Downsizing your health in the U.S.A.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by San Francisco Chronicle
Jump in middle-income Americans who go without health insurance

The number of moderate-to-middle-income Americans of working age who lack health insurance has risen dramatically in recent years, a study to be released today found.

Forty-one percent of adults with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000 a year did not have health insurance for at least part of 2005, up from 28 percent without coverage in 2001, according to the report by the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based health care policy foundation.

The report illustrates how employers are dropping health coverage or are offering insurance plans that are too expensive for many workers to afford, according to the authors.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNGFEIFEGT1.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/04/26/MNGFEIFEGT1.DTL)

Back in the neo-conservative "golden age" -- also known as the 19th century -- there was no such thing as "health insurance".

We're getting there. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 02:46 PM
Back in the neo-conservative "golden age" -- also known as the 19th century -- there was no such thing as "health insurance".
There should be no such thing as health insurance. Bring on free healthcare!

But seriously, the above is very worrying.

[kurt]

Originally posted by patrickbeverley+Apr 26 2006, 10:55 AM--> (patrickbeverley @ Apr 26 2006, 10:55 AM)
[email protected] 26 2006, 02:46 PM
Back in the neo-conservative "golden age" -- also known as the 19th century -- there was no such thing as "health insurance".
There should be no such thing as health insurance. Bring on free healthcare!

But seriously, the above is very worrying. [/b]
Now I'm not exactly sure how "pay-to-play" healthcare works in the U.S, but the free health care we have in Canada is a horrible mess. Try waiting for almost a full year just to get into a specialist, and then another 3-4 months to take x-rays. "Free" health care doesn't help much if you're dead before you can get it!

[JudeObscure84]

Back in the neo-conservative "golden age" -- also known as the 19th century -- there was no such thing as "health insurance".

If you're gonna bash conservatives atleast get it right. A neo-conservative is a federalist, former liberal, who actually favors expansion of government in a Hamilitonian fashion resembling that of Civil War Lincoln. They dont mind the creations of medi-care, the new deal and other government projects.

A paleo-con is a tradtional conservative that likes the whole limited government to where there are nothing but big businesses left. He is the one that wants to set the clock back to 19th century America.
They usually align themselves with Libertarians.

The ideologically hate each other and the neo-cons are not confined to the Republican party. Clinton also had neo-cons under his belt.

[CCCPneubauten]

JudeObscure84, since you corrected some on eI must correct you...Medicare....


It was first passed on July 30, 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson as amendments to Social Security legislation. Part of the Great Society

The New Deal on the other hand....

The New Deal is the name given to the series of programs implemented between 1933-37 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt with the goal of relief, recovery and reform of the United States economy during the Great Depression. Dozens of "alphabet reform" agencies were created. Historians distinguish the "First New Deal" of 1933 that had something for almost every group, and the "Second New Deal" (1935-37) that introduced an element of class conflict. The opponents of the New Deal, complaining of the cost and the shift of power to Washington, stopped its expansion after Roosevelt was reelected in 1936, and managed to abolish many of its programs by 1943. The main programs still important today are Social Security and the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as the TVA.

But LBJ did look to FDR for inspiration. But hey, so did Reagan at first.


Nevermind:I misread you, you didn't say the Medicare was apart of the New Deal. But the above is a good US History review anyway. :lol: Sorry

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by JudeObscure84
If you're gonna bash conservatives at least get it right. A neo-conservative is a federalist, former liberal, who actually favors expansion of government in a Hamilitonian fashion resembling that of Civil War Lincoln.

A paleo-con is a traditional conservative that likes the whole limited government to where there are nothing but big businesses left. He is the one that wants to set the clock back to 19th century America. They usually align themselves with Libertarians.

My bad. :P

I accept this correction to my post and will try and remember the difference in future posts.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Publius]

Originally posted by JudeObscure84
If you're gonna bash conservatives at least get it right. A neo-conservative is a federalist, former liberal, who actually favors expansion of government in a Hamilitonian fashion resembling that of Civil War Lincoln.

A paleo-con is a traditional conservative that likes the whole limited government to where there are nothing but big businesses left. He is the one that wants to set the clock back to 19th century America. They usually align themselves with Libertarians.

My bad. :P

I accept this correction to my post and will try and remember the difference in future posts.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Interestingly enough, the modern 'Neo-Conservative' movement was started by Trotskyite Democrats.

It's true.

Look it up.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Publius, that's a paleo-con fabrication; a few Neo-Cons are former "Shachtmanites", but it was Leo Strauss that influenced Neo-Conservatism most....indeed, most of the modern Neo-Conservatives either studied him at Harvard or were taught by him Chicago.

More on this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48862&view=findpost&p=1292053815) and a good article called Neoconservatives and Trotskyism (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0304/0304neocontrotp1.htm).

The paleo-cons like to link Trotsky in with all this in order to, in my opinion, satisfy their desire for theories of "Jewish conspiracies" that make Jews to blame for everything....basically, the Trotskyists Neo-Conservative "link" is about as well thought out as all the "Judao-Bolshevik" shit.

It's all anti-semitic bollocks.

[JudeObscure84]

Neo-Cons were former Social Democrats and members of the old Youth Socialist league. Most were Zionist Socialists. Now they're just Federalists.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 04:01 AM
Neo-Cons were former Social Democrats and members of the old Youth Socialist league. Most were Zionist Socialists. Now they're just Federalists.

No, not really.

Some Neo-Conservatives were part of the Shachtman cabal, that is, they were right social-democrats; however, quite a few of them were former liberals and most of them were students of Lao Strauss....who was, well, a fascist of sorts; "gentle fascist" maybe.

Only really Kristol snr. could be described a former Socialist, and Christopher Hitchens is you included him in with the Neo-Con cabal....but the rest, were either former liberals or conservatives who were taught by Strauss.

Certainly, by 1970, all the current Neo-Conservatives had completely shed any previous political alliances and the "Zionist Socialist" stuff, just sounds like conservative anti-semitism to my ears.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Apr 26 2006, 01:46 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Apr 26 2006, 01:46 PM)
San Francisco Chronicle
Jump in middle-income Americans who go without health insurance

The number of moderate-to-middle-income Americans of working age who lack health insurance has risen dramatically in recent years, a study to be released today found.

Forty-one percent of adults with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000 a year did not have health insurance for at least part of 2005, up from 28 percent without coverage in 2001, according to the report by the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based health care policy foundation.

The report illustrates how employers are dropping health coverage or are offering insurance plans that are too expensive for many workers to afford, according to the authors.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNGFEIFEGT1.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/04/26/MNGFEIFEGT1.DTL)

Back in the neo-conservative "golden age" -- also known as the 19th century -- there was no such thing as "health insurance".

We're getting there. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I don't see why you hate this so much. You seem to believe any attempt of a government to provide healthcare such as in Europe and Canada to be a "capitalist trick," simply designed to fool everyone into believing they are being taken care of.

[kurt]

Originally posted by CrazyModerate+Apr 27 2006, 08:47 PM--> (CrazyModerate @ Apr 27 2006, 08:47 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 01:46 PM

San Francisco Chronicle
Jump in middle-income Americans who go without health insurance

The number of moderate-to-middle-income Americans of working age who lack health insurance has risen dramatically in recent years, a study to be released today found.

Forty-one percent of adults with incomes between $20,000 and $40,000 a year did not have health insurance for at least part of 2005, up from 28 percent without coverage in 2001, according to the report by the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based health care policy foundation.

The report illustrates how employers are dropping health coverage or are offering insurance plans that are too expensive for many workers to afford, according to the authors.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNGFEIFEGT1.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/04/26/MNGFEIFEGT1.DTL)

Back in the neo-conservative "golden age" -- also known as the 19th century -- there was no such thing as "health insurance".

We're getting there. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I don't see why you hate this so much. You seem to believe any attempt of a government to provide healthcare such as in Europe and Canada to be a "capitalist trick," simply designed to fool everyone into believing they are being taken care of. [/b]
Year long wait-lists to get a bloody x-ray aren't "fooling" me :)

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Look, this obviously won’t be a problem for anyone, as the market can fix all the problems in the world! Just ask any capitalist.

Everyone will be get treatment and drugs, well so long there is a profit incentive, otherwise why the fuck bother right?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by CrazyModerate
I don't see why you hate this so much. You seem to believe any attempt of a government to provide healthcare such as in Europe and Canada to be a "capitalist trick," simply designed to fool everyone into believing they are being taken care of.

It's hardly a matter of simple "capitalist trickery". :lol:

What's happening in the "old" capitalist countries is a "health gap" that reflects the growing income gap.

Whether health care is "public" or "private" or some mixture of the two, things are getting steadily worse for ordinary people even as they likewise get steadily better for the rich!

During capitalism's "age of reform" (say 1920-1960), the gap narrowed...and now it's growing again.

Something that would be expected from a Marxist analysis of how capitalism works in the long run.

And something for bourgeois reformists to "piss and moan" about...being completely unable to actually do anything about it whatsoever.

The "age of reform" is over.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif