Well Bill, I appreciate your having the courage to at least tell it like it really is. Since the subject of racism (and how it may be effecting the health care debate) has already been introduced, I'll throw in some of my own feelings on the matter.

I cannot fathom how any Black man, regardless of base ideology, could embrace, defend, and apologize for, the current state of the Republican party. With it's not so recent shift to the far right, it's clear 'write-off' of minority support from any quarter, it's shrill racist rhetoric, it's regressive policies, it's anti-intellectualism (parents pulling kids out of school so they don't have to listen to the president telling them to stay in school and strive for excellence - never happened before with any other president), congressmen disrespecting the office of the president in unprecedented ways, extreme racist posters and signs freely exhibited at nearly every Republican rally,....and the list goes on. How, oh how, could any Black man with even an ounce of self-esteem, embrace a party that so clearly wants no part of them.

If anyone points to shills like Joe Watkins and Ron whats-his-name, all I can say is, puuuullllllease. And oh yeah, Micheal Steele. What a joke. If he actually thinks he's in charge of the Republican party, he must have an IQ of 20. When the 'head' of the party has to apologize to Rush Limbaugh, I think that says it all.

Although the President doesn't want to have this conversation at this time (a clear distraction to the task of passing important legislation), there is no denying the truth of former President Jimmy Carter's (still a man of honor, regardless to how you may view his presidency) take on the role of race in the current health care debate.

Personally, I hope the Republican party does stop the trend towards being the party of right-wing nutcases, and starts to become more inclusive. We need a two-party system in order for democracy to work properly in this country. But when one party is taken over by the lunatic fringe and there is zero tolerance for compromise or even reasoned debate, what chance do we have to solve some of the problems that face this great nation.

As a former officer in the military, I have excellent health coverage and will for life. Millions of my fellow Americans do not. In the richest country in the world, this is unacceptable. Clearly, changes in the health care system need to be made. Let's at least give the President and the Congress a chance to improve the current system. Didn't a majority of people in this country put him in office for the express purpose of effecting change?

chas

The Steele thing baffles me with regard to how this plays out. I think they appointed him as GOP head as a clear response to Obama's election. But then the party elders, mostly old white guys, cut him off at the knees early on with the Limbaugh stuff.

I don't think for one moment the Rep. party has long term plans for Steele to retain his leadership post. I think he was short term "window dressing" and if the Obama Administration/Dems looks to do well in the mid term elections then he's an easy guy to kick to the curb. I predict they will then bring in a fire breathing, bible banging ass kicker of the enth degree to whip up the right.

I don't view as credible any serious attempt to court minority votes from the Right. Its easier to expand the base of the Republican party that to grow around the edges.

The party of inclusion? Room for everybody under our tent? I haven't seen anything that suggest those are anything more than cheap phrases. Blacks, Hispanics, GLBT's, etc. imo, are too much trouble to court when the GOP can just rustle up some good old fashioned fear to expand their base. Which I think is the exact wrong thing to do.

If I was head of the GOP I would appeal to the Indy voters, many in traditional conservative areas and woo them back into the fold. The attacks on Obama are too shrill, too crass for many mainstream people's taste. Calm the message down, focus on spending and the budget and actually come up with some good plans. That would bring many of the Indies back into the fold next election cycle.

There is precedent for Congressmen to heckle, boo, etc the President during congressional speeches. Where the Joe Wilson thing does differ from anything before it was his outward name calling. To mumble as part of a group with little actual verbage is one thing, to shout "You Lie" loud enough for everyone to hear is a different thing.

The Carter thing-I'm conflicted on. While a much better human than a president, he's been around long enough to know what his comments would do. He knows Obama doesn't need the distraction, yet he did it anyway. Sometimes I think Carter, almost shrewdly, positions and inserts himself into current events as they suit, in his mind, his needs.

He should probably be quiet for now...

Thank you for your service...


------------------
Bill in Dayton


[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 09-20-2009).]

I believe that the defense of a country, the education of its' citizens, and the health of those citizens is the tripod that supports the nation. Ignore any one of those things, and the nation will inevitably topple.

Currently, though only the DEFENSE of this country is universal. The Armed Forces make no distinction between poor and rich. The land and property of ALL its' citizens is equally defended. We don't have the Army only protecting rich people's land. This Land is OUR Land....

Unfortunately, the education of its' citizens and the health of the nation is in the hands of private 'for profit' corporations. And what is the PRIMARY goal of a corporation..? Yep. PROFIT. If it is more profitable to only cover the few the proud, the rich, that is what will happen. If it is more profitable to only educate the rich, that is what will happen (and has).

If the Armed Forces can survive a mandate to protect us ALL, why not the others?

The basic problem we have with the debate is pride. The lists of where we stand in the world with regard to life expectancy, access to health care, literacy, infant mortality, and a plethora of other categories up to and including 'quality of life' have us WAY down the list. Yet, you ask just about ANY American where he THINKS the USA is, and you will hear a universal 'USA... #1! Hell yeah!'

It is SO hard to persuade anyone to change anything, when they THINK they are already at the top of any list. Pride is killing the debate in the States. Were we to actually acknowledge our shortcomings in all these fields, the marches on Washington would be to demand that we BECOME the best, not to prevent any effort at achieving that, which seems to be their current goal.

You want to get outraged, demand an answer from your elected officials... WHY IS THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD NOT NUMBER ONE? Until we acknowledge our pitiful position on all these 'quality of life' polls, we will continue to stymie any effort to change it...

Look at the outrage at Michael Moore and 'Sicko'... Rather than indignation at how he MIGHT be not showing everything in its' BEST light and a grudging acknowledgment that there MIGHT be some things in it that actually ARE true, why is the indignation not there for the things that ARE true? Surely there are sufficient for even the most patriotic flag-waver to reevaluate his unquestioning acceptance of the status quo?

When the States are at the TOP of those lists, we will FINALLY be able to say 'USA... #1' and it actually be true.

One of my degrees is in Medical Laboratory Tehnology. My father was an Oral Facial Maxillary Surgeon, my sister still practices in another state as an Emergency Medical Physician.

I know I got great care.

With the type and severity of the bloodstream infection I suffered by ignoring too long the flesh-eating bacteria infection, the usual outcome is death of the patient. I finally called for an ambulance when my blood pressure dropped like a rock.

I am concerned that the care received would and could change drastically if there were government beaurocrat gatekeepers involved. That sort of system always results in rather draconic "catch all" rules and regulations, money saving plans at the expense of life saving plans, the whole nine yards of what the government can screw up, which is just about anything and everything they lay their hands on.

I do know about these situations where people get shuttled from hospital to hospital when they should be receiving care. That is something that is wrong with the current system and could be changed with a few tweaks here and there, perhaps even some passage of laws by our congress.

But as a practicing design engineer I can't see the complete dismantling of a system that works a majority percentage of the time and replacing it with something run by people who manage to mess up everything else already.

The sheer amount of disengenuousness (word? screwit, it is a word now) being hurtled about concerning this issue should be ample cause for concern IMO.

It is like you are riding around enjoying driving your car, it runs like a top, sure there may be a few things that need attention, but you weren't planning to buy a brand new car for some time to come yet, just address some of those problems with repairs, but then some high up politician comes up to your driver's side window and informs you that the card you are still driving is totally dead and in need of abrupt replacement.

Who are you going to believe?

That politician or your own lyin' eyes?


--Mac


--Mac

Mac- Between your education and experiential proximity to relatives in the HC industry, I fully believe your assessment in the caliber of the treatment you got.

I have to challenge you on the basic premise of your argument that "a complete dismantling" of the current system is even being considered.

I'm most familiar with HR 3200 and the Baucus Bills. In neither, according to both right & left evaluations, is the current HC system eliminated.

Consider:

*People will not be required by the Gov't to change their insurance plans, change their preferred Doctors, change their preferred facilities/etc.

*The 85% of employed people who currently get HC from their employers will continue to do so. The percentage will actually increase as larger employers are mandated to provide health insurance for their employees or face penalties.

*Insurance Co's will no longer be able to deny you coverage due to pre-existing conditions. (Which may come in very handy when you look for coverage in the future, depending on the circumstances of your recent issues.)

*Insurance Co's will not be allowed to cancel your insurance after you get sick.

*Providers will still negotiate rates and agreements with private ins. co's...

...and so on...

Whether there winds up being a public option or not, the essence of our long standing HC system will still very much remain in place.

------------------
Bill in Dayton

I disagree on education and health care being in the hands of private corporations. Most of the US born and raised members of this forum, I'd wager experienced public school education. Further, many of us have received post HS degrees from Public Colleges and Universities. I think you're referring to the "best" education experiences being private, which many would agree with you on.

Quote:

The basic problem we have with the debate is pride. The lists of where we stand in the world with regard to life expectancy, access to health care, literacy, infant mortality, and a plethora of other categories up to and including 'quality of life' have us WAY down the list. Yet, you ask just about ANY American where he THINKS the USA is, and you will hear a universal 'USA... #1! Hell yeah!'

You and I are singing the same song when you refer to the many different metrics that show the US system in a very poor light. We divert when it comes to the basic problem of the debate. You say its Pride and perhaps blinding Nationalism. I think its moreso ignorance and gullability. People still believe there will be death panels. People still believe that Gov't is going to "takeover" all health care. The din from mostly the right has acted like feedback out of a Bose L1 system. The very clear signals are still there, but the overwhelming shrill of the feedback has mostly drowned it out. People won't often take the time to educate themselves about issues. There seems to be a malaise in our country. People know some things aren't the way they should be, but won't act in a thoughtful manner. If a guy like me, with a 2 yr. Associates of Arts in Theatre and Music from Allegheny Community College and a BSBA in Marketing from Robert Morris College in Pittsburgh can muddle through this stuff, asking questions when I don't understand something and read/watch content from both sides, well...anyone can.

Maybe we're not earnest enough anymore. People find comfort in crowds but not necessarily accurate info. I think too many people in the US think party affiliation or favorite talk show guy and then develop their thinking from that point outwards, which of course is just not an efficient way to develop a thought or understand an issue.

Quote:

Look at the outrage at Michael Moore and 'Sicko'... Rather than indignation at how he MIGHT be not showing everything in its' BEST light and a grudging acknowledgment that there MIGHT be some things in it that actually ARE true, why is the indignation not there for the things that ARE true? Surely there are sufficient for even the most patriotic flag-waver to reevaluate his unquestioning acceptance of the status quo?

Because its easier to make fun of some fat-ass than educating yourself on the pros/cons of his movies. Checking his statements, verifying his allegations, etc. Who wants to do that? People want entertained. They don't want to have to do 20 hours of research to decide if they liked the movie or not, right?

Moore f*cked up. He wanted his work to be considered in a serious way, but he has not carried himself as such. To most people, I think Moore is known as, "Oh yeah...that fat guy with the baseball hat who makes movies and pissing people off." Mostly accurate, its his fault they view him that way. His movies are cheap efforts at viewing various problems in the US. He does it on the cheap and very sensationally. Cherry picking the sexiest examples he can find and then portraying those in less than a fully fair context.


------------------
Bill in Dayton

[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 09-20-2009).]

However biased Mr. Moore's opinions and views are, it is balanced on the Right by demagogues who present THEIR blinkered view from the Right with at least as much misinformation or just plain ignoring anything that doesn't fit their world view as anything from the Left.

The day we wake up over here, and start to question our politicians and economic system about the realization that we are NOT 'the best' at almost any health care category will be the day the country perhaps adopts a system that works better. As Taike said, the lead cart shows the way. but ONLY to following carts that have their eyes open and their ears unstopped. Close your mind tight, and only listen to those who bellow platitudes about us always being #1 at everything, and it is easy to fool yourself into thinking you actually ARE the lead cart...

It is funny. Americans LIKE to be #1 in sports. If they aren't, in any anything they care about, they will spend their way to #1. But the health of our citizens? Happy in the teens...

Maybe mediocrity IS the American Way?

Bang on, Diki. The Right doesn't have exclusive access to misinformation.

We have a long way to go to even get to the teens in overall health care. 37th in the world according to the WHO's study 9 years ago. Don't be surprised if our ranking either stays the same or drops even lower.

In 2000, when WHO did their study. The US unemployment rate was 4.0% As of this August, we're sitting at 9.7%, more than DOUBLE what it was 9 years ago.

With more than twice the number of people now unemployed and left to acquire health insurance / health care on their own, what are the chances our "access" and affordability ratings will have improved? Not very good.

This may sound odd, but I think chapter one of the health case reform debate should have begun with sweeping campaign reform legislation.

------------------
Bill in Dayton

[This message has been edited by Bill in Dayton (edited 09-21-2009).]

Bill, thanks for the invitation to contribute: Here goes:

* As an employer, I'm faced with a cost of over $600.00 per month each to cover my people. That is a formidable amount, but I feel that it is my responsibility to provide this coverage. It's the quality of care that really bothers me.

* As far as Doc is concerned (my father-in-law), physician's extend "professional courtesy" to each other. That used to mean that they didn't charge each other . Now, they simply take whatever insurance is in place for payment. In the 15 years I have served as caretaker, the hospital and doctors bills have been almost non-existant. As a VA nursing home resident, he pays $3500.00 per month, since he doesn't have a pressing financial need for assistance. That's a bargain. Again, it's the level of care that's the concern.

My concerns about the medical situation in this country began when I first started hearing about HMO's. It was obvious that the insurance industry would soon control the delivery of healthcare, and I knew that would be a disaster.

In fact, anytime a business concentrates more on marketing, pricing, insurance....anything more than the product, they're on a sippery slope, as far as I'm concerned. Costs would go up, since the insurance companies would have to get their cut. And service would deteriorate, since the savings promised employers would have to come from reduced costs.

* I have been with Doc for hours sitting in a doctors office watching scores of pharmacy reps walk thru the door to make presentations
ahead of us.

* I had a blood pressure issue, and waited 7 hours to be seen in an emergency room. There were few people there. It was a week-end.

* After seeing what happens in nursing homes, I am an active supporter of a group that lobbies for nursing home reform. Again, staffing, food quality....everything is often cut to the bone, and major funds are spent on lobbying for legislation favorable to the "for profit" companies who run them.

* The training/quality of the workers delivering healthcare is on a downward trend. I have dealt with healthcare deliverers who couldn't speak a complete literate sentence. Jobs formerly done by RN's are now done by LPN's or nursing students doing clinicals.


*24 hours after Doc was admitted to the hospital, no-one knew anything about him other than he was dehydrated...nothing about a serious heart problem. Nothing about Alzheimer's. They were secheduling physical theraphy for a fellow who hasn't been out of a wheelchair for 5 years. The records sent from the VA were "lost in the shuffle"-not the first time that happened.

* I warned the nursing staff that the buzzer had gone off on the IV system used to administer liquids. An assistant turned off the buzzer and said a nurse would have to change the bag. I tried four times to get the nurse's attention. Over an hour later, the site of the IV closed, and major swelling/damage happened.

The only thing done right and on time was delivery of the $20,000.00 plus bill for service.

I am disgusted with the terrible level of service and competance across the board. If I ran my business the way medical related organizations are run, I'd be out of business in a short time. The hospital I'm referring to above touts itself as being one of the top ones in the country. If that's true, we're in BIG trouble.

I grew up as an "Army brat", and thought that the healthcare deliuvery system was far superior to what's available today.

There's the question of how to improve the system from an affordability standpoint and how to make it universally available. What I'm more concerned to fixing the product; bringing competency and compassion back into play and making adequate care the primary goal, which it clearly is not today.

On the nursing home side, I'm in the middle of a fight against the organized "for profit" lobbiests who are trying to eliminate a 5-star rating system which was initiated recently to allow people to compare service at different homes.

Generally, most nursing homes are money-makers where care of residents ranks dead last. Lots of people here play at Assisted Living places and nursing homes and get a lot of satisfaction bringing a little joy to the residents. I don't because of the issues mentioned above.

Making affordable healthcare available is a
serious issue. The bigger one for me is the need for a major cultural change. A return to the day when healthcare people developed real compassion for patients, put them first
and actually did what was needed for patients; not just letting insurance companies control everything.

The entire system is broken and the fix involves much more than just making the currently available services available to everyone.

What a mess!


Russ




[This message has been edited by captain Russ (edited 09-21-2009).]

Here is a realworld example of one of the things that can be done to better the current system:




--Mac