[riff]

sigh... the greatest country in the history of the world more like a really bad reality TV show.

I miss George Carlin and Frank Zappa.

[GeneV]

Gene:

Bigotry is not just about race, it is also about intelligence, social class, education, etc. Some think we are not smart enough to take care of our own lives, so therefore they are bigots, of a type.

Bigotry is not just about race (though Santorum's comment was), but the fact that you disagree with a political philosophy does not make it bigotry. That stretch to something odius is getting close to argumentum ad Hitlerum.

Bigot--a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Bigot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

[Wheatfield]

Gene:

Bigotry is not just about race, it is also about intelligence, social class, education, etc. Some think we are not smart enough to take care of our own lives, so therefore they are bigots, of a type.

I'm smart enough to take care of my own life. I'm also smart enough to realize that my government can pay for universal health care a lot less expensively than what my neighbors to the south are paying, and while I am sure that people who can afford gold plated health insurance get better health care than I do, I also believe that health care should not be reserved solely for those who are so fortunate.
Frankly, I think that people who believe that only the well off should reap the benefits of society are the bigots.

[GeneV]

I'm smart enough to take care of my own life. I'm also smart enough to realize that my government can pay for universal health care a lot less expensively than what my neighbors to the south are paying, and while I am sure that people who can afford gold plated health insurance get better health care than I do, I also believe that health care should not be reserved solely for those who are so fortunate.
Frankly, I think that people who believe that only the well off should reap the benefits of society are the bigots.

True, Bill. Being smart enough to take care of your own life may, in the case of a service like healthcare, include being smart enough to pick which entity will finance the service the best.

[Wheatfield]

True, Bill. Being smart enough to take care of your own life may, in the case of a service like healthcare, include being smart enough to pick which entity will finance the service the best.

The advantage of the Canadian style model is that everyone is covered for everything. Need a heart transplant? It doesn't matter if you have been on welfare all your life or if you are relatively wealthy. You'll get your life saving treatment.
And you don't get cut off for having a pre existing condition.
Were I a very wealthy person, I would prefer the American model for myself, but I would not prefer the American model as a humanitarian who cares about the welfare of my fellow citizens, since it leaves too many people with insufficient care if they are unable to afford the insurance.
Where we fall down is wait times that can adversely affect quality of life. A friend's wife was recently diagnosed with extremely low thyroid, and she had all the classic symptoms, no energy, weight gain, and the depression that goes along with going from being an attractive woman to being a blimp.
Her wait time here to see an endocrinologist was about 13 months. A few phone calls to a doctors office in Texas, a couple of plane tickets and a few thousand dollars later and she has her life back, and apparently a nice mini vacation in Houston.
This is where single payer (at least here) falls down. Our system is based on a triage model, where speed is determined by emergency, and no importance is placed on how your life is suffering if you have something that is debilitating but not life threatening.
Our system needs to do something about the wait times, even if we have to throw some extra money into the system to hire more specialists. Hopefully they'll do this and keep a single payer system, though there is now some trial balloons being floated about going to a two tier system, which would effectively cut off the very poor from anything but the triage system in favour of the wealthy being able to get faster service.
Hopefully they'll do the right thing and just improve wait times for everyone.

[boriscleto]

Santorum's 'Freedom' is Pretty Much Slavery | Crooks and Liars

[Nesster]

The Rick Santorum that America doesn't know | Philly | 01/04/2012

[Ratmagiclady]

The advantage of the Canadian style model is that everyone is covered for everything. Need a heart transplant? It doesn't matter if you have been on welfare all your life or if you are relatively wealthy. You'll get your life saving treatment.
And you don't get cut off for having a pre existing condition.
Were I a very wealthy person, I would prefer the American model for myself, but I would not prefer the American model as a humanitarian who cares about the welfare of my fellow citizens, since it leaves too many people with insufficient care if they are unable to afford the insurance.


Where we fall down is wait times that can adversely affect quality of life. A friend's wife was recently diagnosed with extremely low thyroid, and she had all the classic symptoms, no energy, weight gain, and the depression that goes along with going from being an attractive woman to being a blimp.
Her wait time here to see an endocrinologist was about 13 months. A few phone calls to a doctors office in Texas, a couple of plane tickets and a few thousand dollars later and she has her life back, and apparently a nice mini vacation in Houston.

This is where single payer (at least here) falls down. Our system is based on a triage model, where speed is determined by emergency, and no importance is placed on how your life is suffering if you have something that is debilitating but not life threatening.
Our system needs to do something about the wait times, even if we have to throw some extra money into the system to hire more specialists. Hopefully they'll do this and keep a single payer system, though there is now some trial balloons being floated about going to a two tier system, which would effectively cut off the very poor from anything but the triage system in favour of the wealthy being able to get faster service.
Hopefully they'll do the right thing and just improve wait times for everyone.

Well, part of the problem here is that Americans like to identify with the rich, even if we *aren't.*


Medicaid actually works *quite* well, on a very similar system to 'single payer,' ....any excessive *costs* are because it's essentially a dumping-ground for 'unprofitable' citizens, but still paying corporate *costs* on a lot of levels. (Near half the cost of running a hospital in America is administering all the corporate insurance plans, for instance.)

In America, I don't think you'll find it *ever* being impossible for people to spend money and get the latest-and-gratest-when-they want it, but that's not really part of the 'system' so much as it's about *money talking.* Money most Americans don't *have,* ....and when they fear 'wait times' they tend to ignore the fact that those exist anyway. It always sticks in my craw how America's always treated the *money* as more important than the *health care,* and then blames the *sick* if we can't 'just work harder' while sick or injured in that system. I didn't *have* to be as debilitated as some things made me for twenty years, for instance, living with a lot of damage done before I even *got* covered for so much as an athsma inhaler, a doctor's visit, or a few bucks in antibiotics when I was in a bad situation.


There's a 'gatekeeper' model all about defending pencil-pushers' profits that's actually *inimical* to the productivity of the citizens, while people get moralistic and blame the sick for not 'getting a job' they can't do and wouldn't come with health care, anyway.


Some misguided fear that you might not be able to pay some top-flight hot-shot if you aren't paying through the nose to feed corporations.. Isn't made *better* by making the common people sicker and poorer: actually, it erodes that very ability when it might be needed most, or when there's no particular reason why a condition like mine had to mean 'Useless liability' according to the bean-counters.


Even as it is, ...just because of this multi-tier for-profit system, it takes *months* of scattershot doctor's visits even to get me to a place where I'm waiting to hear from a specialist (and probably another chain of visits and redundant tests) just to get prescribed a pretty simple treatment: and that's cause 'health care' *isn't.* To the people who want to be paid for not treating you too much, or too often, or if they don't have to, whether it's ourselves paying the bill as taxpayers or as consumers.


If people are worried about the costs of social supports, the answer *isn't* to pay six hundred and change a month so I can struggle to live in pain getting worse, so they can avoid paying a doctor who takes Medicaid two hundred in the same month. It's like, If you're worried about the *costs,* *let's fix it.* It doesn't do any of us any good to be figuring out how little I can not-die on.



You wouldn't try and maintain a car this way, but they expect 'austerity' to maintain citizens this way. "Well, obviously you're running rough, come back in six months and we'll partially hook this up to the computer, then we'll have to send you to another mechanic to repeat the process and consider hooking you up to a computer and see if it's the o2 sensor, and if not, another repeat of the process...What do you mean you can't drive a hundred miles, you bum! People act like they're being ripped off by people on disability, but maybe it'd be more-efficient to *concentrate on the problem once in a while,* instead of stretching out the 'Doing the minimum 'charity' possible once you're 'proven' to be 'useless'.


If people want to 'cut costs' how about 'Take the time, spend the money, pay attention, and *Fix it right the first time,* especially before it gets worse.'

Sometimes the right thing to do is *not* wait till someone's sick enough to be a 'charity case' and sometimes the 'right thing to do' isn't 'One visit a month, even if there's a 'break in the case' that might start fixing things *now.* It's not a cost-savings, even for the Social Security insurance I *paid for* to say, 'Well, you've got to languish another month and another month, before we deal with this."


The problem is that the notion of 'health care in America' is starting from the *money,* and not the care, or the health.

And people fear hours in a waiting room, while they *do that anyway, even if they pay for it.*


Single-payer systems *do* have an interest in keeping you *healthy,* whereas for-profit ones have an interest only in profit. This is not something 'competing' sets of stockholders actually can improve.

It's not really that complicated that way.

[séamuis]

I guess by pointing to black people alone, to say that he wants their life to be better so they can provide for themselves, could be seen as bigoted. Using the neutral "people" I guess is the way to go, because no one wants to be singled out. Like all white males are sexist and members of the clan, as some think.

well it doesn't make sense to single out blacks, when whites are the biggest recipient of the welfare he wants to get rid of. that could be seen as bigoted, but I don't think he meant it in such a manner. the fact is, that he is a privileged white politician who clearly has no real connection with the actual people he is addressing, much less the people he is talking about. its not bigotry so much as it is sheer disgusting ignorance. but that ignorance is more dangerous and disturbing in this case (any case really) than plain simple bigotry. he speaks about what he 'thinks' not the actual truth. but when a politician is lazy and ignorant enough to say these things, you can only assume that people that feel he represents them will also be just as ignorant and lazy, thus that ignorance spreads. its a disease, and people like him and quite frankly pretty much all of the GOP have been spreading it at an alarming rate. if you say things like this enough, people believe it to be true. we need as a society to start holding people accountable for the ignorance and misinformation they spread, because this is killing our society and it goes well beyond the borders of simple politics. how can we even be considering anyone for president of our nation that is this ignorant of the actual facts?

[riff]

Where we fall down is wait times that can adversely affect quality of life

I hear these accounts and I do not doubt it happens but has not been my experience, quite the contrary in fact. I have no special pull nor do I use the medical system much.

[boriscleto]

The Devil and Rick Santorum: Dilemmas of a Holy Owned Subsidiary | | AlterNet

[Ratmagiclady]

Pretty intriguing column on Santorum's social claims (And by extension the rest of the Religious Right, for the most part,)

Santorum's delusions: Rick Santorum and our "sick" culture - chicagotribune.com

That whole myth of a 'decaying moral culture' (which of course, to them, is supposed to mean more right-wing theocracy through government everywhere, while scapegoating people for problems that are ...worse where those policies have held the most sway, in part, I'm convinced, *because* of the scapegoating of people who don't toe that religious line one way or another. ) ....doesn't correlate to the *actual* effects of various policies. It both sets people against each other and of course, results in not-dealing with the *real* problems, but instead making them worse.

[redrockcoulee]

Bill

There was an article a couple of weeks ago or a little longer that stated that putting more money into our health care system would not solve the problem. That is because the problem is due to a short of personnel so the monies need to go into education instead.

If Santorium wished to help poor people by getting rid of social assistance then why did he not say poor instead of black? And does not having assistance when you are down lead to being better able to lift yourself up? And some are not smart enough to look after themselves throughout their entire life, some end up with mental breakdowns for example who after they recover lead long and productive lives and pay property and income taxes. It was stated on TV that the majority of those who collect food stamps have jobs, how do you make them get better jobs with high unemployment and of course one cannot blame the government for that as it is not their job and taxes are lower than they were during the booming 90s.

Does not matter if you believe in a society with or without a social safety net, if you single out a minority and infer that they are the ones that are collecting from that safety net when they are not the majority doing so then in my mind you are using bigotry and not ideology to promote your view. Even the candidate himself is trying to distance himself from that remark.

[normhead]

My black uncles fought in WW2, so these privileged white folk could talk like this, and then came home to segregation. All they asked for was a fair shake at home. My cousins, 3 univerity graduates out of 3, one PhD, my father was a PhD, one of my cousins graduated from Princeton. And we are sick and tired of supporting all these white people on medicare... we need some factory jobs for them so they can earn an honest living.... hows it look going the other way? You understanding the implications yet?

[Wheatfield]

Bill

There was an article a couple of weeks ago or a little longer that stated that putting more money into our health care system would not solve the problem. That is because the problem is due to a short of personnel so the monies need to go into education instead.

Whichever system needs the money is good by me.