Ridiculous freakout over healthcare

[YankeeDoodleWifey 0]

I've been watching telly about the healthcare debate in the states at the minute. Has anyone at the 'town hall' meetings actually read the proposed bills? They seem to be hyped into a frenzy by 'news' channels who don't actually do anything but complain! During the Bush administration they had terrible things to say about democrats who protested war, saying they were unpatriotic and anti-American. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, it is infinitely better to propose to ensure the entire nation has some form of health insurance as opposed to actually killing people for no reason that can be readily explained. Is it better just because you can't name the person dying?

The argument that it is a socialist idea and shouldn't be allowed in a capitalist society is ridiculous! Do these people realize they have socialist customs and ideals all over?? What about the fire services? The post office? Police?? All of these, much like a national health insurance, are available to any person who resides in the US and pays taxes.

I moved to England a few years ago to live with my husband. I was skeptical about the NHS- it has to be said. Not only that, but I found, being raised in America, I was prone to not going to see a Dr unless, figuratively, my arm was falling off. Why? Because it used to cost me money- a lot of it. Not only that, I was given ridiculous medications I should never have been given. I used the NHS shortly after arriving in the UK- it was brilliant! No charge, not a single hitch and extremely helpful people. If I had a question, they were all over it with a plethora of answers. And I never once had to dread the bill arriving in the post. When they mentioned medications, they were completely open to the ideals I held- that I only take meds if there is no other option- and actually suggested a good range of things I could do to get the same benefit as taking the meds. They have no interest in making the quick quid- unlike American doctors.

I heard that there were complaints that Medicare would be losing money in order to fund the national insurance. Now, if they take money from Medicare, why does that nullify the proposed insurance? Surely the fact that it is a national insurance means that even if money is diverted from Medicare, those elderly people will still have coverage because of the national insurance. Either way, they are covered.

This whole thing is an absolute palaver. Just let the newly elected government get on with the business at hand- improving the lovely and wonderful land of my birth- so that all of the people in it can have a decent quality of life. That isn't to say that everyone has everything exactly the same as the next person- not a completely socialist society- just a better than completely capitalist society. Not everyone has money and they shouldn't be penalized for it.

Rant done! Thank you for your time.

[alienlovechild 75]

During the Bush administration they had terrible things to say about democrats who protested war, saying they were unpatriotic and anti-American.

Examples please? Since this one is brought up alll the time, I'm still waiting to see all the examples over an 8 year period.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Thanks for posting.

[Fandango 1,439]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, it is infinitely better to propose to ensure the entire nation has some form of health insurance as opposed to actually killing people for no reason that can be readily explained. Is it better just because you can't name the person dying?

I really don't think any side is saying 'woot! killing people ftw!' Come on now

[rebeccajo 14]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, it is infinitely better to propose to ensure the entire nation has some form of health insurance as opposed to actually killing people for no reason that can be readily explained. Is it better just because you can't name the person dying?

I really don't think any side is saying 'woot! killing people ftw!' Come on now

We'd just rather have the largest defense budget on Planet Earth than provide for the everyday well being of our citizens.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, it is infinitely better to propose to ensure the entire nation has some form of health insurance as opposed to actually killing people for no reason that can be readily explained. Is it better just because you can't name the person dying?

I really don't think any side is saying 'woot! killing people ftw!' Come on now

We'd just rather have the largest defense budget on Planet Earth than provide for the everyday well being of our citizens.

[Marilyn. 340]

.

Edited August 23, 2009 by Marilyn.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, it is infinitely better to propose to ensure the entire nation has some form of health insurance as opposed to actually killing people for no reason that can be readily explained. Is it better just because you can't name the person dying?

I really don't think any side is saying 'woot! killing people ftw!' Come on now

We'd just rather have the largest defense budget on Planet Earth than provide for the everyday well being of our citizens.

####### is well being good for if were all dead? Healthy and dead thats good.

Edited August 23, 2009 by ={Rogue}=

[Dan J 277]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, it is infinitely better to propose to ensure the entire nation has some form of health insurance as opposed to actually killing people for no reason that can be readily explained. Is it better just because you can't name the person dying?

I really don't think any side is saying 'woot! killing people ftw!' Come on now

We'd just rather have the largest defense budget on Planet Earth than provide for the everyday well being of our citizens.

####### is well being good for if were all dead? Healthy and dead thats good.

Do you go through each day living in fear that someone is out to kill you?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

During the Bush administration they had terrible things to say about democrats who protested war, saying they were unpatriotic and anti-American.

Examples please? Since this one is brought up alll the time, I'm still waiting to see all the examples over an 8 year period.

Imperial President

Opposing Bush becomes unpatriotic.

By William SaletanUpdated Thursday, Sept. 2, 2004, at 4:16 AM ET

If the convention speeches are any guide, Republicans have run out of excuses for blowing the economy, blowing the surplus, and blowing our military resources and moral capital in the wrong country. So they're going after the patriotism of their opponents. Here's what the convention keynoter, Miller, said tonight about Democrats and those who criticize the way President Bush has launched and conducted the Iraq war:

While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

In [Democratic leaders'] warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself.

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2106109/ [source and full text]

Another:

Hagel Defends Criticisms of Iraq Policy

<h2 style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Administration Calls Statements by Democrats Harmful to War Effort, Troops</h2>By Glenn Kessler Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, November 16, 2005 Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) strongly criticized yesterday the White House's new line of attack against critics of its Iraq policy, saying that "the Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them."

With President Bush leading the charge, administration officials have lashed out at Democrats who have accused the administration of manipulating intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. Bush has suggested that critics are hurting the war effort, telling U.S. troops in Alaska on Monday that critics "are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111501450.html [source and full text]

Shall I go on or is this a sufficient dose of shut up alien?

[Welshcookie 17]

When they mentioned medications, they were completely open to the ideals I held- that I only take meds if there is no other option- and actually suggested a good range of things I could do to get the same benefit as taking the meds. They have no interest in making the quick quid- unlike American doctors.

I liked your post...I really did. But, you also have to think how things work the other way. In the NHS, their main concern is SAVING money. I couldn't get meds in the UK because I was deemed under a certain level of blood test..and I was pretty sick...of course the meds I needed would have been free for life on the NHS had I been dx, so the level they look for is much higher than most EU countries and certainly the US. But my GP was more than happy to give me some antidepressants.

[_Simpson_ 250]

I've been watching telly about the healthcare debate in the states at the minute. Has anyone at the 'town hall' meetings actually read the proposed bills? They seem to be hyped into a frenzy by 'news' channels who don't actually do anything but complain!

News stations here have gone out of there way to separate facts from myths.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, it is infinitely better to propose to ensure the entire nation has some form of health insurance as opposed to actually killing people for no reason that can be readily explained. Is it better just because you can't name the person dying?

#######??

[YankeeDoodleWifey 0]

News stations here have gone out of there way to separate facts from myths.

Where do you think 'death panels' came from? It wasn't from any of the proposed bills.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, it is infinitely better to propose to ensure the entire nation has some form of health insurance as opposed to actually killing people for no reason that can be readily explained. Is it better just because you can't name the person dying?

#######??

That is what it seems like. The nation was fine sending troops out to do Bush's dirty work and get hold of the oil because he couldn't strike a deal on his own. It has lead to so many deaths, but we, as a nation, don't really even think about the civilians over there dying by our hands, but the army is still funded, aren't they? We still allow it to continue- why, because we have caused to much upset, we have no choice but to attempt putting things right. Everyday there are people dying in the streets of the US without healthcare- or worse, they have healthcare and are denied treatment because it is deemed they have 'preexisting conditions'. ####### is that?! How is that acceptable? And why are people content to let it continue? How selfish, as a nation, are we allowed to be?

America is wonderful and I love it. The healthcare is absolute insanity. It needs reform. The scare mongering needs to stop.

To Welshcookie- I completely get that. I have heard about the medications issues and refusals for treatment and am not saying the NHS is infallible, clearly it has it's issues. I'm saying that having the option of free healthcare is brilliant. You can buy medications out of pocket with the NHS, can't you? Seems I heard that somewhere- if I have it wrong, please do say so.

If the states had a national insurance and people were still allowed private insurance, I think it would equalize a lot of the excessive spending and reduce costs for everyone. A monopoly doesn't breed fairness, it breeds overcharging and terrible service.

[msu17 0]

Can I just ask how a "greedy doctor" is supposed to make $$ off of giving you a prescription? That's the drug company who makes the money and regulations over their giving anything to the Dr have become (rightfully so), tightened in the last several years. Before you start spouting off ####### about Dr. salaries, read up on it. After dealing with insurance companies here, there is no such thing as a quick quid.

[Krikit 1,163]

Can I just ask how a "greedy doctor" is supposed to make $$ off of giving you a prescription? That's the drug company who makes the money and regulations over their giving anything to the Dr have become (rightfully so), tightened in the last several years. Before you start spouting off ####### about Dr. salaries, read up on it. After dealing with insurance companies here, there is no such thing as a quick quid.

There actually is an incentive for dr's to prescribe certain medications over others.