The Devastating Truth About the Obama Plan for Alternative Medicine Practitioners

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kathleen Hanover on January 31, 2010 at 7:21am

Perhaps we in the U.S. have a different perspective, as our country was founded to secure individual rights in the face of tyrannical (and arbitrary) use of force by an non-elected government.

I'm personally suspicious of a system created by people who have specifically exempted themselves and their families from that system. I'm suspicious of any "better solution" or "improvement" that relies on the use of force to make me adopt it. And finally, I'm suspicious of any system that removes choices instead of adding them.

Your mileage may vary.

I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree. If you have specific issues with the content of the article I linked to, please address them to the author, and not to me. :)

Kathleen Hanover
"The Pretty Goodest Public Relations, 
Copywriting & Marketing Lady on the Planet"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richard Clark MFT on January 31, 2010 at 7:37am

Hi Kathleen,

Love ya!

Some of "we in the U.S." have a perspective a tad closer to Roman's and appreciate his well wishes.

Richard

Kathleen Hanover said:

Perhaps we in the U.S. have a different perspective, as our country was founded to secure individual rights in the face of tyrannical (and arbitrary) use of force by an non-elected government.

I'm personally suspicious of a system created by people who have specifically exempted themselves and their families from that system. I'm suspicious of any "better solution" or "improvement" that relies on the use of force to make me adopt it. And finally, I'm suspicious of any system that removes choices instead of adding them.

Your mileage may vary.

I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree. If you have specific issues with the content of the article I linked to, please address them to the author, and not to me. :)

Kathleen Hanover
"The Pretty Goodest Public Relations, 
Copywriting & Marketing Lady on the Planet"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kathleen Hanover on January 31, 2010 at 8:07am

I know, Richard...but I promise not to hold that against you. ;)

Hugs,
Kathleen

Richard Clark MFT said:

Hi Kathleen,

Love ya!

Some of "we in the U.S." have a perspective a tad closer to Roman's and appreciate his well wishes.

Richard

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don on January 31, 2010 at 10:25pm

Am I missing something? I haven't rerad anything in the newspapers about an Obama health plan, but I have been reading about two separate bills that have been thrashed out in various committees in the House and Senate,and which need to have the differences between them thrashed out as well before a final bill can be presented to the President for his signature. I have also read that it was because Obama did not want to make the mistake that Bill Clinton did, he deliberately refraiined from proposing a bill of his own and left it up to the House and Senate to craft theirs.

There is a rhetorical trick which is known as "attacking a straw man" -- asserting, and then systematcally demolishing, something that never existed in the first place. Perhaps thiis is what Obama meant when he recently said that heslth care is being "demonized". First, you have to have a demon, and I guess the nonexistent "Obama Health Plan," with nonexistent references to alternative medicine, and nonexistent definitions of hypnosis as a form of alternative medicine, make a pretty good demon and a pretty good straw man.
The Libertarians and the Republican Right didn,t get out their propaganda manuals and make this stuff up. As we have seen in this thread, they are loving, caring people who believe that their core values about the legitimate role of government are under attack. It has recently been said that healthcare is on the five-yard line (which, for our foreign colleagues who are not familiar with American football, means that a goal is very near). Let me extend the analogy a bit further and say that the ball is on the five-yard line and the opposing team has just incurred a five-yard penalry -- for backfield in motion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Henxy on February 1, 2010 at 1:37am

Both posts here make me proud to be British!
And also pleased that UK citizens appreciate the treasure that they have.

Allan Nelson said:

Sharon; you saved me wording to say what you typed. I'm happy like most to pay tax for our NHS; happy also, for people to have choice to insure for private health-care in addition to their freedom.

Sharon Stiles said:

I live in the UK and have grown up with a "free" health system - the NHS. It has its good and bad points but surely a system where cost is not a barrier to health care is a good thing.

One of the bad things about our system is that complementary health isn't widely available through the NHS but that is slowly changing - admittedly too slowly for a lot of us. I am keen for complementary health to be funded by the NHS because I'm sure that a lot more clients would be able to afford to come to see me. (I suppose this is a case where cost is a barrier to health care at the moment.) Homeopathy has been available for many years, despite a split in doctors' opinions over it. Acupuncture, osteopathy and chirpractice are now available by referral. Cognitive behaviour therapy is now the recommended initial treatment for depression and anxiety. Hypnotherapy is recommended for IBS.

That doesn't mean those treatments are readily available or even that doctors readily recommend them. But, medication is not always foisted onto an unwilling patient. It is often the patients who ask for medication because they are unaware of other treatments and think medication is a quick fix. Education is obviously needed.

At a basic level it is often the people who are least able to pay who need the most healthcare. Using taxation to pay for healthcare is surely a good way of ensuring that there is care for people who can't afford it. Whilst I grumble about taxes as much as anyone I am actually more than happy to fund the NHS even if I don't need it.

Before the NHS was introduced there were many poorer families who couldn't afford to visit the doctor and so their health suffered. Often it was women who suffered most because money was spent first on the husband who could least afford to be ill as he brought the money into the home and then on the children.

The problem with people paying for their own insurance is that when money gets tight there is a danger they will cut back on their insurance. Last year we had severe flooding and some people not only had the disruption of having their homes flooded and their posessions ruined but they were unable to replace them because they hadn't been able to afford insurance on their home contents. So peole who were already in financial difficulty fell even further into it.

Just because we have healthcare run by the country doesn't mean that the patient has to do everything the doctor says. There are peole who refuse some treatment or who pay privately for their own treatment. It's not a perfect system but no system that is focused on care that is restricted by money is likely to be perfect.

As there are many countries with healthcare funded through taxation it would be interesting to see how successful a new government funded healthcare system would be that could learn from mistakes made by the existing ones. A new system would be starting in a very different world with more technology and knowledge than the existing ones started in.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don on February 1, 2010 at 2:17am

I just remembered another shocking truth. Most phycicians in this country (including the A.M.A.), are now in favor of a single payer national health plan similar to the ones which exist in every other developed country on the face of the Earth. Check out the Web site of Physicians for a National Health Plan at www.pnhp.org for many more shocking truths!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don on February 1, 2010 at 7:11am

Ian Jay said:

I can find no reference to CAM.

This is what I meant by "backfield in motion."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susan French on February 1, 2010 at 7:28am

I will only make one suggestion. How would we view this debate if it were called by it's proper name: "health INSURANCE reform" and not "health CARE reform"?

Why don't people get that? It's about taking obscene profit out of health care and other human necessities, not tying up the hands of doctors or patients. If someone wants to give the insurance companies big bucks to have the illusion of health care provisions, let them do so. Let the rest of us have an opportunity to starve the insurance companies, big PHARMA and the rest out of the equation.

I have no problem with people making profits. I make a profit. I wouldn't work as hard if I didn't. But let the profits be made on insuring cars, homes, property, and gadgets. I agree with Bill Maher: I just can't be comfortable with companies making a profit (not a reasonable living, but an obscene profit) over somebody's cancer or heart disease.

Isn't that why we have nonprofits as part of our democracy and economy? Those people make a living...often a very good living, but the corporations shouldn't get to profit from human misfortune.

Let's also not forget that the job of corporations is to profit. It is required by their very nature. It is their fiscal responsibility to their shareholders. Let them profit from things other than human misfortune. Could one imagine making a profit selling food and shelter to Haiti or the victims of Katrina or the tsunami??? I can see people wanting to do so, but a moral and ethical civilized society needs to have room for certain kinds of services that simply pay for themselves, like the fire departments, the police departments, the school system and as many hospitals used to be.

My only problem with "live and let live" is that we can now see clearly that we have to have rules and regulations, ie, laws, or greedy people take advantage. And truth be known, we are all greedy to one extent or another.

Anyhow, that's my assessment.

Susan

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Donna Carter on February 1, 2010 at 8:11am

I totally agree with you Susan.
Change the wording!
Health Care reform is like an oxymoron.
isn't it?

~D.

Susan French said:

I will only make one suggestion. How would we view this debate if it were called by it's proper name: "health INSURANCE reform" and not "health CARE reform"?
/body>

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don on February 2, 2010 at 12:45pm

Susan French said:
I will only make one suggestion. How would we view this debate if it were called by it's proper name: "health INSURANCE reform" and not "health CARE reform"?

I would have preferred single payer -- but health insurance reform is what we're going to get, if we get anything at all, because that's what both bills are proposing. Thanks, Susan, for pointing this out. I just hope we get something before the country goes broke.

See you in the emergency room!

Don

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susan French on February 3, 2010 at 7:31am

Thank you Roman. While we may not yet have the best solution figured out, I don't think anyone disagrees that we need one.

Roman Buchok said:

You mean live and let die. There are plenty of ways to live the American Dream and still take care of the health needs (and educational needs) for all citizens. It's got nothing to do with politics or economics - its called basic compassion and human decency. I am proud that a portion of my taxes got to insure that ALL citizens of my country are properly and adequately taken care of.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susan French on February 3, 2010 at 7:34am

Aaaah, Donna. Finally something we can agree on. LOL.
Susan

Donna Rodolph said:

I totally agree with you Susan.
Change the wording!
Health Care reform is like an oxymoron.
isn't it?

~D.

Susan French said:

I will only make one suggestion. How would we view this debate if it were called by it's proper name: "health INSURANCE reform" and not "health CARE reform"?
/body>

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page