Skip to main content

I don't get it...

One of the most powerful countries in the world doesn’t believe in looking out for its citizen’s health preferring to see it as a luxury instead of a basic right.

With the repealing of Obamacare by Republicans, which was already a watered down compromise thanks to free enterprise loving conservatives, it will now leave 20 million Americans without coverage.

Republicans love to extol free-market capitalism and will apply it everywhere. Sure you can have access to great health care in the United States; you simply need to be able to pay for it. So if you are one of those blue collar coal miners who lost their job you are fresh out of luck if you need a colonoscopy because you might just have to declare bankruptcy to get it.

When I had my carotid artery dissection which led to my stroke I was in the Montreal General Hospital intensive care unit for 10 days and it cost me nothing. My taxes took care of that and while you may be triaged in an emergency room and need to wait a few hours those of us who represent true emergencies go to the front of the line. This is the way things should be.

I heard recently on CBC radio that parents were bringing their sick children to hospitals over this past Christmas break that should have stayed home and given cough syrup instead. But you can bet that someone truly in need would be seen right away.

Both times I have been in emergency situations (my stroke and my kidney stone attack) I was looked after within a reasonable amount of time and the only cost was a $600 bill for the ambulance I called.

I don’t understand why health care needs to be a luxury instead of a human right. I am not talking about elective surgery but instead lifesaving treatments that prevent needless deaths.

The only G20 country that still does not have adequate coverage for its citizens is the United States of America and under the current administration that is not about to change since Republicans have an aversion to any form of social assistance.

Call me crazy but I think that for profit healthcare is immoral and here big Pharma and the insurance companies conspire to make sure that coverage leans towards the affluent under the guise of maintaining quality.

It looks like Bernie Sanders' dream will remain a pipe dream.


Comments

  1. In Scandinavia the basic health insurance is a public affair. If I get ill and have to go to the hospital, I am not presented with a bill. I have already paid for their help care through my taxes.

    I know that some American right wingers think of this as a socialist waste of money, but the fact is that Norwegian health care is much cheaper than the American version, and more effective.

    Besides, Industry love the arrangement, even if they take part in paying for the system through taxes (which are not that high, by the way). The reason is obviously that the costs associated with having an ill employee is so much lower for them than for their American counterparts.

    The public health care system also represents a social safety net that reduces risk, increases mobility and encourages innovation.

    So even if you do not make a humanitarian argument the American policy makes no sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the more we spread the cost over the entire population the cheaper it is for the single payer. Right now there are rich people and some young opting out of paying into the system which raises the cost for those in it. Plus the big pharmaceutical firms don't like cheaper no name brand competition. Add to that the litigation costs of malpractice and you have a broken system.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

prejudice disguised as objective rectitude

So here is Professor Jordan Peterson perhaps justly calling out the excesses of political correctness gone mad. But then he extends it to not indulging transgender people the basic dignity of being addressed in their preferred pronoun. To do so for him would cost nothing and to stand on literal principle seems to serve little use other than to send a message of disdain.

If you have transitioned or even live as the opposite gender is costs me nothing to address you in your preferred pronouns. What difference does it make to me and what am I trying to tell you when I don't?

Peterson wants to stand on his rights to call reality what it is except that in this case the exact objective escapes me. But of course the right wing Federalist is in love with him because he calls a spade a spade.

If I see a rock I can call it that but then the rock doesn’t have any feelings. To address a transgender woman "her" and "she" is not undermining my rights as a person in any way b…

"Oh please its 2016!"

I have mentioned before that I have a lovely young couple living above the unit next to mine. Well the other day as I was getting in the door, she and I overlapped for the first time with me dressed as a woman.

We had a nice conversation and at some point I mentioned the obvious which was that I had told her future husband that they might see me in a different guise from time to time so they wouldn't wonder about who the strange woman was. She just looked at me almost rolling her eyes while smiling from ear to ear and said:

"Oh Please it's 2016!"

For the record she was also very complementary regarding my choice of attire.

I could care less at this point in my life what people think but it is still lovely to see the millennial generation's freedom of spirit and acceptance so lacking in previous generations. Yes they have their own foibles, as does every generation, but this area certainly isn't one of them.

looking past cross gender arousal

Jack’s latest Crossdreamers post got me thinking about cross gender arousal and how it could be avoided; also whether it even matters. This with particular focus on the inability to relate of someone on the outside looking in.

You see, sexuality is a very complicated thing to begin with and when you then add gender identity ambiguity it becomes a recipe to really confuse someone.

So imagine that you are a little boy who identifies as a girl but then along comes puberty and short circuits everything by having the sex you identify with also be the sex you are attracted to. For in essence this is what happens to all all male to female gender dysphoric trans persons who are attracted to women.

So I ask myself: can I imagine a scenario where this inherent contradiction would not produce sexual confusion? The answer is that I cannot.

I am in the unique position, like many of you, to have experienced an early identification with the feminine become sexualized later on. This brought confusion…