Log in

No account? Create an account
Watching the second presidential debate last night, I want to whip… - 神話蝶 [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ website | victim of circumstance ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Links:| @ myspace @ facebook @ twitter ozy and millie sinfest you damn kid lush cosmetics ]

[Oct. 9th, 2004|01:00 pm]
Watching the second presidential debate last night, I want to whip Bush, because he was very antsy and impatient (to respond) when Kerry said something that rubbed him the wrong way.

Using "liberal" like it's a dirty word is wrong, and IMO, outdated. There was another word he used like it was dirty, but I can't remember.

I don't understand how either candidate views a single-payer universal health care system, as causing rationing of services and such. Jeezus. I didn't like how Kerry defended himself by saying "It's not government-sponsored takeover", in his counter-argument against Bush. I didn't like the panic I 'saw' in his voice in that moment.

Tax cuts are not the universal solution, and almost all politicians fail to understand that! Several things need complete reform, with more government funding and intervention, that doesn't have to mean governmental control over our lives. I think it can work, if only more people respected the decisions of professionals (especially medical) and the people who see them (e.g.: patients). I guess it's not easy for everyone to separate "government intervention" from "governmental control of our lives".

[User Picture]From: xochitl
2004-10-09 10:21 am (UTC)
I guess the question is, where do we draw the line between "intervention" and "control"?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: shinwachou
2004-10-11 05:16 am (UTC)
Er, the last line of the entry wasn't meant to sound condescending, or anything like that. ^^;

"Intervention" and "control" are not words that are very similar. I would say, perhaps, words with nuances at extreme opposite ends of the spectrum?

In this case (medical), in my POV, "control" would imply direct (restrictive) control over what specific services we could receive, who we could see (if at all), et cetera. With "intervention", it implies providing necessary (societal) services without any particular restrictions on benefits. (Namely if the person in question had a valid problem, no frivolous abusing of services).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: xochitl
2004-10-11 11:22 am (UTC)
Aren't you worried that socialized medical care will mean the government can control what procedures can be legally performed by doctors? I would bet abortion is the first thing to go. :/ Or they would be saying that women who are under the age of 40 can't get sterilized. It's already hard enough to find someone who will do it under private medical care.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: shinwachou
2004-10-12 02:28 pm (UTC)
I'm sure things like elective plastic surgery, or elective abortions, probably would have to be paid out-of-pocket (hence the word "elective"), and not paid for by socialized medical care (not that most insurance companies do now).

Necessary abortions (in the uncommon cases where the pregnancy threatens mother/baby) and necessary plastic surgery, for example, should be paid for by such a socialized system. People, for instance, who've been in a terrible fire or car accident with horribly disfigured faces or bodies, shouldn't have to pay for those services.

If Canada and several other countries can make it work, so could we. I will admit that kind of system isn't perfect, but "perfect" in any form is unattainable in this world. But IMO, it's a lot better than what Americans generally have now.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)