Please sign this petition for the Employee Free Choice Act

[h8mtv]

This is a very important labor movement. If we could get the Employee Free Choice Act passed and a form of national healthcare the US would be a better place.

http://www.freechoiceact.org/cwa/pages/efca_learnmore

[FezsAssistant]

The US would be a better place...with higher taxes and low quality health care (and amazingly long waits) for all.
Wonderful.

[Dash77]

I work in the labor movement, and we have gone to our membership to support this bill..

[HBox]

The US would be a better place...with higher taxes and low quality health care (and amazingly long waits) for all.
Wonderful.

I'm so sure you have first hand experience.

[booster11373]

The US would be a better place...with higher taxes and low quality health care (and amazingly long waits) for all.
Wonderful.

The current method is broke why not try another?

[HBox]

The current method is broke why not try another?

A BUNCH OF THINGS I HEARD FROM SOME GUY! THAT'S WHY!

[Zorro]

I work in the labor movement, and we have gone to our membership to support this bill..

I am generally a supporter of unions, but it seems awfullly un-american to take away an employees right to a secret ballot.

[booster11373]

A BUNCH OF THINGS I HEARD FROM SOME GUY! THAT'S WHY!

And that guy always has health care and money!

[Melissa the Accountant]

A BUNCH OF THINGS I HEARD FROM SOME GUY! THAT'S WHY!

My friend's wife just moved here from Ireland a few months ago when they got their marriage visa. A few months before that she had to go to the hospital for severe abdominal pains, so she went and they checked her in. They didn't want to release her without doing a sonogram. However, their only sonogram equipment was in use elsewhere and was not available at the time, so she had to wait. So she waited in excruciating pain for 18 hours until someone came and told her that the equipment wouldn't be available anytime soon and they were just going to prescribe a pain reliever and send her home. So she was really looking forward to coming here, where the copay does suck, but at least patients are typically allowed to see a physician without an appointment way in advance.

Not saying your point is wrong, because it's true that people shouldn't just make blanket assumptions based on a few cases, especially when they don't have first hand information, but all the same I'm still strongly hesitant to sign us up for any of the public health care systems currently available in other countries. It might sound selfish, but I don't want to be taxed to help pay for other people's often preventable medical problems. If it's OK for people to feed themselves and their kids all the greaseburgers they want every day, then it should be OK for other people not to want to chip in to indirectly pay for their angioplasty.

That said, our current system does kinda suck, especially for people who don't have insurance or who have crappy insurance. I work for a hospital (administrative, not clinical) and I sit near our billing department and hear their insurance hassles all day. Still, I'd rather explore something where we subsidize insurance coverage for people in low income brackets rather than take the whole system public and fuck it over even worse than it is now. It seems like most of the problems I hear about are related to Medicare - which is a government thing. Why let the government take over even more of it? That freaks me out.

It would be cool if there was some kind of reward structure for people who take good care of themselves and therefore don't incur as much cost to the system. i.e. who maintain a healthy BMI, don't smoke, etc. etc.

Both perspectives are valid, so it seems sensible to try and meet them in the middle somehow rather than going all or nothing with either one.

[HBox]

My friend's wife just moved here from Ireland a few months ago when they got their marriage visa. A few months before that she had to go to the hospital for severe abdominal pains, so she went and they checked her in. They didn't want to release her without doing a sonogram. However, their only sonogram equipment was in use elsewhere and was not available at the time, so she had to wait. So she waited in excruciating pain for 18 hours until someone came and told her that the equipment wouldn't be available anytime soon and they were just going to prescribe a pain reliever and send her home. So she was really looking forward to coming here, where the copay does suck, but at least patients are typically allowed to see a physician without an appointment way in advance.

Not saying your point is wrong, because it's true that people shouldn't just make blanket assumptions based on a few cases, especially when they don't have first hand information, but all the same I'm still strongly hesitant to sign us up for any of the public health care systems currently available in other countries. It might sound selfish, but I don't want to be taxed to help pay for other people's often preventable medical problems. If it's OK for people to feed themselves and their kids all the greaseburgers they want every day, then it should be OK for other people not to want to chip in to indirectly pay for their angioplasty.

That said, our current system does kinda suck, especially for people who don't have insurance or who have crappy insurance. I work for a hospital (administrative, not clinical) and I sit near our billing department and hear their insurance hassles all day. Still, I'd rather explore something where we subsidize insurance coverage for people in low income brackets rather than take the whole system public and fuck it over even worse than it is now. It seems like most of the problems I hear about are related to Medicare - which is a government thing. Why let the government take over even more of it? That freaks me out.

It would be cool if there was some kind of reward structure for people who take good care of themselves and therefore don't incur as much cost to the system. i.e. who maintain a healthy BMI, don't smoke, etc. etc.

Both perspectives are valid, so it seems sensible to try and meet them in the middle somehow rather than going all or nothing with either one.

There are horror stories everywhere. I could tell you a story about a girl who needed a liver transplant. The insurance company denied it and she died. And she had insurance. Who knows what happens to the people who don't have insurance and need one. Actually I guess we do know.

My optimum system would be a public system and a private system. The public system covers everyone who doesn't get private insurance.

But we pay more for less and exclude 45 million from the system and more are added every year. It's just a disgrace that the richest country in the world does this to its citizens.

And of course no one wants to pay to fix other people's irresponsible lifestyle. But you are dealing with a very slippery slope there. Do you really want to get all Big Brother on people to stop it? It's something you just have to deal with unless you want to fuck over innocent sick people just to stick it to the irresponsible. Plus, you know exactly how much any serious treatment costs. Do you really want, regardless of how people treat themselves, to let them die? Because that what's going to happen to the 99% of people who can't afford serious life saving treatment.

The fact is other countries spend less, are healthier, and don't always wait longer. And that's not even taking into account the people who wait indefinitely for treatment because they have no insurance. They could wait years or forever.

You can cherry pick any one particular section of any one countries health system and make it look horrid or heavenly. But on average we have no right to feel superior to everyone, and a whole system of delivering health care employed in every single other industrialized nation in and in more of them than not are happier with it is just arrogant. I can think of no other way to describe it.

[Zorro]

There are horror stories everywhere. I could tell you a story about a girl who needed a liver transplant. The insurance company denied it and she died. And she had insurance. Who knows what happens to the people who don't have insurance and need one. Actually I guess we do know.

My optimum system would be a public system and a private system. The public system covers everyone who doesn't get private insurance.

But we pay more for less and exclude 45 million from the system and more are added every year. It's just a disgrace that the richest country in the world does this to its citizens.

And of course no one wants to pay to fix other people's irresponsible lifestyle. But you are dealing with a very slippery slope there. Do you really want to get all Big Brother on people to stop it? It's something you just have to deal with unless you want to fuck over innocent sick people just to stick it to the irresponsible. Plus, you know exactly how much any serious treatment costs. Do you really want, regardless of how people treat themselves, to let them die? Because that what's going to happen to the 99% of people who can't afford serious life saving treatment.

The fact is other countries spend less, are healthier, and don't always wait longer. And that's not even taking into account the people who wait indefinitely for treatment because they have no insurance. They could wait years or forever.

You can cherry pick any one particular section of any one countries health system and make it look horrid or heavenly. But on average we have no right to feel superior to everyone, and a whole system of delivering health care employed in every single other industrialized nation in and in more of them than not are happier with it is just arrogant. I can think of no other way to describe it.

In case you hadn't heard we're no longer an "industrial country" ... would you like fries with that?

[TeeBone]

This is a very important labor movement.
This is not a very important anything. This is a one-way, downhill exploration into what can not be accomplished. I wish you luck however. Check out what can happen when 'movements' like this are successful...
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Health/Rats-Fleas-Mice-And-Maggots-Spotted-In-British-Hospitals-According-To-The-Conservatives/Article/200808115071687?lpos=Health_2&lid=ARTICLE_15071687_Rats%252C%2BFleas%252C%2BMice %2BAnd%2BMaggots%2BSpotted%2BIn%2BBritish%2BHospit als%2BAccording%2BTo%2BThe%2BConservatives
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:fAEqcxdGvTf9AM:http://democratequalssocialist.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/old-man-laughing.jpg

[Zorro]

“Treatment of advanced cancer that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of this disease, is not a covered benefit of the Oregon Health Plan,” said the unsigned letter Wagner received from LIPA, the Eugene company that administers the Oregon Health Plan in Lane County.



What happens when the Government rations healthcare

[Melissa the Accountant]

There are horror stories everywhere. I could tell you a story about a girl who needed a liver transplant. The insurance company denied it and she died. And she had insurance. Who knows what happens to the people who don't have insurance and need one. Actually I guess we do know.

My optimum system would be a public system and a private system. The public system covers everyone who doesn't get private insurance.

But we pay more for less and exclude 45 million from the system and more are added every year. It's just a disgrace that the richest country in the world does this to its citizens.

And of course no one wants to pay to fix other people's irresponsible lifestyle. But you are dealing with a very slippery slope there. Do you really want to get all Big Brother on people to stop it? It's something you just have to deal with unless you want to fuck over innocent sick people just to stick it to the irresponsible. Plus, you know exactly how much any serious treatment costs. Do you really want, regardless of how people treat themselves, to let them die? Because that what's going to happen to the 99% of people who can't afford serious life saving treatment.

The fact is other countries spend less, are healthier, and don't always wait longer. And that's not even taking into account the people who wait indefinitely for treatment because they have no insurance. They could wait years or forever.

You can cherry pick any one particular section of any one countries health system and make it look horrid or heavenly. But on average we have no right to feel superior to everyone, and a whole system of delivering health care employed in every single other industrialized nation in and in more of them than not are happier with it is just arrogant. I can think of no other way to describe it.

Speaking of cherry-picking, you act like I said the current system is perfect and shouldn't be changed at all and that I claimed your views and objectives have no merit. All I did was point out that people who have reservations about switching are not amoral monsters who hate the poor and want to go to bed at night on a pile of blood money they won through selfishly denying anyone else the right to health care. At this point, the essence of your argument seems to be "Our system sucks and anyone who still feels that they still prefer it to the current alternatives is selfish and morally wrong and they just want poor people to suffer".

Also, abdominal pains that couldn't be investigated due to lack of available basic equipment is not on the scale of a person with advanced liver disease not being able to get a transplant. I do understand your point, but one should be a routine care procedure, and the other is a relatively uncommon, dire straits type of medical situation. Was it wrong that the person wasn't able to get treatment for whatever reason? Probably. Do I think they would have fared better in the British Isles? Not really.

France has what I've heard seems to be a fairly decent public health system, much better than what is available in the UK, and it focuses heavily on preventive care, which I'm strongly in favor of. But they also have a significantly healthy lifestyle and overall life expectancy than we do over here. I didn't mean to make you think I was suggesting that we employ "Big Brother" techniques to intervene in people's health decisions. I don't think that's what I said at all. If anything, the government already does that too much. But I still think it's valid to bring up American lifestyle and obesity as an issue in this discussion, because people with an unhealthy lifestyle drag down the whole system and make it more expensive for everybody. And more often than not, the people eating half their meals from McDonald's are the people in the income brackets who would need to take advantage of public health care. I'm not, as you seem to think, saying that they don't deserve to have access to medical treatment. But it's a complex problem and I don't think it's unreasonable to bring these things up for discussion.

[HBox]

Speaking of cherry-picking, you act like I said the current system is perfect and shouldn't be changed at all and that I claimed your views and objectives have no merit. All I did was point out that people who have reservations about switching are not amoral monsters who hate the poor and want to go to bed at night on a pile of blood money they won through selfishly denying anyone else the right to health care. At this point, the essence of your argument seems to be "Our system sucks and anyone who still feels that they still prefer it to the current alternatives is selfish and morally wrong and they just want poor people to suffer".

I'd just like to mention that you're acting like I said people who oppose change are amoral monsters when I never did.

Also, abdominal pains that couldn't be investigated due to lack of available basic equipment is not on the scale of a person with advanced liver disease not being able to get a transplant. I do understand your point, but one should be a routine care procedure, and the other is a relatively uncommon, dire straits type of medical situation. Was it wrong that the person wasn't able to get treatment for whatever reason? Probably. Do I think they would have fared better in the British Isles? Not really.

You are missing the point of that. The girl died because no one could pay for her treatment. That doesn't happen in other industrialized nations. I was pointing out a different type of flaw with more sever consequences in our system.

France has what I've heard seems to be a fairly decent public health system, much better than what is available in the UK, and it focuses heavily on preventive care, which I'm strongly in favor of. But they also have a significantly healthy lifestyle and overall life expectancy than we do over here. I didn't mean to make you think I was suggesting that we employ "Big Brother" techniques to intervene in people's health decisions. I don't think that's what I said at all. If anything, the government already does that too much. But I still think it's valid to bring up American lifestyle and obesity as an issue in this discussion, because people with an unhealthy lifestyle drag down the whole system and make it more expensive for everybody. And more often than not, the people eating half their meals from McDonald's are the people in the income brackets who would need to take advantage of public health care. I'm not, as you seem to think, saying that they don't deserve to have access to medical treatment. But it's a complex problem and I don't think it's unreasonable to bring these things up for discussion.

No you didn't say that. It's something to be frustrated over for sure but it's something without many options. The only concrete ways to stop it are Big Brother techniques or simply not paying at all. My point was that it's just something we have to put up with in any health system, and that goes for public or private. Other people are paying either way.

It's not unreasonbale to bring up but it is kind of immaterial to the point. We either treat our citizens or we don't. And a good argument could be made that if these lower income people were having regular health checkups that people would be somewhat healthier. Or course people need to live healthier lifestyles but that's a problem that will have to ultimately be solved elsewhere. Either people are going to value their own health or they aren't.

[DarkHippie]

Just wondering how many people read the website.

[sailor]

I'd just like to mention that you're acting like I said people who oppose change are amoral monsters when I never did.

but, you mocked and belittled the first person (FA) who disagreed with you.

[HBox]

but, you mocked and belittled the first person (FA) who disagreed with you.

Which I don't deny and is totally different.

[Zorro]

You are missing the point of that. The girl died because no one could pay for her treatment. That doesn't happen in other industrialized nations. I was pointing out a different type of flaw with more sever consequences in our system.



I searched and searched but could not find that this liver girl story is anything more than urban myth. But what I did find was that in every "industrialized country" healthcare is rationed through a cost benefit analysis.

A simple google search will lead you to numerous stories of patients being denied healthcare because the "state" decided the treatment was too expensive.

Another simple google search will tell you that the average wait time for non-emergency surgey in Canada is 18.3 weeks http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/10/surgery-wait-times-in-canada-hit-record.html Pretty damn long to wait with cancer rolling around in your body. ...and Canada's population is one tenth the size of the US.

None of these other plans are a panacea and the American system seems to work well for about 85% of the country. So, let's not toss the baby with the bathwater.

[h8mtv]

The fact is that there are many, probably most people who go without heathcare in the US. Also insurance companies are allowed to cherry pick who they provide services to. If the EFCA passes folks could create unions and force corporations to provide healthcare under an umbrella policy for all employees. If the US gov't provided a basic needs heathcare for its people then corporations supplemented the system thru quality insurance we would all be in better shape.

[Zorro]

The fact is that there are many, probably most people who go without heathcare in the US. Also insurance companies are allowed to cherry pick who they provide services to. If the EFCA passes folks could create unions and force corporations to provide healthcare under an umbrella policy for all employees. If the US gov't provided a basic needs heathcare for its people then corporations supplemented the system thru quality insurance we would all be in better shape.

Your Fact is not a fact....as a matter of fact it's patently untrue. Most Americans do have insurance

...more importantly the EFCA takes away the right to a secret vote and would subject employees to bullying tactics by both unions and employers...

[K.C.]

Your Fact is not a fact....as a matter of fact it's patently untrue. Most Americans have shitty insurance


Fixed it for you.


It is the goal of every corporation to keep the costs of compensation as low as possible. When you have no bargaining power, you're pretty much at their mercy.

I'm not going to say the union process is perfect, because it's not, but it's better than the alternative.

[Zorro]

Fixed it for you.


It is the goal of every corporation to keep the costs of compensation as low as possible. When you have no bargaining power, you're pretty much at their mercy.

I'm not going to say the union process is perfect, because it's not, but it's better than the alternative.

I am not dissing unions. I am dissing this particular piece of legislation because it makes public something that should be a private matter.

[booster11373]

And yet.................we have socialized medicine in this country all ready and in true to form fashion we do it the most expensive and inefficient way possible


Be poor and go to the ER without insurance ...................who pays then?

[Melissa the Accountant]

I'd just like to mention that you're acting like I said people who oppose change are amoral monsters when I never did.

It's true you never said that specifically. However, considering your overall wording, it's hard not to interpret your comments as a broad condemnation of anybody who opposes tossing the whole thing. I feel like you're going out of your way to be inflammatory and to detract from your opponents' credibility on a moral level to make your own argument seem more valid on a feel-good level even if you aren't providing any concrete facts as support. I figured your comments earlier set the tone for this as an insulting argument where we're supposed to use hyperbole and general demoralization techniques to make the other person seem bad, rather than arguing with real facts and figures. But I'll cut it out if that's not what you were after.

You are missing the point of that. The girl died because no one could pay for her treatment. That doesn't happen in other industrialized nations.

Oh, wow. I am surprised to hear that. No snarkiness there, I am actually really interested in that comment. Based on what I have heard from my friends who live or have lived in Canada or the UK, I had the strong impression that while you can get your care for free, nonemergency care and more serious procedures are harder to come by. But really, I don't live there and my knowledge is only hearsay from people I know who have dealt with it, who may have different expectations from a health care system. So yeah, you're right, I am guilty of just assuming that transplants and similar drastic care measures are just as inaccessible as the other stuff seems to be. So I'm now feeling more prepared to adjust my views a little if what you say is true. It just sounds shocking to hear that people in other countries never die for lack of an organ transplant. Can you share your source(s)? And I don't mean that in a confrontational way - I actually would like to read about it.

It's not unreasonbale to bring up but it is kind of immaterial to the point. ... Either people are going to value their own health or they aren't.

I thought the rest of your comments in that section seemed reasonable. But I don't completely get where you are coming from with this part. If people don't value their own health, why should the rest of society? I'm all for helping out the people who can't afford their regular checkups and who could stay healthy with routine preventive care. But as you said, that's completely apart from the issue of what people do in their private lives. But I still think it's valid to ask, if people don't care enough about their bodies to take care of themselves apart from that basic medical care, why is it someone else's responsibility?

I guess with that in mind, I do see your point more clearly now. I'd be completely supportive of a system that helped subsidize free basic preventive care for people who otherwise couldn't afford it. I am less supportive of using public funds to take care of people who are screwing their health up through poor lifestyle choices. So I guess I'd say that while I don't think "big brother" approaches to force people to take better care of themselves are valid whatsoever, I would be open to considering an incentive structured system that somehow rewarded people who do regular health checkups, participate in health screenings, and so on. Obviously that isn't a fleshed out solution. It's just the random thoughts I came up with while looking at this on my lunch break - need more time if I'm supposed to come up with something that actually seems workable. So please don't take it as being my hard and fast position on the matter.

By the way, this has been a pretty interesting argument even though we seem almost diametrically opposed.

[K.C.]

I am not dissing unions. I am dissing this particular piece of legislation because it makes public something that should be a private matter.

Fair enough, but the stripping the privacy part of it I think is better for the greater good in the long run, despite not being perfect.

It's my understanding that in quite a few cases, people looking to unionize will get more than enough support from their workers, and then when the time comes to vote, they'll receive far, far, less.

The implication is that the corporations are interfering and coercing people, who in turn have no problem selling out their co-workers, because it's a secret ballot.


Now granted, there could be coercion the other way on a non-secret ballot, but given the choice, I'd be more worried about corporate coercion than union coercion.


The documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost Of Low Prices has a pretty good example of this scenario playing out.

[Knowledged_one]

The fact is that there are many, probably most people who go without heathcare in the US. Also insurance companies are allowed to cherry pick who they provide services to. If the EFCA passes folks could create unions and force corporations to provide healthcare under an umbrella policy for all employees. If the US gov't provided a basic needs heathcare for its people then corporations supplemented the system thru quality insurance we would all be in better shape.

And do you know what would happen if companies were forced to provide healthcare they would ship even more jobs to foreign coutries where they wouldnt have to pay the health insurance

Not to mention provide free health care and watch the # of doctors drop in this country, their insurance premiums would go through the roof because with more people out there to be able to sue and my guess is those in lower income would be the ones to sue doctors over any problem would lead to the destruction of the free healthcare system

What we have isnt perfect but its better then most places

[K.C.]

Be poor and go to the ER without insurance ...................who pays then?

You can't be serious?

Being poor and going to the ER only works when you're seriously messed up. And even then, they'll only do what they have to do.



I find it funny that in the last eight years, we've heard a non-stop onslaught of 'patriotism' and the need to be patriotic, and yet there are a huge number of people in this country who don't have enough nationalistic pride to say "Hey, we can keep our citizens healthy in this country."

I don't particularly feel comfortable about potentially paying for someone who eats themselves to obesity and then has a whole host of health problems that they bilk a future universal health care system for.

And if there's a way to work around it, by all means, I'm for tweaking it.

But no one seems to think in terms of the greater good anymore, they just cherry pick examples of faults with something, and use that to strip the whole notion.

It's better to have people not worrying about what the hell they do when they or their children get sick.

[Melissa the Accountant]

Be poor and go to the ER without insurance ...................who pays then?

I don't know what all hospitals do, but we just write it off as "charity care". So you bring up a good point that actually kind of invalidates one of the core parts of my original argument against public health care - which is that coverage for people in that position would bog down the system when other people have to foot the bill. But I guess in an indirect way, the insured patients are already picking up the cost since to cover that care, because the hospital is often probably forced to raise its fees just to break even, which probably makes insurance premiums worse when the insurance companies get the bills.

Then again, I already decided through the course of the discussion that I was open to subsidizing costs for basic preventive care and for emergency care. I just am digging my heels in on being asked to help pay for it when other people didn't value their health enough to preserve it in the first place.

So...yeah. Lemme think on that for a while.

[K.C.]

And do you know what would happen if companies were forced to provide healthcare they would ship even more jobs to foreign coutries where they wouldnt have to pay the health insurance


Which is why you have universal health care with a supplemental/upgrade in healthcare from employers, so you at least have everyone covered, but allow for people who advance through their hard work to reap some benefits.

Hell, that should actually help companies. They could be more discerning in their health benefits, because there's not the pressure of coverage involved if there's a decent universal system in place.

The government foots the bill on a lot of needless bullshit. Nobody can tell me we can't afford universal healthcare.

[booster11373]

You can't be serious?

Being poor and going to the ER only works when you're seriously messed up. And even then, they'll only do what they have to do.



I find it funny that in the last eight years, we've heard a non-stop onslaught of 'patriotism' and the need to be patriotic, and yet there are a huge number of people in this country who don't have enough nationalistic pride to say "Hey, we can keep our citizens healthy in this country."

I don't particularly feel comfortable about potentially paying for someone who eats themselves to obesity and then has a whole host of health problems that they bilk a future universal health care system for.

And if there's a way to work around it, by all means, I'm for tweaking it.

But no one seems to think in terms of the greater good anymore, they just cherry pick examples of faults with something, and use that to strip the whole notion.

It's better to have people not worrying about what the hell they do when they or their children get sick.


Thats fine and I am serious

No matter the level of injury or treatment some kind of cost is generated so who pays it?

K.C. I think we are on the same side here

[Knowledged_one]

Which is why you have universal health care with a supplemental/upgrade in healthcare from employers, so you at least have everyone covered, but allow for people who advance through their hard work to reap some benefits.

Hell, that should actually help companies. They could be more discerning in their health benefits, because there's not the pressure of coverage involved if there's a decent universal system in place.

The government foots the bill on a lot of needless bullshit. Nobody can tell me we can't afford universal healthcare.

Trust me when i worked as a contratctor for teh DOD i paid out of my ass for any health insurance so if there is a way to do it i would be in favor but i think the cost would be passed onto the middle and upper class to support the lower class and i am not in favor of that

[K.C.]

Thats fine and I am serious

No matter the level of injury or treatment some kind of cost is generated so who pays it?

K.C. I think we are on the same side here

I assume the government picks up the tab now.

So yeah...what the hell's a little more...

Look at the frivolous bullshit we spend on right now.

Yeah, we are on the same side, I just misread a that post a little bit.

[K.C.]

Trust me when i worked as a contratctor for teh DOD i paid out of my ass for any health insurance so if there is a way to do it i would be in favor but i think the cost would be passed onto the middle and upper class to support the lower class and i am not in favor of that

I would have a hard time believing that you can't redistribute parts of the current budget to cover it.

But say you had to hike taxes a bit to pay for it. I could live with it, if the system can accomplish what it intends to do.



I'd use the same justification for it, that I use for welfare and medicaid right now...people who can get their basic needs met by society, are people who aren't going to disrupt society.

In theory, social programs provide security. People who can get by when they're down on their luck are people less likely to feel like their backs are against the wall, and cause criminal problems.


Now, I think there's a fine line between that, and being overly generous to the point where people lack the motivation to elevate themselves above those programs...but that's justification for continually tweaking these systems...not scrapping them completely.

[Zorro]

Fair enough, but the stripping the privacy part of it I think is better for the greater good in the long run, despite not being perfect.

It's my understanding that in quite a few cases, people looking to unionize will get more than enough support from their workers, and then when the time comes to vote, they'll receive far, far, less.

The implication is that the corporations are interfering and coercing people, who in turn have no problem selling out their co-workers, because it's a secret ballot.


Now granted, there could be coercion the other way on a non-secret ballot, but given the choice, I'd be more worried about corporate coercion than union coercion.


The documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost Of Low Prices has a pretty good example of this scenario playing out.

Thanks for making my point for me. What you've said is that when people are given the chance they sometimes don't vote the way you like. So, by taking away their rights you rig the result.

[Knowledged_one]

I would have a hard time believing that you can't redistribute parts of the current budget to cover it.

But say you had to hike taxes a bit to pay for it. I could live with it, if the system can accomplish what it intends to do.



I'd use the same justification for it, that I use for welfare and medicaid right now...people who can get their basic needs met by society, are people who aren't going to disrupt society.

In theory, social programs provide security. People who can get by when they're down on their luck are people less likely to feel like their backs are against the wall, and cause criminal problems.


Now, I think there's a fine line between that, and being overly generous to the point where people lack the motivation to elevate themselves above those programs...but that's justification for continually tweaking these systems...not scrapping them completely.

all i can say is plenty of times seeing escalades pulling up to the soup kitchens in Baltimore and getting free food

Another is the arguement about drug abuse in the inner cities, so they have money for drugs but not money to provide for their families. Which causes the cycle of getting them in trouble with the law or not being able to hold down a job to get health care. Or the fact that young youths look at drug dealing as the way out of the ghetto and look down at jobs where they could get healthcare.

And welfare why provide money to a woman who can't keep her legs closed and squeeze out mulitple kids to differnet fathers (and this is not just in the inner cities but the white trash in the midwest)

And again im not willing to have my taxes raised to pay for those who dont want to help themselves, its survival of the fittest and thats just how i look at it, which probably makes me look like a douche in a lot of peoples eyes

[K.C.]

Thanks for making my point for me. What you've said is that when people are given the chance they sometimes don't vote the way you like. So, by taking away their rights you rig the result.

There is a difference between that and people being coerced by the company not to do so.

The problem is that these companies all have union-breaking plans that involve exploiting the anonymity of the vote, by picking off certain people.

I'd really like to see how many incidents there would be of reverse-coercion from the union side. This isn't exactly 1950s Brooklyn.

[K.C.]

And again im not willing to have my taxes raised to pay for those who dont want to help themselves, its survival of the fittest and thats just how i look at it, which probably makes me look like a douche in a lot of peoples eyes

I can respect that argument, but I think it's in your economic interests to do it.

In a survival of the fittest world, people with nothing, are people who will do what they have to do to get something.

If it costs a little bit of coin to keep the streets in your neighborhood, your family, your property, and your business dealing safe...I think it helps you in the long run.

Just my opinion, though.

[Knowledged_one]

I can respect that argument, but I think it's in your economic interests to do it.

In a survival of the fittest world, people with nothing, are people who will do what they have to do to get something.

If it costs a little bit of coin to keep the streets in your neighborhood, your family, your property, and your business dealing safe...I think it helps you in the long run.

Just my opinion, though.

I just wanted to say i can respect your opinion and am glad that politics has been left out of this arguement

Your a good buddy

[Zorro]

There is a difference between that and people being coerced by the company no to do so.

The problem is that these companies all have union-breaking plans that involve exploiting the anonymity of the vote, by picking off certain people.

I'd really like to see how many incidents there would be of reverse-coercion from the union side. This isn't exactly 1950s Brooklyn.

Man, you're funny. It's ok to be coerced as long as its your side doing it.

[K.C.]

Man, you're funny. It's ok to be coerced as long as its your side doing it.

At what point did I ever say that?

You've put forth the implication that without the anonymity of the vote, the voters will be subjected to coercion by the union side.

I pretty much dispute that claim, and said I'd like to see exactly how many cases of that would actually happen.

My guess is very few if any.


Meanwhile with the current system, it's almost academic for a corporation to bust a union.

[Zorro]

At what point did I ever say that?

You've put forth the implication that without the anonymity of the vote, the voters will be subjected to coercion by the union side.

I pretty much dispute that claim, and said I'd like to see exactly how many cases of that would actually happen.

My guess is very few if any.


Meanwhile with the current system, it's almost academic for a corporation to bust a union.


You're silly.

[HBox]

I searched and searched but could not find that this liver girl story is anything more than urban myth. But what I did find was that in every "industrialized country" healthcare is rationed through a cost benefit analysis.

A simple google search will lead you to numerous stories of patients being denied healthcare because the "state" decided the treatment was too expensive.

Another simple google search will tell you that the average wait time for non-emergency surgey in Canada is 18.3 weeks http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/10/surgery-wait-times-in-canada-hit-record.html Pretty damn long to wait with cancer rolling around in your body. ...and Canada's population is one tenth the size of the US.

None of these other plans are a panacea and the American system seems to work well for about 85% of the country. So, let's not toss the baby with the bathwater.

Girl dies hours after liver transplant reconsidered. (http://writechic.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/girl-dies-as-cigna-insurance-reconsiders-denying-transplant/)

Took me 5 seconds to find it with google.

Canada is one country of many with nationalized health care, and that's not the kidn of system I'd want here anyway.

[HBox]

It's true you never said that specifically. However, considering your overall wording, it's hard not to interpret your comments as a broad condemnation of anybody who opposes tossing the whole thing. I feel like you're going out of your way to be inflammatory and to detract from your opponents' credibility on a moral level to make your own argument seem more valid on a feel-good level even if you aren't providing any concrete facts as support. I figured your comments earlier set the tone for this as an insulting argument where we're supposed to use hyperbole and general demoralization techniques to make the other person seem bad, rather than arguing with real facts and figures. But I'll cut it out if that's not what you were after.



Oh, wow. I am surprised to hear that. No snarkiness there, I am actually really interested in that comment. Based on what I have heard from my friends who live or have lived in Canada or the UK, I had the strong impression that while you can get your care for free, nonemergency care and more serious procedures are harder to come by. But really, I don't live there and my knowledge is only hearsay from people I know who have dealt with it, who may have different expectations from a health care system. So yeah, you're right, I am guilty of just assuming that transplants and similar drastic care measures are just as inaccessible as the other stuff seems to be. So I'm now feeling more prepared to adjust my views a little if what you say is true. It just sounds shocking to hear that people in other countries never die for lack of an organ transplant. Can you share your source(s)? And I don't mean that in a confrontational way - I actually would like to read about it.



I thought the rest of your comments in that section seemed reasonable. But I don't completely get where you are coming from with this part. If people don't value their own health, why should the rest of society? I'm all for helping out the people who can't afford their regular checkups and who could stay healthy with routine preventive care. But as you said, that's completely apart from the issue of what people do in their private lives. But I still think it's valid to ask, if people don't care enough about their bodies to take care of themselves apart from that basic medical care, why is it someone else's responsibility?

I guess with that in mind, I do see your point more clearly now. I'd be completely supportive of a system that helped subsidize free basic preventive care for people who otherwise couldn't afford it. I am less supportive of using public funds to take care of people who are screwing their health up through poor lifestyle choices. So I guess I'd say that while I don't think "big brother" approaches to force people to take better care of themselves are valid whatsoever, I would be open to considering an incentive structured system that somehow rewarded people who do regular health checkups, participate in health screenings, and so on. Obviously that isn't a fleshed out solution. It's just the random thoughts I came up with while looking at this on my lunch break - need more time if I'm supposed to come up with something that actually seems workable. So please don't take it as being my hard and fast position on the matter.

By the way, this has been a pretty interesting argument even though we seem almost diametrically opposed.

Apparently I'm coming off like an asshole when I don't mean to (except for that first guy.) I just have a lot personally invested in it. I wasn't ever trying to say that anyone who opposes a public system of some kind doesn't care at all. I was just following some things to their end, like if people don't value their health why should anyone else. Which makes sense but when put into action and pursued to its logical end means letting people die because they can't afford their treatment on their own. Nobody wants to see that happen. It's just a very cruel thing to let happen. It does suck but that's the world.

And I'm totally into that incentivized premium thing whether its public or private. If you're a two pack a day smoker who weighs 250 pounds you should definitely be paying a higher premium than a marathon runner.

I've seen some shitty shit in my life. Families with a child with a serious condition who have to cut back on their kids medicine because they can't afford all of it. It's just lousy. And that's what set me off initially, with the comment about high taxes and lousy care. You can take isolated examples and make any system look great or pathetic. But the fact is there are public systems worse and better than ours. Offhandedly dismissing all of them is foolish and is partly why we are still where we are, paying more and more for less and less, excluding more and more people every year and there's hasn't been a serious attempt to reform anything in almost 15 years. The inaction is a disgrace and its partly because of bogus demonization of public health systems. They aren't all bad.

[h8mtv]

Which is why you have universal health care with a supplemental/upgrade in healthcare from employers, so you at least have everyone covered, but allow for people who advance through their hard work to reap some benefits.

Hell, that should actually help companies. They could be more discerning in their health benefits, because there's not the pressure of coverage involved if there's a decent universal system in place.

The government foots the bill on a lot of needless bullshit. Nobody can tell me we can't afford universal healthcare.

Ding Ding.

Some people just do not realize how royally we are fucked by our health system (or lack of). If you look at the stats on how much better the cash at hand is spent in for example a V.A. Hospital rather than on the free market it only makes sense to go to a socialized healthcare plan. Did you know in the US is it illegal for drug companies to sell prescription product for less than retail to anyone other than V.A. hospitals? Why do you think you local doctors office gets 5-10 visits a week or more from drug companies. It is how much pay-ola they get that decides what they are hocking. Why does a doctors office need a dozen girls working behind the counter? To deal with the insurance companies. What do insurance companies do for a living? Try to deny claims! And they only want to give heath insurance to healthy people who will not cost them money. The system is fucked.

[Knowledged_one]

Ding Ding.

Some people just do not realize how royally we are fucked by our health system (or lack of). If you look at the stats on how much better the cash at hand is spent in for example a V.A. Hospital rather than on the free market it only makes sense to go to a socialized healthcare plan. Did you know in the US is it illegal for drug companies to sell prescription product for less than retail to anyone other than V.A. hospitals? Why do you think you local doctors office gets 5-10 visits a week or more from drug companies. It is how much pay-ola they get that decides what they are hocking. Why does a doctors office need a dozen girls working behind the counter? To deal with the insurance companies. What do insurance companies do for a living? Try to deny claims! And they only want to give heath insurance to healthy people who will not cost them money. The system is fucked.

DO you know how much it costs to develop and market a drug and how long it takes thats why it costs so much. And who are you to say whats to many people to work at a doctors office.

And thats not just who they give health insurance to you are not distinguishing between individual health care coverage and company health care coverage

[HBox]

DO you know how much it costs to develop and market a drug and how long it takes thats why it costs so much. And who are you to say whats to many people to work at a doctors office.

And thats not just who they give health insurance to you are not distinguishing between individual health care coverage and company health care coverage

When I was younger there was one and sometimes two people behind the desk at my doctor's office. Today there are more people working behind than all of the people working there to examine patients. It's a major reason why we pay twice the amount of money per capita than the next most expensive country. So yeah, I'm saying that's too much.

As for the drug thing, I've always been surprised that the people pushing that argument (which is pretty much true) don't mention that this country alone essentially is funding it. Shouldn't it be a bigger problem that we alone pretty much fund drug R&D for the world? Isn't that the bigger problem?

[Knowledged_one]

When I was younger there was one and sometimes two people behind the desk at my doctor's office. Today there are more people working behind than all of the people working there to examine patients. It's a major reason why we pay twice the amount of money per capita than the next most expensive country. So yeah, I'm saying that's too much.

As for the drug thing, I've always been surprised that the people pushing that argument (which is pretty much true) don't mention that this country alone essentially is funding it. Shouldn't it be a bigger problem that we alone pretty much fund drug R&D for the world? Isn't that the bigger problem?

Trust me i worked for a drug development company and its a huge deal with the fact that we fund drug research that the world benefits from, but on the other hand the number of people that have jobs because of it is something you have to consider. From teh biochemist to teh PK scientist, to the med writers, to the biochemistry people to the drug study people. And remember that the people who get put on these drugs get experimental treatments taht they can benefit from get the drug for life and actually get paid for it.

And the thing with doctors offices is a place i went to in indiana had 3 people, the doctor, the nurse, and the receptionist. The place i go to now has more because there is more then one doctor in teh office.

[Knowledged_one]

and one more thing if the world governments did more to curtail the selling of black market medication that the US develops then the price we pay would go down the US routinely file claims against countries about this, Africa is the main country that ignores our patents

[FezsAssistant]

I'm so sure you have first hand experience.

I have relatives in Ontario. I honestly do. Aunt, uncle, cousins.
The US Government can't handle ANYTHING responsibly or efficiently. How on earth do you expect them to run a health care system effectively?

I already have health care. I work for a living.

[h8mtv]

and one more thing if the world governments did more to curtail the selling of black market medication that the US develops then the price we pay would go down the US routinely file claims against countries about this, Africa is the main country that ignores our patents

I stated facts regarding drug companies. My blame is clearly pointed at the gov't and insurance companies. I can give a fuck about the drug companies, they are not the real problem here.

[Zorro]

When I was younger there was one and sometimes two people behind the desk at my doctor's office. Today there are more people working behind than all of the people working there to examine patients. It's a major reason why we pay twice the amount of money per capita than the next most expensive country. So yeah, I'm saying that's too much.

As for the drug thing, I've always been surprised that the people pushing that argument (which is pretty much true) don't mention that this country alone essentially is funding it. Shouldn't it be a bigger problem that we alone pretty much fund drug R&D for the world? Isn't that the bigger problem?

Always though the same thing about the drug stuff....

I can remember a time when each health insurance company had there own forms... sometime during Clinton they changed to a universal standard....(those red forms you see in the Doctor's office). This was the be all and end all of medical billing. By using one form we were going to wipe out confusion and make the world of medical billing simple...woops guess that didn't work.

[h8mtv]

Most of the folks who are against a socialized heathcare were also in favor of HMO's.

We need to get out of this war and get to work on saving this country.

[Melissa the Accountant]

Apparently I'm coming off like an asshole when I don't mean to (except for that first guy.) I just have a lot personally invested in it. I wasn't ever trying to say that anyone who opposes a public system of some kind doesn't care at all. I was just following some things to their end, like if people don't value their health why should anyone else. Which makes sense but when put into action and pursued to its logical end means letting people die because they can't afford their treatment on their own. Nobody wants to see that happen. It's just a very cruel thing to let happen. It does suck but that's the world.

And I'm totally into that incentivized premium thing whether its public or private. If you're a two pack a day smoker who weighs 250 pounds you should definitely be paying a higher premium than a marathon runner.

I've seen some shitty shit in my life. Families with a child with a serious condition who have to cut back on their kids medicine because they can't afford all of it. It's just lousy. And that's what set me off initially, with the comment about high taxes and lousy care. You can take isolated examples and make any system look great or pathetic. But the fact is there are public systems worse and better than ours. Offhandedly dismissing all of them is foolish and is partly why we are still where we are, paying more and more for less and less, excluding more and more people every year and there's hasn't been a serious attempt to reform anything in almost 15 years. The inaction is a disgrace and its partly because of bogus demonization of public health systems. They aren't all bad.

You know, it's funny...it was like we were on opposite sides at first, and then I read this and nodded all the way through. We are a lot closer in our perspectives than I realized at first - both favor partial subsidizing of health care, both don't want people to die needlessly, both favor a system that rewards positive lifestyle behavior (or at least absence of some notably unhealthy habits like smoking). And I completely understand how it is to get set off on a topic that you have a lot of personal investment in. For me, that hot button topic is autism, because it drives me nuts when people claim based on anecdotal garbage that it is a "proven fact", which it actually isn't, that autism is "caused" by vaccines. I get so worked up about it that when the topic has come up on the air before, I usually turn off the radio because I can barely stand to hear people make that claim without being able to argue with them about it.

I liked our discussion. You are feisty and fun to argue with and I like it that you aren't a wimp and that you are reasonable.

[TeeBone]

We need to get out of this war and get to work on saving this country.

Lemme guess...You are voting for, 'change.' :wallbash:

[Melissa the Accountant]

Lemme guess...You are voting for, 'change.' :wallbash:

Along that vein, I was driving down the road the other day and I saw a campaign sign for some local election that said something like "VOTE FOR THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO CARES ABOUT KANSAS CITY" and then the candidate's name, whoever it was, was printed too small to read from the street. So it's still a mystery which of our candidates cares about the community. But I better find out. Because, obviously, the other candidates totally don't.

[Zorro]

Most of the folks who are against a socialized heathcare were also in favor of HMO's.

We need to get out of this war and get to work on saving this country.

yeah man and after we socialize healthcare....we nationalize the oil companies cause they suck and then we take away rich peoples houses and move them into shared living facilities to conserve resources....and soon man the world will be like one big commune wth people singing and sharing and all races and all peoples will be as one...

[h8mtv]

Look here stupid, I am no hippie. I make good money and have the best heath care out there provided for me by the company i work for, thanks to my union. I want the same for everyone.

[booster11373]

yeah man and after we socialize healthcare....we nationalize the oil companies cause they suck and then we take away rich peoples houses and move them into shared living facilities to conserve resources....and soon man the world will be like one big commune wth people singing and sharing and all races and all peoples will be as one...

yeah thats exactly whats going to happen...............ugh

[Zorro]

Apparently I'm coming off like an asshole when I don't mean to (except for that first guy.) I just have a lot personally invested in it. I wasn't ever trying to say that anyone who opposes a public system of some kind doesn't care at all. I was just following some things to their end, like if people don't value their health why should anyone else. Which makes sense but when put into action and pursued to its logical end means letting people die because they can't afford their treatment on their own. Nobody wants to see that happen. It's just a very cruel thing to let happen. It does suck but that's the world.

And I'm totally into that incentivized premium thing whether its public or private. If you're a two pack a day smoker who weighs 250 pounds you should definitely be paying a higher premium than a marathon runner.

I've seen some shitty shit in my life. Families with a child with a serious condition who have to cut back on their kids medicine because they can't afford all of it. It's just lousy. And that's what set me off initially, with the comment about high taxes and lousy care. You can take isolated examples and make any system look great or pathetic. But the fact is there are public systems worse and better than ours. Offhandedly dismissing all of them is foolish and is partly why we are still where we are, paying more and more for less and less, excluding more and more people every year and there's hasn't been a serious attempt to reform anything in almost 15 years. The inaction is a disgrace and its partly because of bogus demonization of public health systems. They aren't all bad.

Nothing in this country gets reformed. Our system does not permit discussion of serious reform. The special interests have turned the government into RoboCop 3 where there are so many directives from so many different interests that the only possible outcome is inaction.

[h8mtv]

I will certainly agree with that. Paint the machine whatever color you like, the machine is in place.

[ChimneyFish]

Had to go to the ER a few months back, because I was having stabbing pains in the middle of my chest. Overnight stay.

I'm now $40,000 in debt to the hospital and the doctors.

I'm unemployed & uninsured.



With all that, I still don't have a clear opinion about how I feel on universal heathcare.



And I love your avatar, h8.

[Dash77]

I am generally a supporter of unions, but it seems awfullly un-american to take away an employees right to a secret ballot.

It doesn't do that, from my understanding it will allow for secret voting but it will by still applying the 51% logic, and if that many employees want to join a union they can with getting a contract in a fair time..

[HBox]

Interesting that i see this article after this discussion. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26077335/)

More than 80 percent of Americans think the U.S. health system needs either fundamental change or a complete overhaul, according to a survey released on Thursday.

...

In the poll, which surveyed a random sample of 1,004 U.S. adults in May, 32 percent agreed the system needed complete rebuilding, while 50 percent thought it required fundamental change.These views were similar regardless of income and insurance status, with 81 percent of those who were insured for the prior year and 89 percent who were uninsured during the prior year calling for either fundamental change or complete rebuilding.

...

Americans spend double what people in other industrialized countries do on health care, but often have more trouble seeing doctors (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26077335/#), are the victims of more errors and go without treatment more often.

[Knowledged_one]

Most of the folks who are against a socialized heathcare were also in favor of HMO's.

We need to get out of this war and get to work on saving this country.

what does getting out of the war have to do with health care at least keep things on topic

and what is it we are saving the country from

Your points are muddled and you flit from topic to topic

And i will state it clearly I will not have my taxes increased or have my premiums increased to pay for those who dont care enough to get a job and get health insurance

and calling someone stupid.........could you be anymore childish because he doesnt think the way you want him to think