I hope to make those of you who never have and think it is so terrible just stop and 'think'. Oh and btw.. my Doctor tells me the US has the highest infant mortality rate in the Western world. What next? The words of Charles Dickens, then let them die and decrease the surplus population, seems to me that there is a lot of that here but they don't like the public to hear about it.

As for being so rude and telling me to go back to Europe, I am not European, I am English, I attacked no one here at all and my husband and I don't want to divorce and he can't leave his kids.. thanks.

[pattygreen 5]

shantra, pardon Beth, please. She is always rude to people. She has a problem with that, and many of us tend to let it go out of pity for her.

On the other hand, I would like to comment on what you said. It's not that we don't want government to help reform the health care problems in America, and it's not that we are selfish and don't want to help those who don't have health care. It's just that from past experience we know that the government doesn't do anything well or within modest means financially, and we don't want them to be in control. The plan they have written up has many flaws and it is a plan where they exclude themselves (the president and congress and government employees)from having to be on it. They want the rest of the country on their government run plan, but not themselves. This plan also includes payments made from the government for abortions, and many are morally opposed to them. It is a plan where the government is in control of the health care decision making for individuals, and in this country, we are all for free enterprise as our founding fathers had set up for us. I know that they tell you that you can keep the insurance and the doctors that you have right now and you will not be forced to be on the government plan, but experts have looked into this and have found that that may be true in the beginning, but after a while, private insurance companys will dwindle away and the only other option will be to be on the government plan. Eventually all Americans will be on this plan, thus the name socialized care. Besides all this, we can not afford it. After all the spending Obama has done in his first 6 months, we are bankrupt. How will we pay for this care? Gee, money doesn't grow on trees, even though congress believes it does. Just print some more!

[shantra 73]

Thank you for your post pattygreen. The abortion topic I will just say that in England originally many years ago it was considered way better than backstreet abortions which women were getting anyway.. in my Grandmothers time or before I think.

Interesting that they feel all private will dwindle away under a health system like this, in the UK the opposite happened, with health insurance growing for those who could afford to take advantage so that they could actually plan their surgery around their lives and take advantage of nicer surroundings. There is no force involved to use the National Health system, which is simply that, a Health system for the Nation instead of the few who can afford it.

Obviously I am not qualified to comment on the workings of the American government. But I am genuinely tired of the propoganda I have seen since coming here and currently the absolute slew of scaremongering emails being bandied around. I think my message is simply, hey, this system is not the terrible thing that you are being told that it is. It truly isn't.

One thing I will add is that I have a friend in the medical supply field and you would not believe the markup on the price of medical supplies that are added and passed on to the patient, it is honestly horrific. I believe those pushing for a plan know this and those who are opposed (in goverment, medical and pharmaceutical fields) are opposed because they know they will not be able to make the money they do now.

Give this a chance, it really is a great thing for America.

[KartMan 58]

Shantra,

These were a few very well thought out posts and I for one appreciate everything you had to say. I don’t care if it was your first post or your 400th post, they were more thoughtful and to the point than many people on here that have hundreds of posts. As for being told to “go back to Europe”, well all I can say is consider the source on that one. From what I can see, you came here legally and your husband has sacrificed greatly for this country so you are more than welcome in my book.

[BethFromVA 5]

"I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people." Cass Sunstein, Columbia Law Review, January 2004 (one of Barry's three KNOWN advisors on the proposed healthcare system)

"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated... The complete lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value." Ezekiel Emanuel, January 2009 (Barry's healthcare czar and brother to Rahm, one of three KNOWN advisors to Obama on the proposed healthcare system)

Now, if his intent isn't about socializing medicine and making it available ONLY for those who would "benefit most" from it, then WHY is he surrounding himself with advisors such as this?

[BJean 16]

shantra: Thank you so much for posting your views and thoughts on this topic. Obviously it is nice to hear from someone who has lived with nationalized health care in one of the countries that Americans are constantly holding up as having a healthcare system that is a complete utter failure for all its' citizens.

I wish people would figure out a way to use all this negative energy to do something positive for the U.S.

The lobbyists (and moneyed corporations who will have to be held to a different standard if our system is changed), have done a number on too many of our middle class and poor folks. They've used the oldest scare tactics in the book and we should know better. But too many of us do not. We buy into it and jump on the buzz words, repeat them over and over so that they become a mantra, and continue to cling to a system that is beating our actual health into the ground.

They like to think that if there was a better plan, they'd be for it. But I do not believe that for one second. The only plan they'll be convinced is better, is one that will benefit the insurance companies, the phamacuticals and hospitals because those entites are the ones who are equipped to sway the public with such force. They're very good at what they do. And when they can have high profits OR provide good health, high profits will always be the winner.

People are screaming about not wanting the government in control of our health in any way. How absurd because right now they are controlled by those profit-making people who stand to gain only if they are UNhealthy. I'll stake my life on a government-run health care system long before I would give it away to the greedy congomerates to run. Haven't we learned anything from our current system's failures? Have we just taken it in the rump for so long, that we now think it's an acceptable way to live? And not only have some Americans decided that it is acceptable, some even mistakenly argue that the U.S. has the best health care in the world.

And interestingly enough, what they don't seem to realize is that the government doesn't want to control our health care. They just want us to have good health care, period. They strive to facilitate our having the kind of health care that we deserve and to set up standards that will rival the better care that people in other countries get.

To say that the government never does anything right is just one more scare tactic that always seems to work with Americans. They don't seem to be able to take a good hard look at the things that the government does right. Pity.

[plain 12]

My Doctor tells me the US has the highest infant mortality rate in the Western world.

Yet, interestingly enough, the most at-risk population for these births is covered by medicaid, and yet "well-baby" programs are largely underutilized. More government intrusion wont change that.....at some point the individual has to take some responsibility.

They just want us to have good health care, period.

Did George Bush want this, in your opinion?

To say that the government never does anything right is just one more scare tactic that always seems to work with Americans. They don't seem to be able to take a good hard look at the things that the government does right. Pity.

BJean, I still don't see that the government does a lot of things "right'. The best argument you can make there is the military......and you can't really run healthcare like the military or we'll just get one huge VA system.

[BJean 16]

plain, I'm afraid I have no idea how George Bush (first or second) feels about healthcare in America. Hmmm, yeah that is interesting isn't it.

Take responsibility for our own health care? So that we will realize a lower infant mortality rate? What causes such a high infant mortality rate in the U.S.? You're insinuating that it is due to the lack of medical care for "at risk" babies. I wonder if you have actual statistics to back that up. When do most of the infant deaths occur in America? At birth? During the first year? During pregnancy? And do infant deaths occur at an alarmingly higher rate with folks you consider "at risk" or do the high death rates occur across the board with little regard for parental socio-economic conditions?

Does it have anything to do with doctors performing more c-sections? Does it have anything to do with the fact that new babies spend very little time in the hospital after they are born? Does it have anything to do with more babies being delivered by midwives? And in birthing centers and private homes instead of hospitals? Does it have something to do with low to middle income families not being able to afford health care from the prenatal period and the time of conception up to and including child birth?

Are you absolutely sure that you've come up with the solution to high infant mortality rates in the U.S. - by parents taking responsibility for their "at risk" babies by taking them to well baby clinics? What exactly are the parameters for defining the term "at risk babies" in this discussion?

You don't see that the government does much right. We agree that the military is well run. But so are many other governmentally controlled things here in the good ole' U.S. of A. We've had this discussion before and I thought by my listing many of them at that time, you might have been convinced. Obviously all you can think of are poorly run programs or programs that you believe are bad and not worth having.

I would give you that good or bad could be somewhat subjective given your penchant for negativism regarding our government, but the fact is this country would not be what it is without the government and its' many vital and well run programs and offices. Your well baby clinic is one example of a government program (albeit a local government rather than national government program) and you obviously consider it an important progam since you seem to be scolding those "at risk" folks for not using it.

[BethFromVA 5]

The system is financially unsustainable. Resources will be scarce. When that happens, they will HAVE to ration healthcare. There is no other way around it. When that happens, the ill, the elderly, and the very young will be deemed not worthy of care because the return on the investment won't be worthwhile.

I don't think Obama wants to kill grandma -- I just believe that once they've taken over and the unsustainability of it becomes obvious, they will HAVE to make decisions such as this.

It is simply history repeating itself.

How is it that we will do it any differently than Nazi Germany did 60-some years ago? It began with the devaluing of the marc back then (just like the devaluing of the dollar) by an increase in printing more money (just like what is going on now). The other factor we have working against us now is all these bailouts, owning car manufacturers, banks, and mortgages. WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM??

Medicaid was expected to cost $9 billion by 1990, but unstead it cost $66 billion. Given the trend that the government has CONSISTENTLY SHOWN of underbudgeting and overspending, what will this $1.3 trillion really amount to?? I say it will absolutely amount to a number we can't cover if ever single taxpayer dollar goes into the system.

That said, something's gotta give. What's it going to be? HOW are we going to pay for this, especially on top of all the OTHER debt this and prior administrations have racked up?

Can ANYBODY answer that? It tells me the one way they can cut costs is by cutting those who are deemed not valuable enough to receive care. We already devalue life in this country. It's not a far stretch to devalue it to the point of believing that certain people need to give of themselves for the greater good of the whole. Those people will be the very young, the very old, and the very old/infirm/handicapped.

[BJean 16]

Ooooh scarey! I'm shaking in my boots. The proposed plan is just like Hitler's plan. Oooh. Frightening! It's history repeating itself. Ooooh. We must nip it in the bud. Throw out everything. Don't make a move. Don't change anything. Everything costs more than we can afford. The government is baaaad. Obama is a nazi. or is he socialist? I forgot what they said we're supposed to say he is. Or wait, I remember one thing... he isn't even really a natural citizen! He was he born in South Africa! well, I know for sure that he wants to take everybody's gun away. That's a given. And he dearly loves abortion. And there's no doubt that he'll have to insist that we do away with old people. There's no other way to afford health care under his plan. Kill the babies and kill the old folks. Shudder. That's me mudder he's talkin' about! Oooh. No way am I going to try to understand what this president is about - I have all the wingnuts here to explain it to me. Ooooh! Cold sweat fear! I hear Sarah Palin is going to get a talk show. Thank goodness. Now I will have a pipeline to truth, justice and the American way! Rush Limbaugh just ain't right wing enough for me. Of all the nerve of that dirty old Obama. He's trying to kill Sarah Palin's Down Syndrome baby. She said so herself. So I know it's true. Sarah Palin never lies. Ooooh I can't wait to hear what she has to say about this health care plan. She's bound to give me more buzz words to cling to. Yea! Sarah, Sarah, she's our man. If she can't do it, nobody can! Drill, baby drill!!!! Go Sar-a, go Sar-a.

[BethFromVA 5]

BJean, instead of continually being an infantile bitch, can you explain how we're going to PAY FOR THIS on top of all the other debt we have and continue to incur?

You wonder why no dialogue can occur, but look how you act! I put out some legitimate concerns, some sincere thoughts, and you act like a fucking kindergartener. I guess that's the left's answer to everything. You can't answer the hard questions, so you act like a child. Way to go.

And you're OLDER than me? Good lord, woman, you are mentally regressed. Very sad.

[BJean 16]

Awww Beth. Things didn't go the way you wanted - you didn't get the reaction you wanted and now you have to go using the eff word and calling me a bitch and suggesting that I'm older than you. How Beth of you.

Obama has said, repeatedly, that we won't do it if we can't pay for it. But you don't listen to Obama. You don't believe him. You only believe the negative bull that makes you angry. You like being angry. You pretend to be all intellectual and you reveal glimpses of intelligence on some topics, but you always get ugly. Always. You're very predictable. And I'm having fun with you. Too bad you can't take it.

One day you'll be as old as I am and hopefully you will have learned something in the process.

[BJean 16]

The Nation -- Ok, so there's been a lot of misinformation about proposals to reform the health insurance industry and provide (near) universal coverage. Understandable! It's complicated stuff. Herewith, I'll try to answer some questions

1) Is it true that all of the bills currently proposed would end the practice of "rescission," whereby health insurance providers refuse to treat customers who've paid their premiums simply because they've become ill?

No! That's a common misunderstanding. Actually, all of the bills would ban incisions, that is, they would legally bar surgeons from performing surgery until a panel of twelve gay illegal immigrant government bureaucrats unanimously signed off on the procedure.

2) Is it true that health care reform would ban insurers from refusing to insure people because of pre-existing conditions?

Wrong again. To get rid of health inequality, the bills actually mandate that every American be given a pre-existing condition. A National Illness Commission, with academics appointed from Harvard, Reed College and Berkeley, will evaluate each citizen, and based on their demographic profile, choose their malady. Each disease or syndrome is scored on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most severe. White christian men will receive pre-existing conditions of 8 or higher. Black people, "wise latinas," and ACORN members will be exempted.

3) I heard the proposals currently under consideration provide seniors with option of free counseling sessions under Medicare, where they can discuss a living will and end-of-life care.

That's a huge misconception. The bills require all senior citizens (who are non union members) be euthanized on their 70th birthday. Under section 278©ii all last rites will be performed by Jeremiah Wright using a Q'uran.

4) I've heard the bills being proposed would require insurers to provide preventative care, like mammograms, free of charge.

No, but all lactating mothers will be forced to breast-feed poor children.

5) Will the current bills plug the "donut hole" in the Medicare prescription drug benefit so seniors don't have to pay exorbitant out of pocket expenses for their medication?

Absolutely not. The legislation will ban donuts.

[plain 12]

plain, I'm afraid I have no idea how George Bush (first or second) feels about healthcare in America. Hmmm, yeah that is interesting isn't it.

The only reason I ask is because the NEXT George Bush's (metaphorically) administration will be in charge of this mess after Obama's term. I hope you have as much faith in every president after Obama, because you will be giving them a huge chunk of power.

Take responsibility for our own health care? So that we will realize a lower infant mortality rate?

Shocking? The truth is, Obama's proposed savings under this plan would come from more people using preventative care. So yeah, be skeptical.....be incredulous......I felt the same way.

What causes such a high infant mortality rate in the U.S.?

Well, partially, it's a numbers game.....the US has so many more births than other nations on "the list" that y'all love to tout. Also, it's because a disproportionally large amount of the population don't use preventative care. Oh, and BTW....a lot of those folks that dont use preventative care already have access to healthcare via Medicare / Medicaid.

But so are many other governmentally controlled things here in the good ole' U.S. of A. We've had this discussion before and I thought by my listing many of them at that time, you might have been convinced.

Well, here's your list of efficient, well-run government programs:

The Veteran's Administration

The FAA

Federal Student Loan program

The military

FAFSA

School Breakfast Program

Social Security

G.I. Bill

National Highway System

National Forest System & Parks

Which of these would you eliminate completely?

Shall I take on these one-by-one, or can we just have a chuckle now?

Edited August 12, 2009 by plain

[BJean 16]

You've already given Obama lots 'o power via Bush's tenure. Why worry? There won't be another Bush president. Jeb has too many skeletons in the closet. Or were you talking about one of Dubya's daughters? Har!

It's a numbers game? All trumped up for effect? Just like the game the Bush administration played on Americans? Yeah, right.

Unfortunately you're wrong. It isn't just a numbers game. Perhaps you folks in Texarkana have the most fabulous health care in the world and if so, no wonder you can't grasp that everyone else does not. Yeah, Texarkana... they have it all figured out. When DD lived there in the 70's, that sure was not the case. Glad to know it's improved by massive leaps and bounds. Hurrah for ya'll.

That's a partial government list, btw, and yeah, please take them on one by one. And this time be thorough and cite statistics and history and accomplishments vs. failures. Otherwise you're whistling in the wind.

You're always saying that I don't answer questions. Perhaps you learned something from me, eh? Because you're great at making proclamations, but you don't seriously answer questions.

I'm outa here - on vacation at long last. I hope I don't have to go to the hospital or doctor on this trip. No telling whether or not they'll kill me. Good chance they will at least give me staph infection.