In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Just when you thought they couldn’t get any lower…

Republicans attack a 12-year-old boy. I wrote about this briefly yesterday, but I think it’s worth expanding upon.

The story, basically, is that 12-year-old Graeme Frost was in a horrific car crash that left him severely injured and in a coma. The crash left his sister with permanent disabilities. The Frosts didn’t have health insurance, and the S-CHIP program kicked in to pay for the kids’ health care. Democrats have been trying to expand the program, and Bush has vetoed the expansion. Graeme was invited to give the response to Bush’s weekly radio address on Sept. 29th, and he discussed his experience and how S-CHIP helped him.

And Republicans went on the attack.

In recent days, Graeme and his family have been attacked by conservative bloggers and other critics of the Democrats’ plan to expand the insurance program, known as S-chip. They scrutinized the family’s income and assets — even alleged the counters in their kitchen to be granite — and declared that the Frosts did not seem needy enough for government benefits.
(…)
The critics accused Graeme’s father, Halsey, a self-employed woodworker, of choosing not to provide insurance for his family of six, even though he owned his own business. They pointed out that Graeme attends an expensive private school. And they asserted that the family’s home had undergone extensive remodeling, and that its market value could exceed $400,000.

One critic, in an e-mail message to Graeme’s mother, Bonnie, warned: “Lie down with dogs, and expect to get fleas.”

Michelle Malkin went as far as to show up in the Frosts’ neighborhood and at their workplace to survey their living situation and talk to their neighbors.

I wonder how she’d react if someone showed up at her home, talked to her neighbors about her, and then posted all the info they could find (including wild speculations about her financial status) on an extremely popular website read by creeps and assholes across the world?

But, whoops, Michelle and her friends were wrong:

As it turns out, the Frosts say, Graeme attends the private school on scholarship. The business that the critics said Mr. Frost owned was dissolved in 1999. The family’s home, in the modest Butchers Hill neighborhood of Baltimore, was bought for $55,000 in 1990 and is now worth about $260,000, according to public records. And, for the record, the Frosts say, their kitchen counters are concrete.

The conservative response? Argue that the family should have sold their property and other assets to pay for health insurance.

The whole thing is beyond ridiculous. Yes, the Frosts do own a piece of commercial property valued at $160,000 — and they use it to generate income. In other words, selling it would make them poorer. And it wouldn’t have provided them a stable income to be used for monthly insurance costs.

But Michelle Malkin, one of the bloggers who have strongly criticized the Frosts, insisted Republicans should hold their ground and not pull punches.

“The bottom line here is that this family has considerable assets,” Ms. Malkin wrote in an e-mail message. “Maryland’s S-chip program does not means-test. The refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If Republicans don’t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.”

So if your kids get sick or are injured and you don’t have insurance, you should have to sell your house and any other assets you have. Then if you’re really poor, maybe the government will help you — but more likely, folks like Malkin will accuse you of making stupid financial decisions and ask why you think you’re entitled to government aid.

Conservatives are also asking why kids are being used as political props. While that’s generally problematic, this issue is about kids. You know, real kids. Not adorable “snowflake babies”* which, if I remember correctly, have been trotted out a few times. It isn’t even peripherally about children. The whole, entire focus is children’s health. So while it may be uncomfortable to have to see the face of an actual 12-year-old to whom you’d like to deny medical care, that’s the reality of the right-wing political position on this one.

It’s particularly interesting how the party of corporate welfare will bend over backwards to prove that the poor are wasteful and entitled, and then turn around and bitch about things like the “death tax” because it takes money from trust-fund babies. I suppose the most deserving of money are chosen by God to be born into it, and the rest of us should just shut up and be happy with what we have. After all, if we get sick we can always just go to the emergency room, right?

*By which I mean the “adopted” embryos, not the actual kid after it’s born.


89 thoughts on Just when you thought they couldn’t get any lower…

  1. While that’s generally problematic, this issue is about kids. You know, real kids. Not adorable “snowflake babies” which, if I remember correctly, have been trotted out a few times.

    Please correct me if I’m wrong – but are you asserting that children born after being adopted as embryos (“snowflake babies”) aren’t “real kids?”

  2. Michelle Malkin went as far as to show up in the Frosts’ neighborhood and at their workplace to survey their living situation and talk to their neighbors.

    I wonder how she’d react if someone showed up at her home, talked to her neighbors about her, and then posted all the info they could find (including wild speculations about her financial status) on an extremely popular website read by creeps and assholes across the world?

    Michelle Malkin has already had to move after her address was published online. Yet she continues to do shit like this, and to publish the personal contact information of students whose political viewpoints she doesn’t like.

    All of this, remember, is because the Republicans are shitting themselves over the idea that middle-income Americans might decide that they are entitled to government healthcare. And once they start viewing it that way, they’re going to have another Social Security on their hands, which is not called “The Third Rail of American Politics” for nothing.

  3. Unfortunately, most people have no idea how much health care actually costs. A friend of mine recieved a bill for $55,000 after her child was born premature. That was for a 10-day stint in the NICU. Fortunately, they had health insurance which covered every dime.

    We are lucky that we qualify for SCHIP. If we didn’t, I don’t have a clue how we would be able to afford medical care for our kids.

    $40,000 a year sounds like a decent amount, unless you’re uninsured (we are) and one trip to the emergency room could eat up a quarter of your annual salary.

  4. Let’s implement means testing for congress and also Medicare, as Malkin seems to think it’s a good idea…that would free up a lot of money for the poor.

    This is an atroicious story, and Malkin is a soulless opportunist.

  5. If the Frosts were instead asking the Republican party to help them because they were going to suffer as the result of some lib’rul program, people like Malkin would practically be sponsoring them for sainthood.

    They don’t give a shit about the family one way or another. What they care about is that the family’s situation is being used as counter to the President’s position on SCHIP. Therefore, they are The Enemy, and any and all means used to destroy them are acceptable.

  6. $40,000 a year sounds like a decent amount, unless you’re uninsured (we are) and one trip to the emergency room could eat up a quarter of your annual salary.

    They also seem to fail to take into account the fact that a given amount that is decent in one area may not be in another.
    $40,000 in several NE urban areas like Boston would mean you’re struggling, especially with the gentrification and skyrocketing housing costs. I recalled an article from several years back stating you needed to make at least $60,000/year just to be able to afford living within the city of Boston.

  7. Although I deplore this witch hunt, I can’t help wondering why the car insurance didn’t cover the medical costs of the accident. I wish the article had addressed that issue.

  8. Nice of you to add the asterisk to the post.

    But the “real kids” comments still doesn’t seem to make much sense. If the point of the paragraph is to point out the Republicans’ hypocrisy with being mad about trotting out kids as props to defend a policy position it doesn’t make any sense to say Bush trotted out embryos (which you’re saying are the non-real kids) to defend his veto when he trotted out born children who you are saying are “real kids.”

  9. Nice of you to add the asterisk to the post.

    Yeah, after I read your comment I realized that the post was really unclear. So I fixed it.

    But the “real kids” comments still doesn’t seem to make much sense. If the point of the paragraph is to point out the Republicans’ hypocrisy with being mad about trotting out kids as props to defend a policy position it doesn’t make any sense to say Bush trotted out embryos (which you’re saying are the non-real kids) to defend his veto when he trotted out born children who you are saying are “real kids.”

    I mean that he trots out the “snowflake babies” term to support his anti-choice policies. He talks about embryos as if they’re children.

  10. Although I deplore this witch hunt, I can’t help wondering why the car insurance didn’t cover the medical costs of the accident.

    Just a guess, but they probably had an upper limit on the policy in terms of meds, if their own auto insurance was taking care of things. In any event, even if auto insurance was available to pay these costs, it might take years for the litigation to work its way through the system, and bills need to be paid now.

    But there are a number of ongoing issues, particularly with the sister, who has traumatic brain injury from the accident.

  11. the Republicans are shitting themselves over the idea that middle-income Americans might decide that they are entitled to government healthcare. And once they start viewing it that way, they’re going to have another Social Security on their hands, which is not called “The Third Rail of American Politics” for nothing.

    I think that’s fairly accurate. I can say that I, personally, am filled with unease at the idea of middle America deciding that the Federal government is obligated to provide for their health care and general material well-being.

    I would agree that the idea that anyone needs to dig up dirt on this story is awful. I don’t understand why they feel the need to respond at all. There’s no better way to make what is obviously a political dog and pony show a bigger deal than it needs to be than to go nuts attacking it. The proper response would have been, “I’m very sorry for the troubles this family is having, but if the Federal Government is expected to intervene in every case of personal calamity then there will eventually be no area of American life that is not run by it.”

  12. .Although I deplore this witch hunt, I can’t help wondering why the car insurance didn’t cover the medical costs of the accident. I wish the article had addressed that issue.

    Like zuzu said, most auto insurance policies have an upper limit to what they’ll pay out for medical. I think mine is $100,000, which would probably pay for, oh, maybe a week of care for a severely brain-damaged child.

  13. Pretty shabby the way the Repukes have been acting. But as you know, disability is more than a disaster — it’s a catastrophe of a magnitude of which even FEMA would be ashamed.

  14. I am against raising taxes or using current tax money to force people who don’t want to help children to help them. Therefore I do not think the program should be expanded at all. I must say I honestly and sincerely wish no one any ill, despite what follows. Anyone who benefits from this program is taking money from people that may not want to give them money. Theft is, to a degree, the purpose of government. I understand. It is very Robin Hood, and most people like Robin Hood. I also understand that there are societal benefits to the program that trickle out, but I’d rather give than be taxed.
    I’d rather choose freely whether to donate money to your families, but there are bigger issues I have with where my money is going right now (cough cough, the war, cough, cough)

    My opinion on the issue in the open, Malkin is a beyotch. Even though I disagree with the program, she is arguing against this legal program by trying to turn people into things. Evil. But then she has her morality, and I have mine.

  15. Ok, devil’s advocate, let’s think this all the way through. Do you want to build your own roads? Provide for your own care when you’re old, or if something happens and you’re suddenly destitute? Do you trust other Americans enough to donate enough out of the kindness of their hearts?

  16. Do you want to build your own roads?

    That’s a little ridiculous. Arguing that healthcare is not a legitimate function of government is not the same as arguing that government has no legitimate function. Infrastructure is obviously a legitimate function of government, even at the Federal level (as highways certainly affect interstate commerce).

    Provide for your own care when you’re old, or if something happens and you’re suddenly destitute?

    I’d hope my family would help me out in those cases.

    ? Do you trust other Americans enough to donate enough out of the kindness of their hearts?

    Yes. Absolutely yes. Especially when it becomes the social norm for people to get involved to help people in their community as opposed to having the government do it for them.

  17. This was left out in Jill’s response and I thought it was interesting (taken from the NY Times article):

    In a telephone interview, the Frosts said they had recently been rejected by three private insurance companies because of pre-existing medical conditions.

    So basically, the Frosts did try to get private insurance a few times and were DENIED. This is also a huge issue in private insurance: sometime people who want it can’t get it because they are deemed as too much of a “risk” for the company. It’s probably fairly certain that if the Frosts had qualified for private healthcare, they would have had it and not needed the help of S-CHIP. I mean I can’t see them going, “Hey we qualify for health insurance! Let’s not get it!” Until the government can regulate the private insurance industry (meaning everyone who wants it, can have it and afford it), programs like S-CHIP are imperative.

    I also think it’s horrible that the people who are outraged about this expect the Frosts to sell off their home to pay for medical care. How does that even make sense? Rich people are so out of touch sometime.

  18. Our family had to go to a lawyer to get the insurance company of the guy who hit us to pay for more than the initial doctors visit. Luckily we did not have to go to trial, but it took more than a year just to settle and be able to pay off our medical bills.

    Of course repubs are against suing (unless it is a business doing the suing) so if this family had gone the litigation route they’d be still be seen as bad citizens.

  19. I am against raising taxes or using current tax money to force people who don’t want to help children to help them.

    Ah, yes, the “all taxation is theft” argument. How many times have we been on this merry-go-round?

    Devil’s, my tax money paid for the internet to be built. I’m against allowing idiot libertarians to use it. Kindly disconnect and stop wasting my tax dollars.

  20. Yes. Absolutely yes. Especially when it becomes the social norm for people to get involved to help people in their community as opposed to having the government do it for them.

    …really? Has this ever worked, anywhere?

  21. To clarify — not people helping others in their community generally. People providing health care, and the money to pay for that health care, to their neighbors and community members with no government interference. Has that ever happened in a society with an advanced medical system, or a medical system that we would like to have?

    And how do we create that social norm? Will rich people help their neighbors, while poor people will be too poor to support the guy next door? Someone has to re-distribute things among the various communities. Who does that?

  22. That’s a little ridiculous. Arguing that healthcare is not a legitimate function of government is not the same as arguing that government has no legitimate function. Infrastructure is obviously a legitimate function of government, even at the Federal level (as highways certainly affect interstate commerce).

    But you’re drawing up the terms of legitimacy here. I think that providing for the physical health of its citizens is just as legitimate and crucial as building roads.

    And that aside, DA’s argument is that it’s “stealing” to tax people and spend the money on something they don’t want it spent on, like health care or the war. So the roads example is perfectly relevant. I don’t use roads all that much, since I don’t drive 11 months out of the year. Why should I have to pay for some dude’s roads down in Texas?

  23. But you’re drawing up the terms of legitimacy here. I think that providing for the physical health of its citizens is just as legitimate and crucial as building roads.

    You might, but unless I’m very mistaken (I am, of course, not a lawyer) the Constitution does not, nor did the men who wrote it. If we as a society think that healthcare and the like is now a legitimate function of the Federal government, we should amend the Constitution to say so, instead of just perverting the idea of “promoting the general welfare” because it seems like a good idea. The problem is that not enough people agree with that to pass an amendment.

    And how do we create that social norm? Will rich people help their neighbors, while poor people will be too poor to support the guy next door? Someone has to re-distribute things among the various communities. Who does that?

    I can tell you exactly how not to create it: by absolving individual citizens of their moral responsibility to look out for their neighbors by making the government responsible for things that free people should be responsible for themselves.

    As for the poor: I maintain that private charity, in a society where social responsibility is a private and voluntary virtue, will handle aid to the poor as well as it can reasonably be handled. But barring that, I think that any public assistance for the poor, be it welfare or healthcare insurance, should be handled at the state level, not the Federal.

  24. Henry, you didn’t address the rest of Jill’s comment. An interstate highway system isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution any more than health care is — but you were quick to throw it under the mantle of “interstate commerce,” just as you discarded any thought of health care as essential to promoting the general welfare. If you’re not willing to accept health care as a constitutional function of government, I certainly don’t have to accept the Interstate, which still leaves me wondering why my tax dollars have to go to pay for your roads.

  25. It’s not any kind of a stretch or dodge to consider the interstate highway system as having a direct effect on interstate commerce. There is no way whatsoever that our economy could function at the pace it does without a well-maintained system of highways for trucking. Regulating interstate commerce is an enumerated power of the Federal government. Providing for the “general welfare” is not. It’s a philosophical principle. They are not the same.

  26. Henry,

    As for the poor: I maintain that private charity, in a society where social responsibility is a private and voluntary virtue, will handle aid to the poor as well as it can reasonably be handled.

    You can maintain a claim until the cows come home, but Jill was asking for an example of this actually working. I think her question, which asked for it in a modern, industrialized society, was a bit silly because pretty much every nation in the First World has either some variation of “socialized medicine,” or has large safety net programs like Medicare and Medicaid. In other words, certainly no country seems to agree with you that private charity for health care will work.

    But let’s think historically and go outside the area of health care. Even if you never studied Industrial Revolution-era England, just watching a Mickey Mouse Christmas Carol program ought to give you some insight into the failures of private charity. When the government decides that it should have a severely limited role in providing for the poor, we end up with kids who are uneducated, malnutritioned, exploited (often into prostitution) and generally not Being All They Can Be. Even if I were amoral and didn’t care about the kids themselves, I’d be annoyed at the waste of human potential. At least let’s put plenty of resources into the kids to see how well they could do, and then kill the low performers. A society that effectively throws away what could be highly contributing members is a stupid society — particularly when those members manage to survive and instead of having their talents channeled into something productive, become criminals.

  27. Also, in what dictionary does “regulate Commerce” mean the same thing as “ensure that the modern economy is possible”? In that frame of thinking, we could haul in West Coast Hotel’s rationale:

    “The exploitation of a class of workers who are in an unequal position with respect to bargaining power and are thus relatively defenseless against the denial of a living wage is not only detrimental to their health and well being, but casts a direct burden for their support upon the community. What these workers lose in wages the taxpayers are called upon to pay. The bare cost of living must be met. We may take judicial notice of the unparalleled demands for relief which arose during the recent period of depression and still continue to an alarming extent despite the degree of economic recovery which has been achieved. It is unnecessary to cite official statistics to establish what is of common knowledge through the length and breadth of the land. While in the instant case no factual brief has been presented, there is no reason to doubt that the state of Washington has encountered the same social problem that is present elsewhere. The community is not bound to provide what is in effect a subsidy for unconscionable employers.”

  28. the people who are against SCHIP, as well as the ass hats who launched the assault on this family, and think the middle class should “suck it up”, (here i go, i will catch shit for this) have obviously never had the wonderful experience of making too much money for medicaid, and yet can’t afford the $500-$800 it might cost per month (for a family of TWO) to afford private insurance…(b/c that’s what it would have cost to insure my daughter and myself at the time i was in that situation)
    or made the choice b/t giving their kids a quality education, the best they can manage, and paying for private insurance. you reason that an education for your child is most important for their future, and scrape by medically…
    or maybe they CAN’T get insurance (which i think someone mentioned above) for whatever reason, b/c you are too much of a risk…or, as one friend of mine experienced, denied b/c the new wife was pregnant, which was a “pre-existing condition”, as the insurance company put it…babies cost too much money…
    or maybe the middle class doesn’t deserve to own houses, or even live in them, since the rent money or mortgage money would be spent on the almighty insurance…fine, live on the streets…but at least then you will have insurance…but forget your job…since a lot of employers won’t hire someone who doesn’t have a home…
    or eat…b/c that is often the choice middle class families have to make…feed the kids…or pay for insurance
    i don’t know what magical powers people think the middle class have…they are too rich to be poor, and too poor to get by sometimes…and often wedged into that gap where they do ok, seem fairly comfortable but still work really hard, but still can’t manage insurance…why should they have to sell their homes, add more mortgages, and a slew of other things that would make them more poor, and thus give them need for more government programs…they can’t fucking win!!!
    this program helped fill in that gap…
    you don’t fully know the reasons people have to spend their money the way they do…so don’t pretend to…until you can be 100% sure that these people are just freeloading off the government (and i have known people who have) mind your own fucking business…you just don’t know

  29. You can maintain a claim until the cows come home, but Jill was asking for an example of this actually working.

    I don’t know exactly what you mean by “working”. Working how? Can I give an example of private charity eradicating privation and ill health among the poor? No, of course not. But government programs can’t do that either. In any case, I have no illusions about any nation, including this one, doing away with public assistance. Again, it’s an issue better handled at the state or local level. I’m curious, and I’m sure there’s plenty of people here cocked and loaded with the answer: how does the standard of living of poor people here compare with the standard of living of the poor in countries with socialized welfare systems? I’m honestly curious.

    Also, in what dictionary does “regulate Commerce” mean the same thing as “ensure that the modern economy is possible”?

    I’m pretty sure that in every dictionary, regulate means to ensure maximum efficiency and optimal function. The interstate highway system certainly falls into that category.

  30. My original point was that I disagree with this program existing at all but that the republicans are being sucky about it. I love this blog and I agree with a lot of it.

    As for the road folks – Do you *benefit* from roads? I don’t care about the economical benefit so much as the fact that everyone benefits from them in numerous ways (including the economical one).
    You benefit from roads if:
    you walk on them, you travel by plane (airport employees need to get to work),
    you have a house built within the past few years (without roads, building would be slower), you ever have anything shipped to you, you bicycle on them, you have ridden in an ambulence or love someone who has, the police have come to your aid,
    you shop at a place that is not a farmstand (although if you walk between farms using no roads, from farmstand to farmstand, to buy your food every week, I salute you and I think you should start protesting road taxes)

    If there were an efficient per-use way to charge effectively for roads, I’d be all for it, but I think that it would end up costing more for everyone, since there are so many immeasurable benefits to roads and highways. The average american eats food from over 1000 miles away, I’ve heard.

    I unfortunately cannot give an example of a working system where private contributions work because no one has ever tried with today’s constraints vs. the past. When charity was left to the wealthy in the past, it didn’t work, because they were also often the people making up the taxes.
    I’m not sure it would work completely now, or I am sure that there’d be at least a few years of terrible suffering because people have this “the government will take care of it” attitude.

  31. I’m one of those “lucky poor” who is poor enough to be on Medicaid. If I’d had to pay for the four brain surgeries I had in the past two years, I have no idea what I would have done.
    Healthcare is underfunded and needs overhauling. Children need it the most! So,Devil’s Advocate and whoever else says they just don’t feel they want to help those who CANNOT pay medical bills, you are welcome to resent me because I am apparently taking advantage of the system and becoming ENTITLED to government luxuries. Problem is, I never found a charity that handed out brain surgeries or epilepsy medication or vagal nerve stimulators or neurology appointments. Sorry I’m so selfish I have to ask the government for help.

  32. You might, but unless I’m very mistaken (I am, of course, not a lawyer) the Constitution does not, nor did the men who wrote it.

    Considering that the Constitution was written back when the best medical science was cutting open the patient’s vein to let the bad humours out, I’m guessing that you’re probably right. But Jill is also right that they didn’t foresee federal highways, either — that’s nowhere in the Constitution.

    However, the Constitution is not this written-in-stone document that a lot of people seem to think. Read it over sometime. The form of the government is spelled out, especially since they were trying to fix the problems caused by the Articles of Confederation, but the specific functions of the government other than, say, setting the budget and declaring war, were left wide open. That’s why, unlike a lot of other countries, our Constitution is still useful more than 200 years after it was written: it was written to be extremely flexible and useful for a long period of time.

  33. Provide for your own care when you’re old, or if something happens and you’re suddenly destitute?

    I’d hope my family would help me out in those cases.

    And if they couldn’t help? Not everyone’s can, you know. Or if you outlived them?

    I also note that you still haven’t explained how we should go about creating

    in a society where social responsibility is a private and voluntary virtue

    because that isn’t the society we live in, and I honestly can’t think of any that have ever existed. You say

    I can tell you exactly how not to create it: by absolving individual citizens of their moral responsibility to look out for their neighbors by making the government responsible for things that free people should be responsible for themselves

    Okay, fine…so how do we create this society of socially responsible private citizens of yours?

    Finally, I have to ask what advantage you see in having public health programs at the state level instead of the federal. Won’t it create the same taxes, the same “absolution”? Do you expect that your state will devote little time and effort to such programs, saving you money that you can devote to your private works of charity?

  34. I didn’t say I don’t want to help you. I said that you aren’t giving me the choice, you are forcing it on me and that is wrong.

    I think an interesting exercise would be to let me personally decide where each % of my fed and state tax dollars went (beyond the absolute necessecities that benefit all, such as roads). Then we’d see who put most of theirs towards education, and we’d really see how many people wanted to pay for health care with their hearts and not just their votes.

  35. As for the road folks – Do you *benefit* from roads? I don’t care about the economical benefit so much as the fact that everyone benefits from them in numerous ways (including the economical one).

    Yes, let’s look at the benefits of health care for children for the whole society:

    – Do you like to get the measles or mumps? If kids aren’t getting their vaccines, not only will they get sick, they will easily infect other people around them. Look up “herd immunity” and see what happens when not enough people in a group get vaccinated — you yourself can still catch the disease even if you got your vaccine. Having unvaccinated children running around is a public health hazard for everyone.

    – Do you like worker productivity? The more time a worker has to spend tending to their sick child that they can’t afford to take to the doctor, the less time s/he has for work. Sure, you can fire them for missing so much time, but then you have to find, hire, and train a new worker who also probably has kids, so within a year or so, you fire them, too. Is it productive for your business to have constant turnover?

    Even if you are a heartless bastard who’s willing to let children die of preventable diseases in large numbers, you’d be a fool to do it, because it would have a major negative impact on your entire economy. Haven’t you ever heard “penny-wise and pound-foolish”?

  36. I think an interesting exercise would be to let me personally decide where each % of my fed and state tax dollars went (beyond the absolute necessecities that benefit all, such as roads). Then we’d see who put most of theirs towards education, and we’d really see how many people wanted to pay for health care with their hearts and not just their votes.

    Sounds great. Not another penny of my taxes would go toward the war in Iraq, except for transportation costs to bring the troops home. Anybody else on board with this?

  37. Then we’d see who put most of theirs towards education, and we’d really see how many people wanted to pay for health care with their hearts and not just their votes.

    Hey, if I could pull all of my tax dollars out of the Iraq war and put it into healthcare and education instead, I’d do it in a heartbeat. We’re spending $12 billion per month in Iraq. In contrast, in the high-case scenario of $50 billion for sCHIP, we’re talking about $10 billion per year for five years.

    What seems more economical to you: spending $144 billion per year on a war of choice, or spending $10 billion per year on children’s healthcare?

  38. I am against raising taxes or using current tax money to force people who don’t want to help children to help them.

    Some 40 years ago, we Canadians decided that we were against families becoming destitute due to the illness of one of its members, or having people die simply because they couldn’t afford medical care. The rest of the western world seems to agree.

    I really can’t understand why so many Americans would rather see their neighbors go bankrupt than have to do without that second car or trip to Disneyland.

  39. There is no way whatsoever that our economy could function at the pace it does without a well-maintained system of highways for trucking.

    Then I guess all those businesses engaging in interstate commerce can build, maintain and police those roads, since being private entities they’ll be way, way more efficient than gub’mint. And devil’s advocate would have to figure out how to obtain and purify his own water. Everybody wins!

    Now, since we’re not actually going to abolish the tax system, the question is whether we should expand SCHIP beyond the poorest of the poor. Why not? Wouldn’t that help business?

  40. You might, but unless I’m very mistaken (I am, of course, not a lawyer) the Constitution does not, nor did the men who wrote it. If we as a society think that healthcare and the like is now a legitimate function of the Federal government, we should amend the Constitution to say so, instead of just perverting the idea of “promoting the general welfare” because it seems like a good idea. The problem is that not enough people agree with that to pass an amendment.

    Uh, how is ensuring that the population is healthy “perverting the idea of ‘promoting the general welfare’?”

    In any event, Congress already regulates public health and safety.

    As for the road folks – Do you *benefit* from roads? I don’t care about the economical benefit so much as the fact that everyone benefits from them in numerous ways (including the economical one).

    You benefit from the control of infectious diseases, do you not? Businesses benefit when people can pay their bills, and one of the major causes of bankruptcy is medical expenses, even with insurance. One catastrophic illness can ruin a family, even if that family is insured. Businesses would also be more competitive if they didn’t have to carry the load of providing health insurance.

    The country would also be a lot better off if so many of its citizens didn’t have to deal with easily-preventable illnesses. You know why the school lunch program exists? Because the Army had to reject so many draftees during WWII due to preventable childhood nutritional deficiencies.

    The only people benefiting now are the ones who run the insurance companies.

  41. Henry,

    Can I give an example of private charity eradicating privation and ill health among the poor? No, of course not. But government programs can’t do that either.
    Would you like to do a comparison of the condition of the poor in 1850 London versus 2007 London? I’m willing to put money on a lower rate of malnutrition among today’s poor versus that of 150 years ago. (Food is fairly constant; mortality rates are complicated by advances in medicine.)

    I’m pretty sure that in every dictionary, regulate means to ensure maximum efficiency and optimal function.

    I’d be surprised if you could show me ONE dictionary in which it means that. That’s also a peculiarly unlibertarian meaning to give the term “regulate,” considering that many government regulations (*especially* in the transportation industry, cf. deregulation of trucking, airlines, etc. under Carter and Reagan) were dementedly inefficient and suboptimal. Or were those unconstitutional because they didn’t work well, but the regulating that you think works well is necessarily constitutional?

    Wouldn’t that help business?

    Alternatively, the federal government could require businesses to pay a certain amount for their employee’s healthcare, except judging by the screams of outrage when Maryland tried this for its largest employers, I don’t think the Republicans would go for that, either. (And those howls were not from people who were horrified at a state’s treading on ERISA’s toes.)

    Henry, since you think this concern for the needy is better fulfilled at the state and local level, were you in favor of Maryland’s “Wal-Mart law”?

  42. denied b/c the new wife was pregnant, which was a “pre-existing condition”, as the insurance company put it…babies cost too much money…

    Thank you. My brother is in this *exact* situation right now. His wife, who is 8 months pregnant, can’t get insurance to cover the birth of their child, b/c she was already pregnant when she tried for insurance. The baby will be covered on my brother’s insurance when he’s born, but we’re just praying that the birth goes smoothly–one tiny thing going wrong and the birth is going to cost even more.

    Health care should be a fundamental *right* of all people. We pay for education in this country–why shouldn’t we try and make sure that the kids are healthy enough to be educated?

  43. Henry:

    I’d hope my family would help me out in those cases.

    Hope doesn’t make policy nor shape reality.

    Jill: Do you trust other Americans enough to donate enough out of the kindness of their hearts?

    Henry:

    Yes. Absolutely yes. Especially when it becomes the social norm for people to get involved to help people in their community as opposed to having the government do it for them.

    Where oh where, is the working example of this? Because presently people are suffering, dying and frankly costing the taxpayer millions of dollars in curing diseases that bankrupt people into Medicaid and Medicare that could have been spread far further if spent on making preventive medicine and maintenance available cheap and or free.

    When I was a welfare mother and activist on welfare and poverty issues, I used to always say the libertarians and the Republicans will eat themselves alive on this issue if it ever arises to debate. Bashing poor mothers and people of color is socially acceptable, but when the pain is broader and loses its social stigma, things will change.

    Malkin and company are hard at work attempting to alienate and stigmatize these people and those like them.

    DA:

    When charity was left to the wealthy in the past, it didn’t work, because they were also often the people making up the taxes.

    What? Last I knew, when charity was popular among the wealthy, it was prior to the income tax when they had the ability to harness most of the country’s wealth (produced by the majority of workers) for themselves to grossly enrich themselves. Their “charity” was patronage, granted usually to funding ego enriching architecture and institutions, not at finding an end to the suffering of the lower classes, from whose suffering they incurred more wealth. It served to keep enough placated to keep the status quo inline and nothing more.

    Most of Europe is doing quite fine taking care of its populations. Also comparing the living standard of the very poor in our country to the average third world citizen is not acceptable, unless you have no problem following a third world government model.

    That last argument is a weak one, but use it with abandon, it only helps the cause.

  44. Hah, I should always read the other comments before posting anything. Taxes, eh?

    When filling out the forms for federal workstudy, I asked the woman behind the counter which box to check to pay my taxes. She looked at me funny and said, “Just put such and such down.”

    After my first paycheck, I had to go back and, in spite of my anger, ask them for my paperwork so that I could correct it. She’d told me what to write down to not pay them, because as a student I apparently don’t have to. I guess plenty of people don’t have a sense of social responsibility… but I do. I take great pleasure in knowing that I have a stake in government and I hold them accountable for what they choose to do with my money.

    Now, maybe it’s just because I come from a poor family (that often struggles to pay its taxes), but when a society does not provide for the welfare of all its citizens equally, you are only guaranteeing a permanent underclass of citizens who will end up a burden or a malignant force on the system. Yes, providing health insurance, at least for children, is every bit as important as providing easy, managed transportation. The more citizens are placed at risk of becoming sick, the less they can contribute, and the growing number of sick and unproductive individuals will place an increasing burden on society. This counts for both emotional and physical welfare.

    Constitution be damned. This isn’t the America of the late eighteenth century. We’ve grown as a country and decided that we value all kinds of things that were not originally codified in our founding document. One of those things is equal treatment under the law for all human beings. Another is the logical observation that everyone needs food, shelter, and access to affordable medicine (also education, as alsojill rightly points out).

    Honestly, I fail to see what the problem is apart from a schoolboy infatuation with Randian individualism.

  45. alsojill~

    bingo! and that is exactly what happened to my friend, the baby could be covered after it was born, but no prenatal care for the wife, who didn’t even know she was pregnant until they tried to put her on insurance…

    and, no, it wasn’t a smooth pregnancy…she ended up getting a bladder infection at almost 7 months…and that alone was costly, not to mention the medication they put her on to stop her labor, and the other meds to strengthen the baby’s lungs in case he was born early (which he was)…thankfully the insurance jerks covered the baby, since he spent two months in the NICU…

    and, if she had had insurance, the infection might have been treated early on, preventing them from having to pay for a preemie…

    but i never once said that insurance companies make a lick of sense…

    why should health care be private? it doesn’t even make sense…don’t we want our citizens to be healthy? so that they can go to work and be productive? so they can take care of themselves and their families? it seems to me that we would want that…but there i go thinking again…

    i swear…who thought it would be fun to teach me to read? 😉

  46. Even if you are a heartless bastard who’s willing to let children die of preventable diseases in large numbers,

    If?

    Hell, even if he’s not a heartless bastard willing to let children die, he’s certainly a heartless bastard willing to see poor children suffer from chronic , non-life-threatening illnesses like asthma, ear infections, ulcers…) that keep them in pain, tired, unable to attend school, and unable to learn when they do attend.

  47. I make a good deal more than the Frosts, and I don’t have health insurance, either. I suppose I could scrimp and save and not pay other bills to have it (and I can get a group rate through the bar association), but I’ve enjoyed being able to eat.

  48. In 1966 the federal government of Canada adopted a national health care program where it covered half of everybody’s physician and hospital care costs with the provinces picking up the other half. What happened? It started a liberties-eroding chain reaction ending with secret police kicking down doors of suspected dissenters and hauling them off to a Siberian gulag. No actually what really happened was that in 2004 the man credited with sowing the seeds of subsidized healthcare, Tommy Douglas, was voted the greatest Canadian in history during a contest on CBC Television.
    It is currently illegal in my country to run private for-profit clinics. Does it inhibit our freedom? Doctors still drive nice cars and live in big houses. When I’m sick or I want STD testing or I just want somebody to look at my scary looking mole I just make an appointment without a second thought. My doctor doesn’t call anybody to make sure whatever procedure I want is covered. It increases freedom for both of us.
    The libertarians posting here couldn’t be more misguided. Healthcare is not strictly a matter of philanthropy, it is integral to the functioning of an economy, just like roads. Paying taxes is not a zero sum game. Sooner or later everybody pays into the system and everybody benefits from it. It is not like Robin Hood. When everybody has the opportunity to grow up to be a productive worker the country as a whole will be richer. You might be paying a higher percentage of your income in taxes but over your lifetime the gains to the economy as a whole as well as the private savings on health insurance offset those costs. Even the rich benefit. Their employees are healthier. Private companies (except the insurance industry) benefit because the HR departments aren’t wasting millions of dollars and millions of hours sorting out bureaucratic health insurance nonsense. Just like roads and libraries and parks and schools and police and garbage, that is the governments problem. Business can get on with business.
    I think you all should be rioting in the streets for what in my country is a legislated right, but what do I know, I’m just someone who will on average live 2 years longer than you.

  49. Government health care worked when I was growing up. Our township provided immunizations and health screenings for all school kids. This was an outgrowth of practices started during the Depression, when the township was spending a fortune on General Assistance. It turned out that many people collecting GA were simply too sick to work. So, by treating their ailments, the township saved the money they were getting from GA. During the polio epidemic, the township even bought an iron lung, which was somewhat bizarrely still installed in the clinic years later.

  50. DA:

    I think an interesting exercise would be to let me personally decide where each % of my fed and state tax dollars went (beyond the absolute necessecities that benefit all, such as roads).

    WTF?

    Presently you pay an exorbiant fee to a profit-driven bureaucracy whose main objective is not to see to your health, but to see to its profit. It makes a point of distributing your precious dollars into as many pockets as it can find, that have nothing at all to do with your health care delivery.

    It supports a system of funneling your money up the chain of their bureacracy, not to the health care system. It rewards and spends inordinate amounts of your money attempting to not delivery the services you believe you are paying for. It rewards the health care system for delivering as little direct patient care as possible and begets a capitalist system of exploitation; exploiting your hard earned money in finding ways to not give it back to you when you need it.

    It rewards the development of technologies that support only the most esoteric and expensive procedures for the wealthiest people in the nation. Hospitals also have become profit driven machines that meet their bottom line by minimizing and eliminating risk and dehumanizing the medical process.

    Not only that, but your dollars also are funneled, through taxes and health insurance premiums, to fund the hyper expensive care of the uninsured, who usually attend emergency rooms with illness or disease that if treated early, would have required a simple doctor’s visit (unattainable for all but the qualified Medicaid patient).

    When a state/government run health care system is matched up side by side against the US system, all arguments proffered in support of private health care fall asunder.

    You can waste your tax dollars and your personal wages/earnings all you wish on private health insurance. But to mandate that everyone else do the same in order to simply survive is not your right either.

  51. In 1966 the federal government of Canada adopted a national health care program where it covered half of everybody’s physician and hospital care costs with the provinces picking up the other half. What happened? It started a liberties-eroding chain reaction ending with secret police kicking down doors of suspected dissenters and hauling them off to a Siberian gulag.

    Ha! Don’t you have gay marriage in Canada, too?

    You are the ROMAN EMPIRE BEFORE THE FALL!!!!!111!!!

    /sarcasm

  52. Michelle so eloquently rants on: “Well, yes, it sucks. But Earth to liberals: That’s how insurance works–if you don’t buy it before you need it, you shouldn’t be shocked if it’s impossible to get after you need it.”

    That makes just about as much sense as the rest of her argument. People LOSE their health insurance when they change jobs, fall back to part-time (i.e. 30 hours per week) work, etc.

    So another words, if you had insurance and came down with an illness which would disqualify you from getting your own private insurance you would be RIGHTLY perpetually FUCKED.

    Nice. Very nice. My COBRA is going to cost me $1600 a month to cover myself and my children when I shift into private practice next month and in a mere 18 months I’m going to be up shit’s creek because I had the apparent combo of nerve and stupidity to actually come down with a disqualifying, now “pre-existing” illness.

    But…then again, perhaps if I get poor enough to have to live in a cardboard box with my kids…then I would DESERVE health insurance?

    She sucks. She completely SUCKS.

  53. My problem with auto insurance was a rather nasty catch22. The insurance wouldn’t even talk about a settlement until I had been fully released from care including long-term physical therapy, while the hosptial wanted payment yesterday for an unplanned emergency room visit.

    And then, when I was lucky enough to get health insurance the month before I received a thankfully false kidney cancer diagnosis, they nickled and dimed their way out of about half of the total care costs. Among the stupidity was payment for the surgeon but not the sugrical aide. Payment for the primary surgery on the kidney but not payment for the routine installation of a ureter stent to prevent complications post-surgery, or its removal. A rediculous 1,000 cap on radeology that was just barely enough to cover the initial cat scan, but not routine post-surgical x-rays.

  54. Henry and devilsadvocate:

    My name is Lorelei Black and I’m 18 years old. I have moderate-to-severe PTSD from being raped two years ago and cannot work. My parents are most likely going to kick me out of their house soon enough and I need a place to live. I have applied for disability money and am on the waiting list for the housing authority, but it will be at least a year before I am able to benefit from these services. I am also losing my health insurance in about three months. I take Wellbutrin XL and Rozerem, which cost about $265 a month, and I go to therapy once a week, and the price of each session really depends on who I go to and what have you.

    Would you be so kind as to either: provide me with about 700$/month to make up for the social security money I am not receiving, set me up with a cheap apartment so that I don’t have to live on the streets in a couple of months, or fully pay for my medication and/or therapy appointments?

    I am dead fucking serious.

  55. I was once a small business owner. One factor in my no longer being self-employed was my being scared shitless that I would have an accident or get sick and not be able to get medical attention. This came about due to two trips to the emergency room. Once with a badly cut up hand; the other with a staff infection. A paycheck and healthcare started looking pretty good. If we want to support entrpeneurs and artists we need to take the burden of health care off employers backs. I think nationalized healthcare would be a net good for business, especially the innovaters and go-getters our American society values so much.

  56. I have an aunt who had a FUCKING STROKE last week, and didn’t go to the emergency room because she doesn’t have insurance, and still owes several thousands of dollars from multiple bypass surgery a couple of years ago. She can’t get insurance now, because the heart thing is pre-existing, so whatever the cost of her stay in the hospital winds up being, it’ll be mostly or all on her, and she doesn’t make a lot of money as a worker in a group home for the elderly.

    A STROKE. She told herself the loss of vision and the numbness in her face were probably allergies, and put off the hospital trip until she almost couldn’t see, several days after the symptoms first started. Thank god she’s even still alive.

    Heartless motherfuckers wanting to “choose” who gets medical coverage. This system kills people.

  57. how does the standard of living of poor people here compare with the standard of living of the poor in countries with socialized welfare systems? I’m honestly curious.

    Henry, that is an incrediby complicated question. It depends how you measure standard of living, and who you count as the poor. A simplified version of the findings in this paper: the US ranks among the middle ranks of European countries on measurements of absolute poverty, better than Southern Europe but worse than the usual-suspects Nordics. Around where the UK is. I’m guessing you don’t care at all about relative poverty so you won’t be alarmed at the very poor showing of the US on that indicator.
    I would like to point out that what saves a large number of US households from being dirt-poor in the absolute sense that you have a socialised welfare system to some extent. I’m specifically talking about Social Security here.
    Personally, I think the most important individual statistic relating to poverty in wealthy countries is how easy it is to get out of it, ie whether it persists down generations. IIRC the US ranks worse than anywhere in Europe apart from the UK in terms of how much children’s incomes correspond to their parents’, & it doesn’t take much imagination to see how healthcare costs might be playing in to that in the US case. I bet it’s not a coincidence that a recent UN report found the US and the UK to be the worst OECD countries in which to raise children…

  58. I noticed the message about anti-feminist bloggers… I’m not, even though I have some libertarian views. Please don’t label me liberal because I’m feminist (as if anyone here would label me liberal at this point), or libertarian for sharing some libertarian views.
    I still believe in public schooling, benefits to businesses and people who do good for, penalties for doing bad, and a number of other things generally belonging to the more liberal point of view.
    I apparently cannot express my views in a way which makes most of you spit back anything but bile. I am sorry I am so uneloquent at expressing my views and I am unable to help you see my side for even a moment. I know I can’t hope to change your mind. I’ve been reading this blog for a few months, and I will continue to read, although maybe from now on since dissenting opinions are met with such.. dislike.. I’ll only post when I agree.
    I don’t deserve your sarcasm for this even if I don’t know everything. Remember most Americans have opinions about things they know nothing about, and won’t listen to the opposition. At least I’ve read up a little and I’m talking about it.

  59. No, I made some arguments that I couldn’t express very well and got a bunch of sarcasm and a very few valid and good arguments which were not based on emotion. Mnemosyne and yourself provided a few of the good arguments, and now you’re resorting to sarcasm because I continue to disagree.

  60. No, I’m resorting to sarcasm because you’re wallowing in self-pity about how meaaan and eeeeevil everyone is being to you. Even though nobody’s really addressed you in about 30 comments, and you fail to name even one person or give one example of this horrid, horrid treatment you’ve received.

    As for your ability to express yourself: it really doesn’t matter, because you’re spewing out standard-issue libertarian talking points that we’ve all heard (and refuted) a thousand times before.

  61. You’re right I was letting a blog get to me. Dumb. Ignore the whining.

    As a related note, the US spends more on healthcare than any other nation. If we could get better quality healthcare by socializing it that would be great, but I don’t want a system like Canada’s… And currently a huge minority of the US’s healthcare expenditures are public ones, even though not that many people are covered, and we already spend too much.

    I guess if we stopped going to war public healthcare wouldn’t really cost us anything, but that’s not going to happen, so tell me how it will be better. Without brining in anecdotes…

  62. As a related note, the US spends more on healthcare than any other nation. If we could get better quality healthcare by socializing it that would be great, but I don’t want a system like Canada’s…

    Canada and Great Britain are not the only countries in the world who have universal healthcare. Take a look at Germany and France’s systems, which a lot of people say would be more useful in the US than using the British model.

    And currently a huge minority of the US’s healthcare expenditures are public ones, even though not that many people are covered, and we already spend too much.

    Sigh. I’m sorry I have to get sarcastic on you again, but, really, think it through.

    Right now, we have a system where a large number of people are uninsured (I think it’s around 45 million). Because those people are uninsured, they don’t go to the doctor until their preventable illness becomes a full-blown emergency.

    Which do you think is cheaper and easier to treat: a diabetic who is on insulin and has regular checkups, or a diabetic who needs a kidney transplant because s/he couldn’t afford to see a doctor until the complications were so bad that s/he finally went to the emergency room? Take your time, now.

    Then apply that thinking to, “Hmm, I wonder what would happen if everyone in the country could get preventative care and the number of people who walk in the door with a full-blown emergency went down?”

  63. I noticed the message about anti-feminist bloggers… I’m not, even though I have some libertarian views. Please don’t label me liberal because I’m feminist (as if anyone here would label me liberal at this point), or libertarian for sharing some libertarian views.

    DA, I promise that post wasn’t about you in the slightest. I know you’ve been around here for a while, and while I vehemently disagree with you on this one, I’m not labeling you anti-feminist.

    The post was made in response to the six anti-feminist comments that are currently sitting in the Feministe spam queue. We usually get a few a month, but rarely so many all at once (that six is in addition to a bunch we’ve already deleted). So it had nothing to do with you, and everything to do with comments that you all can’t even see.

  64. Jill, thanks for clarifying. It’s an entirely separate subject but it comes up a lot and I behave badly when it does.

    As for Canada’s system, I don’t know a lot so forgive but for one it caps medicine prices for brand-name drugs. I realize that sometimes brand-name drugs are the only ones without weird side effects for many people, but price caps can cause problems, in that companies might not be inclined to research drugs without the incentive, and we could lose some research.

    Doctor compensation is lower in Canada- doctors may leave to be more highly paid elsewhere, and I think that for the amount of schooling they go through they deserve their high pay. (no, I’m not a doctor)

    And what happens if we stop replacing workers? Our birthrate is not high, though we still have enough immigrants to replace workers. Then the system would unfairly burden the young to pay for the old. (I don’t mind social security *when it works* since I like being protected a little from those who don’t save for retirement, but it needs some major overhauling and this is already starting to happen).

    Current government health programs do not guarantee private rooms, or even excellent care, just good care. This could happen if health care was completely socialized. And some people could *still* pay for superior care, then the best doctors would try to not have any “government health care” clients, which don’t really get them much $$.

  65. **I know that canada prevents the last thing from happening, but in a bad way by not allowing out of pocket payment at all.

  66. but price caps can cause problems, in that companies might not be inclined to research drugs without the incentive, and we could lose some research.

    The loss in revenue could be (at least partially) made up if they stopped spending so much on the “Ask your doctor about X” marketing. We don’t have any of that up here. Our doctors tell their patients what medication they need, not the other way around.

    Current government health programs do not guarantee private rooms

    True. But isn’t that better than not being admitted to a hospital at all?

    or even excellent care, just good care.

    Again, as a Canadian, I don’t understand this kind of thinking. Isn’t good care for all better than excellent care for some, and no care for others?

    Doctor compensation is lower in Canada- doctors may leave to be more highly paid elsewhere, and I think that for the amount of schooling they go through they deserve their high pay.

    That’s true, and is a problem that needs to be addressed. But many of the doctors I’ve been to in my life have been immigrants. They seem pretty capable to me. The Vietnamese doctor I saw at the emergency room last week (a flu turned into pneumonia, much to my surprise) was very kind and effective. It took about six hours, but I got 2 x-rays taken and was dignosed for a total cost of……$0. Going back in a month for more x-rays and a follow-up might take a few hours, but will cost an adittional $0 (and the drugs I was prescribed cost me just under $200 – I imagine they would have cost closer to $500 (at least) in the US).

  67. I realize that sometimes brand-name drugs are the only ones without weird side effects for many people, but price caps can cause problems, in that companies might not be inclined to research drugs without the incentive, and we could lose some research.

    This is an extremely common argument that means that people don’t realize that (a) a huge amount of drug research is done in socialized-medicine countries like France and Germany and (b) most of the drug research in this country is financed by the federal government (your tax dollars at work) and not the drug companies. Drug companies spend most of their budgets on advertising, not R&D.

    So, no, Pfizer and the other drug companies will not have to close their doors if we get universal healthcare, no matter how much they whine.

    Doctor compensation is lower in Canada- doctors may leave to be more highly paid elsewhere, and I think that for the amount of schooling they go through they deserve their high pay. (no, I’m not a doctor)

    The average pay for a general practitioner/family doctor in the US is around $100,000, depending on the city. The average pay for a general practitioner/family doctor in Canada is about $90,000. Not a huge difference.

    What we’ll really need to do if we switch over to universal healthcare is change the way medical education is financed. One of the reasons we have an oversupply of specialists and an undersupply of general practitioners is that doctors graduate with crippling amounts of debt ($200,000 is not unusual) and have to go into a higher-paying specialty to pay it off. There would need to be a lot of debt forgiveness to switch to universal healthcare, but that seems like a fair trade-off to me. Which would you rather have — a $100,000 salary and $200,000 in educational debt, or a $90,000 salary and no educational debt?

    And what happens if we stop replacing workers?

    Sorry, that’s just a silly objection. It’s like saying, “But what if a comet hits the earth? Then what happens to universal healthcare?”

    Current government health programs do not guarantee private rooms, or even excellent care, just good care.

    Neither do most private insurance plans. I’m paying $300 a month to an HMO for my COBRA and if I’m hospitalized, I don’t get a private room. I’m also not guaranteed excellent care — even in the best of hospitals, things can go wrong.

    It always cracks me up that people try to argue against universal healthcare by saying, “But you won’t get to choose your own doctor!” I don’t get to choose my own doctor now with private healthcare — I have to choose from their list. How is choosing from the government’s list going to be worse than choosing from Aetna’s or Kaiser’s list? Or, “OMG, you’re going to have to wait to get an appointment!” Well, I have to wait now, so what’s the difference?

  68. DA – I have friends in Canada. They tell me that 1) Docs don’t make that much less AND pay a LOT less to malpractice insurance, 2) They ARE allowed to have private insurance and get “preferential” treatment. I suspect their docs get paid a lot better per patient than our docs in HMOs (have you looked at an explanation of benefits recently?).

    In fact, they can’t imagine why anyone would live in the US with our healthcare system and paltry benefits as workers (they laugh at the idea of only getting 2 weeks vacation).

  69. I’ve had intimate experience of both the Canadian and American health care systems and there is absolutely no question in my mind that Canada’s is better – by light years. In Canada you don’t lose your insurance if your job disappears. Nobody goes bankrupt over a chronic illness. When I needed to see a doctor in a new city I did the research, made some calls, and made an appointment. My doctor and I chose the treatments – without interference from some insurance company hack.

    The doctors I’ve met in the U.S. are pretty good, but the co-pays are insane, and I’ve had to change physical therapists because my fucking company keeps switching providers. They decide – I have no choice at all. Ah, the freedom of the open market; or rather, the freedom of health care system run by lobbyists.

  70. And what happens if we stop replacing workers? Our birthrate is not high, though we still have enough immigrants to replace workers. Then the system would unfairly burden the young to pay for the old. (I don’t mind social security *when it works* since I like being protected a little from those who don’t save for retirement, but it needs some major overhauling and this is already starting to happen).

    In Canada we are addressing this problem by promoting immigration. Which isn’t without ethical problems of its own, after all we’re “stealing” doctors from other countries which may need them. But thats how it is getting done.

    Current government health programs do not guarantee private rooms, or even excellent care, just good care. This could happen if health care was completely socialized. And some people could *still* pay for superior care, then the best doctors would try to not have any “government health care” clients, which don’t really get them much $$.

    **I know that canada prevents the last thing from happening, but in a bad way by not allowing out of pocket payment at all.

    Actually that is a major debate in Canada, there are some who are pushing for the opening of private clinics to operate in addition to the public ones. I, like many others believe they are wrong because it leads to a two tier system where the quality of care offered to the rich will get better and the quality of regular healthcare will suffer. If even the wealthiest have to endure the system than there is plenty of incentive to make it better.

    That is why a lot of Americans point to Medicare and say “see, publicly funded healthcare is a disaster.” It has to be applied to everyone for it to work. Fuck SCHIP, fuck Medicare, you folks seriously need a universal system.

    All the scare stories you have heard about the Canadian system are exagerated, I assure you. The “wait times” the chicken little republicans tell you about are a real problem, that primarily affects people who need surgery deemed non-life threatening. People do wait too long for hip surgeries. The vast majority of medical services we need are dealt with in a timely fashion. I can’t even say I personally know anybody who has had a serious problem with wait lists even though I know many people who have had surgeries and cancer. But I have met at least one american who is now dead from a tooth infection that he put off treating because of lack of insurance.

    I am quite satisfied with the treatment I have received in the Canadian medical system and I wouldn’t want to trade places with an American.

  71. Henry:
    I am not sure if anyone above has said this before me- I tend to start skimming after a little while with the comments, but did it ever occur to you that maybe the Interstate highway system *doesn’t* help Americans, not in areas of commerce nor in areas of health?

    I am new to this blog, so I have no idea what your opinions are, but are you aware that in a single year the U.S. generates 270 million scrap tires? That for about 300M people who live in this country, we have about 250M automobiles? That there are close to 4 MILLION linear miles of public roads in the U.S.? Do you have the slightest idea what this kind of consumption does to the environment? Do you believe in pollution? Do you know what an impervious surface is and what it does to the earth under it?

    All these things are the result of the need for Americans to have their own single-family dwelling in the suburbs, shop at Wal-Mart (no, always-low prices =/= stable finacial situation), drive their cars whenever they need to go somewhere, even if there is a commuter train route which goes straight from their location to their definition that leaves every 5 minutes, and in all other ways exercise their “entitlement” to waste all the resources that the Earth has to offer, as quickly as possible.

    Interstate highways are *not* the most efficient system for interstate commerce. For goods, the most efficient is trains. Such a narrow track, and they can get so much out of it. For people, probably airplanes for longer distances, and trains again for shorter ones.

    If the government that you think is good and decent engenders this kind of destruction, while simultaneously denying health care to children who cannot get it from anywhere else, god help you.

    And, for the record, my apartment in Minneapolis looks out at where there was once an Interstate bridge that crossed the Mississippi. Don’t tell me that the government in power now is concerned about roads. This is all about diverting as much money as possible to fund a pointless war.

  72. devil’s advocate:

    i wasn’t being sarcastic towards you. my offer for you to donate money to me for health care because you are a good citizen still stands.

    i really need my wellbutrin. 🙁

  73. Current government health programs do not guarantee private rooms, or even excellent care, just good care

    Private rooms? I’ve never visited anyone in a private hospital room, and as far as I know most of the people I’ve visited had private insurance. And as far as excellent or EVEN good care, don’t get me started. I’ve seen a lot of crappy care, and nothing you can do about it, except sue, which most people, especially older people who have no experience being involved with lawsuits just won’t do no matter how bad their care is, or “Yeah, they dropped me and broke a vertebrae in my back/gave me a defective walker that caused me to fall and break my hip/failed to notice my sister’s broken foot and sent her away to walk on it and get more damage/failed to test my grandfather’s heart attack and he died after being sent home, etc. but you can’t fight City Hall.” So you can get crappy care that you have the privilege of paying through the nose for.

  74. Let me explain in terms any Republican should understand why we should have universal healthcare.

    First, let me begin by mentioning my friend. My friend has, until three years ago, never worked a job that had health care in his life. It was all McJobs. He was employed, sometimes at two jobs at a time, but never at the level where he got insurance. So when he had gallstones, he couldn’t get medication for them — too expenseive — and he couldn’t get them removed — too expensive — until they became an emergency. Then he had to go to the emergency room to have them removed. Multiply him by 43 million, okay?

    Now, me. I was a pregnant woman working for a managed health care company. I had *great* health insurance. Few Republicans not in Congress have ever had insurance like mine. Full mental health parity, excellent prescription drug coverage, a 90/10 coverage from a PPO from a major insurer that blankets my entire state. No wait for care, no gatekeeping, nothing. Absolutely FANTASTIC insurance. Ok?

    And my face and arm went numb while I was at work, about twenty minutes before the end of the day. I called my doctor, who warned me that in fact the risk of stroke is higher in pregnant women than non-pregnant women my age, and I should go to the ER. I was advised that if they administer clot-busting drugs within 3 hours of a stroke, if I was having one, I would have an excellent prognosis, but if I wasn’t treated in 12 hours or longer, then the damage would be done.

    So I called the ambulance, in the belief that they would prioritize those that come in by ambulance over walk-ins. And it took an hour before they triaged me (determined my level of risk.) I had three out of four warning signs for stroke and my triage level was Urgent.

    It was nine hours after that before I saw a doctor. And he told me they couldn’t do a CAT scan to see if I was in fact having a stroke until morning — which would have been something like 16 hours after the onset of symptoms. I checked myself out of the hospital in disgust.

    Now, think about this. PREGNANT WOMAN. With TWO KIDS ALREADY. Maybe having a stroke. With super insurance. Sent to the ER by ambulance on recommendation of obstretician. Treatment most effective within 3 hours and useless after 12. No treatment within 12 hours. See my point?

    because of people like my friend, who are uninsured and cannot treat minor ailments until they become emergencies, the emergency rooms are overloaded and cannot handle people who are having non-preventable emergencies. And that’s you. Whether Libertarian, Republican, Democrat, or Green, you could have a stroke. You could have a heart attack. You could have a car accident. Someday you will probably go to the emergency room because you are having an unpreventable emergency, and you will wait 12 hours because other people who weren’t insured are clogging the system with their preventable emergencies. (Not that it’s their fault, either. Doctors simply won’t *see* you without insurance if you can’t pay up front, and because insurance companies apply collective bargaining to lower the price of care, it’s the uninsured who pay the highest amount out of pocket, too. These people’s “preventable” emergencies were preventable only if they had had health care coverage.)

    The attitude that health care, of all things, should be dependent on your ability to pay for it appalls me. Not just at a human level, though of course that’s appalling too — but I’m done expecting conservatives to be human. What appalls me is that it violates every Randian precept of enlightened self-interest. The uninsured send their kids to school with yours, and if they can’t afford antibiotics, your kids will get sick. (And no, sending your kids to a tony private Catholic school won’t help. Business entrepreneurs or consultants who make decent money but not enough to pay for the outrageous costs of insuring a family individually may be spending their health insurance money on that tuition, instead.) The uninsured and underinsured go to your emergency room, and even if you live in a wealthy suburb where no one goes uninsured, I hope you never go to a ball game (always held in big cities) and have a car accident or a heart attack while there, because they’re not going to airlift you back to your wealthy suburb when you’re dying, they’re going to send you to Big City ER and you will wait just like I did. People with no insurance (and no pay for their sick days, either) are making your McDonald’s food and handling all the stuff you just bought at Neiman-Marcus and cutting your hair and delivering your pizza. If they cannot afford treatment, you’ll get sick every time they do. Yeah, you can get the antibiotics, but you’ll still have a few days of being sick.

    And what happens when you’re downsized and can’t pick up new insurance before your COBRA coverage runs out? Or you can’t afford COBRA at all, because $900 a month is about average for COBRA? And you could buy a plan for as little as $300 a month where I live, but it has a deductible of $3000 a year and no prescription drug coverage. Hope you don’t get diabetes, because insulin ain’t cheap.

    I apologize to most of the posters on Feministe for phrasing this as if I’m talking to Republicans and Libertarians and other conservabots, but you probably all already agree with me. It’s the lack of comprehension of their own self interest that appalls me about the conservative position on universal health care. The fact that they don’t understand that health care, unlike many other things, declines for *everyone* when we deny it to some.

    (BTW, thankfully it appears it probably wasn’t a stroke. No explanation of what it *was* — maybe I pinched a nerve. But when I was triaged no one had any way to know that.)

Comments are currently closed.