Clinton campaign demonstrates repeated incompetence
In the last ten days they have looked really bad.
The campaign fired campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle.
The chief complaints were several. One was that Solis Doyle's insistence that Clinton not begin to run for president until the she formally decided to run had put her at a tremendous fundraising disadvantage. Another was that Solis Doyle, a native of Chicago, did not fully anticipate the threat that Barack Obama would pose and therefore did not come up with a strategy to contain his candidate. A third was that Solis Doyle was not adept at managing what amounted to a 500 person corporation. A fourth was that, in managing the corporation, the care and feeding of important Democrats -- the large universe of Clinton advisers outside the campaign -- fell by the wayside.
Clinton heard these complaints -- some of them having merit, others not -- and stuck by Solis Doyle.
Hired originally for her loyalty instead of competence; kept on for her loyalty -- echoing some of the biggest complaints people have about the Bush administration.
Then it turned out that the campaign had not worked out how Texas delegates are apportioned, and were taken by surprise by it, after a rule change that took place last year.
Now today it turns out that
they have screwed up Pennsylvania:
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign failed to file a full slate of convention delegate candidates for Pennsylvania's April 22 primary.
This despite the possibility the primary proves critical and despite Clinton owning the full-throated support of Gov. Rendell, state Democratic Party leadership, Mayor Nutter and, presumably, the organizational skill all that entails.
And despite a Rendell-ordered extension of the filing deadline that could be viewed as more than just coincidental.
Even with special help from Fast Eddie, they wind up 10% short on delegates in PA. It turns out to be mostly a cosmetic problem, but not so unimportant that they didn't refuse help from Rendell.
Yesterday, the idea floated that the Clinton campaign would be "lobbying pledged delegates" -- not "superdelegates", but the delegates won by other candidates, reflecting the will of the voters -- and today they
retracted the idea with force after total public outrage.
If she ran the country the same way she's running the campaign, it would be... bad.
Yeah, but you got to admit, people just aren't used to Pennsylvania primaries actually mattering.
The Jim McMahon approach to campaigning that Clinton is evidently deploying after February 5th is not working.
Quoted from 'The SuperBowl Shuffle:
I'm the funky QB known as McMahon
When I hit the turf I got no plan
Ijust throw my body all over the field'
I really think Hillary thought she was going to have a cakewalk. And she might have...if Barack Obama hadn't spoken at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
I, for one, am enjoying watching this.
I really think Hillary thought she was going to have a cakewalk.
Reported was a Clinton strategy to wrap it up on Super Tuesday. However, the old rule still applies. Those who are leading before the Super Bowl tend not to be the leaders come convention time. Clinton in 1991 was all but unknown until after the TV show that followed the Super Bowl - 60 Minutes. And again, both parties have demonstrated the rule. A message to both parties that they spend too much time and money on these campaigns. And they spend too much money calling us at home with recorded messages.
At least most of the money they spend is going back in the US economy. Unless those calls are coming from India.
Knowing Clinton, they might. I know McCain's are. Just kidding.
Whomever came up with that 'Change you can Xerox' line in the Austin debate should be fired on the spot.
As long as Obama wins, I don't care what slogans they use.
Last poll I saw had Obama up on McCain by something like 9 points, but Clinton behind McCain by 12. Something like that...doesn't really mean shit at this point. Well, not exactly...it shows an interesting contrast.
I wonder if she will throw in the towel if she loses both Texas and Ohio or either one.
hell no. i would expect her to push, pull, threaten, and bribe the delegates before she'll admit that america, er i mean - her party didn't want her.
hell no. i would expect her to push, pull, threaten, and bribe the delegates before she'll admit that america, er i mean - her party didn't want her.
Nothing would please me more than to see her go down in flames.
Flames are good for heating :corn: -- and eating it too.
Everyone knows whether or not I'd vote for a Democratic candidate -- nothing of recent note has caused me to change that.
ok, serious question here merc - when you think about hillary do you get horny?
wait, no that isn't what i wanted to ask.
when you think about hillary what makes your skin crawl more, her name or her politics?
Yeah, why can't we get a hot bitch, like Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir?
ok, serious question here merc -
when you think about hillary what makes your skin crawl more, her name or her politics?
Her politics and her history the last time she was that close to the center of power.
Yeah, why can't we get a hot bitch, like Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir?
:lol2:
The
Times notices.
Nearly $100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses, even though the partying mood evaporated quickly. Rooms at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas consumed more than $25,000; the Four Seasons, another $5,000. And top consultants collected about $5 million in January, a month of crucial expenses and tough fund-raising.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s latest campaign finance report, published Wednesday night, appeared even to her most stalwart supporters and donors to be a road map of her political and management failings. Several of them, echoing political analysts, expressed concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s spending priorities amounted to costly errors in judgment that have hamstrung her competitiveness against Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.
Okay, but you all know Barak is the Anti-Christ, right? I mean, everyone knows it; you can't keep a prophecy from happening. What did the Mayans say? 12-21-2012 and that's all, Folks!
Because that's when we'll hit peak oil and the world's economies will collapse?
Because that's when we'll hit peak oil and the world's economies will collapse?
who
knows what the prevailing factor will be? I might even be the collapse of Starbucks (I hope, I hope). :)
Sorry - Aside from being a good public speaker what has Obama done to make you think he can accomplish all of these great changes?
What has he done... period?
nobody i've talked to can come up with an answer for that question J. a lot of vague talk about change, but change what exactly? change it how? from my point of view i love what i hear obama saying but when i look at where he has come from all i see is a guy meticulously groomed for this run.
That's whut I'm talkin' 'bout.
Mesmerizing the crowds with a lot of...what? Flashy, rock-starish, smoooooooooooooth, good-looking, "change, gwaaak, change, gwaaak!" WTF is he talking about?????
Reminds me a little of
this column I started to read on the front page of the Business section of the Washington Post.
I didn't paste the whole thing. It goes into detail about qualifications and campaign proposals listed on Barak Obama's web page.
There's the Beef
Steven Pearlstein
During the course of our endless presidential campaigns, lots of silly things are said by the candidates and the press. But few are more ridiculous than the idea that Barack Obama is just an empty suit.
We're talking here about a former president of the Harvard Law Review. Have you ever met the people who get into Harvard Law School? You might not choose them as friends or lovers or godparents to your children, but -- trust me on this -- there aren't many lightweights there. And Obama was chosen by all the other overachievers as top dog. Compared with the current leader of the free world, this guy is Albert Einstein.
Given his youth and relatively short time in government, it's fair to ask if Obama has the wisdom and experience to be president. But it's quite another to suggest that he has no vision, no program, no specifics.
Let's begin with the fact that he has written two books (all by himself, unlike a certain other candidate). The first offers a compelling personal narrative that, for some reason, is dismissed as puffery by a presumptive Republican nominee who first ran for office on the strength of his compelling personal narrative. The second book is a thoroughly readable, intelligent and well-reasoned discourse on politics and policy that offers a fresh perspective on a wide range of issues.
Obama has participated in 18 televised presidential debates in which he has managed to hold his own not only with Hillary the Wonkette, but also with the Senate's leading light on foreign affairs, a former United Nations ambassador and a former vice presidential candidate who was a skilled trial lawyer. I watched most of the debates, and while I didn't agree with everything he said, I don't recall thinking that Obama was in over his head.
Now that Obama is sprinting toward the finish line in the Democratic marathon, his opponents are suddenly asking, "Where's the beef?"
If it's beef you like, all you have to do is go to http://barackobama.com, where you will find a refrigerator case packed with prime policy meat. That may come as something of a surprise to you, considering how utterly lacking in substance the reporting and analysis has been over the last year. But it's all there -- as much as or more than is offered by other candidates and certainly as much as any voter would require.
He hasn't talked about specifics and accomplishments, because the first emotional sale was the right approach to get to where he is now. Now the campaign will change and talk about those things. I'm watching the rebroadcast of the Univision debate right now, and Obama's message is changing.
see, what pisses me off is the "Hillary the Wonkette" thing. I already don't like the guy.
see, what pisses me off is the "Hillary the Wonkette" thing. I already don't like the guy.
I took that as a compliment. Maybe I'm out of touch, living inside the Beltway.
He's not the only candidate who attended an Ivy league school. Having a platform and being able to execute are different things.
Both are smart political animals.
I know I'll get slammed for this but here's my take on the situation:
1. The Hilary hate machine is left over from an aggressive republican effort when Mr. Clinton was in office (How long and how deep did Ken Star dig - how much tax-payer money was wasted on THAT effort?)
2. Many of Obama's supporter's feel an obligation to support him - how to you counter that kind of lemming mentality without looking biggoted?
what kind of racist wouldn't support the candidate of change? ;)
J--Brilliant! that's excatly what I mean but I can't put it into non-crazy woman language (as crazy-woman language is my mother tongue)
I'm agreeing with what Bri just said!
Having a platform and being able to execute are different things.
Sure, but can Hillary execute anything in the unlikely event she gets into the oval office? The hate machine isn't going to go away once she gets elected.
There is no Obama hate machine. There is a Clinton hate machine. Why would a Democrat choose the one who will have the uphill battle once in office?
The first black man to be leader of this nation who compares himself to Kennedy WON'T have an uphill battle?
Whatever happened to "who would you rather have a beer with" ...?
(As y'all can see, J and I have been at this a little bit on the home front.)
Hillary can't execute her platform and probably doesn't even intend to. Her platform is put out there as a political building block.
To attempt her medical plan would be to re-ignite the fierce left-right divide, to re-focus and re-energize the opposition exactly as her first shot at it in 1993 did.
Remember how, two years after the Clinton election, the Republicans announced a clear, philosophical promise to the public and re-took control of Congress?
That was largely the result of a vaguely-lefty medical plan; so now she wants to present a firmly lefty medical plan in her first year in office? I doubt it!
Part of the game is thinking a few chess moves ahead. The pro takes advantage of their base with Big Promises; for example, the righty will suggest, we'll end abortion. But once elected, they don't get their way, because the operational politics are more powerful: if we end abortion, the pro-choicers will become ultra-motivated and cause us to lose elections. The end result: ban partial-birth abortions, something that effects almost ZERO actual people, but keeps the pro-life foaming-at-the mouthers content enough to believe some actual change happened, and to believe their big donations were not in vain.
The only way to affect actual change is to motivate and convince 75% of the people, not 49% or even 51% of the people. That is how a President gets political will: if the people believe in him or her. Right now, P. Bush is in such dire political straits that he could not solve a problem that the majority of people believe in (social security insolvency), even after proposing a rather lefty solution (a highly progressive structure more painful for the rich). He can hardly stake a position at all, because once he does the rest of the pols make political hay by staking positions at the polar opposite.
Why would a Democrat choose the one who will have the uphill battle once in office?
Obama is farther to the left than Clinton - despite his WORDs about reaching across the aisle - I think he'll have as tough a battle (if not tougher)
It's not a monarchy - you have to have connections and be able to influence others not necessarily on your side to accomplish your goals
You have to reach across, and sometimes you even have to give a reach-around.
Remember that Eddie Murphy bit about the first black president's inaugural address (he gives the speech while darting around the stage presumably dodging snipers)?
Just a funny thing, I certainly don't wish anyone shot. I think both Clinton and Obama would have a battle, but I think Clinton would battle back better (awesome alliteration, eh?)
Obama is slightly more to the left than Clinton, sure. But he doesn't cause the conservatives to foam at the mouth the way she does. He represents a chance for politicians to do some politics. Negotiate a bit here and there and maybe get something done.
I think Clinton will cause a backlash wherever she goes, regardless of what she does or proposes. There will be an instant wall thrown up because the idea came from her. Her ideas and proposals will not be judged on their merits because they came from her.
It's unfair, but I think it's the reality.
Obama has a chance to get things done. I don't think Clinton does.
I used to like her a lot. I bought a pin in 1992 that said "Hillary for President in '96," so it's not like I'm a lifetime member of the Hillary hate machine. I just don't think she will be effective.
My wife and I are split over this one too.
It's blatant anti-woman thinking here. "Oh, she's a bitch!" And, like all the men in politics aren't motherf*ckers? Riiiiiight.
but see the problem is that we can only assume that obama is a motherfucker because he is a politician, whereas we know hillary is a bitch because we've been watching her for 16 years.
Better the devil you know than the devil you don't ;)
but see the problem is that we can only assume that obama is a motherfucker because he is a politician, whereas we know hillary is a bitch because we've been watching her for 16 years.
Right. AND we know that McCain is a motherfucker, B. Clinton, Reagan, Bush and Bush, jr. are, too (yet all were elected despite this) and every single man involved in politics for more than two days is one. Barak is a politician, he's a man=he's a motherf*cker. You don't have to know someone for 16 years to "know" what they are.
And why is Hillary a bitch? Damn bitch standing up for herself, disagreeing with things, speaking her mind. Freaking beach! ;)
P.S. Hillary is winning in Ohio. Ohio picks 'em and has ever since 1960. You don't win Ohio, you don't win.
yes, I know that today, for whatever reason, I am crazed. Your bad luck!
i think, in all honesty, what makes hillary a bitch is that she doesn't have a penis. if she had a penis she probably wouldn't be called a bitch at all. she would then qualify as a motherfucker.
but seriously, i want hillary to get the nomination. i think obama has a far greater chance of being elected than she does. and any candidate who supports nationalized healthcare would have to be running against satan himself before they'd get my vote.
Oooh, if satan were running, now there'd be a race. :)
AND we know that McCain is a motherfucker
Around the same time I was buying that Hillary pin in the early 90's I really hated McCain. I can't remember why anymore. It had something to do with some crap he was pulling with National Airport. Not renaming it after Reagan, but something else. After a while, I kind of liked the maverick persona he was wearing, but I'm back to not liking him again.
When I took the political test, I was closer to Obama than anyone else who is running.
...any candidate who supports nationalized healthcare would have to be running against satan himself before they'd get my vote.
Have you heard how much JUST the chemo is costing me? The drugs (poison) they are pumping into me costs 9,600.00 American PER DOSE and I will complete the eighth dose March 5. Doesn't include the oncologist's bill, the hospital's bill, the surgeon's bill, the surgery bill, all the other p.o. Rx's I take (Plenty of 'em) etc. This will end up costing me well over 200,000 bux in the end. My insurance co. is paying LESS THAN HALF.
yes, I know that today, for whatever reason, I am crazed. Your bad luck!
This is more than you've posted in the last 6 months. It's great!
i understand that and i am personally sorry that you are going through this. that doesn't change the fact that i don't support a national healthcare system paid for with taxdollars. no more now than i did when i was nearly driven bankrupt because our insurance wouldn't cover my wife's pregnancy and i had to find a way to cover $70,000 in medical expenses. or the day that the hospital office decided that my wife's life wasn't in danger (only my unborn son's) so they wouldn't send her into surgery unless i could come up with cash. fortunately there was a doctor who liked my truck and bought it from me in the parking lot. if i was going to change my opinion, that would have probably been the time to do so.
you may think this makes me an asshole, but i think changing my political/financial beliefs based on what would personally benefit me or my friends would make me a hypocrite.
wow, lookout. I am truly sorry that those horrible things happened to you. But can't you see how WRONG those things are? Just from a HUMANE point of view? I'm sure you haven't seen SICKO...I know a lot of you here are Michael Moore haters. He asks this guy in Canada why should his fellow Canadians pay for his bad luck for having had a heart attack? He answered, "because I would pay for theirs." Wow. Humane, no?
My insurance co. is paying LESS THAN HALF.
Shit! Who's paying the rest?
see here is the thing for me though C, it sounds well and good - how would "free" medical care be anything but good? but then you realize it is a government run program. how well does our government run anything? how efficiently do they operate? how objective and logical in deciding who and what is covered and for how much? what quality of doctor will you have working inside of such a system?
i don't trust the government to do anything but eff things up. i'd rather stick with what we have - a private healthcare system with a support net for those that don't have private insurance.
Shit! Who's paying the rest?
Moi.
how well does our government run anything? how efficiently do they operate? how objective and logical in deciding who and what is covered and for how much? what quality of doctor will you have working inside of such a system?
They run the police, fire, first responder/EMT's, the libraries, the post office, the MRDD programs, mental health hospitals (no paradise, I worked in one, but better than a lot of private places I've worked in, too). Profit-driven health care is blasphemous. You'd rather people with a financial stake in it make the decisions? Ok, so, you've answered your own question: those people put your unborn son at risk and your wife at risk in a really horrid, hateful way: pay up or they die! This is better? The docs in the UK, France, Canada, Sweden,etc. all say they "wouldn't work for" a system like ours. Profits before people...people who will die? If that's what you like...
Moi.
Shit! Fuggin' goddamn it --!
*sigh*
Now calculate how much you'd get under the Obama plan, versus how much you'd get under the failure of Hillary's plan.
Hillary's plan failed because of paranoid MEN who were freakin' on a woman who had GOOD IDEAS and didn't immediately get down on her knees to suck cock. That's what those good ol' boys are used to women doing. You don't talk with that mouth, baby, you SUCK ME with it!
It's truly sickening. Where is Dana when I need that beeyotch?
Profit-driven health care is blasphemous.
I disagree. I don't have a problem with health care providers being motivated by $$. Emergency services are available for all regardless of ability to pay, and I'm cool with that. I see no long term success in turning over our entire medical system to the government though.
nobody i've talked to can come up with an answer for that question J. a lot of vague talk about change, but change what exactly? change it how? from my point of view i love what i hear obama saying but when i look at where he has come from all i see is a guy meticulously groomed for this run.
I think this is from a overall political hang over from 8 years of Bush and 8 years of Clinton and 8 years of Regan/Bush and 16 years of McCain knocking on the door. Clinton and McCain are more of the same ole same ole politics as usual inside The Beltway. Obama has none of that hang over stink. New, young, fresh, sure few can verbalize what they like about him, but they know they don't want Hitlery and McCain is like that old jar of mustard you have had for 6 months on your refrig door. People want something new. Obama is new. JMHO.
I disagree. I don't have a problem with health care providers being motivated by $$. Emergency services are available for all regardless of ability to pay, and I'm cool with that. I see no long term success in turning over our entire medical system to the government though.
If we did it would fail. The American public wants 1) a quick fix 2) everything for free 3) cover all illness and treatments 4) don't want to wait for care. None of those things would happen in an attempt to cover 100% of American health care.
At this point, I don't have a real problem with any of the 3 real candidates left being president, though I prefer Obama.
I think Hillary would make a fine president. But if she were elected, it would be like having Dubya in there, only with an edge to the left instead of the right. Some people just hate her, similar to the current president.
McCain...I dunno. Again, I think he would make a fine president. But he's old, he has a temper, the Dems wouldn't really want him and neither would the GOP.
I try to look at candidates based on what they're presenting to me and what I think they might do (given who they are and what party they stand for). I'll be the first to admit that I don't know a whole lot about Obama's detailed stances. I looked at some of them last week and generally agreed with them...and that works for me. I think I know where McCain stands as well as Hillary. Some folks are already complaining about "the cult of Obama," but the guy is doing something right...I haven't seen this kind of energy for a candidate since...Bill Clinton. (Maybe a little for Howard Dean, but he shot himself in the foot early).
I'm not naive. If Obama is elected, he'll get muddled down at least some by the culture of Washington. But I'm willing to give him a chance to try something different.
I predict that if Obama does win and eventually become president, he'll be assasinated.
Rhoda used to fear electing a black president because of that very concern.
Someone mentioned to me a few days ago that the KKK is the fastest growing 'club' in the world.
I haven't researched it, but it wouldn't surprise me.
As a black person in power, that would have to be frightening if it's true though.
I predict that if Obama does win and eventually become president, he'll be assasinated.
So what you are saying is pay attention to whom he chooses to be VP.:3eye:
Well, no I wasn't saying that, but it'd probably be an idea.
If VP is Clinton, there will be those who will say she was in on it.
So, Aliantha, will you assassinate him?
No, I think he'll make a great president for you guys. I'd definitely vote for him over Hillary if I had the choice.
I suspect it'll be someone who doesn't like him. ;)
The FBI is visiting UT's house as I type this.
Better the devil you know than the devil you don't ;)
Heh, now
there's a reason to vote Dem! :lol2: :lol2:
If the discussion continues to be misogynists versus racists the Dems have a good chance of alienating the electorate and screwing up what should have been an easy win.
The Hillary dynamic is interesting. NPR interviewed a bunch of boomer women at a rally. I forget what was said that implied she wasn't getting a fair shake because she's a women, but the other thing they leaned on was how because she's a women she understands and represents them. Pete says she doesn't speak to her as a post boomer. The things the older boomer women fought for have been largely won but older boomers are reluctant to heal the wounds, which is necessary to consolidate the victory. If they keep opening the wounds they feed the conservative backlash. To me Sen. Clinton represents conflict.
Obama may speak to me because he's about my age and has seen the cartoon conflicts over serious principles from a tail boomer perspective. He is left of me on much domestic policy, but he's generally been on the money foreign policy wise. He acts like someone who understands the opposition and would make sensible compromises. I don't buy the inexperience line because I think experienced politicians are one of the biggest problems for our system.
OK, all the black people are saying that "Oh, they just don't like Obama because he's black" and all that. But haven't people noticed that black people vote for Obama on an 8-1 ratio? Reverse rasicm? I think blacks are more racist than whites. I bet if you went to a random black person's house and you asked them what Obama wants to do, they would either not know or just say "Change." Well, what kind of change does our country need? Is there people dying on the streets? No, so I guess we don't need that much change. Most of the "Change" we need is the individual person's fault. And about the war, SUPPORT IT. People come up to me ALL THE TIME and say "well you don't know anybody in the war" Obviously they don't know me. 3 of my cousins are in Iraq right now. They always say that most of the soldiers want to stay in Iraq to defend America. Also, if we pull the troops out, do you think the terrorists will get mad because America attacked them and won? Oh ya i almost forgot. There is no war! Iraq surrendered did they not? America created the 1st democracy in the middle east. Hopefully the surrounding countries will follow and do the same.
so to sum it all up, VOTE JOHN MCCAIN!
...so to sum it all up, VOTE JOHN MCCAIN!
I can't see doing that X. We are into our 16th straight year of insane POTUS. I just don't like the idea of continuing that streak. That he gave up his mental health serving is admirable but he is still bat shit crazy and should therefor never carry the nuclear football.
One of the really interesting points raised in Sicko, is the way 'socialised medicine' has become a bogeyman in American politics. It's something I find very difficult to understand. You (lookout)don't trust your government to run such a system, yet you do trust insurance companies: insurance companies which routinely try to deny their responsibility to pay for treatment. I saw a website, think it was from a link here, about how to fight insurance companies for what you need. It focussed on the way the companies would try to deny when they have no right to...the advice was good, it told you what to say and how to say it...but you shouldn't have to fight for routine medical care.
You say emergency treatment is available to all. Emergency treatment doesn't cover such things as chemo, oxygen for those with lung conditions, cortisones for those with chronic skin conditions etc, etc.
In Sicko Moore examined some attitudes towards socialised medicine, and looked at the way the medical system in the UK and Canada has been portrayed in America as a failed system. Yet the same people who think socialised medicine means gurneys in the corridor and year long waits for treatment don't seem to percieve the massive health inequalities which exist on their own doorstep.
Many millions of Americans have no health insurance. Yes, if they break their leg they can get emergency treatment (followed by a bill and chased by debt collectors), but what about when they develop diabetes, cancer or goiter problems? What about the routine medical care they need for chronic conditions like asthma, eczema, psoriasis or emphacaema? Unless they are amongst the rather small group of people who qualify for medicaid, those people cannot access such routine care.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: health care provided by private insurance companies, or private hospitals are blinded by the need for profit. Their main responsibility is not to their patienmts it is to their shareholders. The insurance companies have a goal: to take in as much money as they can and to pay out as little as they can. How can that be reconciled with the patients' need?
[eta] again this is something I've said before, but I think it's worth repeating: I find it very hard to understand how the richest country on this planet, the one with the most resources, both physical and human, can have so many millions of its citizens living in fear of illness because they are unable to access medical care should the worst befall them. Third world countries have a decent excuse for such a situation, the wealthiest nation on earth, in my opinion, has not. Don'y mistake this as an attempt to bash America. I believe that America represents much of what is best in the modern world. But it also represents some of what is worst. The willingness to allow fellow citizens to languish in distress, uncared for and untended because they do not have adequate finances, or the right job, falls into the latter category. Even for those who have played by the rules and done everything your system requires (Like Brianna) there are still monumental gaps in coverage.
Being sick, whether just dealing with pain or distress, or actually fearing for your survival is hard enough. Having to cope with a massive financial burden, fighting for every bit of coverage you get, or simply having no access at all to the treatment which will cure or ameliorate your condition must be appalling.
Some of your complaints are actually addressed by
Medicaid.
I don't know the exact number but I have heard that government pays for about 50% of all health care in the US. Shrug. So instead of a market problem, it becomes a political problem. Shrug. Maybe that would be better.
The gap problem is in the middle class... as always
We don't know all of Bri's situation, but we do know that she is going to survive a massive veiny tumor through innovations in treatment developed in the U.S. in the last 20 years. That is the ideal outcome, and whatever we decide, we must protect that kind of innovation at all costs. Free cures are no good when they don't exist.
Oh and we also think that Bri is receiving treatment before source of funds is guaranteed. We have heard they are treating her, but we have not heard that she has sold her house.
It is. Appalling. My condition could never be treated in an ER situation---"call the ambulance! I need chemo!" I doubt that would happen.
Along with all the physical body-image disturbance (plenty---you all should see my eyes and skin---ungodly!) the pain, the fatigue (huge), the depression, the fear of death comes the knowledge that I am going to be completely financially ruined.
Lookout--what if there'd been no truck to sell? What if you had been poor during those times with your wife and son? What if all of your furniture was made of particle wood and you were two months behind on the utilities? Would your wife or son be here?
OK. I"m done. I'm just feeling v. depressed today as the skin on my face looks like a road map, the whites of my eyes are yellow-ish and bloodshot and my fingernails have finally succumbed to the chemo; they are yellowish and thick and peeling apart. I have never felt so unlovely in my entire life and that includes the akward 'teen' years, too. :(
Oh and we also think that Bri is receiving treatment before source of funds is guaranteed. We have heard they are treating her, but we have not heard that she has sold her house.
That is quite true. I am receiving treatment and funds have NOT been guaranteed. I live in a house that is "mine" in principle but not "mine" on paper. Another member of my immediate family holds the deed, not me. If they sue, there are no assetts for them to get (Unless they want my 1997 Buick; and they might want it).
I am making monthly payments to my oncologists office; the financial co-ordinater there said as long as I do NOT miss even one month of payment, they won't turn me over to a collection agency. I DO have collection agencies, associated with the cost of this care, after me. My mailbox is crammed full of bills daily. The cost of the radiologist's reading, the labs, the cost of the ER docs and hospital when I have been to the ER (once for pain, once for hyperventilation that lasted five hours, once for shortness-of-breath---ya'll have NO idea how hard chemo is to endure--And I'm not exactly the poster child for mental health/strength of spirit and courage, am I?) So---I see a psychologist, a therapist (a breast CA specialist) and my pain management doctor! Every little thing has a price tag attached.
What would you do if you were me? (i.e. "Poor")
Lookout--what if there'd been no truck to sell? What if you had been poor during those times with your wife and son? What if all of your furniture was made of particle wood and you were two months behind on the utilities? Would your wife or son be here?
I was poor. I had moved across country, changed careers. Had no equity in my house, only had bedroom and living room furniture. At that time we had a $120/month food budget. I lived on peanut butter sandwiches and tuna
before all this shit hit the fan. I had JUST gotten a good job after leaving my previously shitty one. That truck was the only think I had of value. I fell behind on my house, and every single bill I had. I had to cringe every time the phone rang because I knew I would have to explain to another bill collector what was happening and pray that give me another 2 weeks before shutting off my electricity. If I hadn't had the truck to sell I don't know what I would have done. If we had lost the baby I would have been gutted.
I still don't want nationalized, tax paid healthcare. It isn't the government's job to take care of every little issue I have. National defense, trade, etc? yes. healthcare? no.
Dana - Insurance companies may suck but you can deal with them. they are businesses. If you don't like what you have you can fire them and hire another. Try doing that with nationalized healthcare.
What if you can;t hire one in the first place?
we do have coverage for those folks. medicare, medicaid, and every state has their own welfare type medical system. In Arizona it is called ACCHS. no you don't have to be dirt poor to qualify.
Insurance co. today are being very, very, VERY careful of who they decide to cover. Many people are told, "sorry, you don't qualify." so you can't just "decide" to fire one and hire another---especially if you have an on-going or previous condition!
I'm not trying to change your mind, lookout. I'm just pointing out my dilemmas.
i know brianna, and believe me that i'm not as cold hearted as this makes me sound. i really do wish that A) you weren't dealing with your illness, and B) if you had to that you had 100% coverage for the best care in the world. unfortunately neither A or B applies, but I still don't believe that the US taxpayers/government are the right group to provide care.
If the insurance company won't cover you and you don't qualify for medicaid, who is the best group to provide care?
Who pays for it? How many people are treated for free unless it is emergency treatment?
The doctors?
"the doctors" won't be willing to give on-going care to someone who has no ability to pay. If you cannot pay, you go to the ER for
emergent care. the ER cannot and willnot cover everything. If you are nuts, thanks to Kennedy, you can go to your community center. If you have CA and have no ability to pay but you do not fall into the medicaid-poor population, you sell your house, your car, your whatever. Ok. Let's say there are some docs out there who are compassionate enough to give you treatment. I guess they can write you off on taxes, or refer you to some over-burdened, understaffed, underfunded agency who might take you in (but you'd better be good at being your own advocate) or just hound you with bill collectors until you wish you'd just died instead. :yeldead:
Yeah, their receptionists wants co-pay up front.
What's health care worth?
I mean, how much do you think a doctor's appointment is worth? I have a $20 co-pay on my health insurance; when I didn't have health insurance, it was $110. $110 for 10 minutes with a doctor that seemed to have no time for me.
Rhoda probably cost the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Federal Government $500K during her time there...her first time in the hospital in 2001 was $97K. God only knows what she racked up after she moved back to Maryland.
I'm not sure where I'm going here...I'm just wondering what all this health care and technology and what not is truly worth in the end.
Yeah, their receptionists wants co-pay up front.
Along those lines...I was in the ER several times in '04...I believe every trip was to Frankford-Torresdale Hospital in Philadelphia. During one of my trips there, someone from the billing office came in before I left to advise me that I had a $35 co-pay and wanted me to pay it right then and there. Not that I didn't have the money to pay it, but it was just off-putting how they came in while I was essentially still being treated to remind me that I fucking owed them $35!
I've said it before and I'll say it again: health care provided by private insurance companies, or private hospitals are blinded by the need for profit. Their main responsibility is not to their patienmts it is to their shareholders. The insurance companies have a goal: to take in as much money as they can and to pay out as little as they can. How can that be reconciled with the patients' need?
You forgot about the pharmaceutical companies who exits only for profit. I wonder if they are behind the push for national health care? I mean, if everyone could afford to go get prescriptions for all the latest patented drugs they'd be making even
more money than they are now! I mean, food and shelter are much higher on the hierarchy of needs than health care, why wouldn't we make sure everyone gets those for free first unless there's a hidden agenda?
Dana I've actually experienced health care at: a private clinic (completely elective and paid for out of pocket), a private hospital in a wealthy area (with good insurance), and nationally known inner-city hospital where they treat lots of people on medicaid (with good insurance). Guess where the care was the best. Guess where I would never go again because it was so awful.
When I was young and didn't have kids I also didn't have health insurance. I "couldn't afford" it. Well, technically, I couldn't afford health ins and all the other stuff that I wanted a lot more. Health care wasn't a priority of mine back then. It worked out fine for me, and when I got an entry level office job I got really good insurance as a benefit. Lots of other people that I know personally who either got sick or got pregnant when they were uninsured went on medicaid and are also doing just fine.
my mom was always a nervous wreck when i was working construction with no health insurance. i didnt get it until i got my furniture store job. i still hardly ever use it for myself. but....now that i have a family to provide for, it makes all kinds of sense.....expensive as it is. and it is really really expensive.
Along those lines...I was in the ER several times in '04...I believe every trip was to Frankford-Torresdale Hospital in Philadelphia. During one of my trips there, someone from the billing office came in before I left to advise me that I had a $35 co-pay and wanted me to pay it right then and there. Not that I didn't have the money to pay it, but it was just off-putting how they came in while I was essentially still being treated to remind me that I fucking owed them $35!
I had a similar experience the other day. I was in a restaurant and the waiter came to the table and wanted me to pay for the food I'd eaten, right then and there. What nerve!
If we know that healthcare as a business is screwing people over in the pursuit of the bottom line, and if we know that healthcare as a government office would be a nightmarish clusterfuck, then what about a third option: keep healthcare as a business, but regulate the greed out of it the same way we've regulated other business to provide a baseline of humane treatment, IE not selling us rotten meat, food with poisonous ingredients, cars without seatbelts, or airplanes that aren't inspected for safety before taking off?
Is this the right place to post this? I was thinking about this in the shower this morning...
I had a similar experience the other day. I was in a restaurant and the waiter came to the table and wanted me to pay for the food I'd eaten, right then and there. What nerve!
With all due respect, HLJ, that's hardly the same thing. You choose to go to a restaurant, or not. If you need health care, there isn't much choice involved (except for the fact that poor people tend to not seek out routine health care or even put off seeking care when they think they may be ill due to the cost. This factor actually supports the universal health care idea.)
Shawnee, you're getting all serious. Please don't pay attention to anything I say about doctors. I've only been about 3 times in my life. (But people are always saying, "You should really have that looked at!")
:lol:
I should know your sense of humor better, eh?
But, please, yes...have that thing looked at. I think it's gotten bigger and greener.
:lol:
I should know your sense of humor better, eh?
But, please, yes...have that thing looked at. I think it's gotten bigger and greener.
Bigger is good.
Greener is not good.
Ummmm, no, bigger is not good in this case. You seem to have delusions as to what I'm speaking of. :blush:
Oh, is Obama a Muslim? Funny, he sometimes
dresses
like one, according to a Clinton press release picture to Drudge Report.. More incompetency from the Clinton campaign, as it showed Obama dressing like an Kenyan/Somali, and wearing the suit well. Bet we won't catch Hillary Clinton wearing a kimono, no matter how many times she visited China and Japan. More of this silly season.
I don't know.. imho with the socialized healthcare, I think it sounds good on top but once it comes down to it a lot of folks won't like it. You are still paying for healthcare - it's not free. It's just coming out of your paycheck in the form of higher taxes... and not only will you be paying for your own healthcare, but you will be paying the healthcare of everyone not paying taxes. Folks not paying taxes are really the only ones getting free healthcare.
I'd like to see how they are going to work it out and how much folks will be taxed. And how they will work around the problems that other countries with socialized healthcare have.. such as being on a waiting list for important surgeries that we can get immediately here. Lots of people travel here to the US to get surgeries because of how poor the universal healthcare in their country is.
Now Clinton supporters resort to
stabbing Obama supporters? Who are the real zealots?
I don't know.. imho with the socialized healthcare, I think it sounds good on top but once it comes down to it a lot of folks won't like it. You are still paying for healthcare - it's not free. It's just coming out of your paycheck in the form of higher taxes... and not only will you be paying for your own healthcare, but you will be paying the healthcare of everyone not paying taxes. Folks not paying taxes are really the only ones getting free healthcare.
I'd like to see how they are going to work it out and how much folks will be taxed. And how they will work around the problems that other countries with socialized healthcare have.. such as being on a waiting list for important surgeries that we can get immediately here. Lots of people travel here to the US to get surgeries because of how poor the universal healthcare in their country is.
There should be a few bucks from defunding the Iraq War.
Isn't the private health insurance industry government regulated in the US?
again this is something I've said before, but I think it's worth repeating: I find it very hard to understand how the richest country on this planet, the one with the most resources, both physical and human, can have so many millions of its citizens living in fear of illness because they are unable to access medical care should the worst befall them.
Well, one of the reasons this country is so rich with the most resources etc.. is because we are a Democracy and have a 'work for what you have' mentality. Socialized medicine kind of starts the road of destroying that. Lots of doctors and medical facilities will probably go out of business with universal healthcare, and getting a medical degree won't be such a great thing anymore, because you won't be making any more money than any other doctor - no matter how much you study to be the best in your field with additional courses etc... They also need to address how malpractice insurance will affect things.
As I said, I would really love to see the specifics of whatever plan they want to enforce so that we can possibly see the consequences that come with it, because I am sure there are many.
There should be a few bucks from defunding the Iraq War.
Haha, I know, right? Unfortunately they will probably tax us. At least, that's what they have said they would do.
Now Clinton is demonstrating the latest Saturday Night Live as evidence of bias against Clinton. Funny, unless one can say that a show Tina Fey making the best pro-Clinton statement of anyone else in the campaign season and Barack Obama in Blackface (ok, Indianface) exhibited signs of bias against Clinton.
I think I have more respect for Tina Fey, than Ted Kennedy.
Lots of doctors and medical facilities will probably go out of business with universal healthcare, and getting a medical degree won't be such a great thing anymore, because you won't be making any more money than any other doctor - no matter how much you study to be the best in your field with additional courses etc
Many of our NHS doctors also work in the private sector. We have socialised medicine, with everyone guaranteed medical care regardless of income; however, we also have private medicine for those who can afford it and choose to use it. Many jobs carry private medical insurance as one of their perks. Just because there is socialised medicine doesn't mean doctors can't make a mint.
Bet we won't catch Hillary Clinton wearing a kimono, no matter how many times she visited China and Japan.
Actually, the Washington Post,
in its style section, dug around for a silly picture of Clinton it could run in order to compare something to the Obama photo.
They found this one to run.
Those are the worst Halloween Conehead costumes I've ever seen.
If we know that healthcare as a business is screwing people over in the pursuit of the bottom line, and if we know that healthcare as a government office would be a nightmarish clusterfuck, then what about a third option: keep healthcare as a business, but regulate the greed out of it the same way we've regulated other business to provide a baseline of humane treatment, IE not selling us rotten meat, food with poisonous ingredients, cars without seatbelts, or airplanes that aren't inspected for safety before taking off?
Is this the right place to post this? I was thinking about this in the shower this morning...
Even the process of regulation would be a nightmare. Which part are we going to regulate the hell out of and which part of the system (think business) are we going to allow to tank. There are so many elements involved. The providers are only one link in the chain. I don't have the answers but since I work in health care I see the problems every day.
Isn't the private health insurance industry government regulated in the US?
All aspects of any insurance industry are regulated by the State. But that is a loose term, regulate, in the since they can charge what the market will tolerate, but they cannot over charge or discriminate in how they charge.
Many of our NHS doctors also work in the private sector. We have socialised medicine, with everyone guaranteed medical care regardless of income; however, we also have private medicine for those who can afford it and choose to use it. Many jobs carry private medical insurance as one of their perks. Just because there is socialised medicine doesn't mean doctors can't make a mint.
And if we go to universal care we will get the same thing. Just what people here are bitching about. A two tiered system. Sure you can get that knee replaced in 9 months, or you can go down the street to my office when I get off at noon and we can do it next week.
Even the process of regulation would be a nightmare.
I know, I'm just trying to imagine a third, less evil option than the two evils that are always debated.
If the current system is said to be greed-driven, and a socialized system is foreseen as being operationally hamstrung, then maybe we could keep the operational structure of our current system but remove some of the profit motive. I know, that takes us out of the free-market, may-the-best-man-win arena, but in this case it's a response to the observation that maybe medicine
shouldn't be treated like any other for-profit consumer product. And, in response to the observation that the government can't manage a business effectively (we all know to ship by UPS or Fed Ex, not the post office) we let the business continue to be handled by people who do business. The better players will adapt to the new rules, and rise to the top.
On a detailed level, I have no idea how you would accomplish this. But I know that there are problems with the current system that lead people to discuss the possibility of socialized medicine. And I know that there is strong, well-founded resistance to socialized medicine. Maybe, my thought is, there could be some kind of hybrid system. Let business do what it does, and the government do what it does.
There is precedent for the government "interfering" with business, for the common good. This would be a case where I think we could apply that.
The hybrid system you are talking about is sort of the ideas being floated by both the Demoncrats running now. A lot of people do not understand how the system works now other than there are people who are insured and those who are not, and that the poor get free care now, while those who work and pay taxes do not. This is the bit we need to fix and continue to keep it profitable for those of us who do it for a living to make a living. The system is so very complicated. The idea that we can in some way adopt a system from a country with the GDP of Vermont is fantasy. It isn't going to happen. So many other parts of our system would be effected by a radical systemic change. I say we work towards some sort of coverage like GAP insurance or something government sponsored and fix our TAX system, see where things fall out from that. I don't know the answers but I know where it is broken.
Well, then they should be asking somebody who knows something about it, like yourself.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Actually no, I wasn't aware of that. I still think our system fills the gaps better :P
from here ,
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20080220&Category=OPINION&ArtNo=802200400&SectionCat=OPINION02&Template=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.
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.
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.
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.
How do you know that Ali? PA, like most if not all other states, has a program to cover kids regardless of their parents income. If you had a half way decent job you'd get coverage as a benefit. So why is it a fact that you would have suffered? :eyebrow:
from here , http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?Date=20080220&Category=OPINION&ArtNo=802200400&SectionCat=OPINION02&Template=printart
Article published Feb 20, 2008
My turn
Legally, a woman can't be elected president
The most generous interpretation of this article would seem to say that it would be legal for the Federal Government to make a law that only men could be President. But there is no such law, so the point is sort of moot.
How do you know that Ali? PA, like most if not all other states, has a program to cover kids regardless of their parents income. If you had a half way decent job you'd get coverage as a benefit. So why is it a fact that you would have suffered? :eyebrow:
Because there were times when I didn't actually have a job. The system is different here. If you're a full time student, you get an allowance from the government, in particular if you happen to be a single parent. So basically, I was an unemployed full time uni (what you would call college) student.
It's just pretty clear that it's much easier to get health care here than it is in the US. I suppose you don't have to take my word for it though. Ask someone who's had to live with both systems without private health insurance.
Here's something that might interest you.
Chemotherapy is covered for anyone under medicare. It's totally free. I think I know which country I'd rather live in if I have cancer.
If you were an unemployed full-time student, under the US system your income would have been low enough to qualify for Medicaid, especially with two children in your household. The people who can really get screwed by our system are not the poor, they are the middle-class, especially those who are self-employed (like lookout was when his second son was born.)
Chemotherapy is covered for anyone under medicare. It's totally free.
Is Medicare also the name of your national program, or did you mean something else?
The real question here is not coverage, it is total cost. Your chemotherapy is not free, it's just freely available since it has already been paid for by your taxes. Right now our health coverage is paid for by a mixture of individuals through taxes, individuals through private plans, and employers. Switching the system to being paid for entirely by individuals through taxes does not change how much money procedures will cost. In fact, it very well may amount to nothing more than forcing people who currently "can't afford" to buy private insurance (but aren't covered by other plans for whatever reason) to pay the same amount they would have paid for private insurance into the government plan instead.
medicare is the name of our national public health coverage.
I understand your point Clod. The thing that always makes me think is that there seems to be a resistance to allowing health care to be covered at least in part by taxes.
If it's so bad to allow these things to happen, then why is it that Australians live in equal if not better living standards than Americans in general? Why is it so bad to have life saving treatments like chemotherapy freely available? Considering 1/3 of the population at least is likely to be affected by cancer, I'd say it's a socially responsible situation. And cancer isn't the only treatment that's 'freely available'. How bout a heart bypass? Need one of those? Yep? Ok, just take a seat, we'll be with you shortly. Oh you don't have private health cover? No problem, we'll be with you shortly anyway.
The thing that always makes me think is that there seems to be a resistance to allowing health care to be covered at least in part by taxes.
Yes, it's because to be honest, the middle-class people currently paying taxes know they're almost certainly going to end up paying more than they are now. Being selfish and being socially responsible are usually at odds with each other. Americans are generally governed by a desire not to be tapped for the other guy's costs, not a fear of what will happen if
they end up with unexpected costs.
Well, considering that over 70% of the population will be affected by cancer, i.e. if not themself personally then a loved one, there's a pretty good chance it's going to end up being their cost anyway...one way or the other.
The sort of thinking you describe just doesn't make any sense to me when you consider the facts.
Anyway, I'm still glad we have the health care systems we do in Oz. I think it's one of the best in the world although as I mentioned previously, we need more doctors and a lot of our hospitals need much better administration.
Here's something that might interest you. Chemotherapy is covered for anyone under medicare. It's totally free.
Well that's not true, it's paid for with taxes.... something like 66% of your income goes to taxes right?
nowhere near 66%. Income tax is paid on a sliding scale where lower income earners pay less tax. Higher earners pay more. Some people pay none.
ETA: also, that particular issue of 'free' was addressed in response to Clod. Freely available as suggested by Clod is a better definition. Meaning that if you happen to be poor when you get cancer, you are still entitled to the same treatment.
Income tax in Australia
As income goes up, tax approaches 46.5%, including medicare at 1.5%, and not counting deductions.
Income tax in Australia
As income goes up, tax approaches 46.5%, including medicare at 1.5%, and not counting deductions.
Huh. Was talking to a woman the other day who had recently moved back from Aus. They had moved there for her husbands job. She mentioned 66% taxes, and that often her husbands employer paid him with stuff (furniture. electronics, etc.) to get around that.
The figures HM has posted are about right for the higher income earners here. With regard to the income tax amount people actually pay though, it can end up being much less than that depending on how many deductions they have for items they may be able to claim as business expenses, such as cars, phones, office space in the home etc.
Maybe your friend was getting ripped off. Perhaps they should see a lawyer.
While Hillary demonstrates questionable judgment to follow the Giuliani strategy, Obama once again demonstrates good judgement. Finegold was sponsoring a bill that calls for a untimed withdrawl of troops from Iraq. Obama didn't sponsor the bill this time, and in fact was against it, saying without timetables, the bill was useless. The Republican Senators quickly agree to fast track the bill to a debate, where they use the debate time to tout successes in Iraq. The Democrat senators present decided to kill the bill.
A Cellar cookie I just read:
"Call my dad. My mom's too busy."
--Chelsea Clinton to her school nurse, when asked for parental approval for medication.
Holy crap! And I thought that we were bad.
Over $150,000 $47,100 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000 31.4% – 45%
I am sure ours will be that for 2008.
Nah, I specifically heard McCain say "no new taxes." I tried not to read his lips.
Nah, I specifically heard McCain say "no new taxes." I tried not to read his lips.
Although I never liked Huckabee I was really excited about bring the Fair Tax to the table. That would have been really great.
Yeah, but bear in mind those taxes include health insurance. You pay your taxes and have health insurance on top.
Yeah, but bear in mind those taxes include health insurance. You pay your taxes and have health insurance on top.
I am ok with that because my overall tax basis would decrease significantly from what it is now.
Income Tax Rates 2007-08 - excluding Family Tax Benefit[3] Taxable income Tax on this income Effective Tax Rate
$0 – $6,000 Nil 0% $6,001 – $30,000 15c for each $1 over $6,000 0% – 12%
$30,001 – $75,000 $3,600 plus 30c for each $1 over $30,000 12% – 22.8%
$75,001 – $150,000 $17,100 plus 40c for each $1 over $75,000 22.8% – 31.4%
Over $150,000 $47,100 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000 31.4% – 45%
The Medicare levy applies to certain thresholds[4]
So if you earn over $150,000, you don't pay 45% on the whole lot, just the amount over $75,000. If you look at the scale, you'll see that you pay certain amounts of tax on certain earnings. So the first $6k is tax free, then the next $24k is up to 12% then the next $44k is up to 22.8% etc.
Yeah, that's how it works here, too, with different numbers.