I was concerned when Virginia elected a Republican governor. I was more concerned when I learned that McDonnell had amended the state's discrimination law by removing "sexual orientation" from the list. So now Virginia is prohibiting that type of discrimination? It isn't enough to say that discrimination of any kind will not be tolerated because racism, sexism, etc. are widely prevalent. The inclusion of the phrase "sexual orientation" provides a legal standing and accountability to employers. Why not remove gender from the list as long as you're at it?
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label healthcare. Show all posts
March 19, 2010
March 17, 2010
Sicko (the movie)
Did you know that the United States does condone and practice universal healthcare? It is available to the prisoners of Gitmo (hazards to our national security) and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan (because we are fighting a war in their countries). And which individuals have the best options on healthcare after them? Our elected representatives in government, who can choose from over 200 plans and policies. I find it interesting that those against universal healthcare, who insist it is in violation of the Constitution and all that is sacred about America, are the same individuals whose jobs and financial resources protect them from experiencing lapses in coverage or removal from an insurance policy.
March 05, 2010
Republicans' big lie about reconciliation
Here's a good article about reconciliation and what it actually means for the healthcare bill. I'm really sick of people using fear-mongering to further a selfish agenda. And Republican politicians have no excuse because they used this same technique to ram Bush's tax cuts (for the wealthy) down the throats of the American people in 2001 and 2003, thereby increasing the country's deficit by 1.7 TRILLION dollars.
----
Republican's big lie about reconciliation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030303097.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
February 26, 2010
Much ado about (healthcare) nothing
I don't want this blog to be overtaken by political arguments, but I get so frustrated trying to have a civil debate with certain individuals. I present facts and studies that support my statements and edit my litany so that it doesn't contain any unfounded comments. I expect these individuals to review the submitted literature before they respond, to analyze what I'm saying and juxtapose it to what they believe, and to address my points in their answer. And yet I am continually disappointed by what actually occurs. They fail to do any of those things! It is as if they have their fingers in their ears and are screaming at the top of their lungs. God. How can we (the public) expect the elected politicians to be civil in discussions, to work together and compromise, to do what is best for all, when some of them behave as children?
------
"But I don't want to go among mad people," remarked Alice.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat. "We're all mad here."
February 22, 2010
National healthcare
The debate rages on, but President Obama has put together a new proposal. The link is listed below.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal
January 27, 2010
November 09, 2009
Letter to Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians
You say you are against universal healthcare because it isn't constitutional. Yet you fail to notice that "general welfare" amenities like emergency services, infrastructure and public education are government run. You say you are against universal healthcare because it is socialized medicine. Yet you fail to notice the U.S. already has socialized medicine -- Medicare. You say you are against universal healthcare because it is unnecessary. Yet you omit preventative care and treatments in your assessment of the services available to the uninsured. You say you are against universal healthcare because the majority of those polled were satisfied with the current system. Yet you fail to clarify what proportion of those surveyed were without health insurance. You say you are against universal healthcare because it will bankrupt the country. Yet you forget the $915 billion we've spent (so far!) on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You say you are against universal healthcare because you don't want the government telling you what to do with/to your own body. Yet your political affiliation has been telling women what to do with their bodies and reproductive health for generations. You say you are against universal healthcare because you are protecting liberty. Yet you restrict the 'quality or state of being free' to white Christian men. You say you are against universal healthcare because it is the antithesis of capitalism and people will inherently do what is best for all. Yet you fail to realize how contradictory that statement is.
[It is so frustrating to have a discussion with you about this topic because you rely on smoke and mirrors. If I argued for universal healthcare by citing the Bible and using vague patriotic terms like freedom and liberty, then I too would be untouchable.]
[It is so frustrating to have a discussion with you about this topic because you rely on smoke and mirrors. If I argued for universal healthcare by citing the Bible and using vague patriotic terms like freedom and liberty, then I too would be untouchable.]
October 20, 2009
Healthcare
Below are excerpts from messages my brother or I have written:
By it’s very definition, capitalism is an economic system based on open competition. Then why do individual healthcare companies control the majority of the market within a given state? Are these companies that successful or are they monopolies, exempt from anti-trust legislation? In Alabama, for example, Blue Cross Blue Shield own 83% of the market. I like to believe that offering a public healthcare option would both force health insurance companies to compete and be innovative.
Moreover, the lauded benchmark of capitalism—efficiency – is dangerously at odds with human welfare within the insurance industry. They make profit when you don’t get treatment. The inherent conflict of interest in this begs the question whether health makes sense as a for-profit industry at all. It’s like having the fox guard the henhouse.
I think that opposition to offering the option of health care to all Americans stems from two main sources: an unfounded fear of socialism and an esurient disregard to the health and well-being of others.
What makes more sense is socializing institutions that are by their nature inefficient or whose driving principle is at odds with capitalism. This idea of a social market economy has been practiced since roughly the 1950s in Europe and to marvelous effect, particularly with health care ... The U.S. spends 16% of its GDP on health, which amounts to $2.2 trillion. This is more than France (11%), the United Kingdom (8.4%) or Singapore (3.4%). When the World Health Organization rated health systems around the world, Germany ranked 25. [The U.S. was 37, behind Malta, Singapore, and Saudi Arabia.] And although the U.S. is in a recession, it’s worth noting tough economic times haven't caused other industrialized countries to put healthcare on the back burner. The United Kingdom made healthcare available to everyone following World War II, when the country was in economic ruin.
It’s worth noting that Medicare and Medicaid account for half of the total spent on healthcare, but this system is paying for the elderly, whose annual healthcare cost is more ($5,531) than that of the average American (median age 35.3 years) ($4,778). More alarming is that insurance companies spend 10% of their revenue on administrative overhead. [By comparison, Medicare and Medicaid spend between 2 and 5%.] I find it difficult to sympathize with the insurance companies who claim they wouldn’t be able to compete, financially, against a public option plan when they are lobbying hundreds of millions of dollars against Obama’s reform. Why aren’t health companies using this money to investigate, develop, and advertise alternative healthcare reform plans?
Yes, everyone has access to emergency healthcare (like dialing 911 or walking into an ER), but the millions without health insurance are significantly less likely to receive preventative care. Without early detection and the immediate implementation of other prevention methods, a simple ailment (like inflammation in blood vessels) may become a chronic condition (i.e. heart disease). If those without health insurance are unable to obtain optimal treatment in a timely fashion, then they will be forced to have a more extensive, and often more expensive, treatment – all at the cost of the taxpayer. Currently, 50% of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills.
Tort reform to curtail malpractice lawsuits is a necessity. Individual states have (Texas and California) or are in the process (Pennsylvania) of passing legislation related to this. However, it is difficult to gauge the effect curtailing malpractice lawsuits would have on reducing total healthcare costs, as the numbers range from $0 to $108 billion.
The above argument does not appeal to a higher moral purpose at all, but instead addresses the health care question from the stance of financial minimization. Even if you believe that those without health care shouldn’t get health care, you must concede that this is an ideal that is not currently practiced and is likely an impossibility; the cost has been and will continue to be passed along to others.
By it’s very definition, capitalism is an economic system based on open competition. Then why do individual healthcare companies control the majority of the market within a given state? Are these companies that successful or are they monopolies, exempt from anti-trust legislation? In Alabama, for example, Blue Cross Blue Shield own 83% of the market. I like to believe that offering a public healthcare option would both force health insurance companies to compete and be innovative.
Moreover, the lauded benchmark of capitalism—efficiency – is dangerously at odds with human welfare within the insurance industry. They make profit when you don’t get treatment. The inherent conflict of interest in this begs the question whether health makes sense as a for-profit industry at all. It’s like having the fox guard the henhouse.
I think that opposition to offering the option of health care to all Americans stems from two main sources: an unfounded fear of socialism and an esurient disregard to the health and well-being of others.
What makes more sense is socializing institutions that are by their nature inefficient or whose driving principle is at odds with capitalism. This idea of a social market economy has been practiced since roughly the 1950s in Europe and to marvelous effect, particularly with health care ... The U.S. spends 16% of its GDP on health, which amounts to $2.2 trillion. This is more than France (11%), the United Kingdom (8.4%) or Singapore (3.4%). When the World Health Organization rated health systems around the world, Germany ranked 25. [The U.S. was 37, behind Malta, Singapore, and Saudi Arabia.] And although the U.S. is in a recession, it’s worth noting tough economic times haven't caused other industrialized countries to put healthcare on the back burner. The United Kingdom made healthcare available to everyone following World War II, when the country was in economic ruin.
It’s worth noting that Medicare and Medicaid account for half of the total spent on healthcare, but this system is paying for the elderly, whose annual healthcare cost is more ($5,531) than that of the average American (median age 35.3 years) ($4,778). More alarming is that insurance companies spend 10% of their revenue on administrative overhead. [By comparison, Medicare and Medicaid spend between 2 and 5%.] I find it difficult to sympathize with the insurance companies who claim they wouldn’t be able to compete, financially, against a public option plan when they are lobbying hundreds of millions of dollars against Obama’s reform. Why aren’t health companies using this money to investigate, develop, and advertise alternative healthcare reform plans?
Yes, everyone has access to emergency healthcare (like dialing 911 or walking into an ER), but the millions without health insurance are significantly less likely to receive preventative care. Without early detection and the immediate implementation of other prevention methods, a simple ailment (like inflammation in blood vessels) may become a chronic condition (i.e. heart disease). If those without health insurance are unable to obtain optimal treatment in a timely fashion, then they will be forced to have a more extensive, and often more expensive, treatment – all at the cost of the taxpayer. Currently, 50% of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills.
Tort reform to curtail malpractice lawsuits is a necessity. Individual states have (Texas and California) or are in the process (Pennsylvania) of passing legislation related to this. However, it is difficult to gauge the effect curtailing malpractice lawsuits would have on reducing total healthcare costs, as the numbers range from $0 to $108 billion.
The above argument does not appeal to a higher moral purpose at all, but instead addresses the health care question from the stance of financial minimization. Even if you believe that those without health care shouldn’t get health care, you must concede that this is an ideal that is not currently practiced and is likely an impossibility; the cost has been and will continue to be passed along to others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
