Jackson Free Press

John Kerry in a speech at Brown University:

Today, let's you and I acknowledge what's really going on in this country. The truth is that this week, as a result of Katrina, many children languishing in shelters are getting vaccinations for the first time. Thousands of adults are seeing a doctor after going without a check-up for years. Illnesses lingering long before Katrina will be treated by a healthcare system that just weeks ago was indifferent, and will soon be indifferent again.

For the rest of the year this nation silently tolerates the injustice of 11 million children and over 30 million adults in desperate need of healthcare. We tolerate a chasm of race and class some would rather pretend does not exist. And ironically, right in the middle of this crisis the Administration quietly admitted that since they took office, six million of our fellow citizens have fallen into poverty. That's over ten times the evacuated population of New Orleans. Their plight is no less tragic - no less worthy of our compassion and attention. We must demand something simple and humane: healthcare for all those in need - in all years at all times.

This is the real test of Katrina. Will we be satisfied to only do the immediate: care for the victims and rebuild the city? Or will we be inspired to tackle the incompetence that left us so unprepared, and the societal injustice that left so many of the least fortunate waiting and praying on those rooftops?

Previous Comments

ID

134419

Comment

I read the whole thing. He said some great stuff I think people should read. Please click the link and read the whole speech...especially about the Bush Administration importing their usual policies into the LA "clean-up" and people that were survivors in the hurricane actually getting healthcare for the first time in YEARS, because of the hurricane...not because the USA provides good healthcare to all of its citizens. Very moving.

Author

Lori G

Date

2005-09-19T16:11:37-06:00

ID

134420

Comment

What people assume with public or government healthcare is that the quality will be standardized and the same as it is now (your opinion here). While it is a duty to take care of our fellow people government healthcare is something that I would be afraid of. The lines and waiting periods in countries with free healthcare (Great Britain comes to mind) are absurdly long i.e. 1 year for a dentist. While a little bit of something is better than a little bit of nothing I think the government has shown that it cannot handle the crisis of katrina properly. It would be an even larger nightmare if it were to try to tackle healthcare.

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2005-09-20T09:53:09-06:00

ID

134421

Comment

James-I'm sorry. I don't understand...were you saying that was MY opnion? Because I do have opinions about government sanctioned healthcare that don't involve your assumptions.

Author

Lori G

Date

2005-09-20T10:37:21-06:00

ID

134422

Comment

I think the government has shown that it cannot handle the crisis of katrina properly. It would be an even larger nightmare if it were to try to tackle healthcare. Whoa, James. You're leaving out some vital details in coming to this conclusion. Using FEMA's failingsóunder an administration that has cut it to the bone in its attempts to shrink the federal government and appointed unqualified cronies to head itóas an example of why a national health-care won't work is simply intellectually and logically unsound. Obviously, any form of national health-care won't work if (a) idiots are in charge of it or (b) it is designed (much as the No Child Left Behind Act) in order to show how it doesn't work and, thus, to convince people to shrink government. I don't think that's what people who actually want a basic standard of health care in this country for all our citizens want to see happen. Please, please don't use the failings of this administration, with its skewed priorities and purposeful blind eye toward poverty to date, as any sort of reason why we should not work hard to devise a plan to close the poverty and health-care gap. It's simply an argument that won't fly two feet.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-20T10:42:01-06:00

ID

134423

Comment

In the immortal words of Judge Judy (who I'm sure wasn't the first to say it), don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. I mean, this is the actual logic, near as I can tell: 1. There are entire communities of low-income Americans who suffer disproportionately from poverty and inadequate health care. 2. This community was also largely ignored by federal, and to a greater or lesser extent state and local, administrations during Hurricane Katrina. 3. Since the government can't pay attention to this community in an emergency situations, it shouldn't do anything to pay attention to them in non-emergency situations, either. That's pretty crummy logic if you're part of one of the affected communities. As far as healthcare goes: I think the most sensible option is not completely socialized medicine, but rather completely socialized health insurance. We need an agency, much like the USPS, that offers universal health insurance. The state risk pool and Medicaid fill some gaps, but what we really need is a universal federal program that is not just for the poor, or the sick, but for everybody. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-09-20T11:01:56-06:00

ID

134424

Comment

no ali, i was asking to insert comment here as to whether or not the reader had a favorable opinion or not, I wasn't saying that was your opinion. touche on that ladd, I was assuming the current leadership in my communist healthcare system scenario. That gone blown away rather quickly.

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2005-09-20T14:17:35-06:00

ID

134425

Comment

Not touche, Jamesóan exact response to what you wrote, which boggled the mind. Who the hell is talking about a communist health-care system? Are you clear on what communism is? Perhaps that would be a good place to start. What is it not is having a system to ensure that decent health care is available to everyoneóor, as Tom says, an overhaul of the insurance system to make it as accessible to Americans as it is profitable to insurance companies. It is simply unconscionable, for instance, that (a) ambulance companies charge $700+ for a ride to the hospital and (b) that people who do not have insurance (because, maybe, that they've been SICK before?!?) cannot then get that ambulance ride. This system is broken in Americaóand the "free market" as it's called with a wink and a prayer ("free" here meaning tilted toward mega-corporations)óhas shown no sign of fixing that problem. And it doesn't take a communist to see that that system needs to be repairedóto help both individuals and businessesóand it doesn't take "communism" to fix it. There are no communists in site here. So bark that rhetoric up a different tree, please. That dog ain't huntin' in these woods. Trying to radicalize moderate thought in order to discredit it is just plain stupid. Bottom line: We need to overhaul the heath care/insurance system, and it's going to have to happen, regardless of what, er, "leadership" is in the White House.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-20T15:25:48-06:00

ID

134426

Comment

Amen, sister. And any Democratic presidential candidate who doesn't campaign in 2008 SPECIFICALLY ON THE ISSUE of universal health care is a damned fool who has no business in the White House, because the people by and large want it; it's big business that doesn't. As far as communism goes: You know, if not wanting people I care about to die of treatable illnesses is communism, then Ад да, камрад, я буду коммунистом! Far better people than me were called communists during the civil rights movement, and we should all be honored to be in their company. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-09-20T15:47:06-06:00

ID

134427

Comment

Yeah, let's just say the word "communist" has been so bastardized by the neo-bigs around here who don't. even. know. what. it. means. Of course, most of them haven't bothered to actually look it up, being that they were raised by parents who said civil rights was "communism," as you say, Tom. And it tickles me pink (pardon the pun) that the dumbest among us will try to call anyone a "communist" who believes that's it's OK for the government to help people, as well as corporations. (Free free, Tom, to insert at will any one of those oodles of Bible verses about solidarity with the poor that you have at your ready.) Funny thing is that some of goobs even try to make it sounds like people who encourage other people (not necessarily the government) to help and believe in the needy are some kind of communist scum. Them are some real loons, and usually the same ones who think that the Constitution only applies to Christians, or their type of Christianity, and who think that the Bill of Rights hings on majority opinion. People, people: There is nothing wrong, and everything right, about a radical extremist calling you a word they don't know the meaning of because you are compassionate and want to help the poor and help end bigotry and racism in our society. (They will also call you "liberal," another word whose meaning escapes most extremists these days. And the latest neo-big descriptor seems to be "execreble"óa word I've taken back.) Words don't hurt you, but not being willing to help those who need it, and help close the poverty gap, will. Please stand up to this small minority of people who has held sway over the American people of late. They are leading us down a very, very tragic road paved with greed and ignoranceóand words they don't understand.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-20T15:57:41-06:00

ID

134428

Comment

Half these people don't even know what "KHAM'nist" means ('scuse the snideness, but stuff like that sets me off too!). Here's a primer, then go to a search engine and find the definition if you (meaning "ever'thang against what I say is KHAM'nist" types) really do want to learn. Communism: An economic system in which all property is held in common (in theory). In semi-theory, an economic system in which all real property and the means of production are owned by the government in the name of the people. Now given all this, how does common ownership of real property necessarily relate with race relations. You'd think that people who love to throw around the word so much would at least bother to learn the basics of what that system is all about!!! But....I guess some people would rather name-call than learn - such is life :( .

Author

Philip

Date

2005-09-20T19:28:29-06:00

ID

134429

Comment

As for LIBERALISM....well, here are some juicy excerpts from http://www.turnleft.com/libgood.html Ok, ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF LIBERALISM (In part) Space Program era: 1950's-present It was Kennedy who challenged us to make it to the moon, and it is under his and Johnson's administrations that the space program took off, with numerous benefits to American industry and peoples' standard of living, not to mention national pride. If you are reading this on a computer, thank the space program and the liberals who got it going. (emphasis mine) GI Bill Environmental Laws Food safety laws era: 1910's-present Ever read Sinclair's "The Jungle?" That's what things were really like before food purity laws were on the books. Today cases of food poisoning are rare, and consumers know that whatever they buy is safe to eat. Product Labeling/Truth in Advertising Laws And.....one that should REALLY hit home for people in rural/nonmetropolitan counties.....the Coup de Gras, IMO.............. RURAL ELECTRIFICATION!!! (Caps & Spacing Mine) era: 1930's-1960's This allowed remote, rural areas of the country the basic convinience of electricity. I am sure that those of us using computers on the internet, sitting in our air conditioned homes, under our electric lights consider electricity a basic necessity - one that the pure market would never have found profitable to provide to isolated farming communities. (emphasis mine) Well, if knee-jerk liberal-bashers don't like what liberals have done, I suppose they can return to the pre-1776 era (the American Revolution itself came about because of ideas then considered LIBERAL -- like no taxation w/o representation, for instance) (http://www.turnleft.com/geo.html also has a list of "liberal friendly" and "unfriendly places" too - though the comments are of varying kind and quality, so assess the comments carefully!!!)

Author

Philip

Date

2005-09-20T19:44:27-06:00

ID

134430

Comment

Amen, sister. And any Democratic presidential candidate who doesn't campaign in 2008 SPECIFICALLY ON THE ISSUE of universal health care is a damned fool who has no business in the White House, because the people by and large want it; it's big business that doesn't. Actually, the fact that some big business *do* want a different solution to the problem may help make it a huge issue in 2008 and beyond. Management and labor could come down on the same side of this one. For instance, take GM, which says health insurance for its employees adds $1200 per car. Tom, I think you're right that the solution in looking at the way we're insured, not the way we're given healthcare. I always get curious when people talk about "privatizing" things that should be a municipal services, like ambulances and fire fighting. After all, these are community-borne costs, not profit centers -- the only way to make your firefighting company more profitable is either to spend less on it -- or to set some fires. (This is in contrast to some utilities, which benefit from economies of scale when private -- Entergy and the number of trucks they can muster for bringing the power back on is a good example. And they're my favorite local utility as long as they remain headquartered in the Metro. If they move away again, they're on my sh!t list. :-) In the private sector, profits tend to depend on growth; when you don't grow, then you need to cut costs. In the public sector, you spend the dollars you need -- saving the taxpayer money is more about efficiency than it is market forces. Cutting costs simply because the profit margins aren't good enough isn't wise for some services. In the case of health insurance companies -- well, there is one tenable reason I can think of for keeping things as they are -- you're the type of cat who wants the gulf between "have" and "have not" to grow...or, at least, you don't mind much. For people who can't afford or can barely afford coverage, there's no question that insurance policies and coverage have gotten worse and more expensive over the past 10 or 20 years. If you can still afford a "price be damned" approach to your medicine, them I'm sure your options are top-notch. And I would assume that it's not just individual consumers and big business that's getting sick of insurance companies -- you might be able to convince the doctors to stand up, too. After all, depite the saber rattling and US Chamber brochures, it was insurance companies that decided to drive up medical liability rates in the early 2000s, and it was insurance companies who pushed up individual healthcare rates when their stock holdings plummeted in 2000 and 2001. Here's an interesting piece: The largest portion of healthcare dollars, 33%, is spent on inpatient hospital stays, with physician payments second at 22%. Pharmaceuticals are the fastest growing part of healthcare and represent 10% of total spending. The remaining expenses are administration - 10%, home health and nursing care - 11%, Dental/Vision/misc. - 10%, and Research - 3.5%. The largest payer in the healthcare system is the federal government. Through programs including Medicare, Medicaid, and Department of Defense, the government pays 46% of the total healthcare bill, while private insurance covers 40%, and self-pay individuals expend 14%. Healthcare costs are clearly rising. In 1950, the US healthcare expenditures were 4.5% of the GDP, while in 2001 they rose to 14.1% of the GDP. Healthcare costs are expected to continue to grow at rates significantly higher than inflation for decades to come. Experts attribute the rising cost to the increased use of technology, medications, and services by an aging population." As the article suggests, the first solution is going to be cost containment, which I could see as a combination of either heavily regulating insurance companies (or somehow replacing them with not-for-profit entities), followed by some serious bargaining with pharmaceutial companies (the exact opposite of Bush's prescription drug benefit), hospitals and others.

Author

Todd Stauffer

Date

2005-09-21T00:52:03-06:00

ID

134431

Comment

Uh, and I will point out that nothing about these types of solutionhs or "cost containment" qualifies as "communism." Thank you, Philip, for providing actual definitions for those who have never actually bothered to understand the meaning of "communist" before flinging it around as a misinformed insult. I also was about to point out that "liberalism" creating the Internet so that the bloggers could wage battles against Cindy Sheehan and perfect the art of Swiftboatingóbut I see that is already included in your list of examples of what liberalism created. If it were up to conservatives (at least the ones high on rhetoric), we would all still be living in the woods, pointing shotguns at each other and brewing moonshine out back, too afraid to go around anyone who doesn't look, think or love just like we do. Innovation takes creativity, and creativity celebrates diversity.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-21T01:04:51-06:00

ID

134432

Comment

whoa whoa whoa, i was not saying anyone is a communist or anything like that. I am not getting my thoughts across very well on here so sorry for that. What i was trying to say is that i was envisioning an apocalyptic rise of the machines type healthcare. Communism, as pointed out many many many times, was obviously the wrong word.

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2005-09-21T07:39:06-06:00

ID

134433

Comment

notenoughpot, or "james," as you originally called yourselfóyou certainly are not communicating well then, so I'll leave it there. Also, why in hell did you change your screen name from "james"? I hate it when people do this; it just makes the threads confusing. I'm going to ask our tech gods to make it so that you cannot change your screen name, but you can ask us to.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-21T10:29:43-06:00

ID

134434

Comment

ha if you just got your a$$ kicked in a forum you would change your name to. at least to one thats not your real one so noone will pass me on the street and hurl empty beer cans at me.

Author

*SuperStar*

Date

2005-09-21T14:52:03-06:00

ID

134435

Comment

OK, I can see that. But it's not like everyone knows who "james" is when they pass you in the street, dude. Maybe it's "toomuchpot." This is why I encourage people to use their real names and strive to say nothing they wouldn't say using their real name. You will note that those folks, especially the ones who use first and last name, are inevitably the most interesting and eloquent posters. There's a hint in there somewhere.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-21T15:05:47-06:00

ID

134436

Comment

Or, in Scott Albert Johnson's case, every name your family attached to you. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-21T15:06:47-06:00