?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Drilling

If Bush had pushed for more nuke plants, there would have been outrage.

If Bush had approved more offshore oil exploration and drilling, there would have been an apoplectic frenzy of rage.

Somehow, if Obama pushes these things through... it's all okay.

Those wars are still going on, by the way. Oh, but that's because Bush started them. Same with the bank bailouts.

Democrat president, democrats control house & senate... and we get more nuke plants, offshore drilling, TWO wars, bailouts of the financial sector, and a law forcing us to buy all-inclusive health insurance (abortions not included) from private insurance companies. Oh, and the Patriot (domestic spying) Act was renewed.

"But... are you saying you'd rather have Bush in there... Or McCain & Palin?!" There ya go, I just saved you some typing. No need to reply.

Tags:

Comments

( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
frieza
Apr. 1st, 2010 04:35 pm (UTC)
Your views on this are all very interesting... from my perspective, national health care isn't as bad a thing as you make out.

Here in the UK we have the NHS, it provides health care for everyone. Yes, even the poor can afford to get that lifesaving surgery. If you were poor in any other country you would just be left to die :)

At any rate, here in the UK we are losing it. Last year I had to spend quarter of a years worth of savings on my DENTIST BILL because dentists are all going private now and there are not as many on the NHS any more. This means my dentist bill = expensive. They can quite literally charge what the damn well they like.

So in my view, health care for all is no bad thing.

Sure, maybe taxes go up a wee bit, but the benefits pay dividends.


davidd
Apr. 2nd, 2010 12:13 am (UTC)
I Should Clarify: the American Plan is NOT About Health CARE


I agree with you completely, frieza. I would be whole-heartedly in support of national health care!

In the American debate, however, while the phrase "health care" is used liberally, what it actually means in mandatory health insurance. There is NO guarantee of access to care. There is no guarantee, despite the rhetoric, of "affordability."

The United States government has passed legislation requiring individuals to purchase health insurance from private companies, without setting caps on what those companies can charge. The "public option," a government-run "affordable" insurance (not "care") program, was removed from the final legislation.

From what I can see -- and you'll find little mention of this, even by the so-called "opponents" of the legislation -- the entire purpose behind this package is to mandate that everyone in America BUY an overpriced product from what amounts to a virtual monopoly -- there are not very many large-scale health insurance providers -- of insurance companies.

Are there provisions to train more doctors or health care professionals? No.

Are there provisions to assure timely access to quality care? No.

Are there provisions to cap premiums? No.

Are there fines if I elect to not purchase expensive insurance from a private company? YES.

The insurance companies have been granted free reign to do as they will by this legislation. Has "the quality of health care" ever been an issue in the United States? Not significantly. Are there steps in this legislation to require or produce better quality and more access to health care service? None at all.

It's a law to force people to buy insurance. That's it.

I would have no problem whatsoever if the government took the amount of money currently taken from my paycheck by private insurance companies and put it toward National Health Service clinics. I would strongly advocate for a "single payer" health care system.

This legislation is nothing like Britain's National Health Service; it is nothing like the Canadian health care system. Some critics claim this is a "transfer of wealth" scam, taking from the rich to give to illegal immigrants and lazy unemployed slackers. I am in complete agreement about the "transfer of wealth" claim, but not about where the wealth is being transferred. The wealth is being transferred from the poor schlubs who work for a living into the pockets of insurance giants and "health management organizations." It's another case of raping the poor to line the pockets of the already wealthy.

Were taxes to "go up a wee bit" to fund a true National Health Service with guaranteed access for all as needed, I would fully support the measure. But that's not what we have here.

What we have here is forced participation in profit-motivated private insurance, with NO GUARANTEES of access to care and no improvement in quality or quantity of care.

It's robbery at gunpoint, essentially. Hand your cash over to the rich people, or face fines or jail.

Most "health care" plans here don't cover dental either. Dental usually requires separate insurance.

Just like your dentists, the insurance companies here can "quite literally charge what the damn well they like." The difference is, you won't face fines or jail if you don't visit the dentist. I will now face fines or jail if I refuse to purchase insurance.

Good to hear from you, by the way. Beyond the dental issues, how are things? Are you still toughing it out at the All Girls School?

Edited at 2010-04-02 04:16 am (UTC)
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

November 2018
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars