Last month I became victim to a wrongful firing and have also lost all my health insurance for my children. This is a sore issue with me. As soon as I lost the insurance, I went down to the local DES office to apply for state assistance, AHCCS here. I was refused. The state will not offer my children health care because I own my home. “The home is a liquidatable asset and therefore could provide income to include health care at the close of the sale.”
‘Scuse me?
This week my youngest daughter was inflicted with an ear infection. I ran her up to the emergency room late one night due to her fever reaching 103 degrees. I was panicked!
They turned us away because I had no money for any upfront payment and no insurance!
Home to place the child in an ice bath.
However, while I was at the DES office applying, I found out that an illegal alien is using my 9 year old son’s social security number to recieve benefits from the state (medical, cash, food stamps) and apparently has been for three years.
Yet, my children and I do not qualify.
There is something seriously wrong here.

That sucks dude, somebody dying from such a curable malady as pneumonia. I guess that’s why I have called myself a socialist from the time I was a teenager.

Government owes the people - not people the government.

That’s my coinage, but feel free to quote me.

Wow. I finally got around to reading through this entire thread.

First off, I wish my sincerest condolences to Les for his loss. It simply appalls me that people go around touting how this is the “best,” most “free” country in the world while all the while we have people dying of easily-curable diseases simply because they cannot afford too-expensive healthcare.

Secondly, I must say that I am equally appalled by some of the comments here. I realize that we all have differing views on the functions of our government, and I can respect that. At the same time, however, I cannot help but be a little disturbed by the smug, almost heartless replies by people such as “Gronker” and Consigliere (particularly in the case of the former individual). Attitudes such as theirs are a large problem in our country when they become as widespread as they currently are.

How can we have such a great country if we cannot afford our own health? How can anyone possibly prioritize money over human lives? Why shouldn’t the wealthy pay more in taxes than the less well-off? How would being forced to do so be “immoral” in any sense of the word? I’ve got news for everyone: no one likes to pay taxes, but doing so is the backbone of living in a free country in which our government provides essential services for us. And as long as we’ve got a government, I would much rather see it attending to the needs of the people and their health than to ridiculous bullshit such as “faith-based” initiatives or needless defense/war-mongering.

Finally, Les put it perfectly:

For crying out loud, I thought our government was founded on the idea that it should be “of the people, by the people, and FOR the people?�? Right in the preamble to our Constitution is the following idea: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Personally, I think this would fall under promoting the general welfare.

How can we have such a great country if we cannot afford our own health?

The next few decades will be very interesting.

Secondly, I must say that I am equally appalled by some of the comments here. I realize that we all have differing views on the functions of our government, and I can respect that. At the same time, however, I cannot help but be a little disturbed by the smug, almost heartless replies by people such as “Gronker�? and Consigliere (particularly in the case of the former individual).

Well, this is certainly not the first time that we have disagreed. You may apalled at what you see as my almos heartlessness.  I assure you though that I have one.  I know it beats because I can feel it.  You have only my self-serving hearsay that it hurts when others hurt, and fills with grief just as full as yours.  I would encourage you to reexamine your ability “to respect” before making a moral judgment of me.

As to this:

Attitudes such as theirs are a large problem in our country when they become as widespread as they currently are.

Your comment has as its unfounded proposition that somehow viewing health care as something other than a government function is a relatively new concept.  It is not.  In fact, the government involving itself in health care is a relatively new concept. Before annoiting me as the carrier of new plague, a cursory study of the social policies of the country in which you reside is strongly encouraged.

You go on

Why shouldn’t the wealthy pay more in taxes than the less well-off? How would being forced to do so be “immoral�? in any sense of the word?

Let’s examine this a bit.  As a general proposition, your money is your money.  Your money is not my money, my brother’s money, or Les’s money for that matter.  None of us have any right to steal your money from you, no matter how much we think we may need it, not even if it is a good cause.

Despite how involved emotionally I might get, I don’t have the right to come into your house and appropriate your greenbacks with a shotgun to pay for a family member’s medical care. I think we can agree on that.  Yet, that same taking of your money is different, just because I appointed Uncle Sam as the enforcer?  Not in my book.

I don’t have the right to come into your house and appropriate your greenbacks with a shotgun to pay for a family member’s medical care. I think we can agree on that.  Yet, that same taking of your money is different, just because I appointed Uncle Sam as the enforcer?  Not in my book.

Exactly, Consi. That, unfortunately, places the value of your money above the lives of the family of our shotgun-toting friend. And, for that reason, he would be just as inclined to harm you and take that money because he realizes that the lives of his family are worth virtually nothing to you by comparison. You don’t agree with his value of his family (your family isn’t worth my money), he doesn’t agree with your valuation of your money (my family is worth your money). I do think that such ideas are problematic to some visions of what society ought to be.

That said, I don’t understand the notion that you can care for anything more than your own life. I find it irrational and backwards. Similarly, it seems natural for me to value me and mine over you and yours, with me, obviously, at the top. Not that I have anything against you, just that I feel I’m entitled to cover my own ass first, and if you suffer in the meantime, so be it.

As for socializing healthcare, it has it’s own set of benefits and drawbacks. I like having a backbone to fall on and I don’t mind paying tax money for it - but having that money routinely frauded from me and the medicine I need is just as bad as price-gouging medicine, and ruthless HMOs. Sexy Sadie, you may want to read into Canadian politics sometime. Social reform ain’t always what it’s cracked up to be. In fact, the CIA Factbook has it generally covered.

I don’t have the right to come into your house and appropriate your greenbacks with a shotgun to pay for a family member’s medical care.

Nor do you have the right to come into my house to appropriate greenbacks to pay for the Iraq occupation, the local police force, road construction, the salaries of teachers, weapons research, and so on.

Despite how involved emotionally I might get, I don’t have the right to come into your house and appropriate your greenbacks with a shotgun to pay for a family member’s medical care. I think we can agree on that.  Yet, that same taking of your money is different, just because I appointed Uncle Sam as the enforcer?  Not in my book.

The thing is, as long as we are citizens of this country, we are all subject to Uncle Sam. You or I may not have the right to rob someone else for the purposes of healthcare, but then again you and I are not Uncle Sam, as you put it (correct me if you are, in fact, a politician). You and I are not the ones whose responsibility it is to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the American people.

Also, the wealthy are subject to the exact same government and system as are the poor. As long as we all live in the same society, under the same government, it only makes sense (in my opinion) that we all should be taxed proportionately to our income level. There is nothing “immoral” about such a proposition in my eyes. Furthermore, I think it is fallacious to assume readily that the rich got to where they are due solely to hard work or inheritance, whereas the poor are the way they are because of laze, unintelligence, or poor lifestyle choices.

The truth is that our society is not as open to success and the “American dream” as it has been advertised to be. Perhaps at one time it was, but anymore it simply is not. For one thing, it helps to be white and male. If you happen to not possess these traits, financial success still is very much not in your favor.

So what does all of this have to do with the country’s healthcare crisis? Well, it reinforces my view that things are fucked up. I, for example, do not have health insurance, and neither does John. On the other hand, we both make fairly good money and live relatively comfortably (it’s good enough for us, anyway). There are millions of Americans who do not live comfortably, do not make good money, and who also live without health insurance. Our government can certainly afford to do something about this, and yet it consistently does not.

I won’t pretend to know how to remedy this situation, yet I can tell that the current system is not working.

I would encourage you to reexamine your ability “to respect�? before making a moral judgment of me.

Relax, man. I certainly do respect your right to view the government and its functions in the manner in which you do. Just because I found myself disturbed by some of your comments does not mean that I don’t respect your right to your opinions. Truth be told, I did not find your comments nearly as appalling as “Gronker’s.” I know “appalled” is a fairly strong term; I’ve been known to use strong terms, most often in the heat of the moment. I’m a highly opinionated individual. I suspect that you and I have this characteristic in common, although I’m sure that we reside at opposite ends of the political spectrum (I’m a proud leftie).

Agreed that they are all takings Elwed.  The question becomes at what point does one stop appropriating others property for what one’s own needs?  How much of someone else’s stuff am I entitled to?  How much are you? 

There are compelling arguments to be made to be sure. Those arguments involve morality plays, which was my point.  Because you disagree with me though, unlike the fundies I won’t cast doubt on your morality.  And unlike some equally rigid liberals, when you disagree with me, I won’t cast doubt on the sincerity of your heart.

Thank you for disagreeing with me. I was waiting for a post that disagreed to make my point.

Now that we’ve illustrated the unbending, uncompromising rigidity of the modern day liberal, y’all may carry on with your discussion of socialized medicine.

I know I’m a little late to be casting opinions about Gronker, but having taken a couple introductory courses in Econ, the guy sounds a LOT like my econ prof. His statements embody the shortfall of economic thinking, though. It’s near-impossible to assert that you’ve considered every condition in the working economy in making your decision. Given that, measuring how likely you are to be right requires some awareness of how wrong you are, and that’s just not possible. It’s an excellent system, but I would put the statistics before the idea. I worry with Canada, though, that it’s getting too lenient on how it’s health-care money is spent. The breakthroughs that Socialist Swine mentions are continuing at the UofC today, but that’s a combination of educational funding and talent, where the latter appears to be only partially affected by funding, and manages to work cutting-edge technologies on a shoestring budget. Alas, I’d port a link if I could find the presentation from one of my CPSC profs.

Okay, now I’m really going away. I need to sleep.

Ah, a link to how shoestring research can occur in computer science. By no means a convincing case for medicine, but a suggestion that money isn’t all there is to trailblazing.

And unlike some equally rigid liberals, when you disagree with me, I won’t cast doubt on the sincerity of your heart.

“Heartless,” like “appalling,” I would concur is a strong term. Sure, I may have come off as rigid, but as a self-proclaimed liberal it is something that I generally try to avoid doing. Sometimes it’s hard.

While my personal biases may render it difficult for me to sometimes empathize with the conservative viewpoint, I have no doubt that your convictions are “heart-felt.”

And like some very sensitive conservatives, I would agree that anytime our arguments involve “morality plays,” as you put it, things will get a little heated up. No biggie--sometimes a little heat lets us know we’re alive.

I have about had my fill of the “everyone should have medical insurance” at the expense of others !

Firstly, as a retired paramedic I’ve seen my share of the horrors of what can happen to people at the hands of disease, other people, their own hands, accidents by any and all means and non of the above.

Second, where is it written that those that work MUST pay for those that don’t or otherwise ?

Thirdly… socialism is great in theory but in reality IT DOES NOT WORK.  NEVER HAS, NEVERWILL.. ITS AN ABOMINATION OF THE REAL WORLD.

Do NOT lay blame at EVERY DAY WORKING people… lay it at the hands of the polticians and the bloated medical community aka the Drug Companies, the AMA and the others that protect their own and don’t give a rat’s ass about the rest of us. When push comes to shove is bloated Teddy Kennedyand the liberal left, or the bible beating right wing and their cohorts and the rest of them on BOTH sides paying for any of us .. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO… but those of us here that get up every day and go to work and pay our taxes and the rest of the crap ARE paying for those that cannot.. from the deserving to the NON deserving. 

Get a clue people its not about the working people of this country denying those that cannot pay.. its about the farking ruling elitist that put it on our heads so they are OUT of the loop and free and clear.

adios amigos....isn’t that in Hispanic PC ?

Xxena, I agree with your point about the drug companies being bloated and corrupt, but I want to address a few of the points that you’ve made.

First,

Thirdly… socialism is great in theory but in reality IT DOES NOT WORK.  NEVER HAS, NEVERWILL..

I may be missing something, but where in this thread was socialism seriously brought up? There is a lot of middle ground between wishing to see health care in this country repaired on the one hand and actual socialism on the other. Or do you consider the two issues to be one and the same? I personally would disagree.  I don’t think there are a whole lot of true socialists here at SEB.

Second,

but those of us here that get up every day and go to work and pay our taxes and the rest of the crap ARE paying for those that cannot.. from the deserving to the NON deserving. 

Are you seriously insinuating that some people are not deserving of health care? If so, what exactly determines in your mind who is and who is not “deserving?”

I have about had my fill of the “everyone should have medical insurance�? at the expense of others !

Isn’t that the very nature of insurance? Taken to its logical conclusion, why should you receive services from an insurance in excess of the fees you paid in?

Second, where is it written that those that work MUST pay for those that don’t or otherwise ?

I’m too lazy to look up the exact reference, but it comes with the state asserting a constitutional right to levy taxes to pay for services rendered to the public. Note that gainful employment is not a precondition to receive such services. Citizenship and to lesser degree legal residency are.

Again, taken to its conclusion, you shouldn’t receive services from the state in excess of the taxes you personally paid to fund them. Since you’re retired - I take that to mean that you’re not currently gainfully employed, why should the taxes that working people pay benefit you?

Thirdly… socialism is great in theory but in reality IT DOES NOT WORK.  NEVER HAS, NEVERWILL.. ITS AN ABOMINATION OF THE REAL WORLD.

I’ll give you communism. Great idea, wrong species. I just don’t see the relevance to this topic. The American society either supports public health care or it doesn’t.

Do NOT lay blame at EVERY DAY WORKING people… lay it at the hands of the polticians and the bloated medical community aka the Drug Companies, ...

Now you blame it on Big Bad Business?

Get a clue people its not about the working people of this country denying those that cannot pay..

I find it hard to reconcile your opening statements with the one just above. You seem to have stated that “working people” should not have to support the “not working people”. It is all about this sentiment.

from the deserving to the NON deserving.

Sigh.

Some guy said: I have about had my fill of the “everyone should have medical insurance�? at the expense of others!

Not all that eloquent, I’ll grant you that.

To which Elwed queried: Isn’t that the very nature of insurance?

The simple answer is no. Insurance is an indemnification contract between an insurer and an insured.  The contracts are individual contracts for which both parties have duties and obligations.  The basis for the contract is that the insured seeks to be indemnified for losses, or in this case the costs of medical services rendered, in exchange for consideration in the form of a premium payment by the insured. A contract in which the insured isn’t required to submit any consideration to receive the benefits of the contract is no contract at all. The very nature of contract formation requires the element of consideration.

As we can see, it is really I and some guy who want health insurance for all. I want everybody to have the rights AND the obligations of that contractual relationship

What some guy recognized in his own unique and inelegant fashion was that you don’t.  You want to delegate the premium obligations onto the back of a third party, the working man/woman. Didn’t seem like fairsies to him.  I understand why.

And like some very sensitive conservatives, I would agree that anytime our arguments involve “morality plays,�? as you put it, things will get a little heated up. No biggie--sometimes a little heat lets us know we’re alive.

I can agree with that.

from the deserving to the NON deserving.

If so, what exactly determines in your mind who is and who is not “deserving?�?

I’ll reference my point about fraud - you pay the taxes in, but the public never gets the payback. I wouldn’t chalk it up to being just medicine, since there are cases where the funding never makes it that far. Same effect - I don’t see some fat cat deserving to line his pockets with my health-care money.

If you haven’t already figured it out, I’m on the fence when it comes to which helps more in terms of healthcare, although I tend to favor socialist economic ideologies.

All I have to add is that there is a lot of shit my government engages in with the tax dollars I pay that I’m not particularly happy about. Given the choice between having those taxes go to an unjust war against a foreign nation under false pretenses or toward the goal of providing health care to everyone so that we all have the means to stay healthy enough to find a job, I’d choose the latter over the former. Alas, I don’t get a choice in the matter.

Near as I can tell I’ve gotten no benefit from the war in Iraq, just a record deficit and a lot of dead people. I can at least see some potential benefit in helping to ensure that everyone has at least basic medical care available to them so they have one less thing to worry about.  No one seems to have a problem with the government “stealing” your money to pay for corrupt wars where lots of foreigners get killed, but man, the moment someone suggests that money could be better spent helping your fellow Americans you get all bent out of shape that you’re supporting people who are “undeserving.”

Taxes to kill lots of people? You’re all for it. Taxes to save lots of people? No fucking way.

That’s just sad.

Consi, nice folksy dancing, if to a tune that’s getting old.

I had time to reread what’s been said before and concluded that everything has been said. Uncle Sam takes money out of your wallet, whether you like it or not. That money is put to some uses you don’t object to, others you (would) oppose. What you agree and disagree with speaks for itself.

Practically speaking, whichever of the two options you support, your dollar gets squandered. It becomes a matter of degrees as to who screws you worse, public or private institutions.

That said, drawing the line between public and private powers, in the era of an unusually rich government, is getting very difficult. Although which you choose to support is telling, I find that deciding how to spend your money is secondary to how you secure it in the first place.

Consi, nice folksy dancing, if to a tune that’s getting old.

Elwed,

Call me a relic, call me what you will,
Say I’m old fashion, say I’m over the hill,
Today’s music ain’t got the same soul,
I LOVE THAT OLD TIME ROCK N’ ROLL!!!!!!

Still like that a old time rock n’ roll
That kind of music just soothes my soul
I reminisce about the days of old
With that old time a-rock ‘n’ roll

-Bob Seger, Old Time Rock N’ Roll