Hard News: America: Chill out!
153 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Newer→ Last
-
Just kicking off ...
-
Russell - Hillary Clinton has two lls. We Hil(l)arys are sensitive about these things. You probably understand.
-
Fixed!
And yeah, that guy from the Greens really needs to learn to spell his name ...
-
They need a (Sir) Walter Nash. I reckon if he was still around he would have told them to naff off wirh the honorific BTW. He was an establishment figure who believed in equality. Almost as if Ted Kennedy had been made president. Americans seem to believe that ensuring people don't die is socialism but also seem to think that they are the most friendly people on the planet. "Hi there. I want to be your friend. You seem to have cut your leg off. Don't ask me to help. Have you got any money?". It all leaves me a bit cold.
-
An appropriate moment to link to this gem from The Onion, I feel.
-
Obama just making his way to the stage.
-
How the rest of the world views the USA under Bush: "We like you as a people, but your President sucks."
How the rest of the world views the USA under Obama: "Your President is ace, but WTF is wrong with you people!"
-
Man. They so need a Walter Nash. And a Mickey Savage, for that matter. And a Peter Fraser. And a Harry Holland ...
Come to think of it, so do we.
-
"I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink."
"We did not come here just to clean up crises -- we came here to build a future"
-
I'm constantly amused (bemused, mebbe?) by how the Yanks have been so thoroughly conditioned to reject "socialised" medical care, as though it will somehow lead to worse outcomes for a majority of the population.
Is there something in the water over there? Or do they actually, honestly, not understand that for the majority of insured people (I won't even get into the 1/6 of the population who have no insurance at all) their carrier will do its utmost to weasle out of paying for anything more expensive than a consultation? Assuming they even pay for that much, of course.
Sure, most countries with socialised health systems have longer wait times than the US. That's largely an acceptable trade-off (though I'm less than convinced about some of the queues we have here) for getting care, when you need it, with no fuckery on the part of "the system" as to whether or not the care will actually be provided. I'll take that with great pleasure when faced with an alternative that involves the private sector getting to say "yay" or "nay" to me being treated.
-
Sure, most countries with socialised health systems have longer wait times than the US.
He just cited a couple of anecdotes about health insurers delaying treatment for cancer patients. Socialised systems don't do that ...
-
A large part of the problem remains the crazy-assed way they legislate over there.
Yeah, those Founding Fathers really screwed the pooch with their bi-cameral Legislature and separation of the Executive branch jibber-jabber.
I feel for Barney Frank refusing to engage with the furniture, but the responsibility for this particular hairball of crazy is much closer to the present day.
Meanwhile, I've got to agree with Andrew Sullivan here:
I don't find the opposition to reform somehow illegitimate. There are many reasons to criticize the plans now congealing; and the end-result looks to me more and more like a simple extension of healthcare security to a lot of people without any real or strong mechanisms to curtail the soaring costs that are bankrupting the country and putting so much strain on US business. Of course, I belong in that archaic camp that believes it is the job of a liberal president to expand such coverage and the job of a conservative opposition to propose ways to afford it.
Instead, the chairman of the GOP is making the Republican position on Medicare indistinguishable from the most cynical Democratic scare tactics, and complaining about any attempt to curtail costs. If you have to strip out of a bill a mere conversation with seniors about powers-of-attorney for end-of-life decisions, you are not interested in a serious conversation about curtailing healthcare costs.
{...}If we had a functional and serious conservative movement in this country - instead of a Poujadist mob of cynical know-nothings - we would be talking about the kind of questions David Goldhill discusses in the best single piece on the debate I have yet read - the cover-story in the current Atlantic. We'd be talking about re-thinking the insurance model for large parts of medical care, we'd be cutting subsidies for employers, we'd be empowering patients to seek better coverage with better value and providing the tools to help them make informed decisions. Instead, we're talking Hitler and Oligarhy and "taking the country back".
-
"Put simply, our healthcare problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close."
-
I heard somewhere on the BBC that over 60% of personal bankruptcies in the USA are the result of healthcare costs. I suppose that is the Price of Freedom.
-
Oh, sure, the insurers in the US are total fuckers. But don't think that NZ doesn't have delays in treating cancer patients. Flights to Australia for chemo ring any bells?
Right now a friend is waiting for an MRI to determine if a cyst detected with an ultrasound is a tumour. The radiologist certainly thinks it's not good. But, because it only might be cancer she gets bumped down the MRI queue (currently scheduled for a fortnight away, after the ultrasound last week) by people who do have cancer. That's not necessarily wise, since at least the people who are known to have cancer are also getting treated for it. While she waits, she's potentially got untreated cancer growth.
-
Yeah, those Founding Fathers really screwed the pooch with their bi-cameral Legislature and separation of the Executive branch jibber-jabber.
I think you can distinguish between the separation of powers and the practice they've developed around making law, though. It's really broken.
-
That's not necessarily wise, since at least the people who are known to have cancer are also getting treated for it. While she waits, she's potentially got untreated cancer growth.
That's not great, certainly. But Obama cited the case of a man whose chemo was stopped y his insurer because he had undeclared gallstones (which he hadn't even known about). He died.
-
3410,
He just cited a couple of anecdotes about health insurers delaying treatment for cancer patients. Socialised systems don't do that ...
Not sure that that's quite true.
-
I think you can distinguish between the separation of powers and the practice they've developed around making law, though. It's really broken.
There's certainly an argument to be made on that front, but I wouldn't over-state the influence that has on the vehemence and lack of substance of the health care debate. The same system has existed for any number of legislative debates that were contentious without getting this bug-shit "Comrade Adolf Obama is going to death panel Grandma" insane.
-
hey Russ - what are the wingnuts saying?
-
There's certainly an argument to be made on that front, but I wouldn't over-state the influence that has on the vehemence and lack of substance of the health care debate.
OTOH, the House Democrats in particular messed up the stimulus bill with special-interest add-ons.
-
Public option is McCain's 08 proposal -- it'll kick in if people lose coverage while they're sick.
-
He just threw illegal immigrants under the bus + "no federal funding for abortions".
Sigh ... America.
-
"Put simply, our healthcare problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close."
I would have thought military and prison spending came close, though prison spending is probably hidden in state budgets.
-
He just cited a couple of anecdotes about health insurers delaying treatment for cancer patients. Socialised systems don't do that ...
Not sure that that's quite true.
A socialised system will delay your treatment by means of a waiting list, citing resource constraints. That's why it isn't enough to have a socialised system, you need the political will to fund it and run it in a way that is consistent with its mission statement.
I've had the experience this year of being scheduled for a specialist appointment three months hence, with the built in expectation that in the meantime I'd get so sick I'd probably have to go through A&E. It didn't exactly fill me with confidence in the public system (although the solution to me always goes through making private provision illegal. That's step one.)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.