Health Care and Goddess-based Morality

Hmmm, Wiccans who don't believe in Wicca magic? Are they then true pagans for true pagans do the hoodoo of voodoo to cure all kinds of ills? How shall they be then called?

I do feel a prank coming on, though, Athena. What if we *did* propose a 'Faith based solution:' "Forget about health care! We'll cast spells for you! Leave it to the private sector and religious charities! We can handle it, really! You just aren't believing the right things! It'll work, really!!'

I mean, a lot of Christians on the other threads suggest the same thing. Somehow, we're the ones who get the flak while we say the opposite.

Health insurance for all?? The solution??
Wicca Magic!!!!

Better than the Fundamentalist Christian version - when Jesus returns, you can touch his robe and be healed! Until then, pray you don't get sick.

Go away, CCNL. We're having an adult conversation here. Take your infantile mockery someplace else.

I was particularly interested, you know, Ebryon, in your idea that what insurance companies have been doing to people all this time is 'legitimately defending 'their' turf.'

I proposed that we, and our lives *are* the 'turf.' Maybe trying to use our very bodies and our own money to make us pay *them* shave that 'turf' down to Chemlawn green (tm) and call it 'healthy' isn't actually what's good for the world. Or us.

Now, Ebryon. Since this is an *interfaith board,* maybe I should point out you raised points below which came perilously close to actually discussing Pagan theology.

But it seems you've abandoned that in favor of trying to wave a picture of Stalin and scare us about what might come of not getting ripped off by Kaiser Permanente...

Ebryon:

"Alas, a decade earlier the socioeconomic system that sat in opposition to capitalism was exposed as a worse system of abuse, corruption and inefficiency."

Incredibly disingenuous, since nothing like that is even on the table.

It may appeal to certain senses of moralistic simplicity, but saying, "Regulating greed for the general welfare and preservation of free enterprise for *all* would be too Commie... So, let's pretend it's a nightmare in Canada and Britain when it isn't and continue to pay corporate extortionists and call it *freedom* when they don't give what they advertised and put us out of our jobs, homes, futures, and health..."

Ain't gonna do it.

Alas, a decade earlier the socioeconomic system that sat in opposition to capitalism was exposed as a worse system of abuse, corruption and inefficiency.

We already have a hybrid system of capitalism and socialism. We need to be careful not to remove incentives for innovation, prudent behavior and hard work in reforming our own system.

Paint happy always.

"Since we have been borrowing against the future for some time, a trend that has exploded during this administration, it goes directly to my concerns. It leaves a legacy of debt instead of value to our children."

That's not true, either. Previous administrations ...and the corporations all along, have been trying to *leverage* a future... and consume a past, that they refused to tend.

Now they scream about 'deficits' after having handed government subsidies by the trillions to corporate profiteers who promise nothing but 'trickle down,' ...but that didn't work.

And we know it.

A lesson of a Depression is... Now's not the time to close the taps. Now's the time to start making things to last. To do something *real* instead of buying into an ideology that promises nothing but 'not being 'Socialist.' (Even if it means that in actual fact everyone has to pay what someone tells them to out of the same uniform places that don't support their own communities, only leech, but, by Gum, it's 'Capitalism!' One day you may be the one to hide the bling from the desperate masses...

Oooh, what a life they promise, even if you *don't* think that the supply of 'where that came from' is limited.

We have some nice things. Time to take care of them. Make them sustainable. Make em real.

Or, to put it more simply: Death is part of the life of forest and field. That doesn't mean you let the kudzu you imported eat and destroy the whole thing, and then itself in the name of 'balance.'

Paganplace,

"I tend to agree, but in terms of this debate, that's a false choice. Not reforming health care will not help your concerns."

Since we have been borrowing against the future for some time, a trend that has exploded during this administration, it goes directly to my concerns. It leaves a legacy of debt instead of value to our children.

Furthermore many of the new health care schemes try to rope younger, healthier payees into the system to pay for the maladies of an older, sicker and wealthier cohort. I object strenuously.

Keep in mind, too, regarding the below, Ebryon, that though it may be a sacred cow of Calvinistic 'free markets' ...a completely unregulated marketplace means that *every* health care provider out there must compete for year-to-year survival with, not the *best* providers, but the ones who are *most* short-sighted and greedy.

If we use the government to level the playing field and enforce what smart people would do for their own future security and ostensible reason to be in business in the first place, then they are much freer to innovate and be more caring. Not less.

'Invisible hands of the market' seem to have a way of pushing even the big money off of cliffs just lately.

As for the Pagan views of life and death and rebirth, most *certainly* we don't entertain theological terrors of eternal deaths and final judgments.

This actually frees us to take that longer, more systemic view. See that these are not about worlds full of compteing 'Thou Shalt Nots' ...but part of a living breathing things.

We're famous for seeing the *living Earth* and *Spirit* this way, but we can also see the *economy* this way.
(Maybe that's why there aren't too many Pagan venture capitalists or insurance magnates to begin with.)

Interconnected. From root to branch and beyond. Not a set of dismembered and competing 'issues.'

Living, breathing, eating, crapping, dying, rebirthing, evolving, *systems.*

We can *tend* these, rather than acting like it's all a race or contest or cliff-dangle.

But we *can't* dismiss the *process of living* as if Death made it all moot, one way or another.

Ebryon:

"There are many stakeholders in this dispute other than the shareholders of insurance and health care providers. There are the highly education and commensurately paid professionals that provide health care."

Who under the present system often find themselves actually having to 'ration care' based on who can pay, tempted to approve expensive (often pain-extending) procedures for those who can pay while giving short shrift to those who can't pay as much, being financially-forced to become specialists while there's a shortage of GP's, and generally finding themselves punished if they don't take their skills and caring to wear themselves out underserving people in need, while those who are more opportunistic are rewarded.

" There are those who already have insurance and do not want to see changes."

Those who already have insurance may lose all they paid into as things stand, if they lose their job or become sick, or lose their jobs *because* they became sick, and their employer couldn't afford to keep them on.

" There are Medicare recipients that do not relish change."

Medicare, of course, is not actually being changed. Of course, people on medicare are easily scared about it, even with disinformation. Medicare does suffer if private insurers dump costs on the budget, though.

" These are others. To single out those involved in the business of health care and insurance as the bad actors in this dispute is a form of deliberate blindness to its complexity."

Not really. Insurance profits and related administrative costs, not to mention them using that money to foist expenses off on the longer term and the public tab, not only means people suffer, but also mean health care costs a lot more for *everyone,* however you may get it.

"It is so complex that any reform must be simple and straightforward and take a president that is willing to go to the mat for a simple reform to get the ball rolling."

Part of the problem here is that the corporations want to throw a few bones so as to keep things basically business as usual for them. We don't *need* to settle for that.

"To single out one group that is making a legitimate effort to protect their turf and ignore all the others is just partisan foolishness."

If it's about 'turf,' then it's time for the grass roots to remember who's getting stepped on, here, and who's tossing 'fertilizer' at us and calling some of us 'weeds.'

(continued from above)

"The reason I commented on the spiritual beliefs that began Starhawk's post is that any spiritual beliefs that emphasize the interconnectedness of the universe must recognize that life and death are merely two sides of the same coin of existence."

We most certainly do. That doesn't mean that people need to suffer in the meanwhile, or that we must embrace waste that causes suffering and try and excuse it.

" One of the fundamental drivers of the high cost of health care, IMO, is an inordinate fear of death by so many."

'End of life care' and 'heroic measures' certainly are bigger cash cows than actually promoting health. In fact, the profit motive, if it gets too powerful, means that the money actually *comes in* when people are sicker, even if it tanks the economy and hurts people in the process.

Life and death both go down a lot easier if you haven't missed out on life either being sick or trying to pay for health care instead of living. But this doesn't give you the right to say people should suffer for the profit of a few and call it 'health care.'

" Staying healthy and keeping people healthy is a value creating activity. Spending huge sums for a few more days, months or even a few years is foolish. We live our lives, try to add value to this existence and move on, leaving this world hopefully richer for the next generation."

I tend to agree, but in terms of this debate, that's a false choice. Not reforming health care will not help your concerns. Only make more suffer and be sicker and have longer, sicker, more expensive dyings, rather than living longer with better quality of life.

Paganplace,

There are many stakeholders in this dispute other than the shareholders of insurance and health care providers. There are the highly education and commensurately paid professionals that provide health care. There are those who already have insurance and do not want to see changes. There are Medicare recipients that do not relish change. These are others. To single out those involved in the business of health care and insurance as the bad actors in this dispute is a form of deliberate blindness to its complexity. It is so complex that any reform must be simple and straightforward and take a president that is willing to go to the mat for a simple reform to get the ball rolling.

That is not happening and so reform will remain elusive. To single out one group that is making a legitimate effort to protect their turf and ignore all the others is just partisan foolishness.

The reason I commented on the spiritual beliefs that began Starhawk's post is that any spiritual beliefs that emphasize the interconnectedness of the universe must recognize that life and death are merely two sides of the same coin of existence. One of the fundamental drivers of the high cost of health care, IMO, is an inordinate fear of death by so many. Staying healthy and keeping people healthy is a value creating activity. Spending huge sums for a few more days, months or even a few years is foolish. We live our lives, try to add value to this existence and move on, leaving this world hopefully richer for the next generation.

CCNL:

"Hmmmm, do we really want to be preached to by someone who follows the above???"

If you think so little of our faith, isn't it funny that you have to be about something so straightforward?

Ebryon:

"This is similar to the Buddhist view. Our lives are like waves on the vast ocean of the Mystic Law. However, when it gets down to pragmatic matters of a health care scheme, the idea is much more difficult to apply. Certainly, as Shayamuni observed, we all will face the sufferings of life, aging, sickness and death. No government scheme will alter this."

This is, frankly, no excuse to let the system be crashed in the name of short-term profits for big money companies that have proven they cannot and will not reform on their own.

They're terrified of the 'public option' because it will show that taking care of each other does *not* have to be as expensive as it is in the viciously-capitalist system that presently extorts us all... And in fact also is the biggest drag there *is* on capitalism for the *most* of us.

If you can't hire your employees unless you have billions, if your customers are bankrupt and lose their homes cause they got sick or injured and lost everything, including their jobs and places to spend their money on... Meaning the value of the assets that get seized by banks aren't worth what was paid for them in the first place, depressing credit because there's less profit potential...

Well, taking care of each other starts looking a lot better. Frankly, it's better business.

Just cause insurance companies and big pharma want things to be a certain way doesn't mean it's the only way they could be.

There are no 'Mom and Pop' health insurance companies that are going to benefit from the illusory 'competition' of companies that control things now, making big bucks while *making* health care far more expensive than it needs to be, and far more soullessly than any fear of government could manifest.

All the profit-based system means is that profit-based companies can cherry-pick who to cover, then if expected to actually pay out, find some technicality to kick people off that coverage and dump the resulting expenses on the taxpayers: maybe in the form of an ER visit costing tens of thousands cause they didn't want to pay out a couple hundred before things got that bad.

The government's involved whether we want to think of it that way or not.

Why let profiteers sit on the whole damn economy without even providing what they advertise?

More about abortion rights and assisted suicide in Canada below:

Canada appears to be quite far ahead as regards the wide-spread social acceptance and accompanying legalities of abortion rights. However, they are similarly stuck in the quagmire of end-of-life issues that we find throughout the Western word.

If one is terminally ill and with great suffering, apparently one has to either establish residency in Oregon or travel to Holland in order to terminate one's life with medical assistance. Or pursue the online pharmacy of finality in order to find that fatal mix of drugs for a do-it-yourself job.

Of course, most suicides are unassisted in the USA, and most have nothing to do with end-of-life issues, terminal illness, unrelenting physical pain, etc.

As EBRYON points out, life can be miserable, lonely, and full of suffering - but it seems likely that mental suffering predominates.....were a national healthcare plan available that treated chronic depression, more lives might be spared a violent, self-inflicted, and unnecessary pre-mature death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/02/09/f-assisted-suicide.html

One of the many warnings on cigarette packs sold in Canada:

"WARNING

CIGARETTES CAUSE LUNG CANCER

85% of lung cancers are caused by smoking.
80% of lung cancer victims die within three years.

accompanied by a picture of a human lung detailing cancerous growths."

Persiflage

"As for your recommendation - who is going to determine and enforce the guidelines for rationing healthcare? And why is equivilant healthcare so much more expensive in the USA compared to other industrialized nations? These mysteries are surely bound up with the very structure and values of the societies in question."

My own preference is that a panel establish spending priorities, i.e. first would be childhood immunizations, near the end organ transplants for those over eighty, and then when legislatures or Congress figure the budget, it goes down the priority list as far as it will go and that's it. People can pay for insurance or out of pocket for lower priority items.

This would not saddle the public, the young and poor especially, with paying for the older, richer and sicker part of the population at ruinous rates. It is the end of life care that gets really expensive and age must be a factor in rationing health care. People need to come to grips with the inevitability of death. I have had it with mortgaging the future to pay for the present.

EBRYON - An interesting link for you below:

As for your recommendation - who is going to determine and enforce the guidelines for rationing healthcare? And why is equivilant healthcare so much more expensive in the USA compared to other industrialized nations? These mysteries are surely bound up with the very structure and values of the societies in question.

The top 1% in our own economic pyramid control about 25% of the gross dollar income generated annually. How exactly is it fair or reasonable that there exists such a huge (and growing) disparity in accumulated wealth, and how does this impact the well-being of the remainder?

Healthcare costs are complicated, and are typically not improved by our legislature in Washington - largely due to an overall profiteering mindset and the massive influence of corporate private healthcare interests, their lobbyists, etc. And then, there is the massive rape and fraudulent abuse of Medicare by private practitioners and hospitals to contend with.

Surely there is a better and more affordable way to do it, if only our elected representatives possessed the will.

It appears to me that Obama is making another effort along those lines, as imperfect as that effort may be to many of his (organized) opposers....but then, they'd likely oppose most anything that he or his administration attempted via that infamous 'socialism' red herring his political opponents are wont to use - and a fairly worn-out and exsanguinated attempt at misdirection, I have to say.

On the other hand, I do support physician-assisted suicide legislation.....there does come a time when enough suffering has been endured - as with abortion rights, a volutary right to die should be viewed as being in the same class of fundamental human rights. Who owns our bodies, if not us?

Nor should brain-dead patients be kept alive arbitrarily at huge and unnecessary cost e.g. the wisdom of having a living will. End of life treatment/care in this country is abysmal, but there are incremental improvements to be noted in hospice care here and there.

best regards,

Persiflage

http://www.viewonbuddhism.org/compassion.html#3

It's because of the temper tantruming people that are screaming so loud that he can't even get a word in edgewise. Several bills have been written, from several different committees- but most people have deliberately NOT read them because of their size and prefer to listen to folks who haven't even read the bills to tell them what's *in* them.

That's intellectual laziness and pure fear mongering, which the opposition has had about a decade to perfect- and it's really sad that people are willing to listen to screaming folks who are drowning out real debate on this thing rather than those who actually know something about the plans.

He's actually the first president who seems to WANT to hear several sides of an issue.. but when people are shouting about what is in essence a strawman debate, no wonder things aren't going anywhere. People believe a lie more than the truth in this day and age. These are the folks that still believe he's some sort of secret Muslim despite the actual facts.

He is actually attempting to get something important done- and for the first time we are closer to real reform than we ever have been.

To do nothing is to give in to those who have always profited off of the current system.

"Obama is attempting to actually get people to sit at a table and act like adults and work to make something important happen..."

Give me a break.

I don't recall A SINGLE TOWN HALL MEETING this summer when the President was trying to fast track health care reform. He practically threatened Congress to pass health care before they adjourned for the summer.

The ONLY reason we have these town halls (or "shams") is because support for his "cut and paste" health care reform is in the toilet and his approval ratings are the lowest they've ever been. So he's gone back to what he does best, sadly enough, and that's speak into a microphone.

"The core value of the Goddess traditions is interconnection. We are all part of the same living matrix of being that we call 'Goddess'. We are part of the same body, and my health and prosperity is intertwined with that of my neighbors. If my right arm has gangrene, the rest of me cannot flourish. If my neighbor is sick and cannot receive care, I cannot be well."

This is similar to the Buddhist view. Our lives are like waves on the vast ocean of the Mystic Law. However, when it gets down to pragmatic matters of a health care scheme, the idea is much more difficult to apply. Certainly, as Shayamuni observed, we all will face the sufferings of life, aging, sickness and death. No government scheme will alter this. Death and life are two phases of the same existence and spending vast sums of money on the aging elderly in a vain effort to deny the reality of death, robs they young of the sustenance, the new jobs, a reasonable life to raise those who come after us.

Invoking some principle that money spent on health care is sacrosanct because life is undeniably precious is an easy way to dodge the question of the utility of when and how health care dollars are spent. Until the public and then our public officials face up to the fact that any common health care scheme must be rationed in order to be rational, there is no virtue in doing something that could eat our children's futures.

Using Wiccan magic to solve the health cost and coverage problems:

See: http://www.spelwerx.com/

If by 'Wicca Magic' (whatever THAT means) you mean the ability to set a goal and then go out and work your butt off to make it happen, then yes.

As for the actual topic, what I've noticed is that Obama is attempting to actually get people to sit at a table and act like adults and work to make something important happen, whereas those screamers at the town halls are acting like a bunch of children throwing a huge temper tantrum. They're not interested in debate, just decibel level. They should be given a time out.

I especially don't understand the opposition to a public option run by the goverment and supported by us when most of those who are tantruming the loudest are on Medicare/Medicaid.. which is itself a government run program supported by our tax dollars.

The hypocrisy is absolutely stunning.

And there's all this concern about not being able to keep your current plan- but what if that's a good thing?? Most people are right now one major life-changing disease from losing their house and they don't know it until it actually happens.

I have seen a lot of inveighing against insurance companies but no one seems to give (or even know?) the percentage of our health insurance dollar which goes to their profits. It is a little like complaining that the family is in financial trouble because the son's weekly allowance is too high. Unless you know what his allowance is and what the family budget is, you cannot evaluate such a statement.

Recently a friend of mine told me that his doctor has asked him to come in every two weeks for ten visits so she could check him. She sees him for 2 minutes, sends a bill for $200 to Medicare and they pay. Should we look at such practices also? When doctors are paid "by the visit" rather than by the amount of time they spend with the patient, there is inevitably an incentive to shorten the time spent with the patient so as to pack in more patients in the doctor's day.

I am distressed by all the screaming at insurance companies, not because they do not deserve to be screamed at, but if their profits are not the major part of the picture, then we are barking at the wrong tree.

Health insurance for all?? The solution??

Wicca Magic!!!!

...do we really want to be preached to..

Why not?
In America everyone gets to worship as he/she pleases.
We need other perspectives, not just those of People who attempt to tell others what Wiccans or other Pagans believe. Yep, I'm looking at you. and laughing.

Oh, and btw- While Wicca in it's current religious modern form is new, the ideas it's based upon are pretty old.

"Wicca is a neopagan, nature-based religion.[1] It was popularised in 1954 by Gerald Gardner, a retired British civil servant, who at the time called it a "Witch cult" and "Witchcraft", and its adherents "the Wica".[2]

Wiccans, as followers of Wicca are now commonly known, typically worship a Goddess (traditionally the Triple Goddess) and a God[3] (traditionally the Horned God), who are sometimes represented as being a part of a greater pantheistic Godhead, and as manifesting themselves as various polytheistic deities. Other characteristics of Wicca include the ritual use of magic, a basic code of morality, and the celebration of eight seasonally based festivals."

Hmmmm, do we really want to be preached to by someone who follows the above???

testing....

I'm 56, transgendered, and British. And living proof that government health care works. All the horror stories about the National Health Service in the UK that you'll have heard from those opposed to the President's proposals are untrue. The elderly are equally entitled to health care and receive it. There is no rationing of health care. No-one in the UK dies because their treatment costs too much. Should my gender identity thing become a problem to me, I can seek treatment, receive counselling and undergo gender reassignment surgery and I'll pay nothing for it other than the money I've paid in taxes.

Free health care for all has existed in the UK since before I was born. It works.
And no-one is prevented from taking out insurance for private health care should they choose to do so.

But listen.. Something special happens when a society makes this gift to all. Because it gets given back. Blood donors dont get paid in the UK. We give our blood for nothing and there's no shortage of givers. You give and you receive.

Blessed Be

Or, if that was too complicated, Fishcrow, ...you're the only one who said Starhawk was claiming to speak 'dogma' here.

Fishcrow:

"

From a previous Starhawk post:

""Witches, Pagans, Goddess worshippers have no dogma, no central body that tells us what to believe or what decisions to make."

I guess that doesn't apply when she's telling us what to believe or what choices are "moral.""

Believe it or not, Pagans actually hold to the notion that one can have "morals" without making them "dogma."

In fact, we find that it's a lot easier to turn moralistic dogma into the opposite from what it claims to be, than it is to do harm to others by simply speaking.

(continued from below post:)

Which is to say, more and more gets foisted on the sick, the poor, our friends and family, if we have any and/or they have anything to give, and the 'government,' ...all so 'Private Enterprise' can claim 'Government regulation doesn't work.' While reaping subsidies and bailouts and all the more complicated economic bennies that no one wants to learn about... ... when there are far more efficient ...and moral... ways to go about these things.

What if it made *no difference* to the government or an employer whether or not someone was a 'potential liability?'

What *if* a small business owner could greet someone who comes up with a 'pre existing condition,' say, 'Hey, you're good: even if you can't do it full time, I will pay you for what you can do,' ...he could be doing better than being forced to hire, say, people who may be clueless about the *job* but happen to have clean health records.

Is getting paid for actual work and merit so 'Anti American?' As opposed to being called a 'Malingerer' if you manage to have a good few weeks before collapsing, thus 'proving' that you weren't 'useless' enough to contribute?

It's not 'government' tying everybody's hands. Or some lack of 'Morally-upstanding Pretense that If It Smells Capitalist It's Virtuous,' ....it's about who profits by trying to force everyone into what makes a nice self-serving for big business *balance sheet.*

A lot of human capability gets wasted out here in the world, just so people can force everyone into certain criteria and call it a 'Free Market.'

But it's *not* free as it is. It's economic *warlordism.* It means that business owners can't do what they want to, even if the pay, potential profit, jobs, and talent are *all right there.*

What the corporations want isn't 'free market,' it's *usury.* It needs 'trust-busting.' It needs... Reform.

" I think the problem is that too many people fear that it will however because the government has such a poor record managing programs - especially large ones. What happens if national health care ends up like medicare or social security? If it goes broke, do we all lose our care?"

Medicare isn't the problem. No one wants to lose their Medicare. No one stands to.

The problem with the Medicare *budget* isn't that Medicare doesn't work cause it's 'government,' but that it has to pay for insurance company and big pharma profits *anyway.*

Namely, that it's used as a cash cow and unprofitables-dump for the sake of private balance sheets and executive salaries under the current state of affairs.

It's a little like Amtrak: profit-based companies pawned off *necessary infrastructure for their own profits* on 'the government,' kept what was of itself 'profitable,' ...then proceeded to keep taking the budget axe to the program and blaming 'Government' for it not being able to support itself... while of course finding ways to profit off the lack of good public transit service.

It's the same with Social Security: people treat it as a 'handout' when it's really something we all *paid for.* ...not only in case something captialistically-catastrophic happens to *us personally,* but also for if it happens to our kids, or our grandmothers, or to the person that might just, if he got hungry enough, steal our stuff, and force us to a) replace our stuff and b) Spend ten times more on security, law enforcement, prisons, and criminal justice than it would have cost if both he and countless others who *won't* steal weren't suffering in the face of immense national wealth to begin with.

No amount of 'Protestant work ethic' is going to undo the fact that if someone mischances to have been sick, anyone who might want to hire them ...can't afford to pay the private insurers the extra money to take a chance on someone, even if they think they might just stay better long enough to make a contribution.

The result is not *better capitalism,* but rather, any time I try to take a job, I face losing what health insurance I've *got,* and can't promise much to an employer that'll suddenly justify his employer-based plan becoming more expensive for everyone in his small company. The usual result would be I get hired under the table or kicked off my disability, become exhausted inside a month, he gets hit by unemployment issues and higher fees, I have no health care when I need it most, the government ends up paying for ER care, after much misery and damage to me, ...and I get evicted the next time a Social Security check doesn't come.

Hardly seems a way to encourage a vibrant marketplace.

(continued)

From a previous Starhawk post:

"Witches, Pagans, Goddess worshippers have no dogma, no central body that tells us what to believe or what decisions to make."

I guess that doesn't apply when she's telling us what to believe or what choices are "moral."

One of the reasons that I'm so passionate about health care for all is that a coven-mate of mine died from lack of health care. He wasn't poor. He was a construction worker whose company did not offer health insurance, and he kept getting turned down for private insurance because of a pre-existing condition. (High blood pressure). Well, my friend got a cold and it turned into what he thought was bronchitis. He couldn't afford to go see a doctor about it. He collapsed at work and was rushed to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with double pneumonia. He died 12 hours later. If there was a public health care option that didn't discriminate against pre-existing conditions, then my friend would probably still be alive instead of in the Summerland.

I agree that single-payer is the best option, but it's not politically feasible at this time. So, the public option is what we're going to have to live with. And, when these teabaggers lose one of their family or friends because they couldn't afford health care, then they can talk to me about "socialized medicine".

I really hope that nobody wants this to fail. I think the problem is that too many people fear that it will however because the government has such a poor record managing programs - especially large ones. What happens if national health care ends up like medicare or social security? If it goes broke, do we all lose our care?

Personally, I want it but I want it done right the first time. If it takes a year or two to get it working, then the wait will be worth it. Rushing this thing will ensure problems later on.

thank you. wonderfully stated.

too bad there are no mainstream self-identified 'christian leaders' and preachers who will step up to the plate on this issue.

blessed be.

'So say we all.' :)

It strikes me as pretty alarming that so many of those who claim to be the only 'morality' in America are always the ones screaming vitriol at the very idea that we can do better at caring for each other.

Would rather preserve profits for the greedy and practically call the President Satanic at the very thought that just maybe that private insurance that cripples small enterprise while always finding a way to take money but not pay out when you need it... isn't some 'Commie plot' but just, if nothing else, our rights as 'consumers' to not get gouged for services not-even-rendered.

We should really be thinking about single-payer. Frenzies about a public *option* are just backwards.

The insurance industry and conservatives have been telling us for decades that public health couldn't possibly compete... Tell horror stories about 'You might have to wait in a waiting room, whereas what you're doing right now isn't waiting, it's... Processing your profit-based forms...And waiting. But not waiting...

Now, profiteers are afraid of the very competition they want each of us to pay thousands of extra dollars a year for, which they use to deny claims.

They're right to be afraid.

Somehow, I'm not scared with them.