home

Funding Health Care Instead of War

By Jeralyn, Section Off Topic
Posted on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:47:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Former CNN Cross Fire host Bill Press unexpectedly spent Easter weekend in the hospital, emerging with a new pacemaker. He writes about it here.

Blogger Cathy Seipp yesterday wrote about her troubles with Blue Cross Blue Shield --a healthy, non-smoker, she was diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer four years ago. Her op-ed about it was in yesterday's LA Times. Kevin Drum wrote about Seipp's article here.

How can we not provide health insurance to everyone? As Press writes:

How can we, the richest nation on the planet, give tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy - while 45 million Americans have no health insurance whatsoever?

If we can afford the war in Iraq...If we can afford $10 trillion in tax cuts for the rich...We can afford basic health care for all Americans. The only reason we don't have universal health care is because - We have our priorities ass-backwards.

My solution: Boot the Republicans from Congress in 2006.

Update: comments unrelated to health care have been deleted. There will be an open thread tomorrow if you want to pick your own topics of discussion.

< TX: Life for 17 Year Old Who Smoked Pot on Probation | Conservative Videoblogging Network Debuts >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Funding Health Care Instead of War | 30 comments (30 topical)
    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 12:15:35 PM EST
    Not to mention the people that are "covered", but really aren't covered. A lot of plans have max payouts. My sister is an RN who does chemo treatments at a private practice. She said a lot of her patients have plansw that cap chemo treatments at 40k. Problem is they cost 8k per. 5 treatments and your s.o.l.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#2)
    by soccerdad on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 12:23:23 PM EST
    My solution: Boot the Republicans from Congress in 2006.
    And replace them with who? If one takes into consideration the current account imbalances we can't be the richest country in the world. Its like being given 10 new credit cards and going on a spending spree all the while screaming "I'm rich". Then the bills come due. Well the US bills are coming due and who's going to pay? Don't expect Biden, Clinton etc to raise revenues from the corps. They might tag a few rich people but thats not going to do the job. Its going to be very painful for many for a long time.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 12:42:29 PM EST
    I guess I'll throw in the obligatory "no health insurance does not mean no health care" observation.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#4)
    by jen on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 12:50:28 PM EST
    Sarc, you live in canada, I didnt know that.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 12:55:52 PM EST
    I guess I'll throw in the obligatory "no health insurance does not mean no health care" observation.
    Your observation is short sighted and does not offer a solution. In fact, your observation is part of the problem because you imply that the status quo is acceptable.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#6)
    by roy on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:13:41 PM EST
    Gotta love the Left Wing. Any spending cut is contemplated not as a way to stop taking money from the people (ultra rich or otherwise), or to remove the government nose from where it doesn't belong, but rather as a way to fund some new pet project. If we do start paying for each others' health insurance -- or more realistically start making the ultra-rich pay for it -- through prison-enforced taxation, look for more obnoxious and faddish public health laws on the horizon. Annoyed that you have to wear a seat belt? Wait 'til it's illegal to eat steak cook to less than well done, smoke tobacco in your own home, or swim in the ocean. Yes, this is a slipper slope argument, I think it applies this time. (I'll temper this snark by admitting that Bill Clinton is the only fiscally conservative President we've had in my lifetime -- the GOP stopped being "small government" decades ago)

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 01:20:14 PM EST
    macro, Jen, no, as an American, living in America, and having spent almost a half-decade in the not-so-distant past w/o health insurance, I'm just pointing out to those who might (either consciously or not) equate "no health insurance" to "no health care," that one does not equal the other.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 03:02:16 PM EST
    It boils down to what we value. We value profit over health. How else can you explain big insurance and big pharma making boatloads of dough off of suffering? Instead of our taxation system funding a war machine, it could fund a health machine. What's stopping us? Oh yeah, those pesky Republican and Democratic parties with their hands in the till. And the powerful profiteers who buy them.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#9)
    by roy on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 03:30:07 PM EST
    Jondee, Is the Left shielded from criticism by making the same mistakes as the Right? See, sometimes when I make an argument or assertion, I target one side for something both sides do. It's necessary in order to play in the two-party political game. I did that today. So I don't claim that seat belt laws and government bloat are uniquely Leftist. I claim they have bipartisan support, with the Left as one of those parts. I've complained to Rightists about such things before, and today I'm complaining to Leftists. Back on topic, with all that in mind to help clarify my claims, I stand by my point: the Left (but not only the Left) isn't motivated to find ways to cut government presense or the spending of others' money. I don't like that attitude; do you? Do you think I'm mistaken in claiming that the Left even has that attitude? Also, how do you feel about the safety restrictions I foresee as a side effect of the insurance idea? Do you think something like that will happen at all? Do you think they will be overly intrusive? And, respectfully, I think you don't know quite as much about libertarianism as you think you do. I recommend this book to help you refine your arguments. There are serious problems with libertarianism, but you keep shooting at the decoys. If you would like to bang heads on this, I'm up for it, but we should move it to an open thread or e-mail.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 03:38:12 PM EST
    Glanton-
    Bottom line is, no matter who wins in 2006 or 2008 or any time in this era, we are not going to see health care for every Uhmerrikahn.
    Massachusetts just did it. Maybe it is not so far away for the rest of US.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 03:42:42 PM EST
    Roy - I'll look into it. Btw, Im sure I dont need to remind you that theres more than one slippery slope.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#13)
    by glanton on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 03:46:48 PM EST
    Well, Squeaky, now that Massachusetts has done it you can really kiss it goodby in "heartland" Uhgmerrikah. The legislature and Supreme Court in that state has also said no to hating gays and women, and we see how that ends up playing out nationwide. There's a great Steven Colbert/John Stewart exchange where Colbert satirically lambastes Stewart for having Ted Kennedy on his show. "But that's a Senator from Massachusetts!," Colbert indignifies, interrupting Stewart every time he tries to make a point. Sorry if I don't see the Bay State setting any trends these days. It's more like a rope of urine in a hurricane, as they say. TChris's post about the South Carolina Phelps crowd and sex toys is much more a representative barometer, in my opinion.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 03:51:12 PM EST
    Glanton-We'll see. If the Mass plan works out it could be a model for all. Helath care/unsurance is much more univeral an issue than gay marriage, or should I say more are affected by the issue.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#15)
    by jen on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 03:54:03 PM EST
    I know people for whom no insurance does indeed mean no treatment. Even having insurance doesn't mean one gets treatment. Maybe if you met, you know, people. Real people, of the WORKING class.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#16)
    by Al on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 05:12:01 PM EST
    roy:
    If we do start paying for each others' health insurance -- or more realistically start making the ultra-rich pay for it -- through prison-enforced taxation, look for more obnoxious and faddish public health laws on the horizon. Annoyed that you have to wear a seat belt? Wait 'til it's illegal to eat steak cook to less than well done, smoke tobacco in your own home, or swim in the ocean.
    Gotta love the Right Wing. They make up stuff, call it Leftist, and make fun of it. Where do you come with this nonsense, Roy? Name one country where they have universal access to public health care where they have such ridiculous legislation. Or are you so disconnected from the rest of the world that you think there is no other health care system than the American one (or lack of it).

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#17)
    by glanton on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 05:14:41 PM EST
    First of all, jondee: Morrison's libertarian declaration would resonate with the neocons and uber industrialists who run things in this country, I'll give you that. And yes, it is ultimately nihilistic. But I would also add the very important qualifier that Morrison's was a response to what these same people were doing, and are continuing to do to the country. He was not some Exxon glutton saying screw everybody else, just hook up the profits. He was one who saw perfectly well that the power in his nation was a closed circle of Exxon-types and really, there's not much to be done about it beyond getting your kicks. Charlie: What's-his-name in Virginia is representative of the party at large, so don't give me that 'don't vote for him' crap. He was chosen to "rebut" Bush's SOTU speech; it don't get any more representative than that, brother. And in case any of us had forgotten, he kindly took that opportunity to remind us that he's a Christian. RE Health Care: GOP or Democrat-controlled Congress, the Mariners, Cubs, D-Rays, and Nationals will all have won the World Series generations before Uhmerrikahns are guaranteed health care. Charlie, you give reasons why we ought to have health care; you speak rationally. I'm with you on it. But I cannot but pity your belief that Uhmerrikans vote based on real reasons, or even that they will ever get the information you're citing; and I especially pity you if you think for one second that any major Democrat is going to get in front of cameras and take the lead to push health care for all; there's no time in a thirty second soundbite, what with their need to witness and all. Besides there'll always be some missing white girl, some flag-burning scare, some "ter'ist" alert, some Amber alert, some vegetable woman on the front page and dominating the television waves. As a famous rapper once said, it's like that, and that's the way it is. In my own way, I suppose I have come to such nihilism as well. But Vonnegut sounds prettier, doesn't it?

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 06:03:17 PM EST
    You know, if some of you stopped hating the rethugs and actually looked at healthcare in Canada, you might learn something. Rather than getting treatment promptly and then have some people facing large debts, in Canada you wait. And wait. And wait. For an appointment with an oncologist. Then you wait. And wait. And wait. For a scan. Then you wait. And wait. And wait. For another appointment. Then same process for getting a surgery (wait times can be in the realm of years for joint replacement, 18 months for cancer surgery). You can either ration healthcare by price or by lines. The demand is infinite while the ability to pay is not. You can have the newest treatments available, or you can have a limited set of treatments approved, with budget being a prime consideration. PET scanning is still viewed as experimental in some parts of Canada because of the huge costs to the government to cover the equipment. There is a huge shortage of doctors, because governments radically cut the number of spots in med school and available residencies to fix a budget crunch. Step out of your dogma and accept reality: healthcare is hard, no one will ever be satisfied, but more government is demonstrably not a solution. Canada has a more inequitable distribution of health care since it takes influence to get quick appointments and surgery. So if you live in the right neighbourhood, your kids go to the right schools, you go to the right parties, belong to the right clubs, you will be able to skip the line without paying for it. In the US, the rich pay through the nose (much more than we do here in taxes) for their platinum level healthcare and drag the standard of care for everyone up. Its the same factor that sees the gadget freaks blow stupendous amounts of money on brand new tech devices that cost the general public $1-500 5 years later.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 06:18:08 PM EST
    You can either ration healthcare by price or by lines
    A line is fair, first come first serve. Eventually everybody gets to the front. Rationing by price leaves people forever on the outside looking in. Health care is hard, even harder with profiteers pulling excessive amounts of money out of the system. There has got to be some middle ground.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 06:25:24 PM EST
    hey-
    Then you wait. And wait. And wait. For a scan. Then you wait. And wait. And wait.
    It is the same here. Many of the top doctors do not take insurance. Where ever you are, if you have the money you get fast service. If you use your Insurance you wait and wait anyway. If the rich Canadians can't cut the line in they can avail themselves of the latest modern convience. Airplanes. Fail to see your brilliant point. Hey.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#21)
    by jen on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 06:33:48 PM EST
    It was only six weeks to get an opthomologist appointment at Kaiser when I broke my glasses. I live in Maryland. They REFUSED to replace them with the old prescription. Yeah. Fast service.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#22)
    by Johnny on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 10:58:13 PM EST
    Bah.. We could give universal preventative and pre-natal care and virtuallu eliminate the need for the plethora of middle-aged syndromes that is one of the root causes of the health care crisis. You heard me-you baby boomers and your gluttonous lifestyle are a huge contributor here. Like they say, an ounce of prevention....

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:39:53 PM EST
    Johnny: Like they say, an ounce of prevention.... Well said, Johnny. I no longer have some medical problems I used to have... some that friends of mine have died from. Not from taking something to cure them, but from not taking the things that were causing them.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 11:45:39 PM EST
    "The relationship between stopping the world and not-doing in Carlos Castaneda's Journey to Ixtlan is here discussed." -- Dr. Kathy Emmett, University of Tennessee

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#25)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 08:03:43 AM EST
    We waited SIX WEEKS for Kaiser to get their act together when my ex mother in law was diagnosed with rectal cancer. Six weeks between diagnosis and treatment. That's not "better". And Canade is only one of many countries with national health care. The US is one of the only countries in the world with healthcare that is NOT universal. Kdog, It boils down to what we value. We value profit over health. How else can you explain big insurance and big pharma making boatloads of dough off of suffering? Well they need those big profits to put into R&D to make new drugs, devices and treatments that the insurance companies will not pay for.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 08:56:57 AM EST
    Good one Che. What is "R&D", an exclusive polo club?

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#27)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 02:38:40 PM EST
    Kdog, Research and Development. Sorry. That's their big explanation. That they put their megaprofits back into making newer drugs and devices.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 02:55:29 PM EST
    I know...I was joking. The exclusive polo or country club is really where the megaprofits are going.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 07:34:16 PM EST
    et al - The question is how do we pay for it? As long as we take the position that "someone else" pays for it, it will never happen. What we need is a national sales tax of say, 5%. Unprocessed food, utilities, etc., can be exempted.

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#30)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 08:41:26 PM EST
    Kdog, OK NOW it's funny. I couldn't fathom that you did not know what that meant. "Inconceivable!"

    Re: Funding Health Care Instead of War (none / 0) (#31)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Apr 25, 2006 at 08:43:19 PM EST
    A bit slow on the upstroke. Rode the short bus to school.

    Funding Health Care Instead of War | 30 comments (30 topical)