Friday, August 14, 2009

We loved this comment so much, we turned it into a post.

Blog reader "kmt" had the following things to say in response to some of the comments we got on our post "Liar, liar, pants on fire. (P.S. Your flammable skin is a pre-existing condition, and your treatment will not be covered.) We love this comment...even though it uses a swear word. There is a considerable dearth of overtly persuasive messaging coming from the pro-reform side of the health care conversation. While everyone who is afraid of reform comes to the table armed with falsified images of "socialist death panels," "Soviet-style rationing," and other chimera from the deep PR pockets of private insurance propaganda, the stories of people who are left either dead or bankrupt on a daily basis by our current system are being drowned out. So, here's one. Thanks kmt.

On Friday Aug 14th, kmt wrote:

as for healthcare, for all you folks saying that all government cares about is the bottom line, what exactly do you think private insurers care about? the people? trust me, your private insurers don't give a shit about you. they don't care who dies--as long as they get their profits. i say this from first hand experience.

my mom was diagnosed with terminal cancer at 48 and given 9 months to live. her private insurance refused to cover her chemo. i considered selling everything i had and taking out a loan to get her chemo, but it would only cover 1 and a half rounds (chemo was $20,000 per treatment there are 3 treatments in a round). so to say that existing private healthcare insurers are somehow benevolent people acting in your best interest, has been proven to be ridiculous (we aren't just hypothesizing here, go see Erin Brokovich or sick or any other movie/documentary about healthcare in the US). if you're poor, trust me they are already euthanizing "your grandmother" and your mother.

they just don't aren't euthanizing the grandmothers of of rich, predominantly white folks YET. it's completely a class issue (you'll notice almost everyone arguing against some form of universal coverage has the money to afford good healthcare--or at least healthcare they 'think' is good until something goes wrong). you can try to scare folks with this rhetoric, but the truth is that we know the "scary things" that you're saying (government only cares about the bottom line) are already happening in our health care system. it's all just a lot of propaganda put out by private insurance companies and people who have a lot to lose if there is a public option. it's all just to scare people into having a knee-jerk reaction. it's all just people trying to hold onto their money and trying to scare us into making a choice that is actually against our best interests as a nation because "we're scared."

10 comments:

  1. "you can try to scare folks with this rhetoric, but the truth is that we know the "scary things" that you're saying (government only cares about the bottom line) are already happening in our health care system."

    This and exactly this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. i wrote this quickly and i wanted to clarify this statement, it should read:

    "the truth is that we know the "scary things" that you're saying (i.e., dealing with an insurer who only cares about the bottom line) are already happening in our health care system."

    ReplyDelete
  3. An ex-friend of mine was going on about the terrible rationed care in Europe and was daring me to provide him with one good story from a credible source. I told him: "fine, my sister had a baby in Ireland last year. She got more services, especially post-partum support services from their health system than my wife got from our 'good' insurance."

    Then he tries to tell me that Ireland is a special case.

    Back before the recession hit, medical bills had become the #1 cause of personal bankruptcies in the United States... the #1 cause. That's not hyperbole. It's fact. And if you don't think that forcing people into bankruptcy has ripple effects in our economy, you're crazy.

    To paraphrase Einstein's comment on the McCarthy HUAC hearings, "anyone who does not stand up to the conservatives and the insurance companies deserves nothing less than the slavery that is intended for them."

    ReplyDelete
  4. There's also the myth that a government option would be unfair competition for the private insurance companies. Anyone seen how well UPS and FedEx are doing despite competition from the government run USPS? Seen how well private security firms are doing despite the existence of government run police departments? Heck, have you seen how well private hospitals are doing despite having to compete with hospitals run by various government entities ranging from county governments to the VA?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Off-topic, but just had to tell you -- on your home page, where you talk about the August flavor-of-the-month? You call it "shear summertime magic" -- it ought to be "sheer". Without the "a".

    I'm sure nobody else is as syntactically fussy as I am, and therefore nobody has noticed it. But it made my eyelid twitch when I saw it.

    (however that will not keep me away from your wonderful cupcakes, fear not!)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Arguing about healthcare for most of us is fairly esoteric--we get healthcare, at various coverage levels, via employers etc. The post by "kmt" really sharpens the optics.

    A friend of mine who is married to a former Army colonel just completed chemo and radiation after battling breast cancer. I'm happy to say she's cancer free today -- but what would have happened if she and her husband didn't have the insurance?

    We cannot expect those with no insurance to fight this battle alone. We all need to be involved.

    "kmt" you are in my prayers. Thank you for the push I needed. Let's go win this thing!

    dbb

    ReplyDelete
  7. Q: How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb? This is a question that's been at the forefront of discussion amongst the most prestigious scholars and lawmakers of the world. Finally, after getting them all together - the question has been answered.replica Gucci Watches A: Such number as may be deemed necessary to perform the stated task in a timely and efficient manner within the strictures of the following agreement. Tiffany Rings Whereas the party of the first part, also known as 'the lawyers' and the party of the second part, also known as 'the light bulb' do hereby agree to a transaction wherein the party of the second part shall be removed from the current position as a result of failure to perform previously agreed upon duties, i.e. the lighting, elucidation, and otherwise illumination of the area ranging from the front (North) door, through the entryway, terminating at an area just through the primary living area,Tiffany Bangles demarcated by the beginning of the carpet, any spillover illumination being at the option of the party of the second part and not required by the aforementioned agreement between the parties. The aforementioned removal transaction shall include,

    ReplyDelete
  8. but not be limited to, the following steps:Tiffany Pendants light-bulb1.
    The party of the first part shall, with or without elevation at his option, by means of a chair, step stool, ladder or any other means of elevation, Tiffany Somerset grasp the party of the second part and rotate the party of the second part in a counter clockwise direction, said direction being non-negotiable. Tiffany Accessories Said grasping and rotation of the party of the second part shall be undertaken by the party of the first part to maintain the structural integrity of the party of the second part, notwithstanding the aforementioned failure of the party of the second part to perform the customary and agreed upon duties. Tiffany Paloma PicassoThe foregoing notwithstanding, however, both parties stipulate that structural failure of the party of the second part may be incidental to the aforementioned failure to perform and in such case the party of the first part shall Tiffany 1837 be held blameless for such structural failure insofar as the non-negotiable directional codicil is observed by the party of the first Tiffany Cuff Links part throughout.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 2. Upon reaching a point where the party of the second part becomes seperated from the party of the third part, also known as the 'receptacle', Return to Tiffany the party of the first part shall have the option of disposing of the party of the second part in a manner consistent with all applicable state, local, and federal statutes.
    3. Once separation and disposal have been achieved, the party of the first part shall have the option of beginning the installation of the party of the fourth part, also known as 'new light bulb'. Tiffany Keys This installation shall occur in a manner consistent with the reverse procedures described in step one of this self same document, being careful to note that replica Rolex Watches the rotation should occur in a clockwise direction, said direction also being non-negotiable and only until the party of the fourth part becomes snug in the party of the third part and in fact becomes the party of the second part.
    Note: The above described steps may be performed, at the option of the party of the first part, replica Hermes Watches by said party of the first part, or by his or her heirs and assigns, or by any and all persons authorized by him or her to do sum the objective being to produce a level of illumination in the immediate vicinity Tiffany Notes of the aforementioned front (North) door consistent with maximisation of ingress and revenue for the party of the fifth part, also known as 'The Firm'.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Incorporating charms into your accessory or diamond jewelry is rather easy. you may desire to spend money on diamond jewelry or add-ons which by now have moncler coats sale charms within designs. you could also desire to spend money on the charms because they are and attach them for the existing jewelry. you are able to attach your charms to bracelets, necklaces, earrings, principal holders, or as cell phone accessories.

    ReplyDelete