IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@okie,

okie wrote:

For your information, national defense is a foremost duty of the federal government, ranked above entitlements, after all if we are not kept safe and alive, medical care will do us no good.

I'm sure you're not implying that everybody who is opposed to the Iraq war is opposed to national defense in general. I'm also sure that you'll agree that national defense won't do a lot for people who don't have access to medical care. Regarding your point about the "foremost duty of the federal government" - I have the feeling that a good part of the American population wouldn't have supported the invasion of Iraq if the federal government had made it clear that the cost of the war would be offset by cuts to, say, Medicare.

1 Reply

@okie,

Here are the questions posed by the "Your Life Your Choices" guide to determine if :
Life like this would be: difficult but acceptable, worth living but just barely, not worth living, or can't answer now.

Is this not bizarre, the government wants to know if you want to live if you are an emotional burden to the family, or if you don't always think clearly, or whatever. Just think, that ACORN rep. would probably not want to hear any conservative say he thinks clearly, he would probably say hey just fill in the blank that life isn't worth living, you are too much burden on everybody.
No wonder Bush threw it out, as it should have been, for good. The government has no business in this at all.

a. I can no longer walk but get around in a wheelchair.
b. I can no longer get outside"I spend all day at home.
c. I can no longer contribute to my family's well being.
d. I am in severe pain most of the time.
e. I have severe discomfort most of the time (such as
nausea, diarrhea, or shortness of breath).
f. I rely on a feeding tube to keep me alive.
g. I rely on a kidney dialysis machine to keep me alive.
h. I rely on a breathing machine to keep me alive.
i. I need someone to help take care of me all of time.
j. I can no longer control my bladder.
k. I can no longer control my bowels.
l. I live in a nursing home.
m. I can no longer think clearly-I am confused all the time.
n. I can no longer recognize family/friends
o. I can no longer talk and be understood by others.
p. My situation causes severe emotional burden for my
family (such as feeling worried or stressed all the time).
q. I am a severe financial burden on my family.
r. I cannot seem to “shake the blues.”
s. Other (write in):

http://www.ethics.va.gov/YLYC/YLYC_First_edition_20001001.pdf

2 Replies

@old europe,

Iraq was a tough decision, I respect those that opposed it at the outset, including Obama for that decision, at least he was consistent on that one point, and I have friends that opposed it. But Congress approved of it, and it is they that turned on their own decision merely for political spin and advantage against Bush, which was pathetic. I know the mantra Bush lied, I don't buy that, we've been through that a million times. All I am saying is that military expenditures are necessary and appropriate, we can argue on which action is the right one, but to want to spend nothing or very little on defense is silly. We actually spend alot less of our budget percentage wise than we did a few decades ago, so the argument that defense spending can be lessened to pay for massive new entitlements is simply not realistic at all in my opinion.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

All I am saying is that military expenditures are necessary and appropriate

In your opinion. Which is pretty much what I've been saying - that you don't so much have a problem with a trillion dollar debt caused by deficit spending, but rather with the notion that the money is being spent on something you disagree with.

0 Replies

@okie,

I'd like to know who you think is in a position to threaten the US, if we cut military spending.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:

It's a cartoon. It's meant to illustrate that many conservatives have no problem at all with multi-trillion-dollar government deficit spending, as long as they agree with what the money's being spent on.

You still support the Iraq War, don't you?

First of all, the term "deficit" generally refers to annual deficit, not national debt, which is the value calculated in trillions. To my knowledge, this is the first time the "deficit" has exceeded a trillion, so your statement is at least misleading if not totally false. Bush's deficits for the eight years combined will not equal Obama's in one single year.

Really?

Obama's planning on spending 5 Trillion dollars more than he takes in this year? That is scary!

Drunk

Luckily, it's also nonsense. Of course, I'm exaggerating too... under Bush we only came up $4,898,681,252,731.43 short during his tenure.

I guess somebody better tell Rush...

Debt as of January 20, 2001 = $5,728,195,796,181.57
Debt as of January 20, 2009 = $10,626,877,048,913.08

Source

I'll grant you he is off to a hell of a start, having boosted our debt $1,103,523,573,537.30 in just 8 months!

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Ah, but you see, the Republicans don't count the Iraq-Afghanistan wars against the budget deficit - because they weren't included in their budgets!

They don't count the money jacked from Social security as part of the deficit either - but to be fair, neither does the new group.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

i'd rather that everyone knew what my wishes were than to be used as a political tennis ball like Terri Schiavo.

that's what the government had no business in. or the church. not the parents. and sure as hell not the media whore Randall Terry.

something you fail to mention, is that that guy Towney? he's been pitching his own end of life pamphlet to replace the VA produced booklet.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Bill, it seems like there are conflicting numbers out there. Perhaps yours are correct, but this site indicates Bush averaged an annual deficit of about 300 billion through the first 7 years, which would not have racked up the 5 trillion because we know the last year did not rack up close to 3 trillion, thats for sure.

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html#avg-deficit

I may have mis-spoke on the 8 years, but it is probably true for a 4 year term, perhaps longer, as Obama is looking at 1.5 to 2 trillion approximately, I doubt anyone knows for sure yet.

0 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

DTOM, you are talking about feeding tubes, not whether you are an emotional or financial burden on others, or whether you are forgetful or think clearly, etc. By looking at some of the questions, I wonder if the vets administration would just as soon look for almost any reason for a vet to get out of the way and die. I wonder why they didn't include a question about if you are habitually tired or something like that? Sheesh! Actually they do have one about "can't shake the blues," huh, maybe its time to die for alot of people? And you can always come up with another reason under "other." That could cover alot of territory.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Here are the questions posed by the "Your Life Your Choices" guide to determine if :
Life like this would be: difficult but acceptable, worth living but just barely, not worth living, or can't answer now.
... ... ...

As far as I understand this 1997 publication, it's for "Advance Care Planning".

My father was the leading physician of an "old age hospital", 35 years ago.
In those days, all was more comlicated since they didn't have such informations.

But nowadays, every senior home asks such, since years, because they have to know how to handle with illnesses and needs of their residents.

0 Replies

Question for those who are interested, and advanced forgiveness asked if this has already been discussed. I read somewhere that the House progressives were considering proposing Medicare for all -- expanding Medicare to cover everyone, not just old people (no offense). On the face of it, it seems like this could solve two problems. Correct me if I'm wrong, but retirees do pay premiums to Medicare, just subsidized low premiums, right? Well if you all of a sudden had lots of younger people paying premiums too, but not using as much care as old folks, wouldn't that solve the coverage issue for the younger folks and possibly address the overruns issue for Medicare?

3 Replies

@FreeDuck,

That's one version of the single-payer system that has lots of conservatives up in arms. They scream about putting insurance companies out of business and having a socialist medical system in a capitalist country. No one has explained to me why medicine is a commodity that should be protected from government intrusion and what value the insurance companies bring to the process other than their own shareholders, overhead, and incomes. But, for some reason, we must protect our insurance companies from being taken out of the loop.

1 Reply

Health Care For Animals

This involves the conversion of a former health-care industry executive, who became sickened by the terrible treatment of the American public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/opinion/27kristof.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

0 Replies

@JPB,

Yeah, I don't get that argument. I mean, Medicare is already in place for older Americans and it's not putting insurance companies out of business. In fact, it's probably protecting their profits by (along with Medicaid) removing the undesirables from the insurance pool and leaving just the plum healthy customers. Of course, nothing obligates insurance companies to cover those people in the first place, but if there were no Medicare or Medicaid, I wonder how many people would bother with insurance at all if they knew they would just be dropped as soon as they got old enough or sick enough to actually require care.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

Yes, there is a House bill, H.R. 676, that would enact Medicare for all. It's not going anywhere these days, but yes, it's there.

Economically, I'm confident it would work. It is, after all, pretty much the same as the system they have in France and in Canada, where it does work.

Politically, I'm pretty sure it would fly with most voters. Medicare is popular -- which is why Republican propagandists like to confuse their readers about the fact it's a government program. Democrats should be able to find a majority of voters for extending Medicare to everyone, should they muster the will to find one.

But political will is exactly the problem. Somehow the group dynamics in Washington's political and journalistic class has intimidated liberal Democrats into thinking that the eighties still aren't over, Reaganism is still a winning ideology at the ballots, and Great Society programs can at best be maintained, but not dismantled.

Add to that a president who has been strangely unenthusiastic about even moderate health care reform ever since he started running for the job, and you can see why I think H.R. 676 is doomed.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Add to that a president who has been strangely unenthusiastic about even moderate health care reform ever since he started running for the job, and you can see why I think H.R. 676 is doomed.

Is this the impression you got? I knew he wasn't as good a choice as Clinton; but I didn't see healthcare reform as something he was only mildly interested in. I sure I can find some quotes where he names it the most important thing on his agenda, and the most important issue in America.

And I'm sure you're all sick of hearing this from me....but god damn, this president is truly disapointing me; and I went into this with very very very low expectations.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Add to that a president who has been strangely unenthusiastic about even moderate health care reform ever since he started running for the job, and you can see why I think H.R. 676 is doomed.

Is this the impression you got? I knew he wasn't as good a choice as Clinton; but I didn't see healthcare reform as something he was only mildly interested in. I sure I can find some quotes where he names it the most important thing on his agenda, and the most important issue in America.

And I'm sure you're all sick of hearing this from me....but god damn, this president is truly disapointing me; and I went into this with very very very low expectations.

Yes, I for one am sick of hearing you bitch about Obama.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

And I'm sure you're all sick of hearing this from me....but god damn, this president is truly disapointing me; and I went into this with very very very low expectations.

You are entitled to your disappointment. I am disappointed on some things but not enough to regret my choice and I think that many judgments are still very premature. I also think that Bush's legacy of power grabbing for the unitary executive has left us believing that the president is all-powerful.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Question for those who are interested, and advanced forgiveness asked if this has already been discussed. I read somewhere that the House progressives were considering proposing Medicare for all -- expanding Medicare to cover everyone, not just old people (no offense). On the face of it, it seems like this could solve two problems. Correct me if I'm wrong, but retirees do pay premiums to Medicare, just subsidized low premiums, right? Well if you all of a sudden had lots of younger people paying premiums too, but not using as much care as old folks, wouldn't that solve the coverage issue for the younger folks and possibly address the overruns issue for Medicare?

It's not just the House Progressives. Democrats are looking for a way to split the bill in the Senate, so that the 'public option' could be passed under budget reconciliation rules. The easiest way to accomplish this will be to expand medicare.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know