I vary to differ with you nessie.
The welfare reform changed the law about able bodied adults...
who can work and won't. Adults no longer receive medicaid or health
insurance in most states. If they do, they won't for much longer.
Children of welfare recipients ALWAYS are covered by health insurance.
But, they go to the working parent first, and find out if they have the
availability and means to get the health care for their children first.
Insurance isn't that difficult to get. It's not that expensive either.
Shopping insurance plans may take a bit of effort, but affordable health insurance is available.
I doubt seriously the statistics that the Klintoonalgore administration puts out about a lot of things... this subject in particular, because lest we forget, we are in the midst of a campaign that is presumed by that particular party as already won. Their big thrill in life is to present the facts in, let's say a bit exaggerated political juxtaposition.
As far as optimum health care? That's a thing of the past. Doctors are still paying off school loans, and don't care whether optimum care is administered, because there are enough people who have health insurance who are sick and need their services, that they can still get rich, and still afford to pay off their loans. The only way, anyone is going to get optimum health care is to be one of the other 230 million people in this country who can afford health care. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
I don't like seeing suffering or those who cannot get health insurance to do
without. It remains that the churches of this country should have never given up
their position to help the poor and the needy, then the government would not be
legislating who gets care and who doesn't. Because we know that there are many, many
churches and charitable organizations who could help those in need, but because of
government policies and regulations already poised, they cannot help, by law.
So, the question then remains, what happens to those who are in poverty?
Ask the Klintoonalgores of this country, then to get off their duffs and do something about it and quit talking about it. THEN you might see some reverse in the poor quality of health care and poverty in this country.
This is a very unfortunate situation that we can give care to millions of people in other countries, some who have gotten wealthy off our 'care', yet we cannot seem to manage the poverty level in our own space. It's sad; very sad. I agree.
Socialized medicine is not the answer. It may look good on the outside but
to borrow from a famous non-violent revolutionary's words, " inside it is
nothing but dead men's bones" - Jesus, circa 33.
Inside it is rotten to the core, because of those who have
never experienced the pain and the suffering, but underestimate the dire need
that is there with those who cannot afford, nor can they find the ways and the
means to pick themselves up and brush off and go forward, as much as they try and
try.
The government holds people back. Just like the recent legislation
presented by the Democrat of Minnesota, to
"track" former welfare recipients. It is none of the government's business
after they 'force' them off the programs. They have to let go, and quit dragging
them back into the system. It is a viscious circle. But, that is the way it is.
Until we get some intelligence in the White House and in the other areas of
our government branches that were designed to help those in need, and quit
funding those who can work, who can provide, and screen each individual
treating them as human beings, and NOT as just a name and a number in a
statistic report, you shouldn't expect any miracles.
But who knows, the good Lord may smile upon America again, and give her one
last chance to shape up before she's shipped out to sea.
eagle1
-----Original Message-----
From: nessie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, June 04, 1999 2:15 AM
Subject: Re: [CTRL] Say "NO" To Socialized Health Care Today!
> -Caveat Lector-
>
>>Strong and able-bodied parents, can work, and earn, and pay for their
>own health care, just like the rest of the working class do . . .
>
>Not all of the "rest of the working class" CAN pay for their own health
>care, at least not if they want to also eat food, wear clothes and live
>indoors.
>
>In America there are nearly forty million people who lack coverage. They
>are ALLworking poor and their families. People on welfare HAVE healthcare
>provided. The working poor do not. What about them? Should they quit work
>and go onto welfare so they CAN get medical treatment, or should they
>suffer and die from (and spread) treatable diseases?
>
>Neither the state nor the private sector has demonstrated the ability or
>the willingness to provide optimum health care. It's time we try something
>else. We cannot stand by and watch human beings suffer and die
>unnecessarily, unless of course we are moral cripples. We aren't moral
>cripples, are we?
>
>Of course not. So what shall we try? It'd better be something good, for
>not only does it have a tremendous problem to solve, but both the state
>and the private sector will unite against it. In a very real sense the
>state and the private sector already HAVE united against it, and against
>us. But hey, what do you expect from a fascist society? That's what
>fascism IS.
The welfare reform changed the law about able bodied adults...
who can work and won't. Adults no longer receive medicaid or health
insurance in most states. If they do, they won't for much longer.
Children of welfare recipients ALWAYS are covered by health insurance.
But, they go to the working parent first, and find out if they have the
availability and means to get the health care for their children first.
Insurance isn't that difficult to get. It's not that expensive either.
Shopping insurance plans may take a bit of effort, but affordable health insurance is available.
I doubt seriously the statistics that the Klintoonalgore administration puts out about a lot of things... this subject in particular, because lest we forget, we are in the midst of a campaign that is presumed by that particular party as already won. Their big thrill in life is to present the facts in, let's say a bit exaggerated political juxtaposition.
As far as optimum health care? That's a thing of the past. Doctors are still paying off school loans, and don't care whether optimum care is administered, because there are enough people who have health insurance who are sick and need their services, that they can still get rich, and still afford to pay off their loans. The only way, anyone is going to get optimum health care is to be one of the other 230 million people in this country who can afford health care. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
I don't like seeing suffering or those who cannot get health insurance to do
without. It remains that the churches of this country should have never given up
their position to help the poor and the needy, then the government would not be
legislating who gets care and who doesn't. Because we know that there are many, many
churches and charitable organizations who could help those in need, but because of
government policies and regulations already poised, they cannot help, by law.
So, the question then remains, what happens to those who are in poverty?
Ask the Klintoonalgores of this country, then to get off their duffs and do something about it and quit talking about it. THEN you might see some reverse in the poor quality of health care and poverty in this country.
This is a very unfortunate situation that we can give care to millions of people in other countries, some who have gotten wealthy off our 'care', yet we cannot seem to manage the poverty level in our own space. It's sad; very sad. I agree.
Socialized medicine is not the answer. It may look good on the outside but
to borrow from a famous non-violent revolutionary's words, " inside it is
nothing but dead men's bones" - Jesus, circa 33.
Inside it is rotten to the core, because of those who have
never experienced the pain and the suffering, but underestimate the dire need
that is there with those who cannot afford, nor can they find the ways and the
means to pick themselves up and brush off and go forward, as much as they try and
try.
The government holds people back. Just like the recent legislation
presented by the Democrat of Minnesota, to
"track" former welfare recipients. It is none of the government's business
after they 'force' them off the programs. They have to let go, and quit dragging
them back into the system. It is a viscious circle. But, that is the way it is.
Until we get some intelligence in the White House and in the other areas of
our government branches that were designed to help those in need, and quit
funding those who can work, who can provide, and screen each individual
treating them as human beings, and NOT as just a name and a number in a
statistic report, you shouldn't expect any miracles.
But who knows, the good Lord may smile upon America again, and give her one
last chance to shape up before she's shipped out to sea.
eagle1
-----Original Message-----
From: nessie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, June 04, 1999 2:15 AM
Subject: Re: [CTRL] Say "NO" To Socialized Health Care Today!
> -Caveat Lector-
>
>>Strong and able-bodied parents, can work, and earn, and pay for their
>own health care, just like the rest of the working class do . . .
>
>Not all of the "rest of the working class" CAN pay for their own health
>care, at least not if they want to also eat food, wear clothes and live
>indoors.
>
>In America there are nearly forty million people who lack coverage. They
>are ALLworking poor and their families. People on welfare HAVE healthcare
>provided. The working poor do not. What about them? Should they quit work
>and go onto welfare so they CAN get medical treatment, or should they
>suffer and die from (and spread) treatable diseases?
>
>Neither the state nor the private sector has demonstrated the ability or
>the willingness to provide optimum health care. It's time we try something
>else. We cannot stand by and watch human beings suffer and die
>unnecessarily, unless of course we are moral cripples. We aren't moral
>cripples, are we?
>
>Of course not. So what shall we try? It'd better be something good, for
>not only does it have a tremendous problem to solve, but both the state
>and the private sector will unite against it. In a very real sense the
>state and the private sector already HAVE united against it, and against
>us. But hey, what do you expect from a fascist society? That's what
>fascism IS.
