Clinton campaign demonstrates repeated incompetence

[Flint]

Well, then they should be asking somebody who knows something about it, like yourself.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Flint

Well, then they should be asking somebody who knows something about it, like yourself.

As you can imagine I am very interested in the subject. As are all other people who are involved in Health Care. There is not a hospital, clinic or surgicenter I visit where it is not a topic. And as you can guess the more money one makes the more interested in the subject and more strongly their opinions are. Hence the reson I think many are so anti-Hillary Clinton. I know that who ever is stuck fixing it is going to have to make some tough choices that will affect a lot of people in a negative way but will be good for the group of currently un or under insured. The question to me is how much are we as a country willing to give up to fix the problem. Choices are going to have to be made. A bunch of people are going to be unhappy.

[Aliantha]

We have a two tiered system in Australia. If you have private health insurance you get a tax break. If you rely soley on public you have to pay a levy on your income tax each year. That varies depending on your income etc. Of course, this is a major simplification, but that's it in a nutshell.

It works ok except that we have major skill shortages in most of our hospitals and clinics, and far too many sick people to look after, regardless of whether they're private or public.

[DanaC]

There is no tax break here if you choose to take on private healthcare. You still pay your national insurance contributions. Most people who have private medical care also access national health for some of their needs.

The system works well most of the time for most people. Most people do not have to face long waiting lists for operations. They did in the 80s and early 90s, because the conservative government consistently underfunded the NHS for thirteen years. There's been a lot of funding gone into the system over the last ten years and many of those problems (not all) have been resolved. There are problems with something called a 'postcode lottery' because each area runs its own purchasing and provision and so in some areas they have problems with some treatments. But I stress, for most people, most of the time the treatment they need is there within a short time of needing it. If anybody is worried and has the money they can take on private health insurance. But....nobody is making cost decisions about a basic health check, or getting their inhaler for their asthma or their insulin for diabetes. If you are too poor to get private healthcare then apart from a small minority of cases, you'll be treated for whatever you need whenever you need it. Usually by doctors who also work in the private sector.

[Aliantha]

Do you have a PBS (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme)? That's where a lot of 'neccessary' medications such as insulin and inhalers etc are government subsidised? This is a great thing for poorer people and also pensioners.

I think the basic structure of our health system is very similar to that in the UK, but as I mentioned the skill shortage is the big killer atm. Facilities need some upgrading in regional areas also.

I think health care is an ongoing issue for most countries. No system is perfect but I can say with every confidence that i'm glad we don't have the US system here. I know my kids and I would have suffered greatly during my time as a single parent if we did have.

[HungLikeJesus]

This morning on NPR (National Public Radio) there was a segment on doctor shortages in Colorado. They said that many rural counties have less than 5 doctors and some counties have none.

[DanaC]

Our biggest shortage in healthcare terms is in dentists. We don;t have much of a shortage of doctors, although there is currently a problem with newly trained doctors finding work.

There are major problems in our healthcare system, I won't lie. But for most people, most of the time it works pretty well. If you need an operation and it's not a lifesaving operation you may have to wait. But that wait is unlikely to be more than a couple of months, In some cases it is longer but they are increasingly rare. Personally, I'd rather take the wait and feel safe in the knowledge that my needs will be met without me having to sell what i own. I am one of those people who wouldn't qualify for medicaid in the states (I am not at the porrest level) but wouldn't be able to afford medical insurance. I'll take a chance on a three month wait should I need an operation. And whilst i am waiting I'll continue to be provided with the cortisones, anti-histimines, salbutamol inhalers and contraceptive pills that I need. One prescription every month and it costs me about £90 a year for prescription charges (would be free if I was unemployed). Oh and bi-monthly checkups free of charge.

[lookout123]

But for most people, most of the time it works pretty well.

and what you fail to understand is that this is also true of our system. some people fall through the cracks. some people, like Brianna, endure hardship. For the most part people have access to the care that they need.

[deadbeater]

Hillary, realizing she's losing votes over the word 'mandate', will flip-flop and pretend she never said the word while explaining(revising) her health care plan. Do that and a few other things, I think that's the only way she could pull it off.

[DanaC]

Lookout i would argue that given the many millions of americans (was it 40 million?) who do not have health insurance and the large percentage of those who do not qualify for medicaid there is a higher percentage of your population who fall through those cracks than in our system. Falling through the cracks here usually means you have to wait for six months to get a hip operation. It may mean (in very, very rare cases) you don't get a drug that will prolong your life without curing you. It will never mean that you don't get treated at all, it will never mean that you don't have access to pain medication or basic treatments of any kind. It will never mean that the only medical care you can realistically expect is emergency care.

[lookout123]

That isn't what it means here either Dana. I've lived with and without medical insurance. I've lived poor and I've lived comfortably. At no point in time did I not have access to medical needs. There are countless programs available for those that seek. In arizona alone we have ACCHS for the poor, Mercy Care for those that can pay a little but don't have access through work, and private or group insurance for those that can afford it. We all see the same doctors. In fact, I just found out that my kids' pediatrician sees more ACCHS patients than private insurance patients.

As a side note, are you aware that most doctors will take a 60% reduction in payment if are a self paying client?

[DanaC]

Actually no, I wasn't aware of that. I still think our system fills the gaps better :P

[zippyt]

from here , http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...plate=printart

Article published Feb 20, 2008
My turn

Legally, a woman can't be elected president



By DICK MARPLE
For the Monitor
Feb 20, 2008


Related articles:

Go ahead and vote for her - it's legal (2/25/2008)



Most people believe not only that the 19th Amendment permitted women the right to vote but that since women serve in Congress, the courts and other offices of government, the office of president of the United States has been de-genderized.

Not true. This important legal question exists now and has not been constitutionally addressed. The language and syntax of the 19th Amendment merely removed the barriers that prevented women from voting. It did not identify women to be qualified to become elected president.

The language is clear. The 19th Amendment says: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

We cannot read into the amendment something that is not there. Now, had the amendment said, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote or hold public office shall not be denied," it would have accomplished what the feminists think took place.

The Susan B. Anthony Amendment (as it was then known, because the words were actually drafted by the suffragist in 1875) passed in the House by a vote of 304 to 89. The Senate then passed it, 56 to 25. The text of both the House and Senate deliberately avoided any language that would allow or permit women the right to seek the highest office in the land! It was the considered opinion of senators on both sides of the aisle that if language de-genderized the presidency, the amendment's ratification by the necessary 36 states would be in great doubt.
Today's feminists believe the election process is an evolutionary process, legalized by common practice and that someday a woman will be president. They are convinced that since women have run for the office, the male-gendered presidential office has been neutered .

Not so. They will be challenged, and a Supreme Court ruling on the language will be necessary. At the very least a constitutional amendment to change the language will be required.

(Dick Marple lives in Hooksett.)
This article is: 6 days old.

[deadbeater]

You really think that someone will raise a legal basis that Clinton can't be president based on that???????????

I suggest that he reads Article 2: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

And read the 14th Amendment Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A woman can run for president, even without the right to vote. In fact someone did take advantage of the loophole.

Clinton won't win because Barack is too hot, and she wouldn't give up the word 'mandate' in her health care bill.

[HungLikeJesus]

In Colorado, "House Bill 1341 would ask voters to approve a 2 percent sales tax increase on all alcohol purchases with the money going to the Colorado's Children's Basic Health Plan (CHiP)."

I think this is a great idea. It gives us one more reason to feel good about drinking.