I Guess I'm For Socialized Medicine, Then

[Syrinx]

Almost everyone that I know that got cancer died.

And I just found out tonight that someone else that I love probably has cancer.

I'm just sad about it.

Of the rich people around town that got cancer, that I know of, most of them got well.

I guess I believe in the free market to an extent.

But I don't think you should live because you are rich, or die because you aren't.

I think that every citizen (or resident, even) of the United States Of America should get the finest health care in the world, regardless of cost.

I openly support SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.

:)

[glowing]

1. I call it one of those right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Syrinx]

2. I Agree

Thanks!

:thumbsup:

[Sweet Pea]

6. Does the phrase 6 in a row mean anything to you??? n/t

[Syrinx]

61. six years in a row...

Almost seven, that George Bush has been president, and we still don't have universal health care.

[Sweet Pea]

64. The "Six" I was referring to...

has War Damn Eagle tried onto the end of it!

[Syrinx]

65. you were never taught manners?

You chose a thread where I'm talking about a loved one that has found out that she probably has deadly cancer to trash-talk?

:eyes:

[LeftCoast]

3. I support Universal Health Care

whether it be socialized or some other form.

[regnaD kciN]

5. Unless that "other form"...

...consists simply of making it mandatory that people buy an insurance policy (which currently costs at least $350/month per person or $1,200/month for a family) or else. (Oh, sure, promise them you'll help them pay through "tax credits," which won't do a damn thing for those with an income too low to pay much in taxes.)

That isn't Universal Health Care...that's Universal Subsidizing of Insurance Company Profits. :grr:

[NotGivingUp]

19. Subsidizing insurance companies ...and that's what 'they' are ALL pushing EXCEPT for KUCINICH. n/t

[Froward69]

59. Not all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jilpix0_6P8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA8HC_IBhcc&mode=related&search
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhR4PyJIvoo

[SammyWinstonJack]

23. Well we aren't about too get Universal Health Care with the insurance companies

wielding the amount of power they have over our congresscritters, so how about our :silly: government provide some regulation over the insurance companies and the HMOs? If we can't get socialized health care, then maybe ALL Americans can have affordable health care. :shrug:

[WinkyDink]

45. This is a variation of the petulant "The Iraqi govt isn't doing ITS SHARE!"

I.e., this plan's onus is on the VICTIM, the UNINSURED, the CITIZEN (when did we become only "consumers"?? But I digress.), RATHER than on the GOVERNMENT.

"You MUST have health insurance!" This is a PLAN?! This is a PLOT!

[endarkenment]

25. the other form is corrupt bullshit. nt.

[xchrom]

4. sorry about the tragedies -- and socialize me too.

[donheld]

7. It only makes sense

The richest country on earth should provide health care for ALL it's people. Dental and Optical included.

[tkmorris]

8. I am with you

I'll pay higher taxes. Whatever it takes.

[B Calm]

9. I support Socialized librarys, roads, schools, etc etc, so why

wouldn't I support Socialized Health Care?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donnachaidh]

54. and what part of the health insurance industry do YOU work in?

talk about a Fox news soundbite! :rofl:

[B Calm]

57. Do you support our military? It's the biggest socalist program we have!

[warren pease]

58. What absolute hogwash...

Your doc won't be a government employee any more than a Social Security recipient works for the feds. Under single payer, docs continue to own or share their practices, hospitals continue to exist as independent entities, labs likewise, nurses and support staff ditto.

There will be far fewer support staff necessary, however, because the current system requires an army of thick-skinned warriors to deal with the insurance industry's routine denials of care, refusals to pay for covered procedures and, the latest nasty tactic, delaying payment as long as possible to keep it earning interest in insurance company accounts while the solo practitioner GP starves.

Besides eliminating the hourly battles with insurance industry cretins, only two things change: health care dispensing entities that now operate as for profit corporations must go non-profit. And the payer changes from private, for-profit insurers to the feds.

Other than that, it's transparent to medical care consumers -- except that you've weeded out the two most destructive elements in the current US tragicomedy that passes for a health care system: the profit motive and the insurance industry. This means far lower annual health care costs, no more pleading with your own personal insurance company Torquemada for what's rightfully yours in the first place, no more obscene drug prices, no more exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no more actuaries and adjusters telling your doc how to run his or her practice, and so forth.

With that single move, you eliminate the current fucked up system that triages on bank account rather than on criticality of condition. You affirm that health care is a universal right and not a privilege to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. And you give new lease on life to the estimated 18,000 US citizens who will die next year and the year after because they couldn't get adequate health care in time to treat a given disease -- cancer, for example -- before it metastasized and killed the patient.

The rich can pay for preemptive medicine in the form of frequent checkups, tests, office visits and the like, so they interrupt many fatal diseases in time to stop their progress. This is why the rich tend to get better and the poor tend to die.

The poor, on the other hand, including the working poor, typically have neither the means nor the coverage to practice preventive medicine. They typically wait until they're pretty sick, then visit the ER -- the most expensive way possible to get routine medical care, and for which you pay out of local and/or state taxes. If they're lucky, they catch the problem in time. If not, they go on the list along with the other 17,999 poor bastards who got killed by the American way of medicine.

If that's your idea of a civilized society, then you get a seat at the captain's table alongside Herbert Spencer, Milton Friedman and the rest of the economic/social Darwinists. If, on the other hand, this system seems harsh, perverse and grossly unfair to you, then you're a single-payer, universal-access supporter -- along with the rest of the civilized world.

It's really that simple.


wp

[blondie58]

10. yeah- what is so bad about socialized medicine?

if we could take all of the obscene salaries that the CEO's of the healthcare industry make and make it a non-profit making business, we could put those $$$'s to a much more efficient and affordable practise. I am sorry about the person in your life that has cancer- I hope that all goes well for them.

Edited to add- and don't our elected officials have their healthcare covered?

[HughBeaumont]

16. Psssst . . .

. . . war is profitable. Helping people isn't.

If everyone wants this to end, stop electing corporatists. On BOTH sides of the fence.

Rein in unbridled corporatism.

You want the root of almost all large-scale problems we face today, there you have it.

Economy.
War.
Wealth inequality.
Health care.
Election fraud.
No accountability.
Waste.
Consumption.
Environmental destruction.
Media with a Republican, pro-corporate message.
All education issues.
Mainstream culture that gets more vapid and empty-headed by the year.

It all comes back to unbridled corporatism. We have a government dictated by the corporations, for the corporations that benefits solely the wealthy that run them and that shit has to stop at ONCE.

[raccoon]

26. I agree, Hugh, but if we have to choose between Hillary and Romney

(for instance), what choice do we have?

"If everyone wants this to end, stop electing corporatists. On BOTH sides of the fence. "

[HughBeaumont]

28. It's like, "Thanks for the big menu".

Sadly, there aren't any FDRs anymore.

Despite his previous senate record, Edwards seems to be the only one stressing labor concerns in his current campaign. Hillary still supports and stands by the Indian outsourcing companies and job-giveaway free trade agreements of the 90s that killed the working class.

[magellan]

38. Write-in. n/t

[cgrindley]

11. You understand that it gets rationed according to age and other factors,

right? Personally, I have no problem with that. But keep in mind that my 70 something year old father had to wait 9 months to have his carotid arteries cleared out. (I'm Canadian). If a person is elderly, they're not a priority in that system. I'm cool with that, but I doubt that many Americans would tolerate the idea. In the UK, the obese and smokers often are told to lose weight and quit smoking before the system will invest any tax money in their care.

[B Calm]

12. So according to you, old people in Canada are put at the back of the line..

Somehow I think you are full of it!

[cgrindley]

13. Yeah, that's entirely true

I'm Canadian. I lived there until 2001. My parents live there. My kids live there. That's just the way the system works. And it's good that it works that way. It couldn't work like the US system but free as there is much waste in the US system. Wait times are the usual result. Basically that works out as an embargo against performing procedures on the elderly. EG my wife's 89 year old grandmother had a double hip replacement in the last year in her life. If she had been in Canada, the operation never would have been performed and she would have died on the wait list, thereby saving the taxpayer an expensive and needless surgery, freeing up the money to spend on someone else.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/qual/acces/wait-attente/index_e.html

[Tyler Durden]

30. What horseshit.

I had to take you off ignore just to read what you're spewing.

My 77 year old uncle is alive thanks to Health Canada, completely cancer free, and he gets YEARLY surgery on his osteoarthritis crippled hands.

It's too bad someone pushing 90 had to wait a little while for a joint replacement, so that people could get treated for cancer. Put those dance lessons on "hold."

I guess your example makes Canada's system TRASH and this system WONDERFUL because money = jump the que, AND because US MINES Canada for their health professionals like crazy.

Riiiiight.

[cgrindley]

31. WTF!

Can you read? I support health care rationing for the elderly. I support Canada's health care system. I think that the US system sucks shit and is for greedy people who are unable to face the facts regarding mortality.

PS your 77 year old uncle is lucky.

[Spazito]

27. He is full of it, imo

My in-laws are "old" and in poor health and are able to get care in a timely manner as are other elderly people I know. Hip replacements may put one in a "line" but it is not an age discriminatory line as espoused by the poster, it is simply considered elective surgery as opposed to critical/emergency surgery.

Their health issues include heart, lungs, clogged arteries, etc, and they have not had to wait long for treatment on any of their health issues.

[cgrindley]

33. Jesus

it's like banging my head against a brick wall.

I'm a fucking Canadian. I know what I'm talking about.

I love Canada's health care system. I think that rationing health care to the elderly is a GOOD thing. That's what the wait lists are. Also if you read the criteria for the wait lists, you'll see that life expectancy is a number that is considered... and more points are awarded for longer life expectancies.

EG if a 40 year old needs a new valve, well that'll get done tomorrow... whereas if an 80 year old needs one... he'll have to wait a year or two... whereupon he'll probably die. And you know what my reaction is? My reaction is: oh well. When you get old, you die. That's how it works. Health care should be spent on the young.

[Spazito]

35. There is NO rationing, you are so full of it....

Yeah, you love the system and your illusion of justified rationing, friggin creepy, imo. I AM Canadian, living in Canada, have SEEN the elderly receive care on an equal basis with those who are younger.

If you can't prove your point by providing links showing government sanctioned rationing based on age, then your opinion is as valid as your hissyfit over outdoor clotheslines, irrelevant and ridiculous, imo.

Edited to add clarity.

[cgrindley]

36. Read the god damn documents

I've already posted the link. Read the damn link. You get awarded points based on a variety of criteria. Life expectancy is one. Fewer points for a shorter life expectancy = longer wait times for the elderly. There are also longer wait lists for non-emergency surgery... eg orthopedic surgeries. Longer wait times = old people dying of natural causes before their operations. That's rationing health care to the elderly.

And I think that it's a good thing.

But jesus h christ, read the god damn link.

[Spazito]

41. I read them and there is NO age discriminatory language in them!

If someone is dying of cancer, unable to walk, then a hip replacement is not done REGARDLESS of age. Your contention that there is written age discriminatory language is crap, total crap. You contended that age was the factor and that is not true, health is REGARDLESS of age.

Maybe YOU should read the links as they are written, without your INTERPRETATION of them, you might learn something.

[cgrindley]

42. It's very simple

you get points awarded or deducted from your wait list score according to a variety of criteria. Some of those criteria impact the elderly more than the young. EG a question that gives points to those whose work is impacted by their medical condition. EG those whose life expectancy is short. and so on. Since the elderly are impacted according to these grounds more than the young, then it basically works out to a system of rationing... just check out these two criteria under joint replacement wait list determination...

6. Potential for progression of disease documented by radiographic findings (e.g.
recurrent dislocation, x-ray evidence of protrusion, significant bone loss, component
wear, impending fracture):**
? None (0)
? Mild (4)
? Moderate (11)
? Severe (20)
** Predominantly applies to revisions, use in primary cases only in special circumstances (e.g.
ligament instability, bone loss)


7. Threat to patient role and independence in society (i.e. ability to work, give care to
dependants, live independently (difficulty must be related to affected joint)):
? Not threatened but more difficult (0)
? Threatened but not immediately (10)
? Immediately threatened or unable (20)


You can see how just these two criteria would result in an older, retired person spending longer on the wait list. In number 6, since they are old, the disease does not have much of a chance to progress over many years. In number 7, if you don't work or live independently, you're not going to score any points at all. Retired people already in nursing homes are going to score a 0.

It's not that difficult to figure out.


It's not unfair either.

[Spazito]

46. LOL, the facts on who gets operations and who doesn't is NOT

based on age which is shown by your very points iterated. Again, you are interpreting it as meaning something that is NOT in evidence and my knowledge is NOT based on interpretation but on actual incidents where elderly HAVE received the operations needed and those younger have not for health, not age, reasons.

The decisions to operate or not operate are based on risk and health factors NOT specific to age only as was your claim, a bogus claim no matter how you try to massage it.

[cgrindley]

48. Who cares what your experience is?

The decision to operate or not operate is immaterial to this discussion. The wait list is determined after the decision to operate has been taken.

Operations are prioritized according to those worksheets so readily available on the government's website. There are a large number of criteria. I merely provided two to you so that you might understand.

Clearly, you did not.

[Spazito]

50. You are so disingenuous it is unbelievable...

You are trying to say something that is NOT true. First, you are trying to avoid the facts regarding elective versus life-threatening operations. The criteria you are INTERPRETING refers to elective surgery NOT emergency, life-threatening surgery and, again, there is NO language in any document that allows for age-related discrimination for treatment.

I find it interesting you started this whole thing by relating YOUR family's experience and yet you come back with "Who cares what your experience is?" when I relate my experiences. I believe that could be classified as hypocritical, to say the least, on your part.

My experiences are, at the very least, as valid OR invalid as yours in terms of the discussion much as you may dislike to acknowledge them.

[cgrindley]

51. Are you trying NOT to understand or something?

I give up. You obviously are doing this on purpose.

[Tyler Durden]

39. Another "Well-to-do Que Jumper" goes USA!

The more than 50% of my family who lives in Canada would rather eat dirt than swap our their Health Care system.

He can't get his "elective surgery" done tomorrow? Tough Shit. Go to the USA and pay out the nose, in cash.

I'd respond directly to this person with some choice words, but he's back on IGNORE.

[cgrindley]

40. I'm so glad he's ignoring me

dude can't read.

I do live in the USA.

I do think that the Canadian system is better.

I do think that rationing health care is a good thing.

I do think that long wait times for elective surgeries are a necessary price to pay for free public health care.

I would love to know why Tyler Durden cannot read.

[Spazito]

43. My family and friends, of all ages, are very supportive of our system

If operations have not been done it is because those operations would shorten their life span as was the case of my sister who was NOT old and had terminal cancer. The decision not to operate was based on the risks of shortening her life not on "rationing" as espoused by the other poster.

My in-laws are elderly and have had operations which lengthened their lifespan and increased mobility even though their overall health is not good.

Our system is not perfect, needs improvements but is damn good, imo, and does NOT discriminate based on age as you and I both know.

[cgrindley]

49. Of course it does

I just provided concrete evidence that the points system used to determine position on the wait list is influenced by factors associated with age. That's a form of rationing as some of those on the wait list will die before it's their turn.

Why oh why are we having such a pointless debate. I'm right dammit.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

56. Re:Clogged arteries.

There are alternatives.

PLEASE Look up chelation and MMS.

www.miraclemineral.org


Disclaimer: This is NOT medical advice.

[Vinca]

14. As an uninsured American, I imagine I will wait much longer than

9 months to have carotid arteries cleaned out. Try forever. I also have a bum hip and somehow I think an 89 year old Canadian will get a hip replacement before an uninsured 58 year old American. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was meant for everyone, not just the wealthy.

[cgrindley]

34. Perhaps I wasn't clear

I live in the US. My wife's grandmother was American. She had cadillac health care insurance and the US system paid for an entirely unnecessary surgery (a double hip replacement for an 89 year old woman is a complete waste of money).

In Canada, my wife's grandmother NEVER would have lasted long enough to get past the wait list. A) her life expectancy wasn't long enough, and B) her pain didn't interfere with her work as she was past working age. She would have DIED before getting the hip replacement.

But I'm okay with that. I'm happy with that. That's the way it should be. Health care money shouldn't be wasted on the last 6 months of life.

[lynnertic]

20. In the US, our insurance companies ration health care according to their profits.

So who would I rather have rationing my health care, my government or my insurance company?

[Triana]

15. Well you're not alone then (n/t)

[Perry Logan]

17. Me too. Capitalism has had its chance--and utterly failed in the task of delivering health care.

[lynnertic]

18. I'm sorry for the news. I know it's hard and frightening

I support socialized medicine too. A free society helps its needy.

[Mend]

21. three doctors I know died this year from cancer...it will be good to have

universal health care but we also need more research. The doctors weren't that old either but pancreatic, esophageal, and melanoma are tough to beat.

[Thothmes]

22. Socialized medicine

I believe that the single payer plan is the way to go. I spent 24 years under a totally socialized medical system (i.e. U.S. armed services). Generally thought it was alright, but you had no legal recourse for medical snafus. It operated by a strict higharchy, Active duty first, active duty dependents second, military retirees third, and military retirees dependents fourth. After retiring, almost never tried to use the military facilites, because they were almost always booked up with priority one and two patients. I suspect, that a civilian socialized system would also have to operate under a strict priority system. Would the govt allow malpractice actions against government employees.

[harun]

24. I had never thought about it that way but every person

I know that got cancer died as well except for the super rich I know that got it, they lived (which is only one person, but still).

[MrMickeysMom]

29. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...

Seems to imply that LIFE includes good health and is therefore a right of all who seek it.

When you offer the way to "good health", you open the mind with HOW to acquire it. It's not by passively consuming things someone wants you to buy and getting your fat removed after, it's what you need to do to engage yourselves and live as well as possible. Adding LIBERTY with LIFE, and the masses are open to INFORMATION as to how to be in control of those rights and therefore more responsible.

These rights are self-evident. They led to an informed electorate. How daunting!

The pursuit of HAPPINESS can only follow...

[redqueen]

32. So... are you voting for Kucinich?

:)

[radfringe]

37. when you think about it - what most of us have now for insurance

is just a private version of socialized medicine

our employers pay for most of it with a co-pay from us

for the most part the insurance companies determine which doctors you can see, when you can see them and for what, and they also decide on which medications they will cover - all with another co-pay from us

the only difference I can see between what the republics call socialized medicine and what we have available today is who pays what from where.

single-payer government plan would be paid through our taxes as opposed through an employer. it would probably mean a co-pay from each of us, and co-pays for doc visits/meds

the whole labeling it as socialized medicine is designed to bring up images of communism/socialism linked with the old Soviet Union and imply that the care would be substandard.

[Hidden Stillness]

44. If It is a "For-Profit Business"--Then It is Not Medicine or Health Care at All

This reminds me of a couple of things: First, I remember about 10 years ago or so, when they first began to be able to treat AIDS patients with a regimen of prescriptions and many, many classes of personal self-care, teaching them how to avoid or respond to any threat to the immune system, respiratory flus, colds or bugs going around, getting on a good diet and safely exercising, keeping their environment clean, psychological counseling, etc., etc.--all the kinds of "managing your disease" type classes that diabetics, for example, also have--and for the first time, they did not just die, there was a big study by the Centers for Disease Control, I think it was, that discovered that the difference between life and death for AIDS patients, was whether or not they had insurance that covered all of these ongoing learning classes. If they did not have coverage but got medicine, they still died, because it has become like diabetes--you have to be helped to understand and manage this for the rest of your life; insurance made the difference. Of course, the corporate media suppressed the report.

Second, for those who think that people in Canada do not get care because there is a backup--let me just tell you, I live in Michigan and follow Canadian news all the time. When there is a long line to get into cancer treatment or surgery, the people are transported, charged to the Canadian Government, to the great Cleveland Clinic or other world-class places in the U.S.; it happens routinely, all the time. If there is a threat, then arrangements are made with U.S. hospitals and clinics. People in Canada are not denied; the system works. Here, you die and no one cares, they just want the profit, the subsidy, the tax cut, the stock return.

Third, Democrats need to stop being so Goddamned flustered and nonplussed by Republican consultant phraseology and slogans--"Socialized," etc. Eventually, you have to stop thinking you need to "respond to" or "answer" every Goddamned one of these phony routines, and eventually just do what real people in the real world do when they are debating with somebody who is deliberately obstructing and not answering the question on its merits and just swat the thing away like a bug--Quit calling it "socialized" and solve our fucking problem!

[Kucinich4America]

47. Why should we support "socialized" medicine?

Would you want Halliburton running your fire department?

Do you want Blackwater taking the place of the National Guard, as they did in the aftermath of Katrina?

Do you want your children forced to attend right wing private schools, and become indoctrinated?

Do you want more ENRON's controlling the energy prices?

Do you want Wall Street controlling Social Security?

Most reasonable people would answer "NO" to all of the above. How then, is it any less reasonable to demand quality health care for all Americans??

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donnachaidh]

55. turn off fox news dear

Wealthy people in this country survive BECAUSE they have the money to pay the costs upfront. You can afford a five star hotel, you can also afford five star medical treatment. And you really need to do some further research on health care in other places. Bill O'Reilly and his buds fluff the numbers because they would lose billions in healthcare ads if things were socialized.

DUH.

[eridani]

60. All we really need is socialized insurance

Publicly funded health care, privately delivered.

[puebloknot]

62. Other things we all take advantage of are "socialized," as Michael Moore...

...pointed out: Fire departments, libraries, public roads, municipal water systems. We pay for those things, through taxes or directly, but we have a right to expect those services. "Socialism" is what native peoples have done for years -- take care of their own. Mormons consider it reasonable to take care of their community, although they expect people to put supplies aside in case of an emergency.

We're all too brainwashed to be grateful for what any mature society should furnish to its citizens as a matter of course.

I'm really sorry to hear about your loved one. I lost a good friend to cancer about eight years ago. The memories linger.

[Syrinx]

63. so very true.

And thanks for the kind words. (And to the other people in this thread as well.)

:hi: