(from a sign I saw yesterday)
I don't get begging to cover medical treatments; IT SHOULDN'T BE A THING.
We should be ashamed of ourselves.
Maybe you should be ashamed every time you see a sign like this?
It's despicable.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Things I Don't Get: Fundraisers
I don't get begging to cover medical treatments; IT SHOULDN'T BE A THING.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
59 comments:
I don't get why it's my fault someone doesn't have insurance.
The way insurance works in this country is stupid. We should all be "covered" always.
I also don't get why when I'd rather have been home with my babies (and still would like to be even though they're teenagers)...I had/have to continue to work so we can have health insurance (not availabe without a HEFTY price for the self employed & small businesses) and still afford to feed our children.
I've seen gross misuse/abuse of the system and have seen families sacrifice ALL before they would accept help.
I'm conflicted personally and professionally on the issue of healthcare...there really is no simple answer.
ps. Also private insurance not available to ME, with my history...yes...I hear you, I'm conflicted.
do you really believe the sign? It seems like if his wife did have cancer there are certainly more efficient ways to raise funds.
But, I'm a bit too cynical for my own good. It comes from living at a close proximity to DC.
I agree that we should all be covered always. Our system is broken. You'd have to be pretty desperate to go for the option of begging.
I always feel a bit conflicted when I see people begging. You do see a lot of it on street corners in the DC area. I feel like maybe they are liars but that isn't for me to decide. What is for me to decide is what will I do about it. Will I help or will I walk away?
I think I would rather make the mistake of being gullible over being cynical. Too often I am just too lazy to be bothered. And that bother's me.
Yes, please stop asking me to help you because you found yourself screwed without insurance. My bachelor husband gave me a wedding gift of loads of medical debt because of his kidney stones. Unable to pay the debt, we filed bankruptcy. We could have had a fundraiser, but we didn't. We accepted our fate and now it is long behind us.
Could we say that having medical insurance goes along with the church's plea to be self-sufficient and prepared for life's disasters? Maybe?
What I get tired of hearing is people wanting health care for free. There is no such thing as a free lunch. In my husband's career as a self-employed worker, we have always bought insurance. And it has been sucky, but just because we have to do something sucky doesn't mean we shouldn't. Sometimes you have to do things you don't want to do.
And what about a new kind of health care reform? Like reforming your own health care? Like not going to Sonic for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Like getting off the couch and going for a stroll?
Hmmm, I'm not sure how I feel about this. At first the sign sort of bothers me, but then I think about families like Nienie who have had plenty of fundraisers for their medical care and that seems to be just fine with everyone. And arguably cancer is just as serious and expensive as what they've gone through. Thoughts?
I'm just as unhappy about Nie's fundraisers. I participated, I gave, I donated, so many did; it was incredible and sweet and touching and life-affirming.
But it's stupid that there ever, ever has to be a private fundraiser when someone gets hurt. Hundreds of thousands of dollars even with insurance? Stupid. Wrong.
Bankruptcy in your 20s because of a medical problem?
That shouldn't happen. It's stupid.
Amen over here.
Waiting for the haters to come out ...
On that note, though, you could add bottled water to a list of things I don't get.
Ahh! I lady after my own heart. I agree. Stupid that it EVER has to happen. Cancer is going to take a lot of water bottles. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
It's tough sometimes feeling this way in our great state, but you're not alone! There's at least one more cool chick like you with a visiting teaching reminder on the fridge and an Obama sticker in the window. :)
Since it was brought up:
As the person who ran one of the 'fundraisers' for Stephanie & her family, I need to state that it happened not out of them asking for it, but out of the drive for people who wanted to do something - anything - to help. It was a humbling experience and I saw a goodness in people, the magnitude of which I don't know I'll see again during this life.
That being said, I gave a couple of bucks to a homeless guy yesterday. He had a very nice backpack. And I'll buy the crap kids are peddling for their school/sports EVERY TIME.
But are you OK that there have to be fundraisers to cover medical costs?
Just to clarify I too helped with the Nielson fundraising through my blog. And was happy to do so.
I was not in any suggesting the Nielson's didn't deserve help, I'm just trying to understand why this is so different....I was trying to figure out if the annoyance was toward the health care system or if the annoyance was towards the guy for asking to help pitch in because he doesn't have insurance and his method of going about getting donations seemed a little lame as well. And so far it seems that it's both. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, although I'm definitely playing the Devil's advocate, but I'm just wondering why such compassion for one situation but not for another? Not knowing the back story to this guys situation couldn't it also have the same ability to uplift and inspire as Nie's fundraising? And what if the Nielson's had asked for help? Would that have made a difference? Would they be less deserving?
Again just throwing the questions out there....
There are a lot of people who would never be able to privately raise hundreds of thousands of dollars - for whatever reason - no friends, they didn't catch the media or blog-world's eye, they're ugly as sin - whatever. For every Stephanie, there's an invisible family with no one reaching out to help them.
And Rookie - there are plenty of people who think bankruptcy is incredibly irresponsible - that hospital ends up paying for the medical care you defaulted on, which (say it with me now) increases the cost of medical care for everyone. And I say that as someone who has declared one, so - I'm not judging, I'm just saying I'm not sure I understand your reasoning there.
My annoyance is with a system that leaves our fellow man with a devastating, life-changing monetary need in their most dire time.
Why do we let that happen? Why aren't you upset about it?
Why is there ever a fundraiser for cancer, for a stroke, for a transplant, or for a birth with unexpected complications?
I'm happy to give, because there is a need, and because it's the right thing to do.
I just don't get why we allow that kind of disparity to happen in the first place.
I also think it's a crying shame that something as unpredictable and personally devastating as injury/failing health can also bury us financially. I just had a BABY (something planned and predicted) and the accrued debt from what my insurance wouldn't cover was a pretty serious blow to my little family. The thought of something happening to one of us with the way my insurance works right now is really scary.
So I agree with you, Zook. I also hate the way the system "works".
don't like the system either but at the same time I am willing to do my part... husband lost his job and am paying for COBRA only so we don't have to fund raise if something happens.
System needs to be fixed but haven't heard a solution yet that makes sense.
I guess I don't really see the difference, and what I mean by that is: it's one more bill to be paid. My own medical bills are in a stack with all my others. And there have been times when my bills got paid at the expense of not getting groceries for the week, and that stinks, yes. So am I okay that there have to be fundraisers to cover medical costs? No more than I am okay that there are fundraisers to cover food costs (due to people's funds having to go elsewhere).
Sue makes an excellent point: there are so many more people suffering who don't get the attention and therefore help that others get.
hmmmmm...
sounds like it is really the system that you don't get. And maybe irresponsible people.
I definitely get fundraisers, but I don't get irresponsible people, living beyond your means or insurance companies.
And it's funny because in the thick of the nie recovery fundraising my sister in law posted on her blog saying "Why her?" She is a social worker and sees so many needs. Why the Nielsens? Because it was a trendy thing to do and it was public. Not that we were all trying to necessarily be trendy, because we WANTED to help. I donated a couple items too, but the commenter above was right, everyone just wanted to do SOMETHING. And we all didn't quite know what to do.
I like fundraisers. I like having the opportunity to support people and organizations. I dislike being forced to support people and organizations.
I pay over $700 a month for our health insurance. Then, I paid 7 grand on top of that to have my baby last month. It wasn't fun, but I did it.
I'm not saying everyone could. Or that I'll always be able to do it . I just don't think the government should be the first line of defense.
I completely agree that everyone should have access to health care that they can afford. If that means we all pay a little more, I'm for it.
I don't want to give a lecture about the benefits of preventive care, the ER visits that people in dire situations make that we all end up paying for, and the way that medical bankruptcy affects the rest of the population, but suffice it to say that a more expansive health care system may not have to cost much more than we are already (perhaps without knowing it) paying now. Or maybe I do want to give that lecture :)
Mostly, though, I think it does us good to sacrifice for one another, whether the person we are sacrificing for "deserves" it or not (I'm thinkin prodigal son and guys like that).
If you have a cell phone plan, you can get an insurance plan.
Ones that cover major disasters (like Cancer) aren't crazy expensive (unless you have a pre-existing condition).
It is a mess though. I'll agree on that.:)
Azúcar for president!
I think there is confusion about Carina's post. Some have dug in their heels too quickly. It is like Carina posted "I think communists should run health care, and I hate people who beg"
She didn't.
What she was disturbed about, was the fact that people are forced to fundraise to pay medical bills.
Even if you disagree with universal health care or mandated coverage... don't we all like the idea of everyone having access to regular medical care?
...
I was about to write a whole comment on that question, but we've heard it so many times before. Yes, there is personal responsibility when it comes to our health care. But there are SO many things we can do to make our health care system better (many of which, I believe, were addressed in the recent health care bill).
I just wanted to make one more comment.
This one goes out to raegan's comment. Not to raegan personally, but to the idea that was presented:
"I don't want to be forced to help people"
I get your sentiment. But it only goes so far. We should all have free will to develop wonderful attributes like charity, love, and humility. in fact, would we truly develop them if we were forced? No.
But should this sentiment extend to basic access to health care?
What about beyond that? Should the sentiment extend to education, protection from harm (police forces, fire fighters), and other public goods?
Personally, I feel like there is room for us to develop our own personal characteristics. But there are also just basic needs that require collective or governmental action to solve.
It was quite a wake-up call to me when I realized that my dad, who has cancer, would probably have either died or accrued HUGE medical expenses had he lived in the United States, because he works for the kind of small business that typically doesn't offer insurance here. Instead he lives in Norway where he can get the treatment he needs. Note the word "lives".
I still can't get any company to take my daughter for health insurance. No matter what they charge, I will pay anything. It's just fabulous to worry about her every second of the day. I hate how things are, it makes me completely livid. If something horrible happened to her and we used all of the money we had trying to save her but didn't have enough...You can bet I'll be the woman selling water bottles on the side of the street!
You are right it should not be a thing, it's sick.
P.S. I will never suggest anything to you on Facebook again, saw your tweet ;)
-vanessa from inevergrewup.net
I believe fundraisers are a way people can feel like they are helping others during a very terrible and painful time. It is awful and unfortunate that there are times a fundraiser is the only option.
I have a friend, who has a daughter with an inoperable brain tumor. Our companies insurance company just decided they will no longer cover the experimental treatment that she has been undergoing (and responding well to) for the past 5 months. I don't think it is fair in any way, but what else can you do besides have a fundraiser?
She's 5 and will eventually die from her tumor. Do you let her die sooner than later because the insurance company decided not to cover the treatment any longer?
I would hate to be in the situation to have to decide to beg or let my child die. That time should be spend building memories and holding your family member - not worrying about how the bills are going to get paid.
Our insurance system is a mess, and until it is fixed, I guess we have to do what we can.
~j, ...or at least one of the people who ran that specific fundraiser for nie.
I think a lot of the comments I read seemed to be from an upper class white perspective, you know everyone can pull themselves up by their boot straps because I did attitude. I think people forget how much privilege they have in their lives.
I agree healthcare is a right not a privilege. I pay a lot of insurance for almost no coverage. It's beyond frustrating.
I speak bluntly. No insult intended. Insurance works because the insurance companies have enough money to pay out the claims. If they insure everyone (i. e. those with pre-existing conditions) or pay out on everything they will not have enough money to pay out to anyone. It is based on statistics. The numbers say that x number of people with y conditions will need a payout of z amount within a specified period of time. If the insurance companies cannot meet the payout they go under and everyone is out of luck. Thus some do not have insurance. The insurance industry is one of the most heavily regulated in the world. Obama Inc. did not even start slamming the insurance companies until opinion polls showed them to be less popular than his health care package. Deception by Obama Inc. is the driver behind the dissatisfaction with insurance. Yes the insurance industry needs an overhaul. It needs to be allowed to compete in the private sector with less government involvement. By the way, under most state and federal laws, virtually everyone can get insurance already, it just costs a lot more for some than others. Thank you and have a good day.
By the way I am a middle age, over weight, bald guy with minor health problems, monthly medication with no insurance. Life is 99% good. (That may sound sarcastic, but I mean it.)
@ Anna M: I see you've removed your second comment. I was just about to reply, but it seems you've perhaps thought better. Good for you.
But James, what will you do if you get cancer? My mother has cancer (and, thankfully, is insured) and her treatment/doctor's visits/medications cost around $16,000 per month. How will you pay for that without insurance? For many reasons, I hope that you don't get cancer.
Dude.
Money doesn't grow on trees.
Health care costs MONEY.
It is not anyone's fault if someone doesn't have insurance ... except for the un-insured.
I'm tired of the entitlement mentality. Where will it stop? We also have the right to have shelter ... perhaps someone should pay for that too? And food ... that's a right ... food stamps for everyone! And clothes ... not only a right, but the law ... free clothes!!
WOOHOO!!
If only we actually lived in a world where money DID grow on trees. Then ... it would apparently be a perfect world. Because the world isn't perfect unless everything is 'free' and subsidized.
Gag.
Janette, I wish for you a lifetime of health, no accidents, no disastrous illnesses that your insurance company decides not to cover because you answered a question slightly inaccurately on your intake form when you signed up for coverage in your mid-twenties. Oh, and I hope you don't have any sick babies who might need treatment upon birth that is denied by your insurance company as a "preexisting condition" (as in, existing before birth). If you get all of these things, then you won't have to feel entitled to them. You'll just know that life has been good to you.
Jenny,
Save your breath.
I have an almost 4 year old son who was born with a non-functioning kidney. At 5 months old, he underwent a kidney bypass, and thanks to modern medicine (THAT IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF RESEARCH THAT IS PAID FOR BY PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES), he is now a happy, 100% healthy, and trouble making boy.
3 months after he was conceived, my husband switched jobs (before being laid off) and we were forced onto COBRA (because pregnancy is a pre-existing condition). $900/month insurance ain't pretty. But, we sucked it up and DID THE RIGHT THING! We paid our own way, instead of thinking that we were entitled to something that we weren't.
At 20 weeks, the sonographer found multiple problems with our son. We prayed a lot. We braced for the worst. 18 sonograms, a c section, and 6 doctors later ... he was made whole.
And 20 years from now, when there are no specialists, because gov't healthcare doesn't pay squat, I hope that my son isn't having a baby with the same problems ... Because a few people shot the rest of the nation in the foot to make something a little better for 14% and a LOT worse for the other 86% who were paying their way.
You're getting caught up in the idea of being compassionate. I get it. However, compassion does not equal socialism.
Oh, and for the record, my son's kidney issue WILL be a prexisting condition until he is 18 years old. It is what it is. Life isn't fair. Just as if he'd been born with Downs (like the dr's told us was possible), it was what it was.
Take a dip in the grown-up pool ... it feels great!
Janette
ps- since I know you'll think that we were rich, paying that $900/month health insurance for 3 years (the max we could go on COBRA), I'll just go ahead and let you know that we'll be paying that off until he's 18 as well. It's the price of being a grown up.
And, I apologize if I seem really harsh. I'm annoyed that the people who oppose universal healthcare are portrayed as rich, perfectly healthy, ignorant, dilusional people.
There are people out there who aren't rich, aren't healthy, struggle, give money to charities and STILL think that socialism is wrong.
It's a concept that I learned as a small child: you want something in life, you work for it ... and PAY for it!
Oh, we're paying for it.
We pay more than any other industrialized country in the world...and yet we get less. And we also get uncertainty, debt, bankruptcy, and bake sales.
Exactly.
Why give them MORE money to get even less with? WHY?!
Name ONE government run program that runs better and more efficiently than the private sector.
Here, MILITARY. That's mine.
Now, you pick one.
Notice how the private sector makes a profit, reinvests, better technology, blah, blah, blah?
There is a reason. Stop giving money to these elected morons who don't know what they're doing with it!
If we became self-employed the only insurance my son and I can qualify for (due to pre-existing conditions) is the state offered high risk insurance pool.
We actually had to give up our business 10 years ago or else never achieve above the poverty level (to qualify for state-run care) because the medical costs were/are too great. With insurance his care (and mine) is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
My question is why does it have to cost so damn much?
"And, I apologize if I seem really harsh."
No. You just sound like you've been listening to a little too much Glenn Beck. And like you don't really understand what socialism is. (Clue: I know people on The TV Set and The Radio like to tell you that socialism = government subsidized health care, but that's not actually true. Sad when truth gets in the way of a good sound bite, I know. Before you take another swim in the grown-up pool, you might want to turn off the radio and buy a dictionary.)
How can anyone say we pay so much and get so little? Where do people go when they need treatment for a rare disease - USA. Where do all of the new drugs and treatments come from - USA. You need an xray/MRI/ultrasound? Right down the hall and we'll get that done. Need a referral to a specialist? How's next Friday? None of this is possible under socialized medicine where people wait months to get what we consider routine tests.
When you have an emergency, you are taken care of by the best medical personnel in the world. It's not like you are turned away from receiving urgent care because you can't pay - you receive the care and the responsibility to pay for it afterward. NieNie was treated even though the medical costs would have been impossible for anyone to pay for out of pocket - she got care in the best country in the world.
Socialized medicine is a slippery slope where no one wins. To cover everyone, insurance costs will have to go up. To treat everyone, wait times will go up and caregivers will be overworked. In order to manage costs, payments to caregivers will go down. As it becomes less fulfilling to be a part of the field there will be fewer good caregivers. As there are fewer caregivers, those remaining will need to be evenly distributed so now you are told not only how much you will make but where you will live. Bad leads to worse leads to disaster.
I know you will say all of this is based on greed or a lack of compassion but it is not. I am not rich by any means and I have a great deal of compassion - I just think personal responsibility and charity can never be replaced by government mandates.
I think fundraisers are great - it shows the individual is making an effort rather than sitting back waiting for someone else to take care of them.
Ohhhkay. I have to chime in here.
First, Janette and every other American here, please pause a moment and consider how incredibly biased you are for being American. If you have lived abroad for many years (not merely KNOWN someone who does/did), then excuse my presumptuousness in calling you biased.
I am also biased as a Canadian. Because "free" health care is such a way of life for us, something that exists in the background taken for granted, we Canadians think that you anti-universal health care Americans are uninformed and completely bewildering.
Just wanted to be upfront about the biases.
Now let's talk about socialism. What you're describing isn't socialism. Glenn Beck might call it that but then he also slings the word "communism" around a lot. This way of life might be socialistic in aspects but it's not outright socialism. Capitalism still reigns.
Next: Compassion and force. Even if you are being forced by way of a tax system to care for others, you still have the choice to do it willingly or begrudgingly. And that's where you'll be judged by God. Charity is really about the heart and no one can take that choice away from you, period. And it really is the most important point in the whole freedom/force discussion.
A tax system is necessary. It will always be necessary until Christ cometh. You already happily use a tax system for emergency services, sewer, water, roads, education, protective services, and more.
The only reason you object so passionately to using the tax system to cover health care is because you are not accustomed to the idea. Every other reason you've heard from rabid conservative pundits is wrong. Period. They say that it's more expensive through a tax system. Wrong. They say it's all bungled up with bureaucracy. Wrong. They say that the government will get to decide what services you get. Wrong. And who still makes this point with a straight face?! That's what INSURANCE companies do!
The only thing that's even close to being true in all the capitalist-health care paranoid crap that is spewed is that, in Canada, there are longer wait times for appointments, and sometimes not enough technology. But it's not everywhere and I've NEVER heard of anything as long as "two years!" as conservatives are wont to decry on Twitter. I haven't even heard this in articles critical about the system. (Emergent needs are treated as emergent.) Still, I'd bet a lot of money that our whole country, or the members of it with just some awareness of this heated issue, would rather have our system than what America is mired in. Except for maybe some of the richest folk who don't relate what it's like to be needy and uneducated and burdened with psychological handicaps from disadvantaged backgrounds.
And besides, these pundits like to point to Canada's flaws because we're right here, sitting on your head, and because then it detracts from all the other countries more populous than us with systems that work a helluva lot better than Canada's!
But if you ARE going to look at Canada, read this: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427
This will dispel a few common myths. With statistics.
I have lived in the most populous province, Ontario, for 18 years and now live in Alberta. I have all my family in Ontario. I can vouch for this Denver Post opinion piece being accurate, as far as my experience and conversations with friends and family go.
And anyway, it's not about compassion. It's not about what's right. People will always disagree on morality.
It's about what WORKS.
Your system is crippled. It will always be crippled because its foundation is dysfunctional. It's a heinous system, really. The stories I have heard personally from Americans has broken my heart. The capitalist monster that manhandles what should be a tender objective-- to care for the poor and needy-- will never, ever work better than the socialistic systems you vilify without experiencing them first hand. [Insert earlier disclaimer about not knowing you personally, here.]
You think of health as a commodity. The rest of us think of it as life itself, which is sacred. Or you think of it as both. Whatever.
Again-- there's no way to prove who is right on this.
But to argue for a system that doesn't work and will never work because it was born of greed and dishonesty (Nixon, I believe?) is absurd. It's naïve. Or maybe just inexperienced.
It's propaganda, is what it is, and mixing religion into it makes it all the worse. (But that's like, two other essays right there, one arguing revelation vs. opinion, and the other arguing how to fulfill mutually exclusive commandments, and which commandments are more important and how to fulfill the commandment to love when how a person feels most loved is subjective anyway. Personally, people wanting to preserve my life whether I have earned it or not, is pretty damn loving, I'd say. Can't think of anything better, off the top of my head.)(But I digress.)
Stop comparing health care to other non-health care "government programs" and start comparing it to other health care programs around the world and you will have the answer to your question about which is more efficient.
It is an unnecessarily expensive system that you're running there that serves to make some people rich at the expense of the greater good, the whole of society. Just because you CAN get away with that, just because it's a result of freedom of choice, doesn't mean you SHOULD get away with it. Even if those at the top just made normal incomes instead of obscenely rich incomes, more parents could afford more births, more children could afford more emergency visits just to be safe, more people would be cured from cancer that they got for no reason whatsoever. But even still, an insurance-based system can never afford health care for all and most people can only afford insurance plans and not private costs for procedures.
And what I don't get overall, is why Mormons argue about what's right in this issue as if they really think that God has a strong opinion and that he wants this same capitalist system that you do, that he's going to condemn people who support or facilitate universal health care around the world. Does God really care about the means by which we go about preserving people's lives or does he just care that we do it as sincerely as possible? If every single person wanted to give up their income to a tax system that oversees public health care, would God object? Is it just the issue that some people don't want to give up their money and a tax-based democracy forces them to else they be breaking the law? Well, that's called a fallen world, people. And God doesn't expect us to create heaven on earth. We're just supposed to do the best with what we have and we're supposed to govern our own hearts and wills and align them with Gods. Yes, he asks more than that, it gets more detailed from there, but that's the overriding expectation, isn't it? So, then we're back to the discussion of what WORKS.
-Natasha @BecomingSomething.com
Janie, it's simple stereotypical American arrogance to say that your system is the best in the world and that everyone goes to the US. This is not true.
Besides, you have many people from the US going to India and Cuba for health care because they can't get ANY in the US.
"You need an xray/MRI/ultrasound? Right down the hall... oh, but you can't have it. Sorry! Now go and die quietly, will you?"
I love how people like to label those who disagree with them - 'rabid' 'ignorant' etc...
Also interesting that you feel free to comment all you want on our system but we cant comment on yours.
True not EVERYONE comes here for treatment but one of your very Premiers sure did
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2510700
Guess they weren't as much of a fan as you for the Canadian system.
1. I don't like Glenn Beck. I don't even get Fox News. I am not extremist. There are several left winged ideals that I agree with.
2. The definition of socialism, straight from Webster's: "any of the various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods/services." No need to elaborate, I'm well aware of the definition.
3. I do not want to argue this topic if you are not a U.S. CITIZEN. Your ancestors did not fight in the Revolutionary War, which is why you do not understand the pride we have in Liberty. Our ancestors fought, against all odds, to win their freedoms and have the right to allow their ability and desire to determine their destiny. Although you are not from the U.S., perhaps you've heard of Thomas Jefferson. He was our third president and author of The Declaration of Independence. He said, "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Case in point: health care for all!
4. Please tell me how it is constituional to require that I buy health insurance, or pay a fine. Yes. This IS in the bill. It's not just something that Glenn Beck will tell you. This is the first time in history that we've been required to purchase a service or pay a fine. This is not democracy. Warren Buffet, the 2nd wealthiest man in the world (and huge Obama supporter) has never purchased health insurance. He decided long ago that it was not cost effective for him. And guess what? He has a right to make that decision. [Straight from his biography, Snowball.]
5. I am not opposed to health care reform. I am opposed to a bill that was passed, even though it was opposed 12-1 by the general public. However, it only passed after our elected officials were bought and paid off ... in exchange for a 'yes' vote. This isn't reform. It's business as usual.
Show me a law prohibiting frivolous lawsuits against doctors, show me Medicaid and Medicare not being grossly abused, show me less people on welfare this year than last. THAT's the kind of reform I'll vote for.
To quote Ronald Reagan, "We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added."
I am not ignorant. I am not 'mis-informed'. I am not uneducated. I don't believe everything I hear on TV. I am a researcher. I seek knowledge. I seek truth.
And, you can't call someone biased for living in a certain country and wanting to maintain the principles that said country was founded on. These are founding principles that we are fighting for.
Janie, I didn't say that everyone who disagrees with me is rabid. I was talking about rabid people being rabid. I didn't specify that they are people like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck. It's my opinion that they're rabid and not because they disagree with me.
I didn't say you can't comment on my health care system. I just said you were biased, just as I admitted that I was too.
People going to the US for non-emergent health care services that they want to pay for does not prove that the US system is superior. It can prove that people are impatient. It could prove that people are panicky. Or it could prove that an exchange of services should be possible, like the exchange of goods. Or it could prove, like I suggested, that Canada should have a private option like every other country in the world (minus one). This IS why I think Canada's system is inferior to other universal models, which I suggested, and which point you ignored. *shrug*
Janette,
I think it's fair to say that a one sentence dictionary definition on a broad political and social philosophy is not really ideal. I would recommend reading the Wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Universal health care might be socialisTIC, it might have aspects of socialism but it is not socialism itself.
It's extremely insulting, as always, when Americans talk about liberty as if they're the only country that has it and values it. Just because there are some things you're more liberal about does not give you a monopoly on liberty itself. The US believes in the freedom to bear arms. Much of Canada believes in the freedom for gay people to marry. You're also not the only country with a constitution that protects freedom.
Democracy does not cease to exist when you do anything by majority vote, I thought. You can't give everyone what they want. You can't give everyone all the freedoms they want. Jefferson was not Jesus Christ. Moving on....
Who was talking about the Constitution and forced insurance anyway? I thought we were talking about universal health care in general. I spoke of a certain kind of model.
The constitution is a living document anyway, able to be revised. Even the scriptures are living and revisable. The doctrine of MARRIAGE, for goodness sake, was revisable!
As for being biased, I didn't say that you were biased for wanting to maintain certain principles. I said you were biased to an American system, even American principles because you're American. Mormons are biased towards Mormonism. Everyone is biased. And Albert Einstein said,
"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."
I just want to make sure that we get one thing straight, and then I will walk away, having hopefully educated someone.
I am arguing AGAINST something proposed for MY country.
You are arguing FOR something proposed NOT for your country.
I won't tell you how to run Canada, and I'll continue fighting for what I believe is right for the United States, the country I live in.
How very arrogant of me.
People are people, Janette. Some of the people I love most are Americans. I care about their situations and welfare.
Principles are principles. Politics are politics.
I don't have to live there to have an opinion on 1. principles, 2. people's needs, or 3. politics.
And I was specifically asked to comment BECAUSE I am Canadian. It's always good to get different perspectives.
Janette, in answer to your question: Medicare. Try telling people on Medicare that it doesn't work as well as private insurance and that it's going to be phased out.
Medicare, by the way, is a single-payer, government-administered, health insurance system.
This is from Wikipedia:
Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria. The program also funds residency training programs for the vast majority of physicians in the United States. Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system.
Post a Comment