Do you think the USA will ever be what you really

[ttt]

Aug 12, 2012 11:44:48 GMT -5 mx27 said:

as a minority, the idea of moving to certain other countries isn't appealing...it's kinda like when people wish for the good old days...um, perhaps they were good for you, but not for my peeps!

I'm curious as to which countries you mean here.

[druidp]

Only if more citizens get angry enough and informed enough - independent of media spoon-feeding pre-spun "news" - to get off their butts and not only vote, but serve in their local political offices and upward.

So... when all TVs blow up? That's really my best shot at utopia.

[mx27]

Aug 12, 2012 12:27:44 GMT -5 ttt said:

Aug 12, 2012 11:44:48 GMT -5 mx27 said:

as a minority, the idea of moving to certain other countries isn't appealing...it's kinda like when people wish for the good old days...um, perhaps they were good for you, but not for my peeps!

I'm curious as to which countries you mean here.

countries that don't welcome racial minorities. countries that discriminate against racial minorities. countries where barack obama would never stand a chance of being president/prime minister/head of country because of the way he looks.

[ttt]

Aug 12, 2012 12:38:09 GMT -5 mx27 said:

Aug 12, 2012 12:27:44 GMT -5 ttt said:

I'm curious as to which countries you mean here.

countries that don't welcome racial minorities. countries that discriminate against racial minorities.

As opposed to the United States, which doesn't ever discriminate against racial minorities??

Seriously, which are the countries that *do* welcome racial minorities and that don't discriminate?

[aw]

Short of a complete crash of the system, a revolution or a miracle from God, I don't see how things will ever get better. People are too apathetic and dependent on the current system to want to change anything. Plus, I believe it's supposed to get worse.

[mx27]

Aug 12, 2012 12:41:42 GMT -5 ttt said:

Aug 12, 2012 12:38:09 GMT -5 mx27 said:

countries that don't welcome racial minorities. countries that discriminate against racial minorities.

As opposed to the United States, which doesn't ever discriminate against racial minorities??

Seriously, which are the countries that *do* welcome racial minorities and that don't discriminate?

regarding the bolded text...i don't know, but i hope some do (how sad that we even question this, isn't it?).

[ttt]

Aug 12, 2012 12:46:59 GMT -5 mx27 said:

Aug 12, 2012 12:41:42 GMT -5 ttt said:

As opposed to the United States, which doesn't ever discriminate against racial minorities??

Seriously, which are the countries that *do* welcome racial minorities and that don't discriminate?

regarding the bolded text...i don't know, but i hope some do (how sad that we even question this, isn't it?).

It is sad, but I think it is unfortunately fairly universal for people to discriminate against others who aren't like them.

It just goes back to "no country is perfect" for me. All countries have problems, all societies have some forms of discrimination. It's just a matter of looking at which country's problems are worse than others and which country's good points are better than others.

[mx27]

Aug 12, 2012 12:52:22 GMT -5 ttt said:

Aug 12, 2012 12:46:59 GMT -5 mx27 said:

regarding the bolded text...i don't know, but i hope some do (how sad that we even question this, isn't it?).

It is sad, but I think it is unfortunately fairly universal for people to discriminate against others who aren't like them.

It just goes back to "no country is perfect" for me. All countries have problems, all societies have some forms of discrimination. It's just a matter of looking at which country's problems are worse than others and which country's good points are better than others.

i agree.

and you're completely right about the US's problems regarding minorities, but as you said, a lot of countries aren't welcoming of "others," so moving to another country wouldn't necessarily be an improvement for me.

[Deleted]

Not unless we adopt universal healthcare. Too often in our current system - and any system that depends on insurance - the people who need the help the most are those who are least in the position to afford it, particularly when it comes to mental healthcare.

This has hit pretty close to home this week. I am more firmly in favor of UHC than ever before.

[doctordonna]

Aug 12, 2012 12:45:37 GMT -5 aw said:

Short of a complete crash of the system, a revolution or a miracle from God, I don't see how things will ever get better. People are too apathetic and dependent on the current system to want to change anything. Plus, I believe it's supposed to get worse.

I agree with this. I'm torn between being apathetic and wanting to get more involved.

More involvement means I'm doing something about the problem. Knowing that nothing I can say or do will help the problem because all the political in-fighting and wicked cases of the butthurtz will always trump what the common man has to say makes me apathetic to get involved.

Too many times of researching politicians, casting my vote, having the person I vote for win only to have said winner either change his/her mind or not do what they say they're going to do has made me super cynical about the American political system.

[rugbywife]

Aug 12, 2012 11:57:53 GMT -5 marynjoe said:

Aug 12, 2012 8:23:50 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

I will be honest, I also don't understand when I see some of my Republican friends post on FB that while they disagree with the candidates about gay right, abortion, women's issues, etc.., that those things take second seat to the economy and so they would vote for someone regardless of their views on those social issues. I don't think I could ever support a candidate who didn't believe in gay marriage and the right to choose (which is really only funny because I am a practising Christian on her way out to her Baptist Church service). I genuinely don't think the Church should have any place in politics, ever.

I'm Independent, but I know that some of that attitude comes from the need to have to have a stable country before we address social issues. It's like a home. If you're in foreclosure, why are you worrying about anything other than working and paying bills? Get the home out of foreclosure, get financially stable, and then attack the other issues.

These issues explain why I have no clue how to vote. I am fiscally conservative and realize we have GOT to get our country back on track with spending, debt reduction, you name it. We're in deep shit financially. On the other hand. I am socially liberal. I 100% support gay rights, women's issues, and think abortion should stay legal.

So, who do I vote for? I have to look at the #1 problem facing this country which stands to cause the most problems, and I think that is the economy. Yet, I can't get myself to vote for a R. I hate that we still have such civil rights issues in our country, but I can't get onboard with a D either.

Yet unfortunately, there's still not a good, strong 3rd party candidate to vote for where I won't feel, sadly, like I'm wasting a vote. (I hate that) What do I do?

I agree with the bolded except I take it entirely one step further...I don't think that it is the economy that is the issue, I think it is the priorities of the culture that are the issue. This is not an issue that exists only in the US but I feel as though the US does tend to epitomize it. The US is very focused on making sure the economy is strong (ie: rich people get richer). When the economy was 'doing well' it was due to an extended period of growth. Any economist will tell you that there is no continual 'up' in economics, there are ebbs and flows, ups and downs.

Unfortunately this period of growth was borne out of an incredible increase in the world's population over the course of the last half decade. The increase in population was coupled with an incredible increase in purchasing. These two things combined sustained the economy through a period of growth right up until people got greedy about it (surprise surprise) and over spent what they did have and began spending what they didn't have/buying what they couldn't afford (be it homes, cars, or investors and banks taking risks).

Day in and day out the media is calling for a need for renewed 'growth' in the economy, but that isn't likely to come because at the same time as all this growth was happening we (the world) began to out grow our resource supply.

I believe the next 100 years will be marked with nothing but downward spirals (not to be negative) as the world begins to come to terms with a reality where there is simply not enough space or energy to sustain the lifestyles that we currently enjoy. It may not be in my lifetime but I think that within the next century there will need to be a huge paradigm shift on the the part of the developed world where by they realize that ongoing and continually increasing economic growth simply isn't sustainable. Unfortunately this type of paradigm shift doesn't bode well in a capitalist economic system that depends on economic growth to stimulate buying on the part of the consumer, which in turn stimulates further growth.

So yeah, the economy needs help, but I don't think the world is ready to face the reality that constantly buying and building and then buying more, it isn't an economic system that the world's resources can realistically support. And that sucks for any economy that is largely based on manufacturing.

Edited for a bit of clarity.

[ttt]

Aug 12, 2012 12:59:53 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Not unless we adopt universal healthcare. Too often in our current system - and any system that depends on insurance - the people who need the help the most are those who are least in the position to afford it, particularly when it comes to mental healthcare.

This has hit pretty close to home this week. I am more firmly in favor of UHC than ever before.

This is such a good point. To me, it's not even so much that we don't have it yet as that a large segment - a majority, even - thinks that it isn't a problem that every citizen doesn't have access to healthcare. That it's OK because if you don't have healthcare, it's probably your own fault and if you can't find a charity to help you out, well, I guess you'll just die and maybe you should have tried harder to find a job and get insurance. That is a huge gap in values, IMO.

[lys]

Life is never perfect in any part of the world.
I do not look to the government to solve my problems.
States have many options to make huge changes for their citizens in how they operate.

[ttt]

Aug 12, 2012 13:29:22 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

Aug 12, 2012 11:57:53 GMT -5 marynjoe said:

I'm Independent, but I know that some of that attitude comes from the need to have to have a stable country before we address social issues. It's like a home. If you're in foreclosure, why are you worrying about anything other than working and paying bills? Get the home out of foreclosure, get financially stable, and then attack the other issues.

These issues explain why I have no clue how to vote. I am fiscally conservative and realize we have GOT to get our country back on track with spending, debt reduction, you name it. We're in deep shit financially. On the other hand. I am socially liberal. I 100% support gay rights, women's issues, and think abortion should stay legal.

So, who do I vote for? I have to look at the #1 problem facing this country which stands to cause the most problems, and I think that is the economy. Yet, I can't get myself to vote for a R. I hate that we still have such civil rights issues in our country, but I can't get onboard with a D either.

Yet unfortunately, there's still not a good, strong 3rd party candidate to vote for where I won't feel, sadly, like I'm wasting a vote. (I hate that) What do I do?

I agree with the bolded except I take it entirely one step further...I don't think that it is the economy that is the issue, I think it is the priorities of the culture that are the issue. This is not an issue that exists only in the US but I feel as though the US does tend to epitomize it. The US is very focused on making sure the economy is strong (ie: rich people get richer). When the economy was 'doing well' it was due to an extended period of growth. Any economist will tell you that there is no continual 'up' in economics, there are ebbs and flows, ups and downs.

This is the heart of the argument IMO.

[rugbywife]

Aug 12, 2012 13:32:48 GMT -5 ttt said:

Aug 12, 2012 12:59:53 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Not unless we adopt universal healthcare. Too often in our current system - and any system that depends on insurance - the people who need the help the most are those who are least in the position to afford it, particularly when it comes to mental healthcare.

This has hit pretty close to home this week. I am more firmly in favor of UHC than ever before.

This is such a good point. To me, it's not even so much that we don't have it yet as that a large segment - a majority, even - thinks that it isn't a problem that every citizen doesn't have access to healthcare. That it's OK because if you don't have healthcare, it's probably your own fault and if you can't find a charity to help you out, well, I guess you'll just die and maybe you should have tried harder to find a job and get insurance. That is a huge gap in values, IMO.

I have had more than one American argue with me that UHC isn't a 'human right' (which I believe it is) and that it isn't a 'right' because it isn't in the Constitution. When I argue that they therefore believe that people have a greater right to bear arms than they do to be healthy without the thread of a life time of debt they either say 'yes' or they say 'well that just sounds stupid when you put it like that'...except that is exactly what they believe.

I can't stand to hear the stories that I hear about people going into debt (and like, hugely into debt) because of cancer or an accident or even a difficult pregnancy. This is the number one reason why I would never live in the US, not because I wouldn't get insurance, I am sure I would through work, but because I don't know if I could live in a society where so many people believe it is better to let people go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt than to figure out a solution (and yes, I know it is complicated) that would not allow that to happen. I don't see how a 4 year old child getting Leukaemia should mean that a family has to lose their house. And all I have ever heard in response to this is that people who don't have insurance shouldn't have kids.

[earlgreyhot]

Aug 12, 2012 13:36:48 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

Aug 12, 2012 13:32:48 GMT -5 ttt said:

This is such a good point. To me, it's not even so much that we don't have it yet as that a large segment - a majority, even - thinks that it isn't a problem that every citizen doesn't have access to healthcare. That it's OK because if you don't have healthcare, it's probably your own fault and if you can't find a charity to help you out, well, I guess you'll just die and maybe you should have tried harder to find a job and get insurance. That is a huge gap in values, IMO.

I have had more than one American argue with me that UHC isn't a 'human right' (which I believe it is) and that it isn't a 'right' because it isn't in the Constitution. When I argue that they therefore believe that people have a greater right to bear arms than they do to be healthy without the thread of a life time of debt they either say 'yes' or they say 'well that just sounds stupid when you put it like that'...except that is exactly what they believe.

I can't stand to hear the stories that I hear about people going into debt (and like, hugely into debt) because of cancer or an accident or even a difficult pregnancy. This is the number one reason why I would never live in the US, not because I wouldn't get insurance, I am sure I would through work, but because I don't know if I could live in a society where so many people believe it is better to let people go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt than to figure out a solution (and yes, I know it is complicated) that would not allow that to happen. I don't see how a 4 year old child getting Leukaemia should mean that a family has to lose their house. And all I have ever heard in response to this is that people who don't have insurance shouldn't have kids.

I hate that reaction. It's so cold and lacking any bit of empathy. Which speaks to the celebration of the individual in America over the community.

And it so contradictory to what the entrepreneurial, bootstrap people we claim to be. DH has an opportunity to start a business, but the biggest risk is having to self-insure ourselves for awhile. It'll be too expensive to maintain level of coverage we've been accustomed too working for big companies, but scary thinking about what even a minor issue would do to our finances.

[Deleted]

Aug 12, 2012 9:39:14 GMT -5 emilyj said:

No, I don't.

I don't ever think America will be perfect - I think that's an unrealistic expectation - but I feel like the country has really lost its focus in the past 5...7...years or so, and I don't see it getting back on track any time soon. I was infuriated last year when the budget couldn't get passed. I think the system in Washington is a fucking joke right now. I truly don't think our government has our nation's best interests at heart right now, and it's disheartening.

I don't know what the magic answer is to swing the system back to a more normal functioning system. I don't know if a valid 3rd party is the answer because at this point it would seem like it would be one more group of cooks in the kitchen, you know?

The media doesn't help. This culture of 'soundbite campaigning' is terrible.

I honestly would like to fire every single person in Washington right now and start from scratch. Make everyone re-earn their seat if they want to stay in. But I know that's not realistic because would the majority of the voters even care enough to pay attention to who they are voting in to office?

Flame away, but I think voters should be required to pass a test to vote. Yes, voting is a right, I get it, but you know what? I don't want the ignorant jackass whose only opinion going into the voting booth that Obama is one of them "Mooslims" voting. I don't. I want people who are educated on the candidates and issues and who actually fucking care voting in the leaders of this country because maybe that is what will make a difference.

I think you are equating intelligence with lack of prejudice, which is sadly not the case. So the test couldn't be about intelligence, it would have to be about answering a set of morality questions "correctly," and eliminating those who were "wrong" on the big issues. So as hard as it is to know that racists and homophobes walk into the voting booth, I'm not about to condone the disenfranchisement of 59% of black Americans because they oppose gay marriage. Are you?

Prejudice can't be legislated away. Legislation can protect rights, but it MUST be complemented by our willingness to engage those who are "wrong," because otherwise their prejudice will merely pass down through the generations.

[marynjoe]

I agree that the culture of spending and buying things you can't afford put us into a huge mess. Now, everyone is paying for it.

However, I don't agree that rich getting richer is what we think of when we say the economy is getting stronger. I think of it as our economy stabilizing, lowering the national debt, balancing our national budget, more people able to afford necessities, more people able to afford homes and insurance, less downsizing....

As for healthcare being a right, the argument for that is that rights don't cost money. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness...those don't cost anything.

I also don't think many people believe it is better to let people go hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt than to figure out a solution to the healthcare issue. I think many people don't know what to do, and don't know what they personally can do about it. It's not like I personally can do all the research and get all the facts to figure out the best answer. But, we do need doctors, surgeons, nurses, insurance companies, researchers, drug companies, citizens, and all kinds of people to work together to figure out a better way.

But am I glad and proud to be a citizen of the United States? Yes.

[emilyj]

Aug 12, 2012 14:45:34 GMT -5 @vanessadoof said:

I think you are equating intelligence with lack of prejudice, which is sadly not the case. So the test couldn't be about intelligence, it would have to be about answering a set of morality questions "correctly," and eliminating those who were "wrong" on the big issues. So as hard as it is to know that racists and homophobes walk into the voting booth, I'm not about to condone the disenfranchisement of 59% of black Americans because they oppose gay marriage. Are you?

No, I'm not equating lack of intelligence with prejudice at all, and I used the wrong example previously. When I say I want voters to pass a test, I don't want morality to be a part of it at all. I'm talking basic civics questions. Can you understand the basic structure of our government? Do you know how many senators each state gets? Those types of things. If you can't pass a basic test of understanding of how our government works in this country, then perhaps you need to learn the process before you participate in it. I realize that's an UO, and I'm fine with that.

Perhaps a better example would have been to refer back to the article posted right after the ACA vote that 45% of Anericans didn't know what ACA was about despite all of the media coverage. That speaks to me of a massive apathy. If you don't know what the ACA is at all, I'm sorry, but I don't want you voting.

Honestly, I wish more people that fully understood the issues were the ones at the polls. I hate that so many voters turn out over one hot button issue, and then fill in the rest of the ballot uninformed. I can't tell you how many people I heard at the last presidential election say they came out to vote for McCain, but then just played "Eeny meny miny moe" with the rest of the candidates on the ballot because they knew nothing about them.

That's not prejudice or lack of intelligence. It's apathy...lack of effort? If there was a way to test and show that you had a knowledge beyond "I know Obama and Romney are running for president so I'm going to vote" then I'd be all for it. I don't want uninformed people at the polls choosing my elected officials.

I hope this makes more sense.

[Deleted]

Aug 12, 2012 14:52:36 GMT -5 marynjoe said:

As for healthcare being a right, the argument for that is that rights don't cost money. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness...those don't cost anything.

That's an interesting way to put it. I've always wondered about calling healthcare a "right" vs. a "need." Food and shelter are undeniable needs, but I rarely hear the words "right to housing" thrown about. I think "need" is a less political way to view it, and then it leaves no room for disagreement. Of course we all "need" food and housing. And our society is able to work towards alleviating hunger and homelessness because we don't have to get caught up in a semantical argument about whether food is a "right."

There must be always be a way to provide healthcare to those who truly can't afford it. But there are a wide range of views regarding affordability. If you look at two families with identical income, one may eliminate "wants" to afford "needs" like healthcare (my sister does this. They don't pay for cable tv, eating out or expensive clothes bc their daughter has t1 diabetes). The other family with the same income may disagree about what constitutes a "need," therefore, their available budget for healthcare doesn't cover it's cost. So it's much harder than drawing a line somewhere on the income scale and saying people making less than X may receive free healthcare.

[Jermys]

Aug 12, 2012 7:18:09 GMT -5 heightsyankee said:

If I'm being optimistic, I say yes. We will be taken over by the Norwegians and all live happily ever after.

This would be my Utopia. I would LOVE to live in Norway.

[Deleted]

EmilyJ, ah, I get it, and I agree with your point. "Get out the vote" campaigns drive me batty. Celebrities often urge "I don't care who you vote for, but rock the vote."

Ok, A) you do care who they vote for. And B) if you really don't, why do you give a shit whether Joe Blow votes? If he doesn't care enough to vote of his own free will, and must be "convinced" of it's importance, then why do we need him to vote?

This is why some of my ballot is left blank. If I don't know an issue or candidate inside and out (and shame on me) then I don't feel entitled to vote on that portion of the ballot. And I must be honest that at the county and civic level, I don't always spend the necessary time for independent investigation.

[earlgreyhot]

Aug 12, 2012 15:14:26 GMT -5 emilyj said:

Aug 12, 2012 14:45:34 GMT -5 @vanessadoof said:

I think you are equating intelligence with lack of prejudice, which is sadly not the case. So the test couldn't be about intelligence, it would have to be about answering a set of morality questions "correctly," and eliminating those who were "wrong" on the big issues. So as hard as it is to know that racists and homophobes walk into the voting booth, I'm not about to condone the disenfranchisement of 59% of black Americans because they oppose gay marriage. Are you?

No, I'm not equating lack of intelligence with prejudice at all, and I used the wrong example previously. When I say I want voters to pass a test, I don't want morality to be a part of it at all. I'm talking basic civics questions. Can you understand the basic structure of our government? Do you know how many senators each state gets? Those types of things. If you can't pass a basic test of understanding of how our government works in this country, then perhaps you need to learn the process before you participate in it. I realize that's an UO, and I'm fine with that.

Perhaps a better example would have been to refer back to the article posted right after the ACA vote that 45% of Anericans didn't know what ACA was about despite all of the media coverage. That speaks to me of a massive apathy. If you don't know what the ACA is at all, I'm sorry, but I don't want you voting.

Honestly, I wish more people that fully understood the issues were the ones at the polls. I hate that so many voters turn out over one hot button issue, and then fill in the rest of the ballot uninformed. I can't tell you how many people I heard at the last presidential election say they came out to vote for McCain, but then just played "Eeny meny miny moe" with the rest of the candidates on the ballot because they knew nothing about them.

That's not prejudice or lack of intelligence. It's apathy...lack of effort? If there was a way to test and show that you had a knowledge beyond "I know Obama and Romney are running for president so I'm going to vote" then I'd be all for it. I don't want uninformed people at the polls choosing my elected officials.

I hope this makes more sense.

I've been this person more often than not. Partly because I've moved so much and I find it takes a while for me to settle in and feel connected enough to a place to put the effort into finding out who does what beyond the president, senator, and representative. I generally abstain from those votes.

It's hard to fight the apathy, though. I've been in DC for 15 months and haven't even registered to vote, and, frankly, not sure that I will.

[charminglife]

Late to the post, but no, I don't think the country will ever be like I want it to be - and like HAB said, that's probably a good thing - it would probably be hell for a lot of the conservatives on the board.

Seriously though - I think the rise of the internet/24 hour news cycle has allowed us to surround ourselves with information that reinforces our beliefs and demonizes the other side. For our representatives in congress, it becomes more about beating or stopping the other side rather than working toward what's best for the nation. I don't see how we, as a country, can break that cycle.

[marynjoe]

Aug 12, 2012 15:29:34 GMT -5 @vanessadoof said:

Aug 12, 2012 14:52:36 GMT -5 marynjoe said:

As for healthcare being a right, the argument for that is that rights don't cost money. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness...those don't cost anything.

That's an interesting way to put it. I've always wondered about calling healthcare a "right" vs. a "need." Food and shelter are undeniable needs, but I rarely hear the words "right to housing" thrown about. I think "need" is a less political way to view it, and then it leaves no room for disagreement. Of course we all "need" food and housing. And our society is able to work towards alleviating hunger and homelessness because we don't have to get caught up in a semantical argument about whether food is a "right."

There must be always be a way to provide healthcare to those who truly can't afford it. But there are a wide range of views regarding affordability. If you look at two families with identical income, one may eliminate "wants" to afford "needs" like healthcare (my sister does this. They don't pay for cable tv, eating out or expensive clothes bc their daughter has t1 diabetes). The other family with the same income may disagree about what constitutes a "need," therefore, their available budget for healthcare doesn't cover it's cost. So it's much harder than drawing a line somewhere on the income scale and saying people making less than X may receive free healthcare.

What if you were alone on a desert island? What if you lived 100 years ago? You had life, liberty (hopefully), and the pursuit of happness. What you did beyond that was up to you.

The big issue is that healthcare isn't free. Surgeons and doctors went to school for years to get their education. They graduate and are struggling with $150k+ in loans. Researching drugs isn't free. Offices, electricity, office help, none of it is free. They pay for that. And now, after all they paid and spent so much time to work in their profession, people expect them to give services away because it affects their health. At some point, it may not be worth it to go to school to be a doctor and they can make better money elsewhere. Heck, we're already seeing the graduation rate of primary care phsycians and family doctors dropping because of the lower pay. Now everyone wants to be a specialist so they can pay off their loans. What if this keeps up? Then what?

I agree that something must be done to the current healthcare system, as costs are spiraling out of control. But, there should be so many issues addressed first before calling healthcare a right and mandating it for all.

[ttt]

Aug 12, 2012 19:15:56 GMT -5 marynjoe said:

Aug 12, 2012 15:29:34 GMT -5 @vanessadoof said:

That's an interesting way to put it. I've always wondered about calling healthcare a "right" vs. a "need." Food and shelter are undeniable needs, but I rarely hear the words "right to housing" thrown about. I think "need" is a less political way to view it, and then it leaves no room for disagreement. Of course we all "need" food and housing. And our society is able to work towards alleviating hunger and homelessness because we don't have to get caught up in a semantical argument about whether food is a "right."

There must be always be a way to provide healthcare to those who truly can't afford it. But there are a wide range of views regarding affordability. If you look at two families with identical income, one may eliminate "wants" to afford "needs" like healthcare (my sister does this. They don't pay for cable tv, eating out or expensive clothes bc their daughter has t1 diabetes). The other family with the same income may disagree about what constitutes a "need," therefore, their available budget for healthcare doesn't cover it's cost. So it's much harder than drawing a line somewhere on the income scale and saying people making less than X may receive free healthcare.

What if you were alone on a desert island? What if you lived 100 years ago? You had life, liberty (hopefully), and the pursuit of happness. What you did beyond that was up to you.

The big issue is that healthcare isn't free. Surgeons and doctors went to school for years to get their education. They graduate and are struggling with $150k+ in loans. Researching drugs isn't free. Offices, electricity, office help, none of it is free. They pay for that. And now, after all they paid and spent so much time to work in their profession, people expect them to give services away because it affects their health. At some point, it may not be worth it to go to school to be a doctor and they can make better money elsewhere. Heck, we're already seeing the graduation rate of primary care phsycians and family doctors dropping because of the lower pay. Now everyone wants to be a specialist so they can pay off their loans. What if this keeps up? Then what?

I agree that something must be done to the current healthcare system, as costs are spiraling out of control. But, there should be so many issues addressed first before calling healthcare a right and mandating it for all.

Yet somehow in every other developed nation, doctors and healthcare providers aren't living on the street in cardboard boxes. Every other nation seems to have figured it out, more or less. We are the wealthiest nation on the face of the planet, but we can't make sure our citizens don't die solely because they don't have enough money to pay for treatment?

ETA: it just drives me crazy that this is presented as some kind of impossible, unsolvable problem. It's not.

[rugbywife]

The big issue is that healthcare isn't free. Surgeons and doctors went to school for years to get their education. They graduate and are struggling with $150k+ in loans. Researching drugs isn't free. Offices, electricity, office help, none of it is free. They pay for that. And now, after all they paid and spent so much time to work in their profession, people expect them to give services away because it affects their health. At some point, it may not be worth it to go to school to be a doctor and they can make better money elsewhere. Heck, we're already seeing the graduation rate of primary care phsycians and family doctors dropping because of the lower pay. Now everyone wants to be a specialist so they can pay off their loans. What if this keeps up? Then what?




I don't expect anyone to work for free. I don't expect doctors to work for free and I can tell you that doctors in Canada make money, I would know, my father is one of them.

I believe people need to pay - everybody, especially the rich. I pay a ton of taxes (I make good money, so I pay a fair amount of taxes). I have no problem paying those taxes. I have no problem contributing my hard earned money into a system that supports not only myself, my family, and people I know and care about, but also millions of other people, including people who don't work or pay taxes, even people who could work but choose not to. I don't have a problem with my tax dollars being used to support UHC or year long maternity leave (that is actually funded by a separate tax, unemployment insurance) because I feel that those are the right priorities to focus on. I believe that supporting the health and wellbeing of the population, as well as having a parent home for the first year of a child's life, and having a minimum wage well over $10 are priorities that make life better off for people. When people have a better life they are better members of society. This usually results in better education and less violence within the society. Hence my point about priorities.

edited for clarity, as always.

[heightsyankee]

So, I'm at this rental house in MA and the neighbor comes up to us today to introduce himself and we say we're from Houston... yadda yadda... and he says he's been there and liked it... and the conversation progresses to a point where I say "and we have the largest medical center in the country" and he says "yeah, my son is a doctor, but he's leaving the country." In my mind I'm all Doctors Without Borders, so I say "Oh, that sounds great." And.... cue music...

He says "Well, yeah, if Obamacare sticks around, he's leaving the country. He'll be anywhere but here." So, I say "well, you know pretty much every other industrialized nation already has socialized medicine so where is he going to go?" And he says " 'socialized' well I guess Cuba sounds nice then." Little does that jackass seem to realize he's been living with Obamacare in MA since Mittens enacted it in 2006.

And then, as he is walking away, he suggests that Texas has lower crime than Pittsfield because we have more guns.

Thanks for introducing yourself. Go back to to Fox News and your Barcalounger.

Sorry, that was a little OT but I've been pretty about it all afternoon.

[pvillewife06]

Politically, no I don't think it will ever be "my" perfect and I agree with habs. If we are talking about our society, I am more optimistic. I think we are good people with a lot of resolve. I think we show our best when we come together in times of tragedy to support each other. If we could just do that in good times too, well, that would be nice.

[lyssbobiss, Command, B613]

No.

But neither will marriage be exactly what I want it to be. Nor parenthood. Nor work. Turns out things don't always go exactly the way *I* want them to all the time.