HEY GOP: Attacking Hillary Isn't a Health Plan

[lizzyj]

when even [http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_10_22/cover.html a magazine called "the american conservative" counsels] the republican presidential candidates that they can't live on hillary-hate alone, something is happening.

as nurses fighting for guaranteed healthcare, the california nurses association/national nurses organizing committee tracks this trend in terms of health policy. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rose-ann-demoro/memo-to-the-gop-stopping_b_69472.html i will let our executive director rose ann demoro sum it up: attacking hillary clinton is not a health plan.] you can click through to the full article, but here's a taste:

apparently taking their leadership from karl rove who warned that the republican candidates must focus on healthcare because the issue is "on the mind of a lot of swing voters," the republican candidates for president have now latched on to healthcare.

but in the true spirit of their mentor rove, it appears they think our biggest healthcare crisis is the potential election of hillary clinton.

hearing their fulminations about "socialized medicine" and "hillary care" almost makes you wonder what they've been drinking.

in a new report, george lakoff's rockridge institute aptly describes the approach of clinton and the other top tier democrats as the "neoliberal mode of thought" in its dubious reliance on regulation and technocratic changes to an industry that needs to be dismantled, not tweaked.

but at least clinton and company are talking about comprehensive reform. the republican candidates' healthcare policies recall the words attributed, probably erroneously, to marie antoinette whose infamous solution to mass shortages of bread was "let them eat cake."

...cross-posted at the [http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/blog national nurses organizing committee/california nurses association's] breakroom blog, as we organize to make 2007 the year of guaranteed healthcare on the single-payer model.

[FireStarterRN, BSN, RN]

Nazi Germany was a totalitarian regime.

Actually, Germany at that time WAS Socialist. Check the history... http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9055111/Nazi-Party

Now, as to healthcare reform, redistribution of wealth has never worked, i.e., socialism, communism, etc. Take away a person's incentive to better themselves through working harder, working smarter, struggling for self improvement, etc., only breeds corruption, complacancy and mediocracy. This is evident by the decline of the United States as we move further and further towards socialism.

Oh, is it now? Do you have concrete studies and evidence to cite for your statement?

I read a study that showed that 100% of violent felons eat bread, thus concluding that bread eating causes violent crime.

[pickledpepperRN]

I do NOT believe the people of the United States would elect a racist anti-Semite as President.

The government of Nazi Germany was a fascist, totalitarian state. I know it kept the name "socialist" when taking over that party but did NOT implement socialist policies when they had total power.

Quite the opposite. Nazi Germany took over corporations as tools of the regime. Some think the opposite is happening in the U.S.A., corporations are controling much of the government for profit and corporate power.

Fascism is a form of right-wing totalitarianism which emphasizes the subordination of the individual to advance the interests of the state.

In Nazi Germany information and ideas were effectively organized through the control of radio, the press, and education at all levels.

Nazi Germany did not provide healthcare to all residents. Quite the opposite.

Nazi fascism's ideology included a racial theory which denigrated "non-Aryans," extreme nationalism which called for the unification of all German-speaking peoples, the use of private paramilitary organizations to stifle dissent and terrorize opposition, and the centralization of decision-making by, and loyalty to, a single leader.

The Nazi dictator claimed to envision a corporative state socialism, but members of the party who supported such an economic system over private enterprise were purged from the party in 1934.

We the people must remain informed. We must not allow a dictator to take away our freedom.

To me ensuring access to healthcare is a good idea. Morally I cannot accept that people are allowed to do without basic human needs in my country without working to rectify what to me is wrong.

I don't think Ireland, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, France, Greece, Denmark, Great Britian, Japan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Costa Rica, Israel, Cyprus, Portugal, The Netherlands, Belgium, Iceland, and other countries that attempt ensure healthcare are nazi regimes.

Not even present day Germany.

[FireStarterRN, BSN, RN]

I don't think Ireland, Switzerland, Luxemburg, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Canada, France, Greece, Denmark, Great Britian, Japan, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Costa Rica, Israel, Cyprus, Portugal, The Netherlands, Belgium, Iceland, and other countries that attempt ensure healthcare are nazi regimes.

Not even present day Germany.

I believe the nations you cite by and large enjoy longer life expectancies than "The Greatest Nation on Earth".

[sharona97, BSN, RN]

Nazi Germany was a totalitarian regime.

Actually, Germany at that time WAS Socialist. Check the history... http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9055111/Nazi-Party

Now, as to healthcare reform, redistribution of wealth has never worked, i.e., socialism, communism, etc. Take away a person's incentive to better themselves through working harder, working smarter, struggling for self improvement, etc., only breeds corruption, complacancy and mediocracy. This is evident by the decline of the United States as we move further and further towards socialism.

Yosemite RN:

How can a battered woman, who now lives in a safe place with her children, working, saving for a place of their own, I.E. struggling for self improvement,

be categorized as breeding corruption, complacancy and mediocracy in this country?

[pickledpepperRN]

I have read SO MANY threads here at allnurses where nurses were once helped by food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, and charities. They went on to serve others in our most trusted and respected profession.

I do not belive sick people going to the doctor promotes curruption.

[CRNA2007]

Needing a little assistance is one thing, but cradle to grave health care at the expense of others is ridiculous. I provide fo rmy family and I expect others to provide for theirs. It is not my responsibility to provide my neighbors health care nor his to provide mine. If someone has to work 60 hours a week to make ends meet, then that is what they need to do. We simply cannot afford the "entitlements" in this country any more. If the democrats want to pay for children's health care (up to age 25 for now) then let them get the money from another program that already exists, but is a dismal failure. I'm sure there is more than one to choose from.

I have read SO MANY threads here at allnurses where nurses were once helped by food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, and charities. They went on to serve others in our most trusted and respected profession.

I do not belive sick people going to the doctor promotes curruption.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

needing a little assistance is one thing, but cradle to grave health care at the expense of others is ridiculous. i provide fo rmy family and i expect others to provide for theirs. it is not my responsibility to provide my neighbors health care nor his to provide mine. if someone has to work 60 hours a week to make ends meet, then that is what they need to do. we simply cannot afford the "entitlements" in this country any more. if the democrats want to pay for children's health care (up to age 25 for now) then let them get the money from another program that already exists, but is a dismal failure. i'm sure there is more than one to choose from.

the purpose of insurance is to spread the risk of loss that is beyond the capacity of any family to bear. your argument appears to indicate that you don't believe in the value of group insurance. the reality is that we are all only one illness or catastrophic injury away from bankruptcy.

please see:

the issue about what to do with the health-care system is sometimes presented as a technical argument about the merits of one kind of coverage over another or as an ideological argument about socialized versus private medicine. it is, instead, about a few very simple questions. do you think that this kind of redistribution of risk is a good idea? do you think that people whose genes predispose them to depression or cancer, or whose poverty complicates asthma or diabetes, or who get hit by a drunk driver, or who have to keep their mouths closed because their teeth are rotting ought to bear a greater share of the costs of their health care than those of us who are lucky enough to escape such misfortunes? in the rest of the industrialized world, it is assumed that the more equally and widely the burdens of illness are shared, the better off the population as a whole is likely to be. the reason the united states has forty-five million people without coverage is that its health-care policy is in the hands of people who disagree, and who regard health insurance not as the solution but as the problem.

source: http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_08_29_a_hazard.html accessed 10/28/2007.

self sufficiency is a good goal. however, we all live in society together. at some level we have a mutual and shared responsibility to each other to establish social conditions that facilitate the maximum opportunity for success. good health is a key condition.

i challenge everyone to read:

it will challenge all of your assumptions about health care and shared responsibility.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

[CRNA2007]

Group insurance is fine I just don't want to pay for someone else's insurance. Like I reiterated there is no reason all you advocating universal health care cannot break out your checkbooks today and send the money to the federal government. So when you can show me your cancelled checks then we can have a meaningful discussion on the topic. I want all of you advocating single payer system to start sending $300/month to the federal government to pay for someone else's health care prescription drugs and what not.

The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk of loss that is beyond the capacity of any family to bear. Your argument appears to indicate that you don't believe in the value of group insurance. The reality is that we are all only one illness or catastrophic injury away from bankruptcy.

[pickledpepperRN]

Group insurance is fine I just don't want to pay for someone else's insurance. Like I reiterated there is no reason all you advocating universal health care cannot break out your checkbooks today and send the money to the federal government. So when you can show me your cancelled checks then we can have a meaningful discussion on the topic. I want all of you advocating single payer system to start sending $300/month to the federal government to pay for someone else's health care prescription drugs and what not.

:rotfl::roll:roll:chuckle:rotfl::roll:chuckle:

The government does not have a single payer system yet, silly.

Seriously, that is why people like me contribute money and time to free clinics and missions.

I sometimes volunteer at the Union Rescue Mission. Many veterans are homeless. Often after head injuries.- http://www.urm.org/site/c.hqLQI1OCKnF/b.2056303/k.C88C/Emergency_Services.htm

The Los Angeles Free Clinic used to be located on Fairfax. As a volunteer I learned to take vital signs there in 1968 - http://www.lafreeclinic.org/who.htm

[FireStarterRN, BSN, RN]

Group insurance is fine I just don't want to pay for someone else's insurance. Like I reiterated there is no reason all you advocating universal health care cannot break out your checkbooks today and send the money to the federal government. So when you can show me your cancelled checks then we can have a meaningful discussion on the topic. I want all of you advocating single payer system to start sending $300/month to the federal government to pay for someone else's health care prescription drugs and what not.

I'll do that as soon as you send your check in to support the Iraq war effort, the funding of roads and bridges, the FDA, the U.N., CDC, student loans and grants programs, school lunch program, food stamps, etc and so forth...

[pickledpepperRN]

I'm looking at my most recent pay stub. Federal income withholding was $591.71.

This does not include Medicare or social security insurance which totaled $334.92. I am glad to pay for these insurance programs. I may die and never collect Social Security or use Medicare health insurance. If that happens other Americans will benefit from my participation.

Then again I may live to 100. Hopefully then I won't have to die homeless on the street because SS and Medicare will allow for basic needs.

So why not let working people buy into Medicare?

It is much more efficient already than private insurance.