Frances
-
Posts
7,996 -
Joined
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Frances
-
-
Actually, having grown up in San Diego and lived in Mexico for almost ten years, I disagree that this is always the case. I have spoken to many undocumented immigrants over the years and have learned that many find ways around this. Quite a few mention actually filing taxes and being able to get the full refund along with the earned income tax credit. I am one person who had heard this from A LOT of undocumented immigrants. I cannot imagine that these are the only ones who have figured out a way to do this.
Illegal immigrants may apply for an ITIN instead of an SSN and use it to file taxes and receive a refund. The IRS will not report their illegal status, they are only interested in having everyone file a return who is required to do so. If they are using an ITIN, they are not eligible for the earned income credit. Although some may be using other methods to file returns and receive the EITC, here's more info on the legal requirements:
http://www.illinoislegalaid.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp_content&contentID=8418
-
Gladwell's thesis (incorrect, I believe) is that the more selective a college, the less likely a student who starts out as a stem major will graduate with a stem degree, though they very well may graduate with a non-stem degree. However, his data was all from small private LACs in the 1980s, that all had very high graduation rates.
I wonder if part of why this might be true is related to the level of math offered at more selective colleges. At our local LAC, calculus and statistics are the lowest level real math classes offered. So if a student does not come in with strong pre-calc preparation, it would be very difficult for them to successfully tackle calculus and stay on a STEM tract.
My very small high school had good math classes up until pre-cal and no calculus. When I went to a small LAC, I decided I wasn't going to take any more math because I had really disliked my high school math teacher and my ACT math score exempted me from the college requirement. But during my sophomore year, I started considering a professional grad program that required one calculus class. Knowing my pre-calc experience had been week, I enrolled in pre-calc rather than calculus. I had an amazing prof and went on to take the entire calc sequence followed by several upper division math classes. I ended up changing my career plans and attended an Ivy League school for a graduate STEM degree. And I really credit all of that to the amazing pre-calc class I had my sophomore year. Not only was the prof an excellent and inspiring instructor, but I think that course really laid the foundation for my success in the math classes that followed.
And as for students in general being more likely to graduate if they attend a more selective school, I think that is likely due to several factors. First, most of these schools offer very good financial aid, so poorer students likely don't have struggle to balance off-campus work and school as much as they would at other colleges. Second, many of these schools offers excellent support services for all students and will go to great lengths to help every student graduate. I worked in institutional research at an Ivy League school one summer and was absolutely blown away by the lengths the college went to in this regard. And as already discussed, being in a challenging environment surrounded by other high achieving students also helps.
-
I think there's a difference between a 'walk in service,' like a bus, lunch counter, ect. and a custom service such as a special order cake. If a couple walked into a bakery and wanted to purchase a ready-made cake, then it's way worse for the proprietor to refuse to sell the cake then it is for the proprietor to refuse to contract for a special order.
Don't get me wrong. Racism is horrible. But I think that situations like the one forcing the bakery to make a custom cake for a couple they don't wish to contract with cause too many potential problems.
Situations like black people on a bus don't involve anyone condoning anyone's behavior. Situations like Asians, Latinos, and Jews in a grocery store don't involve condoning anyone's behavior. I think the bakery feels like that in making the cake, they'd be condoning homosexuality. I see a difference there.
I think trying to separate 'walk in service' from 'custom service' is heading down a slippery slope. Wouldn't most haircuts and loans be considered 'custom service'? Also, since the practice of religion is a behavior, would you then be o.k. with a bakery refusing to provide cakes only for Christian weddings because they don't want to condone Christianity or Christian marriages?
And if you think bakeries shouldn't have to make cakes for gay weddings, should they also have to refuse to make cakes for other situations that go against their religious beliefs? Or should be the allowed to pick and choose when to apply their beliefs? Also, should they have to prominently advertise who they will not serve or should customers just have to learn about it when they are refused service?
-
But the point is, individuals and their businesses should have the right to refuse service. It's just plain ridiculous to think that the government thinks it can force them to provide a service for any person or persons (unless they have signed a contract with said person(s). That's a different situation.)
Forcing them to provide service because of "public accommodation laws" is just another way of taking away their right to refuse service. :glare:
I don't care if the couple is gay or straight. If the bakery doesn't want to make the cake, they shouldn't have to make the cake!
And if they don't want to serve blacks or women or Christians you're also o.k. with that?
-
The cake decorator and the photographer vs gay weddings cases, I feel strongly the courts were wrong. They were not refusing to sell a photo off the wall or a cookie out if the case to gay people coming in off the street. They were specifically refusing to participate in a religious ceremony they didn't agree with. To my mind, this is like going into a ok her deli and using when they refused to serve a non-kosher item on demand. They weren't refusing to serve someone walking in. They were refusing to give a custom service. If a painter is selling to anyone who comes in his gallery, is he obligated by law to paint a homosexual couple's wedding portrait if they want him to? I would argue of course not. But according to these cases, he might very well have to or be fined to the point of being driven out of business. And if he would have to paint/photograph/cake that, why not a KKK banquet?
I've seen zero evidence of the courts permitting any discretion to businesses to refuse service of any kind. If anything they have removed any choice whatsoever for many, which is just as wrong in the other direction.
Courts absolutely permit businesses to refuse service, they simply have to follow public accommodation laws. In most states, they means they can't discriminate on the basis of gender, race, religion, age, etc. In some states, that also includes sexual orientation. Not serving a non-kosher item on demand in a kosher deli would not be a problem, as long they didn't serve non-kosher items to anyone. It only becomes a problem when they refuse to serve non-kosher items only to someone from a protected class, but serve them to everyone else. In the case of the painter, it would only be a problem if he normally paints wedding portraits and only refuses to paint them for gay couples in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class. And as far as I know, the KKK is not a protected class anywhere, so a business owner would be fine not painting a KKK portrait or making a KKK themed cake. While you may not agree with sexual orientation being a protected class, that is the law in some states.
It's also interesting to note that in at least one of the gay wedding cake bakery stories that made national headlines, the bakery was quite willing to bake cakes for several other circumstances that went against their biblical beliefs: http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-20698-the_cake_wars.html.
And since not all weddings involve a religious ceremony and the cake is normally part of the reception and not the ceremony, I think it's a stretch to say the bakers were being forced to participate in a religious ceremony they were opposed to.
-
I will only answer for myself on this one, nobody else including other Christians or right-spectrum voters. I believe scripture is the inerrant, infallible, god-breathed Word of The Lord. It is clear in scripture that God is the author of life. All life. Each human is specific, chosen, and created by Him through the processes He created. All humans are made in the image and likeness of God (imago dei). Therefore all life has equal value and is to be protected as scripture indicates.
Intentional destruction of the life of a child at any stage from conception onward falls under the biblical definition of murder, by the above premise.
For those that believe as above, what do you believe happens to the souls of the aborted fetuses?
-
I know how bad our numbers are, but I'd like to see some numbers that would support Canada's system as being superior.
It really goes beyond showing that Canada's system is better than the US system. All sorts of different studies have been done using many different measures to compare healthcare in the US to healthcare in other countries. Almost without exception, the US falls below other developed nations (and many developing nations) that have some type of universal healthcare. Many countries routinely rank higher than Canada, but they too have some type of universal healthcare. Canada's system may not be the best, but it routinely outranks the US. Here's just one study:
-
Individual, private people/companies should have the right to do business with, associate with, and/or discriminate against whomever they wish.
This statement is so shocking to me I can't even formulate a coherent response.
-
The job market is terrible and more businesses are leaving for tax reasons.
I work as an economist in OR, and I from the reports I read and statistics I follow, I would disagree with the above statement. And from personal experience, all of my friends that lost jobs during the recession are now happily employed. My own employer has been hiring like crazy since the beginning of 2013 and for the first time in several years is having difficulty finding qualified candidates for some of the higher level positions.
-
I was at home on bedrest for 4 months. I did not want anything encouraging. I just couldn't focus. Distraction and marking off another day was all I could do. Now a friend of mine handled a similar situation much better, she learned a new language! I would bring lunch and snacks and treats and plenty of amusing conversation. My friends all brought their kids with them.
This was exactly my experience during two months of home bedrest. Like another poster mentioned, we also didn't have TV, but got one for the duration. I love to read, but couldn't concentrate enough to really get into it. We were very fortunate to be living in a wonderful international family apartment complex at a university during the time, and I loved having visitors, including children. Food was always welcome, as my husband was busy taking care of me and keeping up with his graduate work. Just having people around to pass the time with was a wonderful blessing.
-
And as an added bonus, if you have a dog with you, many attendants will ask if they can give it a treat. Our dog totally knows when we arrive at a gas station and gets very excited.
-
What are Catholics taught will happen to non-Catholics when they die? My mom is a practicing Catholic and I know that she believes Catholicism is just one way to know God and get to heaven and that there are many other paths, but I wasn't sure if this was official church doctrine.
-
I have to say I've definitely learned a lot from the replies to my original post. I certainly didn't realize the experiences with universal healthcare were so varied across the different provinces in Canada. I've been googling different research studies that compare healthcare systems throughout and the world and it turns out that in general, neither the US nor Canada rank near the top. There are all types of different studies using various measures of quality, price, efficiency, effectiveness, etc. In general, the most highly rated programs are in Asian and European countries, although Canada consistently outranks the US.
-
The thing with Canadian healthcare, IMO, is that it is reduced to the lowest common denominator. Sure we all get "free" healthcare, but low quality so that everyone can have it and some provinces are worse than others. I think it is a dying sacred cow that needs to be put out of its misery and come up with something better. What I don't know.
As to the documentary that started this thread, I'm sure it was heavily slanted as most docs are. I'm sure the makers didn't go out of their way to interview people who were upset with the system or who were even failed by the system.
I don't disagree that the documentary was likely slanted, in fact, I found some of the parts about the US system before the ACA to be quite sensationalistic. However, they actually did show many short interviews with numerous Canadians who had very long wait times for some procedures, joint replacements being the prime example. And of course they may have been completely cherry picking, but these people seemed to accept that as a trade-off for basic and critical healthcare for all.
Do you feel that surveys that show strong Canadian pride in their systems of universal healthcare are not valid and reliable and do not represent the views of most Canadians?
http://www.rcinet.ca/english/daily/interviews-2012/12-14_2012-11-26-what-are-canadians-proud-ofr/
-
I'm not quite sure how to put this. I'm hearing a lot of American "of course we like to charitably help the needy" ideas. I want to focus on the subtle difference in Canadian perspective on that. We don't view people with health needs as "needy" to be responded to "charitably" -- my thinking follows an entirely different loop. You might think of it as something like entitlement, I guess. I think of it as a basic service of a civilized society. Like police.
I can't wrap my head around societies where some people would have police (and pay for them) and others would have no police service whatsoever. Does the analogy make sense? Do Americans think of policing as "a given"? I never think about how much it costs to have "universal" police coverage, or whether I "get my share" or whether people who "need more" should be entitled to it, in spite of the cost.
It's that kind of thinking that characterizes my attitude towards healthcare. I don't think of it in a "charitable" way. I don't say, "Yes, we should all kindly and willingly look after the needy." -- That would be like saying. "Gee, I'm so sad your child was kidnapped because you didn't have any police coverage. What a tragedy. You're raising money to hire a criminal task force? That must be expensive! What can I do to help?" (Instead of saying, "Aren't you entitled to a reasonable level of public safety? Don't you have people who just investigate crimes because they are crimes?")
Is my analogy holding? I hope I'm making sense.
Sadly, the lack of policing is actually becoming a reality in some of the rural counties in our state. For many years, some counties and towns in them have relied heavily on compensatory payments from the federal government to fund their services after logging was restricted due to environmental concerns. Consequently, the areas had extremely low property tax rates relative to the rest of the state. Now that less federal money is being sent and often only provided at the last minute, many have had to make drastic cuts to law enforcement. For example, two sheriff deputies to patrol an area the size of Rhode Island and they only work 8-5 M-F. Repeated efforts to raise property taxes have failed and people have taken to arming themselves and forming citizen patrol groups. Gun sales and crime rates have increased significantly. When articles appear in the online versions of local newspapers about the situation, many of the comments are about limiting government, not trusting government, taking care of our own, etc.
-
Respectfully, I disagree. The PhD in Biology might not be a great teacher, but they will at least have an expertise in the subject, and hopefully, a passion for that subject. That, most frequently, DOES translate to the students and certainly translates to the content. Teaching degrees are largely comprised of a collection of courses on time and group management, child psych and a smattering of technology. Useless, IMO.
I'm with Audrey on this. It's mind boggling to me that a retired college professor could not come and teach a class in one of our local high schools because they lack certification. Many teachers at elite private high schools do not have teaching degrees. Rather, they have an advanced degree in their subject matter. Our large homeschool co-op hires based on expertise and passion and they end up with amazing teachers. Some are certified, but most are not.
My father-in-law taught public middle school for forty years and always said that his education degrees were almost worthless. What helped him the most was a great student teaching experience and excellent mentors early in his career. He tried to continually give back to the profession by frequently taking student teachers in his classroom and mentoring new teachers.
-
Canadians tend to have much lower expectations for their healthcare than Americans do. The main impediment to a Canadian-style healthcare system in the US would be that Americans would not consider it adequate, not that Americans are not lovely, self-sacrificing people. I am sure they are as lovely and as self-sacrificing as Canadians.
Maybe not all Americans would consider it inadequate :001_smile: . My husband works in the healthcare system and his approach and advice to family and friends when they ask for his opinion is very much like one of the Canadians described in an earlier post as your Grandma's method. Even though we have excellent health insurance, we definitely take the wait and see if it will get better on its own approach and think a lot before starting down any path of medical intervention. Because from my husband's perspective based on years of experience, one thing leads to another and then another and then another, etc.
My husband is daily saddened to see the extreme and painful measures taken to keep people alive for just a few more hours or days. It is heartbreaking for him and he is so thankful that both of our dads had wonderful hospice experiences during their last days.
-
I am Canadian now, but grew up American (and renounced my citizenship many years ago). I do not think that the US needs more Canadians. I think that the US needs to work out a universal healthcare system for itself. I do believe it needs one, but the Canadian system isn't it -- neither is the German, French or UK systems. Every country who has built a system of UHC has done it differently than the next. There may be some similarities along the way -- of course, why not take the best that applies and use it? -- but no other country's UHC is going to work for the US.
I think that the OP pointed out something very important, though. The Canadian mindset is entirely unlike the US mindset. Americans tend to think that we're just like them. I know I did when I first came here. That couldn't be farther from the truth, though. I am not saying one mindset is better than the other, but I am saying that what is Canadian is Canadian because of the Canadian mindset, and what is/can be American is/will be because of the American mindset. You can't force it any other way.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't think we should just plop the Canadian system into the US, we would need to have our own unique American brand of universal healthcare. I was just talking about some of the common results that seem to come from different universal healthcare systems across the world, such as decreased costs and improved health outcomes, in comparison to the US system. I used the "We need more Canadians" line for my title just because it was a catchy phrase from the movie. In fact, the movie ended with a Canadian being asked if the US should adopt universal healthcare and her reply was that Americans need to decide for themselves, just as Canadians did.
I'm definitely guilty of thinking Canadians are very like us. I've only travelled there, never lived there. My brother-in-law is Canadian, but he came to the US for college and stayed. I've definitely learned more about both Canada and conservatives in the US based on responses to my question.
Something I read once and wondered if it was true - all of the main political parties in Canada are to the left of the Republican party in the US?
-
It is utterly untrue that all those opposed to universal healthcare are uncaring and not living in perfect harmony with Biblical mandates.
Again, I want to say that I was not trying to imply this and I apologize if it came across that way. I was trying to reconcile opposition in light of the Christian principles I was taught and the very social justice oriented churches I attended. I've definitely learned a great deal more about the conservative view on limited government through some of the very thoughtful replies to my question. Am I understanding correctly that you would also prefer that Medicare be eliminated and the healthcare needs of the elderly be taken care of in other ways?
-
Sorry, this got way too long.
There are liberal Christians and conservative Christians. Is it somehow more righteous to equate Christianity with big government than limited government? Not to be snarky, but many people who say they don't believe Christianity and government should have anything to do with each other then use religious ideas to argue with conservatives about how limited government isn't Christ-like. My FB feed is proof of that. There are liberal non-Christians and conservative non-Christians. It's also shocking how liberal and conservative politics is divided by geography (rural vs. urban, flyover country vs. coastal areas)--I personally think that has a lot to do with how different both the needs and cultures are in those areas. The divide is not just present among Christians, but I was trying to show why an American Christian might object to universal healthcare and why someone from another country who is also a Christian might be mystified about that.
Universal healthcare is not the only issue that divides people this way, and a lot of people get really upset when politically liberal folk try to make Christians who believe in limited government out to be unfeeling or unlike Jesus (and some people don't realize they make us feel like we are being portrayed this way). Politically conservative people don't believe that forcing people to continue to accept changes to government that they view as illegal has anything to do with being like Jesus or not. Some of us are also Christians. They think our government should stop "living and breathing" (a phrase used about our constitution by liberals) and either 1. change to a new form if people want a new type of government (most conservatives do not want this) or 2. work within the limits set up by our founders (conservatives generally want this, but frankly, they won't agree about how to do it either if this were to come about, lol!). This is how many of us see liberals (I know some would be mystified that we see them this way because they don't see our view either): liberals who want big government frequently talk about how anachronistic our government is, and instead of advocating that we actually change it, they push forward agendas contrary to what's on paper and then say, "well the paper (constitution) is a living, breathing document." If a person holds this view of the constitution, they see no need to change the way they are changing the government (makes sense, right?). People who believe in limited government feel strongly that they should work within the confines of the founding documents. Obviously, many politicians are much more pragmatic and act more from the center to keep their jobs and to get something done. Those centrist folks do well in certain areas of the country that are not as polarized. In other areas, those folks (conservative or liberal--either party can be seen as portraying the base) get voted out at each election cycle, lol! It's a big, woeful betrayal to both conservatives and liberals.
I think there are some people who genuinely conflate Christianity and government. I think most Christians do not, but if we're all voting for the same type of government functioning, that won't be obvious to outsiders. Conservatives view limited government as the best protector of nearly all liberties, including religious freedom. That is a whole other ball of wax, but it's probably the ball of wax that is responsible for the "conservative Christians don't love their fellow man" comments. (For all their disagreements about what a limited government is or does, the founders do seem to debate what type of government would preserve liberties the best a great deal of the time.) I personally believe that a large scale change in government would trounce many liberties we enjoy here--we Americans do nothing unless we do it to an extreme (again, we are a large nation with pockets of people all over it with many different needs, resources, and lifestyles). Throwing off the constraints of yesterday is likely to be done with too much abandon, frankly. We can't ever throw out the bath water without throwing out a baby or two.
I think some liberal Christians might be shocked at how much I actually agree with them about the needs that exist and many of the sticking points, but because I disagree with them about the nature of our government as it is designed and written into our founding documents, we would both find it difficult to agree on a sane starting point for a conversation. And quite frankly, I think the media has a field day polarizing people on this issue. Our politicians are not much better. If you get one that is clear and up front about what they believe the role of government to be, they are painted as too naïve (particularly conservatives) or too polarizing (either persuasion) to get business done in Washington rather than Washington being painted as too corrupt for people of integrity to navigate. ;-) (Please notice the wink, I am being overly simplistic.)
Your posts have given me so much to think about today - thank you! I never before heard the perspective that instituting a form of universal healthcare would be viewed as illegal by some. I'll have to look into that perspective some more.
I was also taken by this sentence, "Conservatives view limited government as the best protector of nearly all liberties, including religious freedom." In relation to Canada and the larger government involvement in healthcare there, what liberties do conservatives feel have been lost?
-
1. The command was given to The Church, not The State. Some of us have VERY negative attitudes toward combining Church and State in things. Some of us like nice clean lines between the two because history teaches us that you don't want Church and State intermingled. Giving The State power over important things: education, healthcare, religion, etc. is a vile thing to many of us. We have a phrase here, "You can't fight city hall." You really don't want to deal with that truth in the context of changing medical staff and treatments for a loved one. Government is appallingly inefficient and wasteful of funds, so dumping all that money into that kind of system means, ultimately giving less of it to those in need and more to bureaucrats. Compare the efficiency of organizations that provide charitable funds like Keva (sp?) They have great return on their investment which means people who need the money are getting the money, unlike government organizations. Government is inherently inflexible too.
2. The US healthcare system is terribly broken and spiraling out of control. Funding a terribly broken system with taxpayer funds perpetuates it and creates no incentive or motivation to fix it, which means wasting far more money that won't be actually helping people. Example: I have a friend whose 5 children are under the age of 8. She had all normal hospital deliveries with no complications of any kind. Same hospital, same OB. The last child's delivery cost double what the first child cost. That's ridiculous. It's completely unsustainable but when government keeps dumping taxpayer dollars into it, it will keep wasting more and more money proportionately. America is financially bankrupt already. We owe more than we can pay and someday, regardless of what delusional people want to tell us, somehow it will hit us like a brick wall. Dumping taxpayer dollars into that growing mess, expanding government with a shrinking workforce and birth rate, and other factors are going to mean seriously hard times that the government can't bail us out of. Stop feeding the monster.
3. Don't believe the nonsense you hear that people opposed to government healthcare are opposed to funding charities that help those in need or are against drastic changes to the US healthcare system. Our moronic 2 party system is a very bad representation of what people really want: solutions. The 2 parties just want to maintain power most of the time. Things like lawsuit/malpractice reform: updating standards of practice to match research to eliminate unnecessary procedures; covering alternative, lower cost options like midwifery and chiropractics; getting rid of employer paid health insurance and replacing that with an increase in wages and salaries so health insurance companies are chosen by the patients and it becomes portable (to avoid "pre-existing conditions) and the like are what we want. Unfortunately, most politicians couldn't articulate a useful thought or cohesive policy to save their lives-I don't just mean the ones I disagree with. It's because they focus on 30 second sound bites rather than thinking deeply at all the contributing factors and addressing them specifically.
4. There are charity healthcare organizations out there, but dumping taxpayer funds into ALL healthcare is giving it to everyone-not just people who need it. It's like public school, we now have a system that costs, on average $10,000 per year, per child (3 times higher than 40 years ago adjusted for inflation) and at the same time, no overall improvement in test scores have been seen. IT's wasted money that could be spent on the truly poor and destitute. And why is everyone, including rich people and the middle class, getting such expensive services when the people who really need it are poor?
So many more people could homeschool or send their child to a private school in my area (about $5,000 per year) but don't even bother to think about it or alter their lifestyles to do it out of their own pocket because, in my neighborhood, for a mere $2,000 per year in taxes you can send as many of your kids as you want at the staggering rate of $10,000 per year, per child. What was supposed to go to people truly in need, is now an entitlement at skyrocketing costs and mediocre quality. All this in a nation in debt up to its eyeballs. I honestly think is the future of government healthcare.
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/state-education-trends
5. The money is going to run out. We can't keep printing it and borrowing it without paying it back. This will cause serious economic ruin if we don't start looking for real solutions that get as many people up and running on their own and keeping as few people as possible dependent on government. It's like cancer-the sooner you treat it, the better off you will be in the long run. Blindly reassuring yourself that your intentions are good (and I believe people who support government healthcare have good intentions) isn't going to stop or fix all these economic realities.
I do believe in financially helping people in need-included in that is medical treatment. I have personally done that. I can do that more effectively without giving it to the government so it can first pay its staff, building maintenance, etc. and then giving what's left to someone in need.
You've raised many interesting points. For #1, I guess I would substitute insurance companies for government in your explanation to explain many of the problems I see with our current system. Insurance companies dictate who you can see and what will be covered. Insurance companies take money that could be used to actually deliver healthcare. Insurance companies create a layer of unnecessary, expensive bureaucracy. For example, my mom has a good friend who has been fighting cancer for several years. Recently, the local hospital he went to for treatments merged with a healthcare system three hours away. Now he has to frequently travel long distances in very bad weather conditions for his treatments and when he is hospitalized, it is very difficult for his family to be there for him and maintain things at home. What he really wants to do is go to the other, excellent hospital in a nearby town, but his insurance won't cover his treatments there. When my dad was had cancer and was covered by Medicare, he was free to choose exactly the hospital he wanted.
For #2, I absolutely agree with you that the US system is terribly broken and spiraling out of control. I don't think advocates of universal healthcare in the US think we should just take the current system as is and have the government pay for everyone. In order to get the decreased costs and increased health outcomes that other countries have, many other reforms would be needed.
To #3, I was interested to hear your list of proposed reforms. I guess one thing I still struggle to understand is that if so many other countries have shown that some form of universal healthcare (as far as I know, every other industrialized nation in the world) both lowers costs and increases health outcomes, why would we experiment with other piece-meal reforms that may or may not work? Obviously we would have our own unique American brand of universal healthcare, but fundamentally, that's the system that has been shown to work. To me, it seems similar to our broken public education system. We're always reforming education and wasting lots of time and money on new methods, new tests, new training, etc. and the results always seem to be the same.
As to #4 and #5, Since countries with universal healthcare spend significantly less per capital on healthcare than the US does, it appears that providing basic healthcare for all citizens, while instituting other necessary reforms to the system, decreases the overall dollars needed to help everyone get healthcare. There are lots of economic reasons for this, but I won't go into all of the details here. It appears to be a much more efficient and effective use of limited healthcare dollars.
-
I think many rural communities in my home state get by with minimal safety nets (notice no absence of safety nets), and I think when that community is full of middle class families that realize how easily they could be the ones needing the safety net, it galls them to have to fork over their money to help other communities where a high percentage of people are using the safety net. It's kind of a "put your own oxygen mask on first" type of thing--they are often one job (or disaster) away from being the person needing the safety net, and they are often putting money aside just in case. If they are being taxed harder, they can't put money aside for their own future needs as easily, and they see being self-sustaining as being necessary to the survival of the safety net (the safety is sustained by people who have their own needs met). And if they are going to be taxed to help others, they want the need it's meeting to be local as well. Most people I know in such a community are not going to mind an elderly neighbor getting some aid to winterize his house so that he can pay for his heat or food stamps, etc. Those same folks are going to be ticked to hear stories about how a whole bunch of people in X city 200 miles away were busted for fraudulently obtaining social security benefits when they were the ones taxed to pay for it. They are less and less likely to want to fork over their money when that happens--first, the help is no longer in their community where they can see the benefit. Secondly, if it's not local, they can't spot the corruption and report it, nor can they prioritize the needs/customize how the needs are met. additionally, if the needs in their community are met, they don't see the need to pay beyond what will benefit their community. They really don't understand how some communities can be totally overwhelmed with people on assistance--it doesn't compute to a person in a rural area who can grow a garden or in some cases, even live without a car that these people can't do something to make their life better in some way. That person figures the community that's sinking has made their own mess, that mess didn't appear overnight in most cases, and "(thank you very much), if we are taxed to fix it, we'll all be in the same incapacitated boat in a couple of years." That's my community growing up in a nutshell. This is not to say that rural communities can't be excruciatingly poor (and you sure can't live without a car if you don't live in a community that's walkable), but where I am from, rural communities have no problem with a LOCAL safety net while having big issues with something further removed. In addition, if the safety net does not cover a particular need, they turn out in droves for fundraisers. Most of their kids are not fundraising $400 per season to play on a select baseball team, so outside of the ski club or band uniforms, many fundraisers are to help with healthcare needs, setting up a family with support when the breadwinner is killed by a drunk driver, raising money for the hospital auxiliary, etc. Motorcycle rides and spaghetti dinners are quite popular ways to accomplish this.
This sounds fairly similar to the rural midwest area I grew up in and where my Mom still lives. After my dad passed away last year and people would ask me how my mom was doing, I would reply that I couldn't imagine a better place for her to be as a widow. She has amazing support and help in her small town. She has definitely helped with and attended the type of fundraisers you mention, and I know many people have similar views on a local safety net. While my parents set a daily example of helping friends, family, and neighbors in need, they also encouraged us to educate ourselves about and try to be involved with helping those throughout the country and the world. And despite all of the wonderful support and help my mom has from her community, I can't imagine how my mom would survive without Medicare, given her long-term significant health issues.
-
Just an aside, the man who we Canadians credit for starting health care was Tommy Douglas, a Baptist minister.
And his grandson, Kiefer Sutherland, narrated the film I saw.
-
My aunt is a nurse in Texas and this is the reason why she won't move back to Canada to work. She much prefers American style of healthcare over Canadian.
They interviewed some healthcare providers in the film who used to work in America, but moved to Canada to work there because they were so disillusioned with the US system. So I don't doubt there are providers who prefer one system to the other. From polls I've read, most Canadians are very proud of their universal healthcare systems and consider them very important.
Need Advice about Cal-Tech
in High School and Self-Education Board
Posted
Even if he doesn't attend Caltech for undergrad, there's always grad school. I have two friends who received PhDs from Caltech after attending small liberal arts colleges for undergrad. Both are now tenured professors - one in chemistry and one in math.