Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
I haven't heard any story yet about a single employee leaving their job because these four abortion-inducing drugs will not be included in their health insurance, so they will have to pay for them themselves, if they want them. I'm sure some Progressive is out there looking for that one person who they can say did in fact leave their job because of this. And, if that happens, I'm equally sure that Hobby Lobby will have no problem finding a replacement.
The law says they only have to provide it. You don't have to take it. You can find your own or, like a lot of people, get covered under your spouse's plan.And they don't have to provide you with a job in the first place. That's one of the biggest problems I have with Progressives - they never seem to be satisfied. They want jobs, so they get them. But those jobs don't pay enough. Or they don't have enough benefits. Or they pollute too much. Or they don't provide maternity and paternity leave. Or the CEO makes too much. Or they're outsourcing some of their positions. And so on...
I wonder, after being on this blog for two months, and listening to Thom and other Progressive radio shows for about four years, if any Progressive has actually experienced happiness and contentment. All I see are complaints. Whatever is done, it's never good enough. Something tells me if they ever got single-payer healthcare and a $15-per-hour minimum wage, they would still just want more. It never ends. The entire platform is built on the notion that "Your situation isn't fair, and people with more than you owe you..."
pat paine -- How does the effect of methane dissapate?
Also, how does the amount of methane leaking from fracking and all the pipelines in the US compare to the 17 million?
As AIW says, beam me up Scotty.
I don't have a victim mentality, like you do. As I said in my very first post here, many months ago. politics is for a person who has a zest for changing life, but lacks a zest for living life. I'm not into politics:)
by the way Alice, I could have Medicare tomorrow if I choose too. I have the mandatory coverage required at age 65 but since I have private medical insurance, I opted out of Medicare. My choice, I like choice.
I agree with you. Progressives have never really been pleased with the ACA and have always wanted a Single payer/Medicare for All type health care system. Right now our Seniors and Veterans (of any political party) are covered by this type of single payer system. Most recipients are quite happy with these type health care programs. Private businesses and corporations should not be required to provide health care for their employees - and DEFINITELY should not be involved with their employees health care decisions.
Unfortunately, your FACTS are missing an important aspect....methane IS more powerful, but its effects only last 20 years......so the brighter side of a "methane release" would be to act as a 'warning' by increasing the "immediate effects" making it harder for the deniers to continue......CO2 is the "major problem" and must be dealt with, methane is simply a distraction, and indeed may be a harsh one BUT, just imagine the deniers try to explain it.........in view of the "ignorance" they have already tried to exploit. ( they would have to go from " more CO2 is good for us" to explain much more rapid and extreme effects of a massive methane release and then have to explain the "difference" between those "'greenhouse gases" and their tiny proportions vs. BIG CONSEQUENCES.
BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY! - AIW
Never, OU?! I don't think so. The status quo is simply unsustainable, and there are too many of us pushing for single payer. Just wait 'til you have a crisis; then you'll see for yourself how great this system is (not)!
The less healthcare you get, the more MONEY they get to keep! Sucker... - AIW
i want the best care medical science can provide as well. We just disagree on how you get it. I'll stick with the system we have, and you may want to consider it as well. We will NEVER in your or my lifetime have single payer in this country.
Vegasman- Excellent point! Thank you!
Thank you Loren, for such helpful suggestions!!! I'll get my tech-savvy hubby to help me figure it out. - AIW
Okay OU812, I'll answer the original clueless question. Under a single-payer system, no one would have to depend on their job to get healthcare. This would eliminate the problem of employers cherrypicking what kind of healthcare their employees can and can't have, or forcing their religious laws down the throats of the non-religious. (Duh.) Had you read my previous posts, you would have found the answer to "yor" question already.
When I order myself a cup of gourmet coffee at one of those fancy cafes, I love having a thousand-and-one choices! When I need healthcare, I don't want "choices"; I just want the best care medical science has made possible in the 21st Century!
Tah-tah. It's been lovely chit-chatting with you, but I really must go now. - AIW
Alice: re connection, probably the best way is for you to join LinkedIn, a professional networking service, through which many friends, colleagues and I have stayed in touch for many years. It's free, and you as a published writer would surely qualify. Another way might be through my organizational involvements (National Writers Union, 15 Now Tacoma, etc.). (If you already belong to NWU, you could probably get national headquarters to forward a snail-mail note to me, though I'd recommend you call and ask first.) Also, I'm very active with 15 Now and I'll ask some of my younger, more computer-savvy comrades for their suggestions. Oh, yeah -- you could also write a comment for the TypePad edition of my blog -- one that will never be published. With TypePad, comments always come to me for my approval before they're posted, which means I would edit it (or obliterate it completely) to keep your email address concealed.(Do NOT use the Blogger edition as it does not offer the same controls as TypePad does.) Hope to hear from you soon!
LB
The Republicans sum of all fears has happened; a government bureaucrat (five of them dressed in robes, Republican Conservative them all) has just stepped in between a woman and her doctor. Is this the death panel that Sarah Palin was referring to?
If we were under a single payer, national health insurance program. Hobby Lobby incident would not be an issue, because it would not have happened.
Another clueless argument from the wienie-sucking Bachmann: ""I don't know any business that maximizes it's profits by NOT selling it's products. If that were the case, you would make more money not cleaning houses, than cleaning them... "
WOW. When it comes to stupid arguments, this one really takes the cake. First of all dearie, these "insurance" hacks don't provide diddily squat. All they do is block access to care, making damn sure those with shallow pockets get nothing, regardless of how dire their medical problems are. All these no-count hacks are selling is access to something they don't provide themselves: the care they have hijacked. That's a far cry from selling a product or providing a viable, legitimate service.
The ugly truth is, this so-called "health insurance" industry contributes nothing of value to health care. We've no choice but to put up with these goddam money-grubbing, paper-pushing flunkies who are not doctors, who never went to med school or had any medical training, coming between us and our doctors and making medical decisions for us whether we like it or not. Decisions that protect their profits, not our health.
I recently learned that a woman in the U.S. is twice as likely to die in childbirth as a woman in Canada. Even in third-world countries like El Salvador and Cuba, healthcare is a right of citizenship.
The harder you work at defending this travesty, OU, the more foolish and piggish you look. Why don't you quit while you're behind! - AIW
I don't want to argue with you Alice, but no one has answered my orginal post. What if the Hobby Lobby decision occurred under single payer, what options do we the receivers of medical care have? Don't change the subject give me the benefit of yor intellect.
OU, regarding those nearly 50,000 preventable deaths a year in the U.S., I've gotten that information from multiple sources. If you don't believe me, look it up yourself.
Each country has its own approach to the healthcare issue. This happens to be the ONLY wealthy, developed country on the planet where people are bankrupted by medical bills and dying from lack of care. Yeah, we spend more on healthcare than anyone else; that's one point you've made that I've no dispute with. But while we spend a lot more, we're getting considerably less, for a system that fails to cover everyone. That is indefensible, morally as well as economically. So it comes as no surprise that off all these developed countries, our system rates the lowest in quality of care as well as outcomes.
In all other countries, healthcare is non-profit and everyone is covered. Only in the U.S. is it even legal for a for-profit insurance business to monopolize and dole out basic care. God bless America!! - AIW
I don't know any business that maximizes it's profits by NOT selling it's products. If that were the case, you would make more money not cleaning houses, than cleaning them...
I get your point, "jiminfantino". But it's only a religious argument because these are patriarchal religions we're talking about. And it's only because we women get pregnant that abortion is not a sacrament. - AIW
Give me your source for 50,000 deaths/year for those who can't afford health care.
see below...In Canada, the health care benifits received depend on the providence lived in. There is NO universal plan covering the entire country. Rather it is like HMO's here in the US. For example, if your residence is Ontario, and you are traveling in Manitoba when you become ill you can't simple go to a doctor. You are treated the same way a person in the US is treated when he goes to a physician outside his HMO.
Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United StatesHealth spending per capita, in $US PPP-adjusted] , with the US and Canada compared amongst other first world nations.
Comparison of the health care systems in Canada and the United States is often made by government, public health and public policy analysts.[1][2][3][4] The two countries had similar health care systems before Canada changed its system in the 1960s and 1970s. The United States spends much more money on health care than Canada, on both a per-capita basis and as a percentage of GDP.[5] In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on health care in that year; Canada spent 10.0%.[5] In 2006, 70% of health care spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 46% in the United States. Total government spending per capita in the U.S. on health care was 23% higher than Canadian government spending, and U.S. government expenditure on health care was just under 83% of total Canadian spending (public and private) though these statistics don't take into account population differences.[6]
United KingdomMain article: Healthcare in the United Kingdom
Healthcare in the United Kingdom is a devolved matter, meaning England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales each have their own systems of private and publicly funded healthcare, generally referred to as the National Health Service or NHS. Each country having different policies and priorities has resulted in a variety of differences existing between the systems.[17][18] That said, each country provides public healthcare to all UK permanent residents that is free at the point of need, being paid for from general taxation. In addition, each also has a private healthcare sector which is considerably smaller than its public equivalent, with provision of private healthcare acquired by means of private health insurance, funded as part of an employer funded healthcare scheme or paid directly by the customer, though provision can be restricted for those with conditions such as AIDS/HIV.[19]
Great idea, Sandles! Being a creature of habit, I seldom stray beyond the comfortably familiar. But you and Loren are two people I'd love to connect with offline. - AIW
P.P.S. By the way, health "insurance" extortionists are in the business of denying healthcare to maximize profits. Some of these casualties are (or were) "insured". Eat THAT, schoolteacher.
:)
Under the present system, "OU", nearly fifty thousand Americans are dying each year because they can't afford a damn doctor. That's a half million people per decade, lost to for-profit, pay-or-die health extortion. Have a nice day. - AIW
P.S. Here's ten examples of countries with single-payer: France, Norway, Cuba, Mexico, Germany, England, Canada, China, Japan, Sweden... need more examples than that?
All of the other Capitalists industrialized nations have a single pair type health care system, why do they not give it up. A for-profit health care system that we have in this country is designed to make the chief executive officer and his board members unbelievable rich by denying the less fortunate a stable lifestyle free from the fear of injury and illness. That is probably a very good reason the other capitalists industrialized nations keeps their non-for-profit health care system. Ou812 your statement is missed found.