Rebuttal- Health Care

Ok, in response to the comment on my healthcare post - (Can you tell it's been awhile since I've had a good debate? K, "serious, bossy know-it-all face" is on... hehehe...)

Also, may I stress that I'm not talking specifically about Obama's plan (which I still need to reread a few times, since it's written in governmentese), but the general idea of a UHC system (which, yes, is likely to suck under American government control, because our government fucks up everything it touches; However, it's better to at least attempt change for the better than to leave things as they are.)

This is meant to be reform, not replacement. My little plan in particular does not replace current private insurance companies/policies but expands the national ones. Obama's proposed plan (what I've read and understood so far) was pretty much the same. It was also (as far as I recall) completely optional- you can choose the new plan or stick with your own private (or supplemental) insurance company. The point is to expand services to citizens who can not afford them on their own. (Besides, my dad works for a healthcare company... They're reducing their corruption, but that doesn't mean they're still not overcharging and bribing their way around the world. I've said it before - whether or not we get a UHC system in this country, something has to change... What this type plan means exactly for the workers, I'm honestly not all that sure, but then again, this is all still a work-in-progress and it's a team effort.)

Everything anyone has ever heard about only being limited to certain doctors and no options - of course possible, but not necessarily true. In Canada, they do often have problems with this, but you also have to consider other factors- shortage of practitioners and equipment, and reluctance of practitioners to accept the insurance program, for example. These are other issues that must be addressed, especially regarding malpractice insurance and salaries. In the majority of countries with UHC (see Europe), citizens can see any doctor they want to (also shown in Sicko). Unless the plan is mandatory (and the odds of that passing are probably close to zip), there will always be options. *Also, in Australia, we discussed this in a few of my classes. Not one single person said they were (or knew anyone who was) limited to certain doctors because of UHC.)

I did some research regarding Hawaii. Hawaii is just one state, and it certainly does not have the same level of funding or resources as an entire country. This kind of plan requires time, a much larger budget, and more equipment than what one state can provide. This has to be a gradual process - it's not something that we can set up overnight and expect to be perfect in the morning. Instant is bad. Also, it isn't meant to be a complete charity, either. We're still putting something in. Fundamentally, UHC is reform, not replacement, that should be prepared to cover basic care for the majority (whether or not it needs to). Medicaid & Medicare programs leave too many stuck in the middle - those who earn too much for the government programs but too little for private insurance- primarily the lower middle class and lower classes who are still living above the poverty line.

How do those countries suck? (What news were you watching, too?) The media is always biased. This blog is obviously biased against the biased media. [See side panel]. Fox new is biased [EXTREMELY conservative], MSNBC & ABC are biased [EXTREMELY liberal]. If I watch the news, it's CNN or CSPAN. Sometimes leans, but is generally bland as hell, which is how news should be. Regardless of source, it's still a good idea to be a skeptical about what one hears without doing research...)

I'm sorry, but I really must quote Karl Rove (I know, I know, hold your nausea) on this one "If Democrats enact a public-option health-insurance program, America is on the way to becoming a European-style welfare state." Ok, what the fuck is everyone's problem with Europe? Statistically speaking, the standard of life is significantly better there than here (I have WHO stats in front of me, as well as world rankings for quality of life.) Our overall health is lower, our literacy is lower, we have more waste and pollution than most industrialized countries (and we're not doing all that much about it either, compared to them). The Scandinavian countries are well known for their quality of life - they are supposed to be the best in terms of equality, health, and politics, especially for women. And the UN rated Iceland, Norway, and Australia to be the top 3 countries in the world (2005)- ALL have UHC systems that work. The idea of UHC is absolutely viable and has been proven to work. The American plan of course will need tweaking to fit our economy and society-- but it can work.



(& birth control really isn't that bad... everyone I know who is on it, who had similar symptoms to you- they love it... some companies even make special pills just for really bad symptoms... hell, you could probably have a special combo created just for you... the only other treatments shown to be relatively effective are acupuncture; TENS - which I personally think is a horrific idea - and [the collective] all of the things you already do... a hysterectomy might not actually fix everything, as technically the hormones/whatever else may still be around to do who knows what, plus the regular surgery does not generally include the ovaries, so... again, without knowing exactly where the issue lies, it's possible that wouldn't completely fix the problem... plus a whole bunch of other things I know you wouldn't want to experience... you'd get to deal with the joys of menopause... that can't be fun...)