The great Health Care debate!

[vespergirl]

Date: 3/16/2009 1:58:23 PM
Author: zhuzhu
vespergirl
Maybe if you provide more detailed information on how your parents had terrible health care, barely enough food to survive and had to escape the country under penalty of death, or rather, just the name of that particular country, we can have better data to go by?

My parents escaped what used to be part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Croatia) in the early 1960s. When my mother''s family escaped to Italy via sailboat, their boat was shot at by soldiers, and it''s a miracle they escaped alive. Because their parents weren''t beaurocrats living in the capital, but peasants living on islands off the coast, they had barely adequate food rations and horrible health care. Education was free, and one could go to college as well, but my family members who had legal and medical degrees could not practice in the US once they came here because the degrees were not respected in the US.

Also, my sister-in-law immigrated here from Poland in the early 90s, right after Communism collapsed in that country. Again, she had two masters degrees when she arrived (finance and economics), and spoke perfect English, but couldn''t find a job better than a secretary once she got here. She said that even though her parents had respected jobs in Krakow (high school principal and factory manager) their food rations were awful, there was never enough to eat, they stood in the famous bread lines, and decent health care could only be found in the cities - peasants were out of luck (kind of like poor people here don''t get health care as good as rich people have - it wasn''t any different in a communist or socialist country).

 

[saltymuffin]

Thanks for sharing your story vespergirl, but do note that when suggesting the merrits of universal health care, we are not talking about a communist system like those that your family members left behind.

The problem of reciprocity of degrees is one that really needs to be adressed in our increasingly global world.

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 3/16/2009 3:15:06 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/16/2009 1:58:23 PM

Author: zhuzhu

vespergirl

Maybe if you provide more detailed information on how your parents had terrible health care, barely enough food to survive and had to escape the country under penalty of death, or rather, just the name of that particular country, we can have better data to go by?

My parents escaped what used to be part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Croatia) in the early 1960s. When my mother's family escaped to Italy via sailboat, their boat was shot at by soldiers, and it's a miracle they escaped alive. Because their parents weren't beaurocrats living in the capital, but peasants living on islands off the coast, they had barely adequate food rations and horrible health care. Education was free, and one could go to college as well, but my family members who had legal and medical degrees could not practice in the US once they came here because the degrees were not respected in the US.


Also, my sister-in-law immigrated here from Poland in the early 90s, right after Communism collapsed in that country. Again, she had two masters degrees when she arrived (finance and economics), and spoke perfect English, but couldn't find a job better than a secretary once she got here. She said that even though her parents had respected jobs in Krakow (high school principal and factory manager) their food rations were awful, there was never enough to eat, they stood in the famous bread lines, and decent health care could only be found in the cities - peasants were out of luck (kind of like poor people here don't get health care as good as rich people have - it wasn't any different in a communist or socialist country).

Thank you Vespergirl, for sharing your family story.

It is not so uncommon to see many highly educated individuals from a foreign country taking a less-desirable job here in the US. I do not think it necessarily speaks negatively of the old system (after all they did receive the education and it is theirs to keep), but rather because US has to protect its own citizens by giving priority to them (and those educated here). I work with many researchers who were medical doctors in China, but once they immigrated here, they have to work as lab manager or research associate because their MD license are no longer valid to practice in US. Based on the title they got a worse job, but they still rather stay here because the pay is significantly higher than what they could get in China.

Health care is a basic human right. Perhaps in some countries they are not well practiced (like in your example and the example of recent Ireland). However in the fight against healthcare inequality, I think these are the risk worth taking. We should all contribute by sharing the load, as that is what makes us human different from other animals.

Many negative comments typed on how incompetent THEY think our government is, is truly irrelevant to this principle. The best of all systems can be abused by the wrong hand, but that does not mean we should not aim higher to work towards the goal.

 

[saltymuffin]

Date: 3/12/2009 6:32:27 PM
Author: LtlFirecracker

Also, I live on a border town. Do you know how many parents bring their kids from Mexico when they get sick? I mean, I understand where they are coming from as parents. They have a sick child and will do anything to make sure they are taken care of. But it is so taxing on our system. I am conflicted on how I feel about the issue because the compassionate side of me sees a sick child and the part of me aware of government sees the drain on our resources.

We have the same problem with patients coming from "south of the border" to get medical care in Canada.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 3/16/2009 3:42:09 PM
Author: saltymuffin
Thanks for sharing your story vespergirl, but do note that when suggesting the merrits of universal health care, we are not talking about a communist system like those that your family members left behind.

Yugoslavia was actually a socialist country, not communist.

But my point was really to illustrate that even in countries that have supposedly egalitarian health care systems, there is still a discrepancy between what is received by the wealthy and connected, and what is received by the poor and disenfranchised. There is no truly classless country or society in the world. I still truly believe that universal health care in this country would mean that perhaps the uninsured would receive better care than they get now, but the vast majority of Americans, who are insured, would most likely receive care that is not as good as what we currently receive if we are subject to a universal system.

 

[Porridge]

Those stories are awful Vespergirl, I''m sorry your family had to go through that. My college roomate is from Serbia. Luckily she hasn''t had any similar experiences other than her degree isn''t well recognised in western Europe. Another friend from college escaped Bosnia when he was a child under similar conditions to the ones you described.

However, respectfully, as you mentioned Poland was under communist rule. Although on a side note, having joined the european union recently their economy is quickly on the up and up. Their universities have always been well respected, especially for a long history of medical teaching. I wonder was your friend particularly unlucky. I hope she is doing better now!
As for former Yugoslavia, while it may have been called a "democratic and socialist" republic, it was, for all intents and purposes, communist. I think it was nicknamed "Tatoism"? This is only what I vaguely remember though from history classes years ago! So somebody feel free to correct me if I''m wrong...though that may be a topic for another thread.

I think what has become clear from this and previous posts is that socialism is a term that has been blackened and twisted to mean something more akin to the dreaded communism. That was really what I was looking for from my original post I suppose. As I mentioned before, we in so called socialist countries don''t use the term at all!

 

[Porridge]

Date: 3/16/2009 3:55:37 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/16/2009 3:42:09 PM

Author: saltymuffin

Thanks for sharing your story vespergirl, but do note that when suggesting the merrits of universal health care, we are not talking about a communist system like those that your family members left behind.

Yugoslavia was actually a socialist country, not communist.


But my point was really to illustrate that even in countries that have supposedly egalitarian health care systems, there is still a discrepancy between what is received by the wealthy and connected, and what is received by the poor and disenfranchised. There is no truly classless country or society in the world. I still truly believe that universal health care in this country would mean that perhaps the uninsured would receive better care than they get now, but the vast majority of Americans, who are insured, would most likely receive care that is not as good as what we currently receive if we are subject to a universal system.

Vespergirl, I can tell you from intimate knowledge of French, English, German, Scandinavian (I moved around a bit

) etc etc healthcare AND university education, that there is no discrepancy between what is received by the wealthy and connected, and what is received by the poor. You're right, these countries are not classless. And of course, there will always be a small number who cheat the system, and those who abuse power, it's inevitable. But by and large, it is equal.

 

[saltymuffin]

Date: 3/16/2009 3:55:37 PM
Author: vespergirl

But my point was really to illustrate that even in countries that have supposedly egalitarian health care systems, there is still a discrepancy between what is received by the wealthy and connected, and what is received by the poor and disenfranchised. There is no truly classless country or society in the world. I still truly believe that universal health care in this country would mean that perhaps the uninsured would receive better care than they get now, but the vast majority of Americans, who are insured, would most likely receive care that is not as good as what we currently receive if we are subject to a universal system.

A "universal" system does not provide better service to the wealthy and connected - a corrupt system does! Ironically, the main complaint that critics in Canada have about our system is that it is too equal! People pushing for private alternatives want the opportunity to buy faster service. (Quality is not something that is generally complained about, it is waiting times for "non-life threatening" procedures that is our big problem.)

I do understand that you feel a universal system would not provide the same level of care that insured Americans get. I don't know if this is the case or not. I have not personally experienced enough systems to know, but I do think that there is room for improvement in pretty much all systems.

 

[Porridge]

Date: 3/16/2009 4:11:16 PM
Author: saltymuffin

Date: 3/16/2009 3:55:37 PM

Author: vespergirl


But my point was really to illustrate that even in countries that have supposedly egalitarian health care systems, there is still a discrepancy between what is received by the wealthy and connected, and what is received by the poor and disenfranchised. There is no truly classless country or society in the world. I still truly believe that universal health care in this country would mean that perhaps the uninsured would receive better care than they get now, but the vast majority of Americans, who are insured, would most likely receive care that is not as good as what we currently receive if we are subject to a universal system.

A ''universal'' system does not provide better service to the wealthy and connected - a corrupt system does! Ironically, the main complaint that critics in Canada have about our system is that it is too equal! People pushing for private alternatives want the opportunity to buy faster service. (Quality is not something that is generally complained about, it is waiting times for ''non-life threatening'' procedures that is our big problem.)


I do understand that you feel a universal system would not provide the same level of care that insured Americans get. I don''t know if this is the case or not. I have not personally experienced enough systems to know, but I do think that there is room for improvement in pretty much all systems.

Saltymuffin those complaints about wanting faster service are exactly what brought the Irish healthcare system down. Our minister for health brought in the private option. And now it''s a mess. Everybody loses.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 3/16/2009 4:04:33 PM
Author: Porridge

Date: 3/16/2009 3:55:37 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/16/2009 3:42:09 PM

Author: saltymuffin

Thanks for sharing your story vespergirl, but do note that when suggesting the merrits of universal health care, we are not talking about a communist system like those that your family members left behind.

Yugoslavia was actually a socialist country, not communist.


But my point was really to illustrate that even in countries that have supposedly egalitarian health care systems, there is still a discrepancy between what is received by the wealthy and connected, and what is received by the poor and disenfranchised. There is no truly classless country or society in the world. I still truly believe that universal health care in this country would mean that perhaps the uninsured would receive better care than they get now, but the vast majority of Americans, who are insured, would most likely receive care that is not as good as what we currently receive if we are subject to a universal system.

Vespergirl, I can tell you from intimate knowledge of French, English, German, Scandinavian (I moved around a bit

) etc etc healthcare AND university education, that there is no discrepancy between what is received by the wealthy and connected, and what is received by the poor. You''re right, these countries are not classless. And of course, there will always be a small number who cheat the system, and those who abuse power, it''s inevitable. But by and large, it is equal.

I think that you''re right about the quality of services received in the northern European countries - I have a cousin who lives in Sweden, and she says that everything is really great there. I also have friends in Denmark, and they are totally happy with the services and entitlements they receive.

But there are so many in the US who have an entitlement mentality, and have no incentive or drive to work for anything. Generational poverty is a big social problem in our country in many areas (inner cities, Appalachia, etc.) There are SO MANY that take advantage of the social programs here now, who don''t have the drive or the gumption to contribute to society, I think that it would be much worse once we socialize everything. There will always be a very small minority who will need our help regardless (the disabled, etc.), but already there is no fairness in our tax system, and it will just get so much worse if it''s socialized.

Perhaps if there were a national flat tax, and everyone contributed the same percentage of their income, I would be fine with it. But right now, high-achievers are penalized for earning a decent living by paying for everyone else, and that will only get worse if we socialize - especially because those in the higher tax brackets pay for social services that they themselves are generally not eligible for. Honestly, it makes me resentful to know that my husband hands over more than 35% of his income in taxes, yet we don''t receive the same benefits from his hard-earned money that people do who pay no taxes at all. That''s why the more well-off people in this country resent the government social systems - we totally pay for them, and receive nothing in return, whereas the recipients do nothing to contribute to what they recieve.

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 3/16/2009 3:15:06 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/16/2009 1:58:23 PM
Author: zhuzhu
vespergirl
Maybe if you provide more detailed information on how your parents had terrible health care, barely enough food to survive and had to escape the country under penalty of death, or rather, just the name of that particular country, we can have better data to go by?

My parents escaped what used to be part of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now Croatia) in the early 1960s. When my mother''s family escaped to Italy via sailboat, their boat was shot at by soldiers, and it''s a miracle they escaped alive. Because their parents weren''t beaurocrats living in the capital, but peasants living on islands off the coast, they had barely adequate food rations and horrible health care. Education was free, and one could go to college as well, but my family members who had legal and medical degrees could not practice in the US once they came here because the degrees were not respected in the US.

Also, my sister-in-law immigrated here from Poland in the early 90s, right after Communism collapsed in that country. Again, she had two masters degrees when she arrived (finance and economics), and spoke perfect English, but couldn''t find a job better than a secretary once she got here. She said that even though her parents had respected jobs in Krakow (high school principal and factory manager) their food rations were awful, there was never enough to eat, they stood in the famous bread lines, and decent health care could only be found in the cities - peasants were out of luck (kind of like poor people here don''t get health care as good as rich people have - it wasn''t any different in a communist or socialist country).

Vesper,

Thank you for sharing the story of your family. I''m not totally sure what the take away is, since we are not talking about Yugoslavia OR socializing America. We already have social programs in the US, so health care could theoretically be just another one. No one is talking about instating breadlines in the US. And personally, I would take horrible health insurance over no health insurance, which is what I am currently enjoying. The ehalth care systems of most countries, including the US, are still evolving, but comparing extreme examples and suggesting them as the reason that a different system wouldn''t work in the US does not get us very far. Hopefully, your family here in the US can afford decent insurance now. I have friends with MS, Rheumatoid arthritis, chiari malformation, GI problems, congentail heart defects, etc, some who can get coverage, and others that can''t. We CAN figure out a system that can work for everyone if we have the WILL to do so...

 

[Porridge]

Date: 3/16/2009 4:22:02 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/16/2009 4:04:33 PM

Author: Porridge

Date: 3/16/2009 3:55:37 PM

Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/16/2009 3:42:09 PM


Author: saltymuffin


Thanks for sharing your story vespergirl, but do note that when suggesting the merrits of universal health care, we are not talking about a communist system like those that your family members left behind.

Yugoslavia was actually a socialist country, not communist.



But my point was really to illustrate that even in countries that have supposedly egalitarian health care systems, there is still a discrepancy between what is received by the wealthy and connected, and what is received by the poor and disenfranchised. There is no truly classless country or society in the world. I still truly believe that universal health care in this country would mean that perhaps the uninsured would receive better care than they get now, but the vast majority of Americans, who are insured, would most likely receive care that is not as good as what we currently receive if we are subject to a universal system.

Vespergirl, I can tell you from intimate knowledge of French, English, German, Scandinavian (I moved around a bit

) etc etc healthcare AND university education, that there is no discrepancy between what is received by the wealthy and connected, and what is received by the poor. You''re right, these countries are not classless. And of course, there will always be a small number who cheat the system, and those who abuse power, it''s inevitable. But by and large, it is equal.

I think that you''re right about the quality of services received in the northern European countries - I have a cousin who lives in Sweden, and she says that everything is really great there. I also have friends in Denmark, and they are totally happy with the services and entitlements they receive.


But there are so many in the US who have an entitlement mentality, and have no incentive or drive to work for anything. Generational poverty is a big social problem in our country in many areas (inner cities, Appalachia, etc.) There are SO MANY that take advantage of the social programs here now, who don''t have the drive or the gumption to contribute to society, I think that it would be much worse once we socialize everything. There will always be a very small minority who will need our help regardless (the disabled, etc.), but already there is no fairness in our tax system, and it will just get so much worse if it''s socialized.


Perhaps if there were a national flat tax, and everyone contributed the same percentage of their income, I would be fine with it. But right now, high-achievers are penalized for earning a decent living by paying for everyone else, and that will only get worse if we socialize - especially because those in the higher tax brackets pay for social services that they themselves are generally not eligible for. Honestly, it makes me resentful to know that my husband hands over more than 35% of his income in taxes, yet we don''t receive the same benefits from his hard-earned money that people do who pay no taxes at all. That''s why the more well-off people in this country resent the government social systems - we totally pay for them, and receive nothing in return, whereas the recipients do nothing to contribute to what they recieve.

Good point Vespergirl. There really is no quick fix. And there will always be leeches like you are describing, there''s no getting rid of them. Every system has flaws and that''s the biggest in countries with public healthcare. We lose a lot of money to people abusing the system, nationals and immigrants. It happens in Sweden and Denmark too. The ideal would be a transition to public healthcare without the huge increase in taxes. Then you wouldn''t have to pay twice for healthcare with tax dollars AND insurance. Possibly, ideally, the children of the leeches won''t grow up needing to abuse the system and it will come around. But it would take some doing to ease that transition!

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 3/16/2009 4:22:02 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/16/2009 4:04:33 PM
Author: Porridge

Date: 3/16/2009 3:55:37 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/16/2009 3:42:09 PM

Author: saltymuffin

Thanks for sharing your story vespergirl, but do note that when suggesting the merrits of universal health care, we are not talking about a communist system like those that your family members left behind.

Yugoslavia was actually a socialist country, not communist.


But my point was really to illustrate that even in countries that have supposedly egalitarian health care systems, there is still a discrepancy between what is received by the wealthy and connected, and what is received by the poor and disenfranchised. There is no truly classless country or society in the world. I still truly believe that universal health care in this country would mean that perhaps the uninsured would receive better care than they get now, but the vast majority of Americans, who are insured, would most likely receive care that is not as good as what we currently receive if we are subject to a universal system.

Vespergirl, I can tell you from intimate knowledge of French, English, German, Scandinavian (I moved around a bit

) etc etc healthcare AND university education, that there is no discrepancy between what is received by the wealthy and connected, and what is received by the poor. You''re right, these countries are not classless. And of course, there will always be a small number who cheat the system, and those who abuse power, it''s inevitable. But by and large, it is equal.

I think that you''re right about the quality of services received in the northern European countries - I have a cousin who lives in Sweden, and she says that everything is really great there. I also have friends in Denmark, and they are totally happy with the services and entitlements they receive.

But there are so many in the US who have an entitlement mentality, and have no incentive or drive to work for anything. Generational poverty is a big social problem in our country in many areas (inner cities, Appalachia, etc.) There are SO MANY that take advantage of the social programs here now, who don''t have the drive or the gumption to contribute to society, I think that it would be much worse once we socialize everything. There will always be a very small minority who will need our help regardless (the disabled, etc.), but already there is no fairness in our tax system, and it will just get so much worse if it''s socialized.

Perhaps if there were a national flat tax, and everyone contributed the same percentage of their income, I would be fine with it. But right now, high-achievers are penalized for earning a decent living by paying for everyone else, and that will only get worse if we socialize - especially because those in the higher tax brackets pay for social services that they themselves are generally not eligible for. Honestly, it makes me resentful to know that my husband hands over more than 35% of his income in taxes, yet we don''t receive the same benefits from his hard-earned money that people do who pay no taxes at all. That''s why the more well-off people in this country resent the government social systems - we totally pay for them, and receive nothing in return, whereas the recipients do nothing to contribute to what they recieve.

to whom much is given, much is expected. The poverty line for a family of 4 is about 20K. Could you and your husband afford to support yourself and 2 kids on 21K? And then pay 30% of your income to tax? The suggestion is prepostereous, especially since we live in a class based society. If everyone woke up tomorrow, got good grades and applied for college, people would be left behind. We don''t have capacity for everyone to go to college. If everyone had a college degree, then all that would mean is that a college degree would qualify you to be a janitor. You can''t have it both ways, but people pretend that we can. It''s easy to demonize these "social leeches", but they become the boogey man. There are far more people who are fighting everyday for everything that they get than these social loafers. I would be proud to earn enough money that I could give 35% to support the well being of my country, and I don''t even consider myself patriotic!

ok, let me get back on topic... Good thing I am the OP!

 

[saltymuffin]

Date: 3/16/2009 4:22:02 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/16/2009 4:04:33 PM

Author: Porridge

Date: 3/16/2009 3:55:37 PM

Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/16/2009 3:42:09 PM


Author: saltymuffin


Thanks for sharing your story vespergirl, but do note that when suggesting the merrits of universal health care, we are not talking about a communist system like those that your family members left behind.

Yugoslavia was actually a socialist country, not communist.



But my point was really to illustrate that even in countries that have supposedly egalitarian health care systems, there is still a discrepancy between what is received by the wealthy and connected, and what is received by the poor and disenfranchised. There is no truly classless country or society in the world. I still truly believe that universal health care in this country would mean that perhaps the uninsured would receive better care than they get now, but the vast majority of Americans, who are insured, would most likely receive care that is not as good as what we currently receive if we are subject to a universal system.

Vespergirl, I can tell you from intimate knowledge of French, English, German, Scandinavian (I moved around a bit

) etc etc healthcare AND university education, that there is no discrepancy between what is received by the wealthy and connected, and what is received by the poor. You''re right, these countries are not classless. And of course, there will always be a small number who cheat the system, and those who abuse power, it''s inevitable. But by and large, it is equal.

I think that you''re right about the quality of services received in the northern European countries - I have a cousin who lives in Sweden, and she says that everything is really great there. I also have friends in Denmark, and they are totally happy with the services and entitlements they receive.


But there are so many in the US who have an entitlement mentality, and have no incentive or drive to work for anything. Generational poverty is a big social problem in our country in many areas (inner cities, Appalachia, etc.) There are SO MANY that take advantage of the social programs here now, who don''t have the drive or the gumption to contribute to society, I think that it would be much worse once we socialize everything. There will always be a very small minority who will need our help regardless (the disabled, etc.), but already there is no fairness in our tax system, and it will just get so much worse if it''s socialized.


Perhaps if there were a national flat tax, and everyone contributed the same percentage of their income, I would be fine with it. But right now, high-achievers are penalized for earning a decent living by paying for everyone else, and that will only get worse if we socialize - especially because those in the higher tax brackets pay for social services that they themselves are generally not eligible for. Honestly, it makes me resentful to know that my husband hands over more than 35% of his income in taxes, yet we don''t receive the same benefits from his hard-earned money that people do who pay no taxes at all. That''s why the more well-off people in this country resent the government social systems - we totally pay for them, and receive nothing in return, whereas the recipients do nothing to contribute to what they recieve.

You make a really interesting point here - something that I hadn''t really grasped before about American bitterness towards social services. The great thing about universal services is that they are universal! I know a lot of people who complain about taxes, but then say, "well at least I get - fill in whatever service - for it". And I feel the same way. I get health care, good public education, quality public transit, etc etc for my money. I feel it is worth it. If I paid that much, and got none of those things, I would be bitter too! Are you sure that your husband pays 35% of his TOTAL income in taxes?? That is huge. I only pay 20% and I pay the "high" Canadian taxes. Are you sure you don''t mean that his top tax bracket is 35%?

And trust me, it isn''t just in Sweden and Denmark that people are happy with their government provided services. My father had a quadruple bi-pass several years ago, and my mother underwent radiation treatment for early breast cancer. Both are very happy with the treatment they received - and very healthy today. I would never, ever trade the system I have for a private system like you have in the US.

 

[E B]

Date: 3/16/2009 4:36:57 PM
Author: trillionaire

to whom much is given, much is expected. The poverty line for a family of 4 is about 20K. Could you and your husband afford to support yourself and 2 kids on 21K? And then pay 30% of your income to tax? The suggestion is prepostereous, especially since we live in a class based society. If everyone woke up tomorrow, got good grades and applied for college, people would be left behind. We don't have capacity for everyone to go to college. If everyone had a college degree, then all that would mean is that a college degree would qualify you to be a janitor. You can't have it both ways, but people pretend that we can. It's easy to demonize these 'social leeches', but they become the boogey man. There are far more people who are fighting everyday for everything that they get than these social loafers. I would be proud to earn enough money that I could give 35% to support the well being of my country, and I don't even consider myself patriotic!

ok, let me get back on topic... Good thing I am the OP!

I agree, trill. There are plenty of good, hardworking people who struggle to support their families, and it isn't fair to punish them for the 'sins of the leeches.'

I wonder just how many who bring up the 'entitlement mentality' came from nothing or have suffered a life-shattering blow like many of the less fortunate who rely on social services to live. I'm guessing very few.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 3/16/2009 5:02:28 PM
Author: saltymuffin

Date: 3/16/2009 4:22:02 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/16/2009 4:04:33 PM

Author: Porridge

Date: 3/16/2009 3:55:37 PM

Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/16/2009 3:42:09 PM


Author: saltymuffin


Thanks for sharing your story vespergirl, but do note that when suggesting the merrits of universal health care, we are not talking about a communist system like those that your family members left behind.

Yugoslavia was actually a socialist country, not communist.



But my point was really to illustrate that even in countries that have supposedly egalitarian health care systems, there is still a discrepancy between what is received by the wealthy and connected, and what is received by the poor and disenfranchised. There is no truly classless country or society in the world. I still truly believe that universal health care in this country would mean that perhaps the uninsured would receive better care than they get now, but the vast majority of Americans, who are insured, would most likely receive care that is not as good as what we currently receive if we are subject to a universal system.

Vespergirl, I can tell you from intimate knowledge of French, English, German, Scandinavian (I moved around a bit

) etc etc healthcare AND university education, that there is no discrepancy between what is received by the wealthy and connected, and what is received by the poor. You''re right, these countries are not classless. And of course, there will always be a small number who cheat the system, and those who abuse power, it''s inevitable. But by and large, it is equal.

I think that you''re right about the quality of services received in the northern European countries - I have a cousin who lives in Sweden, and she says that everything is really great there. I also have friends in Denmark, and they are totally happy with the services and entitlements they receive.


But there are so many in the US who have an entitlement mentality, and have no incentive or drive to work for anything. Generational poverty is a big social problem in our country in many areas (inner cities, Appalachia, etc.) There are SO MANY that take advantage of the social programs here now, who don''t have the drive or the gumption to contribute to society, I think that it would be much worse once we socialize everything. There will always be a very small minority who will need our help regardless (the disabled, etc.), but already there is no fairness in our tax system, and it will just get so much worse if it''s socialized.


Perhaps if there were a national flat tax, and everyone contributed the same percentage of their income, I would be fine with it. But right now, high-achievers are penalized for earning a decent living by paying for everyone else, and that will only get worse if we socialize - especially because those in the higher tax brackets pay for social services that they themselves are generally not eligible for. Honestly, it makes me resentful to know that my husband hands over more than 35% of his income in taxes, yet we don''t receive the same benefits from his hard-earned money that people do who pay no taxes at all. That''s why the more well-off people in this country resent the government social systems - we totally pay for them, and receive nothing in return, whereas the recipients do nothing to contribute to what they recieve.

You make a really interesting point here - something that I hadn''t really grasped before about American bitterness towards social services. The great thing about universal services is that they are universal! I know a lot of people who complain about taxes, but then say, ''well at least I get - fill in whatever service - for it''. And I feel the same way. I get health care, good public education, quality public transit, etc etc for my money. I feel it is worth it. If I paid that much, and got none of those things, I would be bitter too! Are you sure that your husband pays 35% of his TOTAL income in taxes?? That is huge. I only pay 20% and I pay the ''high'' Canadian taxes. Are you sure you don''t mean that his top tax bracket is 35%?

And trust me, it isn''t just in Sweden and Denmark that people are happy with their government provided services. My father had a quadruple bi-pass several years ago, and my mother underwent radiation treatment for early breast cancer. Both are very happy with the treatment they received - and very healthy today. I would never, ever trade the system I have for a private system like you have in the US.

35% is just with federal taxes and witholdings. It''s actually closer to 40% with our state and property taxes (you have too pay much more to live in an area with decent public schools - so we are even paying more for the one social serivice (public education) that we are eligible for).

 

[vespergirl]

to whom much is given, much is expected. The poverty line for a family of 4 is about 20K. Could you and your husband afford to support yourself and 2 kids on 21K? And then pay 30% of your income to tax? The suggestion is prepostereous, especially since we live in a class based society. If everyone woke up tomorrow, got good grades and applied for college, people would be left behind. We don''t have capacity for everyone to go to college. If everyone had a college degree, then all that would mean is that a college degree would qualify you to be a janitor. You can''t have it both ways, but people pretend that we can. It''s easy to demonize these ''social leeches'', but they become the boogey man. There are far more people who are fighting everyday for everything that they get than these social loafers. I would be proud to earn enough money that I could give 35% to support the well being of my country, and I don''t even consider myself patriotic!

ok, let me get back on topic... Good thing I am the OP!

Just to clarify, the flat taxes that have been previously proposed by politicians are more like 5 - 10% for everyone, not 30%.

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 3/16/2009 5:53:46 PM
Author: vespergirl

to whom much is given, much is expected. The poverty line for a family of 4 is about 20K. Could you and your husband afford to support yourself and 2 kids on 21K? And then pay 30% of your income to tax? The suggestion is prepostereous, especially since we live in a class based society. If everyone woke up tomorrow, got good grades and applied for college, people would be left behind. We don''t have capacity for everyone to go to college. If everyone had a college degree, then all that would mean is that a college degree would qualify you to be a janitor. You can''t have it both ways, but people pretend that we can. It''s easy to demonize these ''social leeches'', but they become the boogey man. There are far more people who are fighting everyday for everything that they get than these social loafers. I would be proud to earn enough money that I could give 35% to support the well being of my country, and I don''t even consider myself patriotic!


ok, let me get back on topic... Good thing I am the OP!

Just to clarify, the flat taxes that have been previously proposed by politicians are more like 5 - 10% for everyone, not 30%.

10% income tax is not going to be enough to cover even the basic school system!

 

[Porridge]

Date: 3/16/2009 5:38:41 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 3/16/2009 4:36:57 PM

Author: trillionaire


to whom much is given, much is expected. The poverty line for a family of 4 is about 20K. Could you and your husband afford to support yourself and 2 kids on 21K? And then pay 30% of your income to tax? The suggestion is prepostereous, especially since we live in a class based society. If everyone woke up tomorrow, got good grades and applied for college, people would be left behind. We don''t have capacity for everyone to go to college. If everyone had a college degree, then all that would mean is that a college degree would qualify you to be a janitor. You can''t have it both ways, but people pretend that we can. It''s easy to demonize these ''social leeches'', but they become the boogey man. There are far more people who are fighting everyday for everything that they get than these social loafers. I would be proud to earn enough money that I could give 35% to support the well being of my country, and I don''t even consider myself patriotic!


ok, let me get back on topic... Good thing I am the OP!

I agree, trill. There are plenty of good, hardworking people who struggle to support their families, and it isn''t fair to punish them for the ''sins of the leeches.''


I wonder just how many who bring up the ''entitlement mentality'' came from nothing or have suffered a life-shattering blow like many of the less fortunate who rely on social services to live. I''m guessing very few.

True Ebree and Trillion. But there are those out there that abuse the system, and they are not necessarily the least fortunate. I''m know of a guy that claims disability on false grounds when he is fully capable of working. He hurt his hand in a fight. He comes from a well off family. He spends it on video games, nights out etc. There''s tons of examples of this kind of crap going on. These are the leeches, these are the ones abusing the system at the expense of those who really need the benefits. They''re like the ones who sue for $$$''s for tripping on a pavement crack, driving insurance through the roof for everyone else and making it difficult for people with real claims. They will always be around. OK now I''m just ranting

/end threadjack

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 3/16/2009 5:38:41 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 3/16/2009 4:36:57 PM
Author: trillionaire

to whom much is given, much is expected. The poverty line for a family of 4 is about 20K. Could you and your husband afford to support yourself and 2 kids on 21K? And then pay 30% of your income to tax? The suggestion is prepostereous, especially since we live in a class based society. If everyone woke up tomorrow, got good grades and applied for college, people would be left behind. We don''t have capacity for everyone to go to college. If everyone had a college degree, then all that would mean is that a college degree would qualify you to be a janitor. You can''t have it both ways, but people pretend that we can. It''s easy to demonize these ''social leeches'', but they become the boogey man. There are far more people who are fighting everyday for everything that they get than these social loafers. I would be proud to earn enough money that I could give 35% to support the well being of my country, and I don''t even consider myself patriotic!

ok, let me get back on topic... Good thing I am the OP!

I agree, trill. There are plenty of good, hardworking people who struggle to support their families, and it isn''t fair to punish them for the ''sins of the leeches.''

I wonder just how many who bring up the ''entitlement mentality'' came from nothing or have suffered a life-shattering blow like many of the less fortunate who rely on social services to live. I''m guessing very few.

Well, I am upper-middle class now, but my parents lived in severe poverty (were actually malnourished as children), came to this country as family-sponsored refugees, but took NO social service money even though they were penniless when they arrived. My grandparents worked as maids and restaurant workers, and my father worked as a restaurant worker to pay his way through college. They lived in the ghetto (Hell''s Kitchen, NY), and were able to succeed even though they came here not speaking the language. So yes, I feel entitled to say that even though my family has a lower-class background, through hard work they were able to succeed without leaching off the government. In a matter of 15 years my father was able to transform himself from a barefoot, non-English speaking peasant into a college-educated businessman.

And as for my personal background, in my first marriage, I was married to a man who was a musician, and refused to find a job that offered insurance, even though we fought bitterly about it (even his family thought that I was being uptight, and that we should "enjoy our youth"). Of course, I, being the responsible type, took a job that I hated to insure us because I knew that was important than anything else. Six months after we were married he was diagnosed with stage 3b Hodgkin''s Lymphoma - he was 28 years old. I had a great PPO plan, and even though his cancer was so far advanced when he was diagnosed, I was able to find him the best specialists and he was able to go into remission. So, I was in fact close to a medical catastrophy in my life, that I faced at the age of 23. It''s not like I don''t know how devastating serious illnesses can be - but I also know that it was my sense of responsibility that helped save my ex-husband''s life, and saved him from crippling debt. I personally know many people who don''t bother to get insured, because they don''t want to pay for it or don''t want to take the types of jobs that offer insurance, but then have to deal with the consequences after choosing not to insure themselves. So, not everyone is a victim who is uninsured - many people make that choice.

 

[Porridge]

Date: 3/16/2009 6:11:51 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/16/2009 5:38:41 PM

Author: EBree

Date: 3/16/2009 4:36:57 PM

Author: trillionaire


to whom much is given, much is expected. The poverty line for a family of 4 is about 20K. Could you and your husband afford to support yourself and 2 kids on 21K? And then pay 30% of your income to tax? The suggestion is prepostereous, especially since we live in a class based society. If everyone woke up tomorrow, got good grades and applied for college, people would be left behind. We don''t have capacity for everyone to go to college. If everyone had a college degree, then all that would mean is that a college degree would qualify you to be a janitor. You can''t have it both ways, but people pretend that we can. It''s easy to demonize these ''social leeches'', but they become the boogey man. There are far more people who are fighting everyday for everything that they get than these social loafers. I would be proud to earn enough money that I could give 35% to support the well being of my country, and I don''t even consider myself patriotic!


ok, let me get back on topic... Good thing I am the OP!

I agree, trill. There are plenty of good, hardworking people who struggle to support their families, and it isn''t fair to punish them for the ''sins of the leeches.''


I wonder just how many who bring up the ''entitlement mentality'' came from nothing or have suffered a life-shattering blow like many of the less fortunate who rely on social services to live. I''m guessing very few.

Well, I am upper-middle class now, but my parents lived in severe poverty (were actually malnourished as children), came to this country as family-sponsored refugees, but took NO social service money even though they were penniless when they arrived. My grandparents worked as maids and restaurant workers, and my father worked as a restaurant worker to pay his way through college. They lived in the ghetto (Hell''s Kitchen, NY), and were able to succeed even though they came here not speaking the language. So yes, I feel entitled to say that even though my family has a lower-class background, through hard work they were able to succeed without leaching off the government. In a matter of 15 years my father was able to transform himself from a barefoot, non-English speaking peasant into a college-educated businessman.


And as for my personal background, in my first marriage, I was married to a man who was a musician, and refused to find a job that offered insurance, even though we fought bitterly about it (even his family thought that I was being uptight, and that we should ''enjoy our youth''). Of course, I, being the responsible type, took a job that I hated to insure us because I knew that was important than anything else. Six months after we were married he was diagnosed with stage 3b Hodgkin''s Lymphoma - he was 28 years old. I had a great PPO plan, and even though his cancer was so far advanced when he was diagnosed, I was able to find him the best specialists and he was able to go into remission. So, I was in fact close to a medical catastrophy in my life, that I faced at the age of 23. It''s not like I don''t know how devastating serious illnesses can be - but I also know that it was my sense of responsibility that helped save my ex-husband''s life, and saved him from crippling debt. I personally know many people who don''t bother to get insured, because they don''t want to pay for it or don''t want to take the types of jobs that offer insurance, but then have to deal with the consequences after choosing not to insure themselves. So, not everyone is a victim who is uninsured - many people make that choice.

Vespergirl Kudos to your parents and I''m sorry that you had to go through all that with your husband. But having to take a job you hate just so you and your family won''t die from lack of healthcare? Or at the very least become bankrupt? Isn''t that the crux of the problem??

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 3/16/2009 6:11:51 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/16/2009 5:38:41 PM

Author: EBree

Date: 3/16/2009 4:36:57 PM

Author: trillionaire


to whom much is given, much is expected. The poverty line for a family of 4 is about 20K. Could you and your husband afford to support yourself and 2 kids on 21K? And then pay 30% of your income to tax? The suggestion is prepostereous, especially since we live in a class based society. If everyone woke up tomorrow, got good grades and applied for college, people would be left behind. We don''t have capacity for everyone to go to college. If everyone had a college degree, then all that would mean is that a college degree would qualify you to be a janitor. You can''t have it both ways, but people pretend that we can. It''s easy to demonize these ''social leeches'', but they become the boogey man. There are far more people who are fighting everyday for everything that they get than these social loafers. I would be proud to earn enough money that I could give 35% to support the well being of my country, and I don''t even consider myself patriotic!


ok, let me get back on topic... Good thing I am the OP!

I agree, trill. There are plenty of good, hardworking people who struggle to support their families, and it isn''t fair to punish them for the ''sins of the leeches.''


I wonder just how many who bring up the ''entitlement mentality'' came from nothing or have suffered a life-shattering blow like many of the less fortunate who rely on social services to live. I''m guessing very few.

Well, I am upper-middle class now, but my parents lived in severe poverty (were actually malnourished as children), came to this country as family-sponsored refugees, but took NO social service money even though they were penniless when they arrived. My grandparents worked as maids and restaurant workers, and my father worked as a restaurant worker to pay his way through college. They lived in the ghetto (Hell''s Kitchen, NY), and were able to succeed even though they came here not speaking the language. So yes, I feel entitled to say that even though my family has a lower-class background, through hard work they were able to succeed without leaching off the government. In a matter of 15 years my father was able to transform himself from a barefoot, non-English speaking peasant into a college-educated businessman.


And as for my personal background, in my first marriage, I was married to a man who was a musician, and refused to find a job that offered insurance, even though we fought bitterly about it (even his family thought that I was being uptight, and that we should ''enjoy our youth''). Of course, I, being the responsible type, took a job that I hated to insure us because I knew that was important than anything else. Six months after we were married he was diagnosed with stage 3b Hodgkin''s Lymphoma - he was 28 years old. I had a great PPO plan, and even though his cancer was so far advanced when he was diagnosed, I was able to find him the best specialists and he was able to go into remission. So, I was in fact close to a medical catastrophy in my life, that I faced at the age of 23. It''s not like I don''t know how devastating serious illnesses can be - but I also know that it was my sense of responsibility that helped save my ex-husband''s life, and saved him from crippling debt. I personally know many people who don''t bother to get insured, because they don''t want to pay for it or don''t want to take the types of jobs that offer insurance, but then have to deal with the consequences after choosing not to insure themselves. So, not everyone is a victim who is uninsured - many people make that choice.

The question is, do you think those who don''t know better to get insurance like your ex, or those who can''t afford to buy it, deserve to be sick and ignored by the rest of us?

Your story gives more of a reason for pushing the health reform in this country. Why should YOU be the one paying for your ex''s ignorance on on insurance covergae? If insurance coverage is mandatory for all, then you would not have to go through what you went through.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 3/16/2009 3:15:06 PM
Author: vespergirl
she had two masters degrees when she arrived (finance and economics), and spoke perfect English, but couldn't find a job better than a secretary once she got here.

Hmmm... sounds like a situation familiar to a lot of equally highly educated native Americans here in "2009 Recessionville". Where should we all escape to? I'll pack a bag ...

 

[trillionaire]

Date: 3/16/2009 6:11:51 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/16/2009 5:38:41 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 3/16/2009 4:36:57 PM
Author: trillionaire

to whom much is given, much is expected. The poverty line for a family of 4 is about 20K. Could you and your husband afford to support yourself and 2 kids on 21K? And then pay 30% of your income to tax? The suggestion is prepostereous, especially since we live in a class based society. If everyone woke up tomorrow, got good grades and applied for college, people would be left behind. We don''t have capacity for everyone to go to college. If everyone had a college degree, then all that would mean is that a college degree would qualify you to be a janitor. You can''t have it both ways, but people pretend that we can. It''s easy to demonize these ''social leeches'', but they become the boogey man. There are far more people who are fighting everyday for everything that they get than these social loafers. I would be proud to earn enough money that I could give 35% to support the well being of my country, and I don''t even consider myself patriotic!

ok, let me get back on topic... Good thing I am the OP!

I agree, trill. There are plenty of good, hardworking people who struggle to support their families, and it isn''t fair to punish them for the ''sins of the leeches.''

I wonder just how many who bring up the ''entitlement mentality'' came from nothing or have suffered a life-shattering blow like many of the less fortunate who rely on social services to live. I''m guessing very few.

Well, I am upper-middle class now, but my parents lived in severe poverty (were actually malnourished as children), came to this country as family-sponsored refugees, but took NO social service money even though they were penniless when they arrived. My grandparents worked as maids and restaurant workers, and my father worked as a restaurant worker to pay his way through college. They lived in the ghetto (Hell''s Kitchen, NY), and were able to succeed even though they came here not speaking the language. So yes, I feel entitled to say that even though my family has a lower-class background, through hard work they were able to succeed without leaching off the government. In a matter of 15 years my father was able to transform himself from a barefoot, non-English speaking peasant into a college-educated businessman.

And as for my personal background, in my first marriage, I was married to a man who was a musician, and refused to find a job that offered insurance, even though we fought bitterly about it (even his family thought that I was being uptight, and that we should ''enjoy our youth''). Of course, I, being the responsible type, took a job that I hated to insure us because I knew that was important than anything else. Six months after we were married he was diagnosed with stage 3b Hodgkin''s Lymphoma - he was 28 years old. I had a great PPO plan, and even though his cancer was so far advanced when he was diagnosed, I was able to find him the best specialists and he was able to go into remission. So, I was in fact close to a medical catastrophy in my life, that I faced at the age of 23. It''s not like I don''t know how devastating serious illnesses can be - but I also know that it was my sense of responsibility that helped save my ex-husband''s life, and saved him from crippling debt. I personally know many people who don''t bother to get insured, because they don''t want to pay for it or don''t want to take the types of jobs that offer insurance, but then have to deal with the consequences after choosing not to insure themselves. So, not everyone is a victim who is uninsured - many people make that choice.

Many people can''t afford coverage. Many people cannot get jobs that offer coverage. What are they supposed to do? Why should health have to be a choice? Art has a value in this society, and I want my artists to enjoy creativity AND good health.

 

[swimmer]

Date: 3/16/2009 3:55:37 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/16/2009 3:42:09 PM

Author: saltymuffin

Thanks for sharing your story vespergirl, but do note that when suggesting the merrits of universal health care, we are not talking about a communist system like those that your family members left behind.

Yugoslavia was actually a socialist country, not communist.


But my point was really to illustrate that even in countries that have supposedly egalitarian health care systems, there is still a discrepancy between what is received by the wealthy and connected, and what is received by the poor and disenfranchised. There is no truly classless country or society in the world. I still truly believe that universal health care in this country would mean that perhaps the uninsured would receive better care than they get now, but the vast majority of Americans, who are insured, would most likely receive care that is not as good as what we currently receive if we are subject to a universal system.

Yugoslavia was technically a totalitarian regime. Socialism is power shared equally in the hands of the people and has the problem of being wildly inefficient. Totalitarianism, is total control over the populace by a small cadre of very fat cats (or pigs in Animal Farm.) Small numbers of people around Tito had total control and the people payed for it desperately. Analogies can be drawn between that near-genocidal situation and today in the US where captains of industry wring every cent from the population. Yugoslavia was egalitarian for about the first few hours after the regime was seated.

 

[coatimundi_org]

Health care should be a right, not a privilege.

I fail to see how the political climate of Yugoslavia in the 1960s has anything to do with the current US health care crisis. We have, in this very thread, people from countries that appreciate the benefits of socialized medicine. Why is it such a difficult concept to understand?? They get it! Why can't Americans?? The answer? GREED.

And speaking of people "leeching off the system," the only leeches that have had a substantial effect on the current US economy are financial corporations that have taken taxpayer dollars to finance their failure.

Currently, we are paying at least 20-30% more for health care than we need to, because of the overhead of private corporations.

eta: Thanks Swimmer.

 

[coatimundi_org]

Date: 3/16/2009 2:39:19 PM
Author: coatimundi
Many people have immigrated to the US from countries that are NOT, in fact, ''socialist.'' For example, Russia, it used to a communist state, and now it has developed into an Oligarchy that has surface trappings of democracy and substantial remnants of authoritarianism. Russia''s version of communism at its height is different from China''s version of communism at its height.


Just keep on confusing socialism with bastardized totalitarian versions of communism, people.

Using the right terminology is a good place to start.

re: Swimmer''s last post.

North Korea calls itself a "Democratic People''s Republic." Get it??

Forest? I introduce you to the trees.

 

[Porridge]

Date: 3/16/2009 7:14:41 PM
Author: coatimundi
Health care should be a right, not a privilege.


I fail to see how the political climate of Yugoslavia in the 1960s has anything to do with the current US health care crisis. We have, in this very thread, people from countries that appreciate the benefits of socialized medicine. Why is it such a difficult concept to understand?? They get it! Why can''t Americans?? The answer? GREED.


And speaking of people ''leeching off the system,'' the only leeches that have had a substantial effect on the current US economy are financial corporations that have taken taxpayer dollars to finance their failure.


Currently, we are paying at least 20-30% more for health care than we need to, because of the overhead of private corporations.


eta: Thanks Swimmer.

Agree with everything here. I think we are talking about the same people, albeit at different levels, when we talk about leeches. The ones who greedily take money they don''t need, they don''t deserve, that is meant for others who do need it.

 

[beebrisk]

Date: 3/16/2009 6:11:51 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/16/2009 5:38:41 PM

Author: EBree

Date: 3/16/2009 4:36:57 PM

Author: trillionaire


to whom much is given, much is expected. The poverty line for a family of 4 is about 20K. Could you and your husband afford to support yourself and 2 kids on 21K? And then pay 30% of your income to tax? The suggestion is prepostereous, especially since we live in a class based society. If everyone woke up tomorrow, got good grades and applied for college, people would be left behind. We don''t have capacity for everyone to go to college. If everyone had a college degree, then all that would mean is that a college degree would qualify you to be a janitor. You can''t have it both ways, but people pretend that we can. It''s easy to demonize these ''social leeches'', but they become the boogey man. There are far more people who are fighting everyday for everything that they get than these social loafers. I would be proud to earn enough money that I could give 35% to support the well being of my country, and I don''t even consider myself patriotic!


ok, let me get back on topic... Good thing I am the OP!

I agree, trill. There are plenty of good, hardworking people who struggle to support their families, and it isn''t fair to punish them for the ''sins of the leeches.''


I wonder just how many who bring up the ''entitlement mentality'' came from nothing or have suffered a life-shattering blow like many of the less fortunate who rely on social services to live. I''m guessing very few.

Well, I am upper-middle class now, but my parents lived in severe poverty (were actually malnourished as children), came to this country as family-sponsored refugees, but took NO social service money even though they were penniless when they arrived. My grandparents worked as maids and restaurant workers, and my father worked as a restaurant worker to pay his way through college. They lived in the ghetto (Hell''s Kitchen, NY), and were able to succeed even though they came here not speaking the language. So yes, I feel entitled to say that even though my family has a lower-class background, through hard work they were able to succeed without leaching off the government. In a matter of 15 years my father was able to transform himself from a barefoot, non-English speaking peasant into a college-educated businessman.


And as for my personal background, in my first marriage, I was married to a man who was a musician, and refused to find a job that offered insurance, even though we fought bitterly about it (even his family thought that I was being uptight, and that we should ''enjoy our youth''). Of course, I, being the responsible type, took a job that I hated to insure us because I knew that was important than anything else. Six months after we were married he was diagnosed with stage 3b Hodgkin''s Lymphoma - he was 28 years old. I had a great PPO plan, and even though his cancer was so far advanced when he was diagnosed, I was able to find him the best specialists and he was able to go into remission. So, I was in fact close to a medical catastrophy in my life, that I faced at the age of 23. It''s not like I don''t know how devastating serious illnesses can be - but I also know that it was my sense of responsibility that helped save my ex-husband''s life, and saved him from crippling debt. I personally know many people who don''t bother to get insured, because they don''t want to pay for it or don''t want to take the types of jobs that offer insurance, but then have to deal with the consequences after choosing not to insure themselves. So, not everyone is a victim who is uninsured - many people make that choice.

Wow, Vesper. First let me say, yours is an amazing story/history. It definitely brings perspective to the situation and personally makes me proud and humbled and privileged to have been born and raised in this country. I was fortunate because my parents are 2nd and 3rd generation so I didn''t have to go through the same hard times you did. Your father''s accomplishments should be an inspiration to many.

I agree with you that not everyone is a victim who is uninsured. I have two friends right now (in their 40''s!) who won''t take jobs that provide benefits or enough salary so they can afford their own insurance. Both are photographers and have made the decision not to "compromise" their art by spending weekends photographing weddings or Bar Mitzvahs.

So, we all know who pays if G-d forbid they need some kind of critical care one of these days..

Let''s face it. The system is a mess and I sure as heck don''t have the answers. I just happen to be one of those people who believes that almost everything the government touches turns to krap. Because we are not a Socialist country I don''t have to trust my government to protect my health, act in my best interest and administer my care. I hope I never have to.

I''m glad your your stories turned around and turned out so well.

 

[Jas12]

Vesper--what your family went through sounds very difficult and i wouldn''t want to belittle that, but if we are just talking about the US adopting a new model of health care i don''t think it is fair to even compare that situation to current day America.
As SaltyMuffin so eloquently points out, you don''t need socialism (and canada is not a socialist country) to provide good quality heath care to the country. All the top-ranked countries in the world (Aus. NZ, Canada and some European countries) do it. Obviously these countries are nothing like what your parents escaped.
Many ppl escape to Canada, Aust, etc. (heck, many many Americans ''escape'' to canada -including close friends of mine) not *from* it.

....
IMO an ideological shift has to happen in the minds of Americans who don''t believe all citizens deserve the same access to basic health care. We westerns are used to getting what we want--we rape the land, exploit workers from other countries & use brute force to fuel some odd sense of entitlement. Well, things are unravelling, resources are running out and the rest of the world has wised up. We all need to stop hoarding wealth and adopt a community mindedness aimed at something we should all learn in quality *public* kindergarden: Sharing
It''s so basic.
It is so fundamental.
It''s obviously hard to do.
Sure, iam a bit of an idealist, but the US has a good opportunity right now to set an amazing and promising example to the rest of the world, not just through health care reform but through all levels of global responsibility....