by sammielee24 348 Replies latest jw friends
Is this national healthcare plan going to be forced on those who don't want it, even if they don't have healthcare insurance?
Nothing is forced on you - as a wage earner you pay a set amount of taxes toward healthcare for all - if you choose not to use it for a yearly physical, eye exam, blood test - that would be totally up to you, but in a national health care system everybody pays for everyone to use. swife.
paragraphs, please!
sixofnine - my apologies...swife.
Stop trying to scare people by bringing terrorism into the picture.
I'm not. If a bomb explodes over here I don't for one minute believe every person injured in any way will be taken care of. 9/11 was the first major attack here so everyone dove into the fray and donated - all of us did - but I don't think for one minute that would happen again. The point is - we have people securing this country with their lives who have no health insurance and in the event of an attack in any which way, I do not believe that the 'good' of all the people will rise up and keep covering the costs for all of those who need it. If that were the case and it were so simple you wouldn't have the fight for national health care. My comparison was to simply show that when the attacks occur in any other country, people are taken care of. There is no thought of anything but their welfare. Sorry, but hear I see a different song being sung here. swife.
LDH - as per your report the 9/11 plan was closed down in 2004 after having completed all its work...so, now that they believe people are dying and will die still from the fall out, but they don't know how many or who really, do we reopen the plan? The money is gone -now what? Could be thousands that need care...are you willing to determine who those people are and pay for them? Maybe those people don't qualify now or are still traumatized or dislocated and can't afford insurance. So - as terrorist victims..what do we do with them now?
Main Category: Aid / Disasters News
Article Date: 13 Apr 2006 - 6:00am (PDT)
| email this article | printer friendly | view opinions |
| Article Also Appears In | |
After a new autopsy linked James Zadroga's death in January this year to his exposure to 9/11 toxins, lawmakers have asked for more to be done for for the health of workers who were at ‘ground zero' on September 11.
(Ground Zero = The area where the Twin Towers fell down in New York. Ground Zero is a term for the epicentre of a disaster - the center of the disaster area)
According to a coroner's report released on Tuesday, the policeman, James Zadroga, developed a respiratory disease. This disease was directly related to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center (twin towers) on September 11, 2001. Mr. Zadroga died on January 5, 2006. This is the first autopsy to directly link a person's death with working at ground zero.
Mr. Zadroga died of respiratory failure. He had inflammation in his lung tissue which was the result of ‘a history of exposure to toxic fumes and dust'.
Very soon after the 9/11 terrorist attack (a few weeks), Zadroga started having respiratory problems. His health gradually got worse from that point on.
The collapse of the Twin Towers created a massive dust cloud which was laden with asbestos. Human exposure to asbestos (in the air) is linked to a much higher risk of developing cancer, especially lung cancer, as well as other serious respiratory diseases.
As time passes by and more people become ill and die, it is going to be extremely difficult to know which people became sick as a result of being at ground zero on that date and days after it, and which people would have become sick anyway. The whole process will take many years.
The number of lawmakers demanding more help is set to grow after this autopsy. Rep. Carolyn Maloney( D-Manhattan), Rep.Vito Fossella, (R-Staten Island), and Rep.Christopher Shays, (R-Conn.) say more screening and help should be done of ground zero workers.
Senator Hillary Clinton has been asking for more federal funding for screening and treatment programs. Many wonder how it is possible that after over four years there is still not a thorough plan for ground zero workers who are ill or suffering as a consequence of being there.
There may be dozens of people who died because of exposure to the toxic cloud.
The point is - we have people securing this country with their lives who have no health insurance and in the event of an attack in any which way, I do not believe that the 'good' of all the people will rise up and keep covering the costs for all of those who need it.
Who? Who do you mean by 'people' securing this country with no health insurance?
I can tell you this, year by year as we get legislated into 'giving,' we donate less and less to other worthy charities.
Nothing is forced on you - as a wage earner you pay a set amount of taxes
LOL, that's right, nothing is forced on you except the fact that you HAVE to pay in if you are a wage earner.
swife the single biggest defeat for SB840 will come down to the fact that we don't have a measure written into the legislation to PREVENT people from moving here and taking advantage of the system. Everything is already so much more expnsive out here than other parts of the nation.
NO intelligent Californian has a philosophical problem in caring for all residents of California, but strangely, NUMBERS are missing from that proposal. It's like the JWs. They don't tell you what you need to know until it's too late.
People be honest. If SB840 passes in California, how many of YOU would move out here? Simple arithmatic tells you that if more people take out than put in, the 'fund' will run dry.
Thank god for high property prices in CA. That might be the only thing that prevents the sick uninsured from moving out here if that bill passes. I never thought I'd hear myself say that! Although, property prices would probably bottom out as well-employed people flee the state. Great, we can lose money on that too!
Lisa
Moving looks more appealing by the second Class
swife, this may be a newsflash, but dead people don't incur medical bills.
Mr. Zadroga died on January 5, 2006.
The article you cite deals with cause of death, and does not mention that Mr. Zadroga was uncared for, only that the cause of his death was linked to 09/11.
So are you now saying we should have National Life Insurance?
Your article does not prove anything except poor old Mr. Zadroga died from exposure to toxic fumes.
the policeman, James Zadroga, developed a respiratory disease. This disease was directly related to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center (twin towers) on September 11, 2001. Mr. Zadroga died on January 5, 2006. This is the first autopsy to directly link a person's death with working at ground zero.
As a policeman, not only did he have outstanding health insurance, he was injured on the job and his family will receive payment from worker's compensation for his death. Additionally, as a police officer, his remaining family is eligible for police benevolence funds. Lisa
Try again Class
The argument was, after 09/11 poor people didn't get taken care of...
I have to jump in on this point! As I watch 20/20, Primetime, etc. I just saw a show recently that featured a 9/11 NY firefighter, that is now having terrible health problems. Lungs are in bad shape, has nose bleeds, is unable to work. Remember when all the workers were told that the air was o.k. and they had nothing to worry about? Well now, LOTS of emergency workers are very sick and guess what? They are not being taken care of very well. Yes, they can go on disability...which most of you know doesn't pay the bills. The firefighter interviewed above had lost his home and had to declare bankruptcy (I think). He and his wife didn't know what they were going to do....
That's really taking care of our own!!! I don't know what bubble most of you live in (it must be nice in there), but please get real on this healthcare issue! It is devastating many families and it's ridiculous!
Do you think the emergency workers in these tragedy's who gave so much of themselves should be having to deal with cr#$ like this?????
I'm embarrassed that the U.S. would treat it's citizens this way.
Also, have none of you been listening to the plight that many of the disabled soldiers are finding themselves in when returning home? Many have lost their homes, cars, everything....because of serving their country!!! That's a great reward to give someone who put their life on the line defending our country. I understand that one soldier came up with the idea to start a fund by every soldier donating a dollar out of his check into a disability fund...it has helped somewhat. They already get paid nothing so I guess taking another dollar won't hurt.
Have a nice day America,
Swalker
Just a Canadian vs USA comparison by one of the many who used both systems -
Tom O'Brien
Thursday, December 29, 2005
|
After a long time away, you see with new eyes.
I moved back to the United States with my Canadian wife and two small boys after living 15 years in Toronto and Ottawa. U.S. health care now looks both expensive and scary, leading me to conclude that we'd do better with an entirely different system.
Nowhere has this been put in sharper relief than in the story of two colleagues. Struck in March with cancer, an American colleague worried about death, insurance loss and bankruptcy. In contrast, a Canadian colleague and cancer victim had only her disease to fight.
Susan was on sick leave when I came to work at my new job in August. She was middle-aged and single with a grown family and well liked in my office. She was undergoing chemotherapy to treat breast cancer and not able to work. Our employer supported her beyond the normal period of sick days and vacation.
But the scary question for anyone but the rich hit with a catastrophic illness in the U.S. health-care system is: How long will an employer's support go on if the battle goes far beyond the time allotted for sickness and vacation? Susan worried about the loss of health-care coverage and what ensues -- second-rate care, bankruptcy, choosing between timely drug therapies and even modest necessities. She died this month before those fears were realized. But had she lived, she and her family would have confronted the excruciating battle survivors have to fight with insurance companies, employers and health-care providers over cost, length and quality of treatment.
In contrast, my former colleague Kathleen back in Canada was gripped by uterine cancer, which had spread to her intestines. While she was locked in a life-and-death battle for 18 months, she didn't have to worry about losing her health care and choosing which bills to pay. Canadian Medicare covers everyone for everything in hospitals and doctors' offices, including some elective procedures. This means no health care-caused bankruptcies. No fights with insurers. No insurance-driven financial worries. Kathleen could save her energy for battling her cancer instead. She did recover, and while her recovery was not necessarily the direct result of differences in care systems, there is no question that she would have suffered more with the burden of financial worries related to her health-care needs.
I hear stories here about Canadians lining up for basic medical care. But despite plenty of doctor appointments, occasionally bringing my children to the ER, and having had a heart procedure myself, I didn't witness any delays for necessary (let alone emergency) care. In survey after survey, Canadians support public, nonprofit health care by a wide margin.
And why not? Compared to the United States, Canada has much lower infant-mortality rates and a longer life expectancy, according to data from the World Health Organization. Canadian women get just as many mammograms, for example, as do American women. This is achieved despite spending far less per person on health care -- 10 percent of per capita GDP in Canada goes to health care versus 15-plus percent in the United States, according to WHO research.
After 40 years of private health care in America and 15 years of Canada's Medicare, I'll take the latter. But of course, I can't; it's not available here. I love my country but not the private health-care system that abandons many people and worries even more.
Few Americans know that every other industrial country in the world has a health-care system more or less like Canada's. I think even fewer realize that we do, too -- it's called (U.S.) Medicare. The system that boosted the health of Americans 65 and older is similar to Canada's system for everyone. They're both "public, not-for-profit, single-payer" systems with low overhead costs. So why not extend Medicare to every American?
Our seniors like it. Sure, it will raise the cost of this government program by billions of dollars, according to even the most conservative estimates. But it will save money for both individuals and employers who now purchase private health insurance. After all, it's not how much of your income you pay, it's how much you keep. You'll keep more under Medicare-for-all, and every child, woman and man would get the timely health care they need.
Give people the opportunity to face and fight their illnesses, not their insurance companies.
Determine an appropriate level of, and provide support during the transition for training and job placement for persons who are displaced from employment as a result of the initiation of the new California Health Insurance System.
I guess that's where all that planning and hard work come into play - kind of like the auto workers who dang their silly hides - they really thought they would never be without a job..or how about those Exon kids...lost their shirts...I guess that's what streamlining and realigning of services does...it creates redundancies...but then again, it opens up a few more doors for a few more people..swife
Thankyou Swalker for getting the point I was trying to make. I didn't think it was that hard to determine but I suppose it was - my fault for not spelling it out. The death of the gentelman in my article was directly related to 9/11 and yes, his care was paid for. The issue the system now has, is that they are now aware of the possibility of hundreds or thousands more that may also be directly affected but whose symptoms won't show up for years. Some cancers may take 15 years to show up. My point was to argue against the 'fear mongering' that I was accused of creating when I used terrorism as a real issue in its relation to healthcare. If terrorism is a real issue - then so is the aftercare needed. swife.
