We have the best health care system in the world. It's so good that far to many of our own citizens can't afford to use it. So, from a public health stand point....how useful is that amazing system?
You are absolutely correct. it amazes me how those who are against the new health care plan can say those who are on medicaid are lazy and don't want to work when actually these people (the working poor) qualify for medicaid because they don't make much to pay for the high cost of insurance. then there are those who have jobs and they don't qualify for medicaid and they can't afford health insurance so they go without medical insurance.
I just don't understand how could ANYONE be against health insurance coverage for all americans? Good Jesus!
sure, it's a concern, but it doesn't mean they shouldn't have kids. lack of money (and no, i am not implying the homeless who can't afford to have children) should not be a consideration for having or not having children. why? because it is all transitory. money can be here today and gone tomorrow. hasn't this economy proven how you can feel comfortable, have money in savings, have money for retirement, and then poof, it is all gone? i worked in child welfare, so i have my own ideas about who shouldn't be having children, but that's a whole other discussion.
the bucks required to afford children (i agree) are totally exaggerated. but back to the community question....immediate family comes first, then extended family, and then community. that's how the world is supposed to work. it also prevents government involvement. if those who are blessed with more wealth and abundance look out for others (set up organizations to provide services and assistance for those in need), and see it as their obligation to help those less fortunate, then it works. it is not mandated. some communities are star models of this type of system. i don't think people who get help from these type of places are leeches on the system or should not be having children. children are our contribution to the world (and it is our obligation to bring them up properly in order for them to contribute positively to the world).
children are not always a contribution. in todays society some are often further drains on an already struggling economy, school system, and welfare system. and as i said before, if you cannot provide for your children, you have no business having them just to pawn the responsibility off to more responsible individuals and families.
we have the best health care system in the world. it's so good that far to many of our own citizens can't afford to use it. so, from a public health stand point....how useful is that amazing system?
unfortunately our health care system is the exception to the rule that "you get what you pay for". most of our physicians are more interested in making the most money they possibly can, rather than taking the best care of patients they can, and they don't want to put themselves out doing it! so the concept of the hospitalist was born of the reticence staff physicians have regarding 24 hour responsibility for the care of their patients; and the least educationally prepared of the profession (usually family physicians) see far too many acutely ill patients of many diverse doctors who are surgeons, nephrologists, endocrinologists, neurologists, etc.
those doctors are given no records from past years of care given their patients, have no idea what reaction to past treatments have occurred, reinventing the wobbly wheel to unique tendencies somepeople have when confronted by medications (under or over reactions). also pharmacies, in an effort to rise to the profit level of other departments (even when the facility is called non-profit), keep their formularies to a bare minimum of the lowest priced drugs and refuse to order medications patients have taken successfully for 30+ years (me).
if you haven't seen michael moore's movie "sicko" or visited hospitals in at least 10 other countries, and read research papers about the effectiveness of care there, you just cannot say we have "the best health care system in the world", and expect credibility!
you are absolutely correct. it amazes me how those who are against the new health care plan can say those who are on medicaid are lazy and don't want to work when actually these people (the working poor) qualify for medicaid because they don't make much to pay for the high cost of insurance. then there are those who have jobs and they don't qualify for medicaid and they can't afford health insurance so they go without medical insurance.
i just don't understand how could anyone be against health insurance coverage for all americans? good jesus!
those who object to the passage of the reform of health care and insurance act aren't "against health insurance coverage for all americans". they just don't want anyone who is sick and too disabled to work, or those who are enforced cafregivers of them (their families) to be availed of tax money for it! they evidently don't have as much despair regarding the billions poured into foreign countries :usarm: that certainly haven't any resources to actually attack the usa, and haven't been proven to actually have funded the 9-11 disasters. it's our "friend" saudi arabia that has and still does fund the recruitment and training of anti-american terrorism! (that has been proven.) with friends like that, who needs enemies?
it's the concept, those folks say, of others benefiting from their hard labor, to which they object, :gtch:as that makes health care become a "right", in this country. oh, please! that's faulty rhetoric masking selfishness!!! we belong to the family of human beings, and as such have responsibility for the health of us all. there was a research project done at stanford university in the '70s, wherein students of theology were paid to deliver a sermon at a hall across the campus, about the "parable of the good samaritan", at a time that wouldn't allow any tarrying to get there. 100% of all those students were confronted with fallen fellow students seizing, writhing in pain, etc. on the path they used, and did not stop to offer aid for them.
the purpose of that study was to demonstrate peoples' compulsion to obey orders (in an effort to explain german citizens' lack of rebellion against hitler during ww ii). what i think it also proved, was how selfish people, even religion enthusiasts can be! another part of that project placed paid students in "teacher" roles in classrooms wherein any student who gave the wrong or no answer to a question on the script they were given, was to receive progressively stronger electrical shocks by the "teacher". even though the "shocked" students were crying out in pain following the very powerful electrical charges they received from their "teacher", and the hesitance that person expressed to the researcher accompanying them and telling them to deliver the electrical charges, most continued to administer them as ordered. luckily the writhing, screaming "students" were actors.....
those 2 experiments convinced me of the cruelty people can exhibit toward others, for their own cause (payment).
Children are not always a contribution. In todays society some are often further drains on an already struggling economy, school system, and welfare system. And as I said before, if you cannot provide for your children, you have no business having them just to pawn the responsibility off to more responsible individuals and families.
So what is the young family who live next door to do after they have 1+ children and he then loses his job and "can't afford to have children"? She is pregnant and diabetic. She'd left her job with the advent of the second pregnancy and his job (until he was laid off) paid enough for her to stay home with the children. What's your suggestion for them? Unemployment pays the mortgage, but doesn't pay the exorbitant prices that they'd have to pay for COBRA.
So what is the young family who live next door to do after they have 1+ children and he then loses his job and "can't afford to have children"? She is pregnant and diabetic. She'd left her job with the advent of the second pregnancy and his job (until he was laid off) paid enough for her to stay home with the children. What's your suggestion for them? Unemployment pays the mortgage, but doesn't pay the exorbitant prices that they'd have to pay for COBRA.
I say they should have thought about that especially in this economy. Not many people have "safe" jobs right now with the way things are going. Lack of foresight is something, unfortunately, a lot of people do not posses. But that is their problem and should not be shared with others who have taken a safe and responsible approach to having children. Nothing in your post would be the fault of anyone but the people themselves.
What would you have done differently, in the above situation if you could possibly have had the foresight that the economy would tank, as it did?
I guess no one should ever get pregnant without enough money saved to support them as they walk jobless through life, paying the known and even higher future high prices for medical care if catastrophic illness occurs, pay ever increasing college tuition for however many children you may have.
There are no guarantees in life. We can't anticipate anything that could tip our personal "applecarts". The only thing we can hope to be is flexible, resourceful and brave, able to take whatever life hands us intelligently, energetically, and lovingly.
As much as I agreed with your earlier posts, I have to agree with lamazeteacher here. You can only plan for so much, and have at least 18 years to plan for. A lot can happen. I also believe that it's never the child's fault, and that some leeway is needed. Be it tax credits for insurance or whatever, a child needs to be taken care of. That is not to release the parent of responsibility, but until they get back on their feet, the parents should be given a helping hand.
This might sound like I'm contradicting my other posts, but I'm not. I believe in a hand UP, not a hand OUT.
What would you have done differently, in the above situation if you could possibly have had the foresight that the economy would tank, as it did?
I guess no one should ever get pregnant without enough money saved to support them as they walk jobless through life, paying the known and even higher future high prices for medical care if catastrophic illness occurs, pay ever increasing college tuition for however many children you may have.
There are no guarantees in life. We can't anticipate anything that could tip our personal "applecarts". The only thing we can hope to be is flexible, resourceful and brave, able to take whatever life hands us intelligently, energetically, and lovingly.
Im not saying its a fool proof plan. But Id rather people plan ahead and something fall through then to never plan at all and hop on the system's teet right away. People living slightly below their means is a start to getting through tough times and even to plan ahead. It seems the more people make the more the spend and its stupid and irresponsible. You cant tell what the future will bring, nobody can. But, you can plan as best as you can for it and look at some pit falls that may happen in the future. Chance favors the prepared, and hoping for the best but preparing for the worst is a safe way to get through life IMO. I never go into something wanting it to go bad, but I prepare myself as if its going to happen that way my wife, my child, and I will be comfortable for quite some time before we are hitting the wall.
As much as I agreed with your earlier posts, I have to agree with lamazeteacher here. You can only plan for so much, and have at least 18 years to plan for. A lot can happen. I also believe that it's never the child's fault, and that some leeway is needed. Be it tax credits for insurance or whatever, a child needs to be taken care of. That is not to release the parent of responsibility, but until they get back on their feet, the parents should be given a helping hand.
This might sound like I'm contradicting my other posts, but I'm not. I believe in a hand UP, not a hand OUT.
I agree. The problem is where to draw the line. And thats why we are going in to social health care. Too many people have had their hands out and weaker individuals give in to their sorrows. Well they just continue to milk it till the well is dry. And there are millions of people doing that right now. So I do agree helping people should be something we do, but there needs to be lines drawn on who qualifies for "help" and more importantly set deadlines for how long they can receive it.
I agree. The problem is where to draw the line. And thats why we are going in to social health care. Too many people have had their hands out and weaker individuals give in to their sorrows. Well they just continue to milk it till the well is dry. And there are millions of people doing that right now. So I do agree helping people should be something we do, but there needs to be lines drawn on who qualifies for "help" and more importantly set deadlines for how long they can receive it.
The system has drawn lines to prevent over-utilization of assistance programs, and they're very severe. Incomes for those who get food stamps or medicaid/medical, have to be below $14,000/year. Applicants' bank accounts are checked, documentation of all income is required, and the amount determined according to how many people live in the home of those who apply; and whether those cohabiting can contribute to the income, etc.
There is a move in some states, to have recipients work at some level, but with the jobless rate what it is, that can't take work from those seeking employment. The "Workforce" facilities (used to be called "unemployment") have lists of those people on unemployment, for prospective employers. I do recall contacting some of them who were certified NAs, and they never returned my calls, so I reported them to the counselors there. There is a requirement for those getting unemployment payments, to actively seek work.
When disability is the reason for not working there are various agencies tracking and keeping watch over thoswe receiving payments on that program, as well as workers' compensation. My sister (who isn't a nurse) was an investigator in Canada with Equifax, who looked into those people suspected of abusing the system. She said that she found more people who were justified in taking assistance there....... and she had some stories to tell about those who weren't. I think nurses do that here, and that qualification may not be necessary.
No, no, and no. When I've been sick I have never once thought "Hey, I better go to canada." It may be free, but what good does it do when you have to wait a really long time to actually see the doctor. What is it weeks, months? A lot can happen in that time. And fyi nothing is free, we have to pay for it somewhere.
No, no, and no. When I've been sick I have never once thought "Hey, I better go to Canada." It may be free, but what good does it do when you have to wait a really long time to actually see the doctor. What is it weeks, months? A lot can happen in that time. And fyi nothing is free, we have to pay for it somewhere.
Lauren:
I'm from Canada, and have family members who are still there. My 82 year old sister living there had spinal surgery 4 months ago, and is seen quite frequently now, by her surgeon, pain specialists, and physical therapists making home visits. She got every bit of care that Americans do here (and possibly better), and saw her physicians sooner than she might have, here. our American doctors take more time off and don't work in clinics in the evenings, as Canadian doctors do.
It's not easy to get on Canada's health care program. You do have to live and work there at least 6 months, to receive that benefit. When people in Canada need to see a doctor, they see one according to their condition. When it is urgent, they're seen immediately, and certainly not in an ER unless that's appropriate.
You've heard proganda propagated by physicians who are afraid they'll earn less if we had a system like theirs. Doctors there earn a good salary and live well, just not as opulently as physicians here in the USA do. They don't get sued as often, as mistakes as glaring as many that happen in the USA just don't happen there. Canadians are astounded when they hear that the wrong breast, leg or organ has been removed, or the wrong patient received the surgery intended for someone else, in this country. Standards are upheld better, there.
It's true that percentage wise, Canadian residents pay higher taxes than we do, but that's mainly because we have more tax deductions than they do. We can deduct the interest paid to mortgages, part of the cost of meals for business purposes, business travel, etc. They can't. So you can imagine what the amount deducted by very rich people for their mortgages on palatial homes, might be!
luckily the writhing, screaming "students" were actors.....
dblpn
385 Posts
We have the best health care system in the world. It's so good that far to many of our own citizens can't afford to use it. So, from a public health stand point....how useful is that amazing system?
You are absolutely correct. it amazes me how those who are against the new health care plan can say those who are on medicaid are lazy and don't want to work when actually these people (the working poor) qualify for medicaid because they don't make much to pay for the high cost of insurance. then there are those who have jobs and they don't qualify for medicaid and they can't afford health insurance so they go without medical insurance.
I just don't understand how could ANYONE be against health insurance coverage for all americans? Good Jesus!