The Respectfully Republican Conversation

Hmmmm, kinda tired of how uninformed we in this country are about healthcare in other countries.

I live in France for part of the year and this is how socialized healthcare works there:

First of all, very single person has access to healthcare in France. This includes children, the unemployed, small business owners, everyone.

My US oncologist sends me over there with a script for regular bloodwork. I take that to the lab, let's say on a Wednesday morning. I tell the lab technician that I have had a bilateral mastectomy with SNB. I don't even need to mention that I worry about lymphedema; the tech immediately calls the doctor in and he takes blood from my foot. No questions asked. (Try that here in the United States of America. I, for one, have to beg even to get a doctor to observe the simplest lymphedema avoidance measures.) If I were a French citizen I would pay nothing for the lab work. Since I'm not, I pay full price. My lab work is for standard stuff, liver, kidney function, bloodcounts, hormone levels, tumor markers.... My last lab bill is right in front of me: it came to $82.

So, my blood is taken on the Wednesday morning. On Wednesday afternoon my French doctor (because I have had to see a doctor on occasion while over there) receives the results on his computer. He calls me and discusses the results. I might mention that all doctors, hospitals, labs are hooked up to the internet and that they use the net efficiently.

I receive the lab printout in the mail the next day (forgot to mention that the mail goes surprisingly fast over there).

Before I go on, allow me to say that I was born in this country and grew up here. I am, of course, an American citizen and proud of it. Talking about how things work elsewhere in no way implies a lack of patriotism.

Another example: I took a bad fall on my knee last year just before we were going abroad. We were scheduled to leave that very evening, so I tried to see my doctor here but couldn’t get an appointment. The receptionist told me the only way I could get an x-ray of my knee was to go to the nearest emergency room. Didn’t have time, and besides, I know how long it takes to get x-ray results through the system here in Northern Virginia.

So, we arrived at our little town in France the next morning and I called my doctor, who told me to call the radiology lab. He emailed them a script right then and there. I called and they had me come in that same afternoon. My appointment was for 3 p.m. I got there at 2:45, was told to wait in the waiting room. At 3 a lab tech came and got me, took the pictures and then told me to wait in the waiting room again. I waited from 3:20 to 3:25. Then the radiologist came and took me back to her office, where she read the x-rays and explained them to me. She asked me to wait in the waiting room yet again, and within another 5-10 minutes I was called up to the counter to pay my bill. Here again, I would have paid nothing if I had been a French citizen, but I paid full price, $46. They gave me my receipt and my x-rays along with the typed notes signed by the radiologist. I was out of there at 3:55. My doctor received the results that afternoon.

Just thought I’d offer my experience of another country's healthcare approach. I have friends in France and in Germany who have gone through breast cancer treatment and who tell me what's going on in their lives. They have access to the same treatments I have received here. I just don't think we should believe the horror stories some people tell us about socialized medicine.

Anna 

You know, just because the race is over doesn't mean that the people who frequent either thread are going to stop posting. I don't know why some Dem posters want this thread gone or for people to "give it up" ...  Republicans will always have their stance that opposes Democrats. Politicis is an everyday business.  Here in California Prop 8 had people on both sides up in arms and we will be feeling the ramnifications of that vote for a long time ... wondering about the marriages of people who now can't get married in California.  

Even the Dems on the other thread aren't giving it up ... here's a quote, "luann- I really don't think you're right about the repubs being just as passionate about McCain, I think their passion was more anti obama than anything. Very few republicans were passionate about McCain and even fewer about Palin."   Someone over there always pretending to read minds and hearts and play God and make people behave and think her way or be whipped in a corner.

Obama isn't the only one who got elected ... there were lots of Dems who came in to power that Republicans aren't happy with.  The Dems control the House and with a Dem president, Obama is coming into power with a whole lot on his side ....  I don't think this is a good thing to have such an imbalance.  

But the news is talking about the Republican party's need to get with it technology-wise and to broaden it's base ...  I think there is a lot to talk about because the Republicans really can't survive if they keep up with their old book cover ... they need to entice people to open the book.  Not all Republicans are narrow-minded, fundemental bible thumping people.  There are a lot of Republicans, like John McCain, who can be quite forward thinking.  

I agree, why should this board end because some want it to happen.  There will always be something going on for us politico junkies to comment on.  Here's something to be watching for.  Sarah might have a chance to get into the Senate: 

Ted Stevens, the Alaska Senator, is clinging to a lead of around 3,300 votes in his battle against Mark Begich, the Democratic mayor Anchorage. There are 50,000 votes still to be counted, mostly absentee and postal ballots, and it could take ten days to get a result if it goes down to the wire.

Mr Stevens, 84, is the longest-serving Republican senator in history and officially the highest-ranking senator. But he was found guilty barely a week ago on seven federal felony charges for failing to properly report gifts worth more than $250,000.

Curiously, the senator's poll ratings climbed after that conviction, which he is challenging on grounds of "prosecutorial misconduct". If he sees off Mr Begich, he would then become the first convicted felon to win election to the Senate.

His future in the Senate would then depend on the success of his appeal, and although there is little precedent, few expect him to remain a senator if his felony conviction is upheld.

***That's where Sarah Palin comes back in. Although she conspicuously cut him loose after his court case, appealing to him to withdraw his candidacy, Ms Palin could be the beneficiary if Stevens either resigns his Senate seat or is expelled.

Under Alaska law, Ms Palin, as Governor, would have to call a special election to choose his successor- and the pundits say she could well decide to stand herself. After all, she already has the wardrobe, and the lipstick. And, as Barack Obama can attest, what better place is there from which to mount a presidential bid than the Senate?

She'd be smart to step in if it's possible ... it'd get her the experience ... and if I were her, I would not try for 2012, she'd be better off getting the same experience as Obama:  7 years in the Senate and do some community organizing  ... 

Really, no matter who is President, and it's Obama, all I want is to:  get out of Iraq, not have my taxes increased and have a stable economy.  If Obama can bring that in ... I'll vote for him next time. As I have said before, I would have voted Hillary ... I am not a hard-core Republican. I am just really scared of higher taxes and high gas prices!

Rosemary...I was hoping Sarah Palin would get into the senate...very good news!

BinVa...I cannot see a link to a national security force and the Peace Corp and other corp programs, they are two entirely different things with different objectives. That doesn't even make sense, we have national security forces, we have the Army, Navy, Air Force and the Marines as well as the Coast Guard. I suppose in order to realize that, you would have to know what the military is about!

Rocktobermom...good to see your font again! I don't even read over there <-------------- anymore but can pretty well guess who made that statement you quoted and I think the person says off the wall garbage as a form of baiting, in fact my personal opinion is there are three or four over there that do it purposely. I think you can count on higher taxes, that's a given and gas will go up again. We may leave Iraq but will end up in Afghanistan, so the war will not end, it's just a matter of miles. I am willing to bet we have troops in the Mideast for a long time to come.

There is no need for this thread to come down just as there is no need for the other one to come down...just as they were the watch dogs, now we become the watchdogs and besides politics is fascinating...some may not have the stomach for it but there are other threads for them. Moving beyond means exactly that, though we are all connected by cancer, cancer doesn't have to stop us from rejoining the world once we move beyond.

You may have paid $1.97 for gas, but the market dropped over 400 pts yesterday and so far today, and 398 today.  It's all part of the big picture.  The USA is energy dependent (oil dependent) on Mideast countries.  We need to drill here.

I'm not at all angry, Donna -- but I am worried about our future.  Why can't you see the other side of the coin? (I see yours)  Why don't YOU tell us about Obama's character?  You can't - nobody knows what he stands for.  He's all mouth and no substance. 

As I look at what happened in this election, it appears that most of those who voted for Obama made a conscious decision to vote for "change" and "hope" and "judgement".  Even on this site, many have said that this is why they supported Obama - because they wanted change and/or because Obama would give hope to the country and/or because they trusted Obama's judgement.  These were in fact the big keyword themes of Obama's campaign - the reasons Obama gave to people to vote for him. 

What was interesting to me, and what I struggled with as I watched the campaign unfold, was the fact that the change and hope and judgement that Obama offered were really just undefined concepts.  Because of Obama's slim legislative record and because his positions changed so often over the course of the campaign, there were few specifics behind those words - no one really knows what Obama is going to do, whether he and his policies will veer far to the left (as per his history) or lean towards the middle (as per his campaign).  His record and past say one thing; his campaign promises say another.  And it's not just me who was confused.  The fact is that most of those who voted for him for reasons of change, hope and judgement admitted that they were taking a chance - they were "hoping" that it would be the right "change" and they were trusting that Obama would show good "judgement" and do the right thing & select the right advisors in areas where he had little expertise.  I heard that over and over again from his supporters. 

Fair enough. Everyone votes for their own reasons. Obama is the president-elect.  And what I now find most ironic is that it's the voters who didn't buy into the message of undefined change and hope and judgement who now are in a position where that's all they have to hang on to.  And that's the good news, I suppose.  Since we know so little about Obama, we can hope that he is pragmatic.  We can hope that he gets into office, looks at the reality of the economy (and everything else) and decides that the change he will deliver is different from what he promised during the campaign.  We can hope that he uses good judgement and makes the right decisions.  For the sake of the U.S. and the world, I certainly hope that's the case. 

BinVa...here is an article about his Civilian National Security Force...of course it is an opinion type article but I can see where the author is going with this and I don't think I care for it (the CNSF) but time will tell...

July 20, 2008

Obama's Civilian National Security Force

By Lee Cary
Barack Obama's recent words to promote his image as Community Organizer in Chief were not about forming a paramilitary force of volunteer brown shirts. They were about turning America into one, giant, community organizer's sandbox at enormous cost to taxpayers.

Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying,

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." (emphasis added)

The immediate context for that amazing statement was a preview of parts of his plan to vastly expand community service opportunities for Americans of nearly all ages. He said,

"People of all ages, stations, and skills will be asked to serve."

The range of his community service initiatives was outlined in an earlier American Thinker article. In his campaign document entitled "The Blueprint for Change: Barack Obama's Plan For America," Obama's "Service" section runs a close second to "Education" in complexity.  But, with his Colorado Springs' statement, it grabbed first place in its projected costs to taxpayers. Obama did the cost projection himself. 
He plans to double the Peace Corps' budget by 2011, and expand AmeriCorps, USA Freedom Corps, VISTA, YouthBuild Program, and the Senior Corps.  Plus, he proposes to form a Classroom Corps, Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, Veterans Corps, Homeland Security Corps, Global Energy Corps, and a Green Jobs Corps.  Here a corps - there a corps - everywhere a corps corps. 
So it made sense in Colorado Springs when he said his call to community service "will be a central cause of my presidency."  He couldn't be clearer in signaling his intentions, including a Social Investment Fund Network to link local non-profits with the federal government.
The entire plan is breathtaking in its scope. But it does not, as at least one internet writer has suggested, portend a "giant police force." It would be easier to rebut if it did.  As it is, it's silly stuff born of naively fanciful dreams.
Senator Obama aims to tap into the already active volunteerism of millions of Americans and recruit them to become cogs in a gigantic government machine grinding out his social re-engineering agenda. It's Orwellian-like, with a novice social activist's mentality at the helm. In his speech he said,

"Now I know what the cynics will say. I've heard from them all my life."

Has he? Well, given his absence of noteworthy community organizational achievements, perhaps he might have done more listening to the "cynics" for constructive criticism.
It seems clear that he meant to say, in effect, that the security of the nation is as dependent on its unarmed community service providers as it is on its armed military personnel. Even the nomenclature "corps," as in Peace Corps, carries a martial connotation as does the name, Salvation Army. His point: national security begins with civilians. It's a message like the one America's home front heard throughout World War II.  Except in his case, he means to marshal volunteers for social service and economic equality while saving the environment.

"Because the future of our nation depends on the soldier at Fort Carson, but is also depends on the teacher in East LA, the nurse in Appalachia, the after-school worker in New Orleans..."

That is, of course, true. But ultimate national security requires someone to carry, and, if necessary, discharge a deadly weapon with intent to kill. This is something teachers, nurses and after-school workers are typically unaccustomed to doing as part of their service obligations.    
Voters haven't paid much attention to his "Service" plan because the old news media has ignored it. That will likely continue, even though Obama attached an approximate price tag to it in Colorado Springs. When Obama said that the "civilian national security force" would be just as "well-funded" as the Armed Forces, he stepped squarely into the giant sandbox and played with the big numbers. As the late Carl Sagan said, "billions and billions" of dollars.  Here's how.
The FY 2008 Department of Defense (DoD) budget is about $482 billion.  Obama has announced his intentions to cut "tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending," including $9 billion per month spent in Iraq and expenditures for the missile defense system, while increasing the force size of the Army and Marine Corps.
Let's imagine "tens of billions" in cuts eventually adds up to a whopping $150 billion. That would be a near one-third cut in defense spending, taking the DoD budget down to $332 billion. Even in such an extreme case of DoD budget reduction, for his "civilian national security force" to be "just as well-funded" would mean funding his community service initiatives at an equivalent $332 billion.
Consequently, another $332 billion in addition to the Pentagon's reduced budget of $332 billion equals a net increase of $182 billion in the annual federal budget, assuming we sponge-up the already existing expenditures for the relatively meager, by comparison, existing service programs he plans to expand.  That's $182,000,000,000 in new federal monies, and that means higher taxes.

In his entire life, Senator Obama has never managed an organization larger than a Senate staff, or that of a law school publication. And, he's never operated a for-profit business or been responsible for any profit center within one.  So, while words matter to Senator Obama, it's not clear if math means anything to him at all.   

Note: the author has experience in community organizing. For example, he organized one of the earliest Meals-on-Wheels programs in Illinois, in continuous service for over 30 years. He trained over a hundred Illinois non-profit organizations to resettle Vietnamese Refugees. He assembled three dozen congregations and a synagogue in a mid-sized Texas town to provide emergency assistance to low-income citizens, in continuous operation for 25 years. He was an expert witness at a Texas Senate hearing when legislation forming the state's Commission on Human Rights was being drafted.

Thanks again Paulette ... that's the article I read (but did not post), as well as the link I posted to one in an AARP publication.  Those were the only ones I could find and are dated July 2008.  Couldn't find anything more recent.

Copied from the above article: His point: national security begins with civilians. It's a message like the one America's home front heard throughout World War II.  Except in his case, he means to marshal volunteers for social service and economic equality while saving the environment.

That was the point I was initially trying to make re Obama's thinking.  And I believe I said it was impossible to fund such a plan.  I also said I believed Obama to be an idealist with lofty goals .. however implausible they may be.  Or, as the writer of the article stated, "It's Orwellian-like, with a novice social activist's mentality at the helm."

What I'm trying to say is that I don't believe he's a socialist, but a social activist who will now face some very hard realities.  

Bren

Rosemary ... one more thing for me to research ....

Rosemary, it will be interesting to see if it does come across his desk what he does with it...another wait and see.

OK, today was another day stuck behind a steering wheel.  I heard, or thought I heard something that concerned me(polite talk for scared the h%ll out me).  Talking about a new bail out for auto makers with Pelosi meeting with CEO's and UAW leaders, the reporter was asked about President-elect Obama's positions.  The reporter stated that PE Obama said he favor's taxpayers paying for union negotiated health care and pensions thus freeing up the Automakers money to retool for new green vehicles.  The main reason the automakers are in trouble, is the rediculous over 28K per year health insurance package they have and the super vested pensions.  The Union's has negotiated the companies to bankruptcy.  Some one tell me this was a senior moment for me,  that I was day dreaming and that is not a plan.

Shirley,

Good to see you smile again.  Don't make fun of us old trolls.  I have found that darkening the screen works just as well as turning down the volume on my hearing aids.  That came in handy on more than one post the last month or so. 

Ya think Pelosi and Reid (another of my favorites) will pay my huge deductible that my insurance makes us pay.  Before AT&T bought out Bell South we had EXCELLENT..did I say EXCELLENT? health care coverage.  Our deductible was $2200 last year and now has gone up $100 this year.  With Bell South covering us for all those wonderful years our deductible was only $200 each plus had low copays and low prescription cost.  Thank God we had Blue Cross through Bell South when I went through treatment.  If I should ever have to go into treatment again I don't know how much it will cost us.  I was so spoiled!

Now the government is supposed to bail out everyone.  Well, if they're going to do that I'm going to get in line!