The Capitalist Meltdown

- Unfortunately, not all hospitals in the US are like Brigham and Women's hospital. Yes, Brigham and Women's is an excellent hospital.

"The patient, Edith Isabel Rodriguez, was pronounced dead at 2:17 a.m., the victim of "inexcusable" indifference by staff at King-Harbor, county health officials later acknowledged.

Rodriguez lay untreated on the ER lobby floor for 45 minutes before dying. A video camera captured the episode, showing that staffers and patients stood by as a janitor cleaned the floor around her. She was buried in Tehachapi on Tuesday."

http://www.jems.com/news_and_articles/news/Los_Angeles_woman_dies_emergency_room_floor.html

 

Alive and well in the White House. No one ever said it was a good thing.

 

"And maybe you cannot be denied medical care in most places but try waiting at a free clinic or at the County Hospital"

- Hospital waits are common even in countries that have universal health care. Try going to a large hospital in Tokyo, Japan. Better bring a book.

 

Watching "John Q" on TNT right now. Just felt like saying that.

 

"There is something else to point out, the US follows most of Europe and much of Asia when it comes to infant deaths."

- I would agree when it comes to Europe and parts of Eastern Europe. However, much of Asia and Africa have considerably high infant mortality rates.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List-of-countries-by-infant-mortality-rate-(2005)

 

Your point is what?

 

I hate to break it to you, but whatever is in the White House is NOT conservatism. Social conservatism maybe, but certainly not fiscal conservatism.

 

The neglect of hospital staff to treat Edith Isabel Rodriguez may be part of a wider issue in the US. You may not see a medical doctor right away. That is the point.

"A new study from the Institute of Medicine found that hospital emergency departments are overburdened, underfunded and ill-prepared to handle disasters as the number of people turning to ERs for primary care keeps rising. An ambulance is turned away from an ER once every minute due to overcrowding, according to the study; the situation is exacerbated by shortages in many of the “on call” backup services for cardiologists, orthopedists and neurosurgeons. And it’s getting worse. Currently, 73% of ER directors report inadequate coverage by on-call specialists, versus 67% in 2004, according to a survey conducted by the American College of Emergency Physicians."

http://kellyonmalpractice.com/category/hospital-neglect/

 

If you're an average citizen, then 90% of all the money you spend on health care will be spent in the last six months of your life.

You are not responsible for my health care. You are not responsible for providing me with a doctor, if I'm ill or in need of medical services. It is communistic (or socialistic) for me to expect you (the taxpayer) to provide medical services to me, if I'm in need of them.

 

Perhaps you'd prefer to go to a hospital in Mexico or some other country with socialized health care?

 

Perhaps I am mistaken, but where in the U.S. Constitution is the right to universal health care written?

 

So, you're OK with the idea of bailing out Wall Street. It was their own incompetency and the people who made all those bad decisions will continue to get their salaries and their pensions and their bonuses. If you or I made such bad decisions in our jobs then we would be out on the street. Unemployed and unemployable. But you think it's a good thing to reward incompetency.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21gret.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin

Next, you'll be suggesting that we (the USA) should be fixing the financial problems that exist everywhere. That's what your buddies want.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/business/22global.html?hp

Oh, and as to your original question, please try to remember that it's the right to life (I get to stay alive/be healthy), liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's in the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps the most memorable phrase in the movement toward democracy. But I guess you forgot that part.

 

God help you if you are not one of those 90%, and you don't have health insurance. In my line of work, I see the most robust conservative citizens quickly cry for help when disaster strikes. If anything, the usual question is, "How come there are not more services to help me!". The Ronald Reagan mantra of "Lift yourself up by your bootstraps" quickly sounds pretty damn hollow.



Abner

 

Take a deep breath and relax. Please do not put words in my mouth as I did not say any such thing you are suggesting. I simply said that univeral health care is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution (meaning that it is not a requirement of the Federal government to provide to the citizenry) - that is all. One issue at a time. Who are my buddies?

 

Would I prefer to go to a hospital in Mexico or some other country with socialized health care? That depends. If there is a doctor in Australia that
is aware of an extremely rare but curable disease, then I may go if no such doctor or medical team exists in the US. There have been such cases. Other than that, due to my trips to hospitals in countries that have universal health care, my choice is the US. There is nothing wrong in discussing the possible flaws of an existing health care system, especially if we are taxpayers and native born citizens of the country in question.

No I am not Mexican. My family is from Puerto Rico and I was born in Bronx, New York.

 

Taxes taxes taxes.... welll its like this....

The people of Denmark are not against paying taxes as long as they know they will get what they pay for. This also applies to Sweden, Germany and much of the rest of Europe.

In Denmark (the country I am most familiar with) people have much better services than here.

Consider: Violent crime is very rare. There are no ghettos. The Danes take a very pragmatic attitute towards consentual behavior such as sex and drugs. Its not to say that everyone uses drugs or has sex but people like to stay out of other people's business. You do not have such things as overcrowded prisons, the death penalty and when people are released from prison they tend not to come back.

Now there are reasons why it works there. One may be that the total population of Denmark is 5 million (less than the populations of New York or Los Angeles), or that it has a strict and somewhat controversial immigration policy.

And yes, as I said before everyone gets free education, even at the tertiary level.

I cannot say that the Danish system will work in the US or anywhere else. But I do think that it does make a strong argument for the belief that you get what you pay for.

 

Actually, Mexican health care is excellent and affordable. I was on a waiting list for an operation in Canada for more than a year, I decided to go to Mexico and got it done for less than 3 thousand and in less than a week. I think Mexico's health care is far much better than the Canadian one.

 

In Canada we pay about 50% and Health care sucks. There are quite a few Canadian that fly every year to get health care in Mexico or other countries with much affordable health care. You have free health care but what is the point if you have to wait a year or more to get an operation, by then you might have developed something else. I'm considering moving out of Canada for this reason.

 

While this is anticdotal, I do know several examples of people who came to the US and were dissapointed. I have a friend who is going back to Japan because he says that its too hard to earn a living in the US. I would add that this is an educated IT professional.

Hmmm... I believed it came right after the clause which states that a President can suspend Habeas Corpus. And right before it states that the US tax payers should be required to bail out financial institutions that fail due to the stupidity of their corporate directors.

 

Nice try - the "privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it". The enemy combatants in the Global War on Terror have been deemed to be rebellious and unlawful by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and therefore not subject to the protections of Article I - Section 9.

As for the bailout - I am not sure what the Democratically-controlled Congress is thinking on that one.

Nice use of talking points though..........