Letters to the Editor
SueNJ97
Published Letters: 220 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Single payer and what to do if the government plan won't cover stuff
[Read the article: Barack Obama, working-class hero?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Under most proposals for single payer in this country the only thing the government would be taking over is the coverage. Nobody (at least nobody I have seen) is clamoring for them to employ all the doctors as well. So, there are a few options:
1. Sue - although this depends on how the government decides to deal with tort reform for the medical and pharmeceutical industries if they ever go this route. Note that in Europe, they get things like drugs approved faster than we do, but if there are safety/health impacts from the drugs, there is very little payout if you sue. But, I don't know about suing for additional procedures.
2. Pay for it yourself, if you have the money, because most doctors, at least those that are still in private practice, will be able to accept cash, or credit cards. Still. So, I suspect that the great fear of many of the well-off in this country, that their access to health care will be diminished under any kind of health care reform, isn't going to come true, at least as long as the doctors don't work for the government. I'm not saying that anyone here has this fear, just that I believe it is out there.
However, for all the fears about the government refusing to pay, I've seen more Canadians shocked at my private health insurance refusing to cover what the policy says it will cover, when the doctor says it's necessary, than any who told me that it's been a problem for them. Because the insurance company simply says it isn't necessary, no matter what the doctor says. I'm sure there would still be some of this with single-payer, but less, if the Canadian experience is any example.
-
Supporters on both sides parse the words
[Read the article: Obama: Clinton "deserves to be able to run"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Geez. Are Clinton supporters looking at this statement and over-reacting? Yes, I'd say so. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the statement. Even if the campaign did actually send Leahy out to make the statement for her to withdraw, and Obama now said this, I don't think the statement, in and of itself, is condescending, and there's nothing wrong with it. Nor do I think less of Obama if he did send Leahy out to make the statement and then did this. I realize I just don't view things the same way as the rest of you, I actually expect both sides to run a campaign like, well, a political campaign. All of the above is part of it.
However, how the reaction of the Clinton supporters different than when Obama supporters, spend hours looking at every syllable of everything Clinton or one of her staff, or just someone who has endorsed her, says and, well, over-reacting? Obama supporters do the same thing. Except in reverse.
Physician, heal thyself. This is why I say, there is really nothing the candidates could do that is worse some of the fighting between the supporters.
-
@Flatblonde on ambition
[Read the article: Obama: Clinton "deserves to be able to run"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think ambition is a bad thing. Any Presidential candidate is ambitious. If anyone thinks they aren't, they are just fooling themselves. In the United States, we actually think ambition is a good thing. Personally, I'd like to get this ambition thing out on the table.
People tend to think Hillary Clinton is too ambitious in part because she stayed in her marriage for her own career. First, I don't judge other people's marriage. I can't, I'm not there. However, we didn't used to judge women who had a choice (like Jackie Kennedy, who had her own money and actually had a career, rare for a woman in those days, before she married Jack Kennedy) who probably stayed in the marriage for their husband's career. Many political wives who were married to men in high office who cheated on them and they knew it stayed for their husband's ambitions. But, we're OK with that. These women hosted parties, were often sent home to care for the children while their husbands stayed in Washington, but it's OK that they stayed in those relationships. We don't judge. But, we judge when it looks like a woman stays for her own career. That, we really don't like, she can stay for her husband's ambitions but she can't stay for her own. Because women aren't supposed to be ambitious. That's unseemly.
In November, 2007, Senator Obama said that he hadn't had the same ambitions that other candidates had. He was referring to the Clinton's supposed 'secret pact of ambition' where they were both going to run. I admit that going back to his kindergarten essays probably wasn't the best idea. However, when they talked to his friends and those friends said, well, he's been talking about it since the late 1980s, then, really, yes, he has been planning it for about 20 years. And, I don't see what's wrong with that. I STILL don't understand what was wrong with Clinton pointing it out. But, people went ballistic, saying she was calling him uppity, when all she was saying was that, if he was calling others ambitious, he was really no different. And, once again, I say, what the hell is wrong with ambition. All Presidential candidates are ambitious. They are we need to drop the pretense. This is frigging ridiculous.
-
But the wait your turn isn't new
[Read the article: Obama: Clinton "deserves to be able to run"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can remember it from the Kerry/Edwards spat in the primaries 4 years ago. Kerry thought Edwards was too inexperienced, too ambitous and hadn't waited his turn. Plus, of course, there were the Breck-girl comments.
Ted Kennedy was furious at Jimmy Carter for some of the same reasons, since Carter had no experience on the national scene (he hadn't even really had a position of national prominence in the Democratic governnors leadership, or anything). But, there were certainly no Breck-girl comments.
I am just curious that people seem to really believe these things are brand-new and made up for Obama. They aren't.