Natalee's Law

[drm604]

Universal, single payer health care. We can call it "Natalee's Law" (with the family's permission, of course).

Good idea? Bad idea?

On Edit: I'm not talking about Natalee Holloway. I'm talking about this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3109959

[MADem]

1. For WHICH Natalee? The dead girl in Aruba?

That law oughta be that no teen ager can go to Aruba without their parents.

And American teens can't be served booze in cheesy seaside Aruban resorts, under penalty of death.

If it IS for that girl, well, no offense, but that's the stupidest idea I've EVER heard.

Why not name it for my dog, who died too young from a liver ailment?

[drm604]

3. WTF?

This girl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3109959

[MADem]

7. You DO know, or maybe you don't, that the Aruba girl, whose case was JUST closed,

has the same name AND the same spelling?

Walk down the street, and ask ten people who "NATALEE" is.

I can guarantee you that NOT ONE will name this liver girl.

You might not like that fact, but there it is.

People aren't focused on this story. There's no drama. She's dead. It's a vicious media world we live in.

[drm604]

9. But maybe they should be.

Maybe people should be focused on things like this. Maybe we need to try to get them focused on things like this rather than simply decrying what a vicious world it is.

It was hard for me to tell what you were talking about. You mentioned Aruba (which didn't ring a bell with me right then) but you also mentioned your dog's liver ailment, so it was hard for me to figure out what you were talking about and you seemed to be comparing this case to your dog which seemed kind of heartless. Apparently you didn't intend that comparison. I apologize if I misunderstood.

[MADem]

13. And people shouldn't smoke, drink to excess or beat their family members, either.

But to America, trust me on this, NATALEE = ARUBA. The one that everyone thinks some tall, freakish kid whose name sounds like "Urine" murdered while she was drunk on her ass, with help from two ugly punks that the media refers to as "The Kalpo Brothers."

Not some kid who needed a liver--and I never heard of her until you provided me with that link--which sort of makes my point, I guess. You'd have better luck naming the law after Christopher Reeve, even though he was rich and could afford the best of care.

My dog died way too young of a liver ailment; she was a dog rescued from the cruel streets of southern Europe; she was starving and had been ripped to shreds by larger, rather vicious dogs when she found me. The vets figured she'd been exposed to toxins (coppers and other metals) in trash while she was living on the streets. She was a fine dog, with a gentle nature, and a rather determined guard dog, too--I never asked her to take on the role, she assumed it on her own. I managed to keep her going for a year an a half longer than her prognosis (which was a scant six months at best) with herbal treatments after her diagnosis, but she succumbed way earlier than she should have, had she enjoyed a normal life expectancy.

[drm604]

14. I also had a dog die of a liver ailment

so I wasn't attempting to belittle what happened to your dog.

A lot of people have been talking about the kid with the liver ailment here on DU and elsewhere online. The phone calls from those people may have been at least part of what pressured CIGNA to change their mind. They changed their mind too late unfortunately. The girl may have died anyway but at least she would have had a chance.

Focusing on Natalie Holloway isn't going to change anything in this country. Focusing on Natalee (or Nataline, whichever it is) Sarkisian just might. My suggestion was intended to be a way of focusing people's attention. Maybe it's a bad suggestion, I don't know, but I was hoping that this thread would open up some constructive discussion about how to focus people on things like this. Throwing up your hands and giving up on the American public won't achieve anything.

[Quantess]

2. I don't see any connection.

At all.

[drm604]

4. Any connection with what? n/t

[Quantess]

8. Never mind. I had no idea who the "Natalee" was.

So I assumed it was Natalee Holloway.
The background info generally helps.

[drm604]

10. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I really haven't been following the Natalee Holloway case.

[Whoa_Nelly]

5. It is sad that she died after the fight to get her a liver transplant

But, she is not a lone case, unfortunately.

I think just calling it something simple, such as US Health Care, would be just fine, unless Natalee's parents take it to hearings to fight to help make the law an actuality, as in the case of Megan, and Megan's Law...otherwise...not in agreement to name our nation's universal health care after her.

[drm604]

6. Thank you for at least one reasonable response.

I don't understand some of the other responses.

On Edit: Okay, I do understand them now. I just wish this hadn't gotten sidetracked by a name coincidence.

[caligirl]

11. Nataline, not Natalee.

“Every politician who thinks the answer to our healthcare crisis is more insurance should stop and think about Nataline Sarkisyan,” said DeMoro.

[drm604]

12. Now I'm not sure which it is.

This thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3109959

And this article: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&id=5848163

Refer to her as "Natalee".

Can we not have this thread degenerate into an argument about her name? "Natalee's Law" or "Nataline's Law", whichever is correct.

[caligirl]

15. I quoted from Rose Ann DeMoro's press release, the nurses have her name correct. Link >

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2007/december/cigna-capitulates-to-patient-revolt-following-massive-protest-insurer-authorizes-transplant-for-17-year-old-nataline-sarkisyan.html

[drm604]

16. Fine, it's Nataline then.

This is NOT what I wanted from this thread. It's been totally derailed by a name mistake in one or two newspaper articles.

[varkam]

17. I'm universally skeptical of 'name' laws

ie Megan's Law, etcetera etcetera.

[drm604]

18. But naming proposed laws like this seems to catch the public's attention.

The name reminds them of what is at stake.

[varkam]

19. Such laws, almost as a rule, are legislated

as a response to a tragedy and, consequently, are formulated in a less than objective fashion. They tend to be not very well planned or executed.

[drm604]

20. So it has to be that way?

This strikes me as a straw man rather than a valid argument against the idea. It may be a bad idea but if it is I don't think it's because named laws are bad as a rule.

I wasn't proposing some hastily legislated law. I wasn't suggesting that we start with the name and derive a law from it. I was suggesting the opposite, that we attach the name to a well written bill. Universal health is hardly a new idea. There has been a LOT of thinking on the subject and there are many examples to draw from in other countries. There are even some proposed bills that are already written. There is absolutely no reason that this would have to be hasty or improperly planned. My point was to attach the name to well written legislation in order to get people's attention and to make it more difficult for the insurance companies to argue against it.

[varkam]

21. I'm not arguing against universal health care.

I fully support the idea of universal health care. I'm merely expressing my own opinion that 'name' laws are usually crap. I understand that there are important differences here, and I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, just expressing my opinion on an ancillary issue.

[drm604]

22. Understood.

I never thought that you were against UHC and I didn't intend to imply that. I'm just pointing out where I disagree, which is what happens in discussion. Nothing personal at all against you. Just disagreeing. :)

[warren pease]

23. Absolutely...

Great idea. Instead of calling it single-payer, universal-access health care -- which most people don't have a clue about -- why not go the shameless route and try to get something passed on raw emotion for a change? Nothing else seems to work.

We have things like "Amber alerts" and "Megan's Law" and "The Ryan White CARE Act" because people respond more readily to emotional issues than to the straight story. Suppose Amber Alerts were known as "kidnapped kid phone trees." Think they'd get the attention they get now?

That's how the GOP has been selling its pathological legislative agenda for years. "Healthy Forests" = Clearcut, slash, burn, destabilize hillsides, silt up streams and rivers, kill the fish, but please continue to make a fortune the American way. "Clear Skies Initiative" = Please feel free to send trillions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere because global climate change is the precursor to The Rapture and we're really looking forward to End Times. "Leave No Child Behind" = Teach to the test so we can kill creativity and critical thinking and turn these little idea engines into corporate androids.

That crap works because Americans are suckers for dumb-ass slogans. And the GOP knows that if it won't fit on a bumper sticker, it's not going to fit between the ears of the average undereducated, misinformed, dummied-down, uncritical, mass media saturated American political illiterate. So they keep it simple.

Democrats, on the other hand, demonstrating that their "strategic advisers" are about as strategic as a buggy whip, wouldn't understand branding if it bit them in their collective fat, overpaid asses. So they come up with names like S-CHIP. Sheer genius, as I've come to expect from the democratic party's deep thinkers.

The GOP would have called it "The Healthy Kids Act" or something catchy like that. Dems, however, chose to go with an acronym that nobody knows and that sounds like a computer component. No wonder nobody in the great world beyond the beltway really gave a shit when it gets vetoed.


wp

[drm604]

24. You get the idea!

I actually feel a little ashamed even suggesting it. But honestly this is the route that seems to work.

Is it really so wrong? It would be a great memorial to this unfortunate young woman and maybe something could be done that would actually be good for the people of this country rather than the corporations.

Every time the insurance industry tried to propagandize against it, they'd be bringing up in people's minds the image of murderous insurance companies denying care to sick children.

I really am torn about suggesting something like this but I am getting sick of hearing stories like this.