The case for national health care

Oct 01, 2013 08:08

Healthy people are more productive. They're more able to find work in the first place, and they're more efficient because they're not distracted by health problems and the financial buggery those problems cause ( Read more... )

politics

Leave a comment

Comments 15

wobblerlorri October 1 2013, 16:51:47 UTC
Do you feel like a lone voice, crying out in the wilderness? You're not. I think more people feel this way than oppose the ACA. And if the Rethuglicans keep acting like the shitstains they are, they'll find themselves out on their ears next election.

It happened in 91. Apparently their memories don't stretch back that far.

Reply

scarybaldguy October 2 2013, 03:34:45 UTC
I wish I could believe all of that, but I don't see any more substantial result than a few weeks of yelling, followed by the proles being lulled back to sleep or distracted by yet another made-up "crisis."

Same as it ever was.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

scarybaldguy October 2 2013, 03:33:33 UTC
You know about that jackass Schnatter (the Papa John himself) whingeing about having to provide bennies to his full-time employees, who only make up about 20% of his total HR load, right? Turns out he'd have to put up his prices by FIVE MOTHERFUCKING CENTS PER PIE in order to make up the difference.

Reply

cyberbertha October 2 2013, 10:49:38 UTC
Alpha Geek thinks the root of their objection is that once the peasantry get access to affordable health care, we'll never ever let them take it back. They know they have to kill this now, and they're desperate.

Reply

jordan179 October 6 2013, 08:37:02 UTC
... and what's the objection from the very many people who oppose Obamacare who are not among the 1% richest Americans?

Incidentally, has it occurred to you that we're in a depression, many companies aren't enjoying very high profits (or are even taking losses) and the very high costs associated with Obamacare for the companies may mean the difference between staying in business and shutting their doors? Of course not -- as we all know, companies have infinite profitability and can always just cut their profits, right?

Has it occurred to you that those companies which do stay in business may have to raise their prices to do so? Meaning that the consumers -- who are mostly not among the 1% richest people in America, may wind up with less money?

How about people who can't get full-time work because the most obvious way for any company to avoid paying Obamacare health benefits for workers is to hire them part-time? These people -- of whom I AM ONE -- are most definitely NOT among the 1% richest Americans ( ... )

Reply


catalytic_kali October 2 2013, 03:05:28 UTC
Thank you ( ... )

Reply

scarybaldguy October 2 2013, 03:31:38 UTC
I wonder how many other people are out there, like me, thinking "damn, I would work my ass off if only I wasn't so fucking sick and in pain all the time.

A lot. A lot a lot. As I understand it, being on SSD sucks canal water, aside from that whole meat suit failure thing.

Reply

catalytic_kali October 2 2013, 04:02:32 UTC
Oh, my human suit has been in chronic failure for so long that I don't even qualify for SSDI and because my parents are kind enough to let me live here, I don't qualify for SSI. I do, however, now qualify for Medi-Cal, which I have to pin my life on. If I'm too broken to fix now, I'm screwed for the rest of my life and will be homeless when I lose my parents.

But, right, preventative healthcare is a privilege in this country... so it's my fault.

*crossing fingers* that Medi-Cal will cover enough to at least patch me up enough to fake being healthy.

...let's find our home planets, 'k? I'm done with this one.

Reply

scarybaldguy October 2 2013, 04:09:40 UTC
...let's find our home planets, 'k? I'm done with this one.

Sounds like a plan.

Reply


acelightning October 2 2013, 06:41:29 UTC
I've heard that in civilized countries, if you need medical care, you go to a doctor, the doctor treats you, and the government pays the doctor. There's no "insurance" anywhere in the process, just a directly delivered, directly paid service. (Of course, the payment ultimately comes out of your taxes... but people in civilized countries are willing to pay higher taxes and know that medical treatment, education, child care for workers, food, and housing are there at need, no questions asked.)

"Health in surance" has always struck me as a protection racket: {*stereotypical toothpick-chewing "gangster" voice*} "Nice body you got there - be a shame if anything 'happened' to it, y'know? Just pay me a coupla hundred bucks a month, and you won't hafta worry about nothin'..."

Reply


half_shadow October 2 2013, 15:32:30 UTC
I have seriously gotten to the point where I feel all the asshats fighting against national healthcare are seriously just that deep in hatred of poor people/that much in love with their position of power. Anytime someone tries to defend that shit, I'm starting to just bitterly tell them, "Yeah, sure. Honestly, they want to keep the poor in their place. It's all corruption and has nothing to do with anything but that." I've become this bitter. Ugh.

Reply

jordan179 October 6 2013, 08:39:08 UTC
This poor person is being quite effectively "kept in his place" by the difficulty of finding full-time work when so many benefits are mandated for full-time workers that it's too much of a risk in this economy for employers to hire them. And this lack of money among other things impedes my access to health care.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up