Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Boxing Day/Kwanzaa Virtual Healthcare House Party---You Can't Stop the Beat

Hope all of you are enjoying your holidays.

Some business...

We'll be picking up the discussion


Saturday, Dec. 27 at 8EST

after the fab GF and I have our house party, which comprises me, her, and the cats. We have two feet of snow and no one in their right mind she drive up here.

Also, we may lose power, so if I disappear, that may be why. Or I spilled my cocktail, which happens, you know.

Moving on...

Continuing from the last virtual house party on healthcare, lambert asked me separately if anyone else wanted to discuss why healthcare is an issue for them.

I was also pleased with the ideas for tactics we had going. Are we about ready with the online survey, oh fearless one? (That's you, lambert.) I'd like to start rolling with spreading the word if we can.

Also, can we add a privacy notice, as in, we don't collect you're personal info and we don't want to? h/t hipparchia.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

1. I didn't quite ask "why health care is an issue for them" -- I wanted to know -- and this is hard for a WASP -- what feelings others had; thinking primarily of the thread on how to find better jobs for insurance workers. In some ways, that thread was something like the CK thread -- strong emotions, but perhaps at cross purposes. For example, does fear of losing insurance that you already have play in? Or what?

2. On the survey -- If regrouping the questions is something you can live with (I can only ask one at a time), then I can make Hipparchia's additions. If it's not perfect, then so what? Then I'd like to just sticky it for a week. Why not?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

Something i've been thinking absolutely needs to be used against all opposed -- the GOP's open acknowledgment that even one "public option" (let alone full single-payer) would be enormously popular and end up killing HMOs. --

Public Insurance Would Work Too Well and We’d Like It Too Much, Republicans Warn --

A common thread is emerging in the right wing response to healthcare reform. Its opponents aren’t claiming that public healthcare will be bad. Rather, they are terrified that the new system will be so good that no citizen would buy expensive private insurance–or vote for politicians who wanted to take public insurance away. ...

this is a potent weapon against them, no? even they know the power and popularity single-payer would have.

Submitted by ohio on

Ooooooo, okay, how can we make this wearable?

"Too much of a good thing is wonderful. Especially when it's your health."

"99 out 100 Republicans hate themselves for loving single payer."

"Faith-based healthcare: Praying people don't find out about single payer."

"The love that dare not speak it's name: Republicans and single payer"

This all leads me to gqm's question, "If everyone wants the product why is it so hard to sell?"

Well, the obvious reason is because they don't know there is a product. No one has given them a name. You can't demand something if you don't know what it's called. Second, the whole uniquely American crap is a branding effort that plays into the worst aspects of our culture---xenophobia, flag-waving, exceptionalism, etc. It is a whisper campaign right out in the open: Ours is uniquely American, so that makes yours all French and fagott-y.

Submitted by lambert on

Why not?

Silence === Death worked pretty well, didn't it? (I know I may have put my foot in in it, here -- correct me if I'm wrong. But that's a domestic campaign that I see as having succeeded. And more recent than MLK!)

Submitted by lambert on

Ties together feelings and product and visible commitment.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

like how haters and bigots used Obama's own words to kill marriage equality -- and now are using his own words to push "clean coal" too.

we need to learn from them -- and we need to be far more coordinated -- one clear message repeated endlessly everywhere, over and over and over -- like they do.

NOT buying into fake "grassroots" top-down things -- like this "houseparty" bs -- which is intended to appear like officials are listening and citizens are really participating, but is actually a dead-end to real change, that also saps energy.

And it has to be simple, and emotional, and contrasting (and also sexy/media-grabbing in some way).

"Only one thing terrifies Republicans and HMOs -- single-payer healthcare. Nuff Said?"

"Healthcare for all -- "too popular", says the rightwing -- prove them right -- HR676 now!"

"the GOP says it'd be "too popular" -- for once, they're right -- pass HR676 now!"

(or something)

(and i keep being reminded of these great shirts Oliver Willis did a few years ago -- Brand Democrat )

Submitted by hipparchia on

i hadn't seen that one.

also, i think it's worthwhile to try to get as many people as possible to co-opt the house parties for single payer.

Submitted by ohio on

(Go ahead with survey. I'm looking forward to results and comments. I was struck by what a couple people said on Susie Madrak's site---that the questions themselves have meaning without the answers.)

As far as feelings, well, that's interesting. I thought the emotion came through clearly in the first healthcare virtual house party.

I also thought badger asked a good question: has anyone considered what happens to the people in the health insurance industry who lose their jobs? The answer is yes, people have. But there was frustration because of the cross-purposes and also because no one wants to face that by doing something, people are going to get hurt. And it's more likely that doing nothing will hurt more people and more deeply.

There is always a price. And usually it's paid by people who are the least able to afford it.

So I wonder if it's possible to have an honest discussion at some point about that---what am I willing to give up? For example, say I'm diagnosed with pancreatic cancer of a very rare and deadly type. Am I willing to accept rationing healthcare services and not getting treatment so healthcare resources may be used to give kids preventive care? I might be. But am I willing to accept that situation for someone I love?

Oh, that's a horse of a different color. And this is a horse I have been thinking about a lot.

But that is no pertinent to your question---how do people feel about the healthcare situation?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

it's accepting rightwing lies about other countries as fact and as eventual reality if we have single-payer -- and more importantly -- we already have very real rationing now that's far more damaging -- by ability to pay, and by insurance company power -- in approval or refusal to cover, based not on medical need.

Submitted by ohio on

We may do a better job once we have single payer, but will single payer put, say, St. Jude's, out of business?

No, it won't.

Flipside, you're absolutely right---we already ration and for non-medical reasons. That's the point to pound on, for sure.

But I am thinking in terms of what I will have to give up to correct some of the inequities, not just with healthcare, but with lots of other stuff, so I think about it a lot.

Submitted by ohio on

This is more a thought experiment for myself---what am I willing to give up? That's all. Much less important than countering the idea that there isn't rationing already and for reasons having nothing to do with medicine.

One is about me. Another is about killing zombies.

I'd rather kill zombies. With a bazooka.

Can I have a bazooka?

Submitted by hipparchia on

why are you beating yourself up with this?

unless you're in the top 5% of taxpayers, your taxes aren't going up hugely. and yes, if you're self-employed they will go up more than for the average person, but you can deduct half of that, just like you do now for fica taxes.

hell yeah, by all means kill zombies! i don't have any bazookas lying around, but i could make you an awesome potato gun.

Submitted by ohio on

It's more a general world view adjustment. I don't beat myself up, I just think about it. Try to find some kind of plan to use a little less and a little less crappy. No big strides---the commitment to grandiosity is way too tiring. I do this about this time every year: assess my own choices, adjust where needed, and tell people who I like that I like them.

So give me some facts...

Won't single payer lead to rationing?

Submitted by hipparchia on

waiting times might increase somewhat at first, because of two things [1] more of us will be going to the doctor, the hospital, etc once we can pay for it; [2] things will likely be re-arranged so that the sickest get treatment first, instead of the richest. this will look like rationing to a few peole who have been accustomed to buying their way ahead of everybody in life.

more generic drugs might get prescribed, instead of the latest and greatest brand spanking new blockbuster prescription drugs. i've been collecting stuff for a post on this, but the drug companies have quite literally been making out like bandits with this. just one example: prilosec came first, did a good job for heartburn, gerd, etc, and made the mfr a small fortune. then when the patent was set to expire and prilosec could be sold over the counter for a fraction of its previous cost, the mfr basically manufactured a new drug, nexium, which is basically the exact same active ingredient but with a harmless inactive ingredient removed. for this they got a new patent and sold the drug for billions, when all you had to do was take a double dose of prilosec and get the same result. so yeah, a new improved medicare might very well refuse to pay for that brand spanking new prescription drug.

you might not get to see specialist right away. we do need to emphasize primary care, and encourage people to see primary care doctors more [that shouldn't be too difficult, really]. and probably do something to encourage more med students to go into primary care, like raising their pay, or forgiving their med school loans so they won't need to become expensive specialists just to pay off their loans. one of the many things opponents of single payer [and single payer defeatists] bemoan is that we have too many specialists and this is why everything is so expensive. then they go on to quote a famous study that says this. unfortunately, this famous study counts internists as specialists, when most of the rest of the world, including insurance companies and the internists themselves, count them as primary care physicians.

a further note on seeing specialists: i've got a canadian friend who says he just picks up the phone and makes an appointment to see either his primary care doctor, or the specialist he usually goes to [i forget what for, orthopedic maybe] whenever he feels like it, and nobody regulates his access in any way.

end-of-life care. it's maggie mahar's big issue. yes, we might be doing too much for some people, the pancreatic cancer treatments you were talking about, for example. i've got [had, actually] two acquaintances with pancreatic cancer. one opted for palliative care and lived 3 months after diagnosis, the other opted for aggressive treatment and lived 3 years. was it 'worth it'? dunno. me, i'd probably opt for the aggressive care, but plenty of people i know [and knew] would opt [have opted] for the other. if a significant number of people prefer less care anyway, do we really need to keep everybody from having aggressive care? the number who opt for it might really be affordable after all, in the aggregate.

france, considered by many on all sides of the question to have the world's finest healthcare system, is exceptionally generous, in this regard and in many others, denying almost nothing, yet they spend far less than we do. an additional note, mahar suggests that not only is all the extra care we give people costing us a bundle, but that all the extra care we give [insured] people actually does more harm than good. in contrast france, with its nearly unlimited care, also has the lowest rate of preventable deaths. we otoh, have the highest rate of preventable deaths [from medical mistakes, etc]. kinda suggests that lavishing care on people from the cradle means they'll need less at the grave end of their lives.

i could go on....

Submitted by ohio on

Thanks for this.

I'll look up some more info about this and see if I can find some good stats for ads or animation or something. Offhand, what are the problems with a system such as the one the French have employed? Is there anything you see in terms of marketing, not medicine, that could be twisted as an argument against single payer? Other than it's foreignness, which, now that you've told me about how the French are doing, suggests why the Uniquely American Solution is the catchphrase.

Animation/ad ideas:

"Did you know France has the lowest number and we have the highest number of deaths from preventable causes like medical mistakes? Yet more proof that we're number one!

Our Uniquely American healthcare Solution: So what if more people die? At least it ain't French."

Or if you have per capita numbers as if on a scoreboard:

===
Home team: USA: 94
Away team: France: 16

We win!*

*Number of preventable deaths caused by medical mistakes per capita.
===

Submitted by hipparchia on

ah, got it. general worldview adjustments are always good. and yes, i would do that to a potato.

Submitted by lambert on

I don't think it helps to call it a scare tactic -- in the Village, scare tactics work again and again (AUMF; Patriot Act; warrantless surveillance; bailout).

It might work to ask what are they scared of? That they might lose some money? That people might live longer? That their business model would fail?

Submitted by hipparchia on

badger hasn't established that, beyond identifying two populations that could get hurt.

the rationing question is another scare tactic used by the people who want to keep private insurance alive and well and kicking us in the teeth. nor are those people telling you how much rationing the insurance companies are already doing now.

Submitted by hipparchia on

it's a stimulant, doncha know? mmmm eggnog....

your misstep was in underestimating its effects: feed me more of it, i'll just fling stuff at you faster.

Submitted by lambert on

Obviously, health care is rationed now -- if not by the insurance companies, than by wealth. Go die, little people!

And yet that argument doesn't seem to penetrate, illogical as it may seem. So rationing is a zombie meme. What's driving it, since it's not reason?

Note that if it weren't for feelings, we'd never be able to come to decisions at all; logic alone cannot tell us what to do! (Another reason by the CDS crapola about feelings was so destructive and stupid.)

"You're an American. Aren't you entitled to health care?"

Submitted by ohio on

Zombie mem, eh? I don't know if it's all zombie. Rationing of medical care won't go away under single payer, right? Organ donation---doesn't matter if we have single payer, if there aren't enough donors or transplant teams, there has to be rationing. if there aren't enough trained surgeons to handle elephant trunk stents, there has to be rationing.

I'm just saying. But that is a minor point and one I've been pondering at 3 in the morning.

But I'm wondering if a different word other than rationing...sort of like your "entitled," can we push that a little farther?

"If healthcare is a right, how come I can't afford to see a doctor?" Naw, that's no good.

Submitted by lambert on

Health care is a right. I support single payer.

That's my tagline, and I'm sticking to it.

(I'm getting the entitlement thing from Gladwell's book -- and how weakening it is when people don't speak up and ask for what they need; very much a class thing. Here again, however, the Conservatives have polluted the discourse with "entitlement programs"....

It's like people are attacked to whatever fucked up solution they've cobbled together out of the madness... They're invested in it.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

sadly --

people repeatedly show that calling something a "right" don't matter as much, when push comes to shove--or when there's some more powerful trigger or scary lie being told.

also, the rightwing has gotten expert at using "rights" to prevent rights -- they used "free speech rights" as part of why people had to kill equal marriage, for instance, and every time separation of church and state things come up all over, they call it an infringement of their "rights" always.

and "rights" that don't already exist (like healthcare and equal marriage, etc) aren't really seen by most as rights, usually -- especially if the other side can just as easily use "rights" when fighting against them, or the "right" isn't clearly defined and/or appreciated -- even if clearly needed by some or most or all.

Submitted by lambert on

Well, technically, he said it should be a right, but with a leader like Obama, what should be, will be!

Anyhow, if "health care is a right" is bad tactics, then I need to change the T-shirt idea.

Submitted by hipparchia on

health care is a right will move some people, but not all of them.

obama has said that health care is a right [i don't mind misquoting him on this if he only said should be a right]. i think we should use this one whenever dealing directly with obama and team, and possibly whenever dealing with rabid obama supporters.

my favorite tshirt is still the 17,000 one.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

like SS, which is the most popular govt program ever -- and which survives mostly bec politicians are all afraid to kill it or even tinker too much.

(and: public education is a right, but it has nowhere near the popular support of SS, for instance. not even free speech has the support SS has.)

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

Because old people vote, and AARP is an extremely powerful lobby. One reason they're so powerful is the size of their membership, though given that they start sending out their literature to anyone who turns 50, I'm not sure how they count membership figures.

I think it should be made clear that Medicare is what seniors get, and it's a good program. I think people don't have a clear sense that there's a difference between Medicare and Medicaid -- and since Americans don't like to see poor people (of color, because poor=black, of course) getting benefits, it's important to ensure that people know that this is the healthcare that Grandma gets, and just ask her how easy it is and how good it is.

Come to think of it, has the AARP come out with a position on HR676?

As for the visceral "poor people getting benefits," thing, just remember how frenzied the attack on the Frosts was over their Congressional testimony re SCHIP. I believe that the reason that Michelle Malkin and her flying monkeys went so ballistic over their countertops and the parents' education and the schools the kids went to was that here was an educated white family that was not all that different from many middle-class white families, who are exactly the people that the Republicans *don't* want getting the idea that they should be entitled to health care in exchange for their taxes.

The Republicans have spent a lot of time and effort demonizing the poor, and making the face of poverty black and frightening so that it's easy to undercut the kinds of welfare and social programs of the Great Society that were working to ease poverty and equalize things, and to marginalize their recipients. If the Frosts had been black, there would not have been nearly the frenzy over them (and, conversely, they might not have been chosen as the spokespeople for SCHIP, because it's quite clear that the Democrats were well aware of the symbolism of a white family).

Basically, they're terrified that their base might look at the Frosts and see themselves, and start asking why they don't have the kind of health coverage for their kids that would see them through such a horrible accident.

Submitted by hipparchia on

because the for-profit insurance companies [and to a lesser extent, the for-profit hospital companies and some others] don't want it to.

because even the people who are on our side are buying all the lies and distortions about rationing, and waiting lists, and massive unemployment, and government intrusion into your medical decisions, and the possible fema-fication of healthcare, and [insert your favorite scare story here] that opponents of single payer are spreading.

because the people who are spreading the not politically feasible and uniquely american solution crap have more money and more visibility than we do.

i can think of lots more, but it strikes me as more productive to come up with ways to put pressure on obama and our congresscritters, and to arm the people with the facts and information needed to counter the lies they will be told.

Submitted by lambert on

I'm not sure that marketing (which is not the same as selling) and "arming people with facts and information" are the same thing. Because, really, you don't need more than one fact: Every other civilized country in the world does this, and no matter how you measure the system -- dollars or lives -- single payer beats the system we have.. The opposition is not based on facts, any more than Harry and Louise were. So, how to counter?

Submitted by ohio on

If we were going by the facts, single payer would win.

But it's not about facts. Which is too bad because some people all nutmegged out of their minds are great with the facts.

Submitted by hipparchia on

they won't necessarily incite people to riot in favor of something though. or even to take a few minutes to sign a petition or send an email.

me, i try to send a one-line email: pass hr 676 in the first 100 days! at least once a week. if a few million of us did that once or twice a week, maybe somebody would notice. the rest of the time i spout facts here, and write to my congresscritters, and post comments at blogs around the blogosphere, and talk to people one-to-one in person. all very small contributions, but if a few million of us....

Submitted by ohio on

We and through that combination, we may be able to come up with ways of getting the message out that are memorable, wearable, and meaningful.

IOW: We all become stakeholders.

Heh. Not really. I just had to put that in there.

Submitted by hipparchia on

picks up nearest splintery wooden stake and waves it menacingly....

combinating strengths good.

Submitted by hipparchia on

soooooocialized mediciiiiiiine!!!
um, no. so you need to arm people with some facts to counteract this scare tactic.

raaaaaationiiiiiing!!!!!
um, no. so you need to arm people with some facts to counteract this scare tactic.


massive unemploymennnnnnnnnt!!!!

um, probably not. so you need to arm people with some facts to counteract this scare tactic.

massive tax hikes!!!!!!!!
um, no. so you need to arm people with some facts to counteract this scare tactic.

etc.

and since you can't tell which individuals [unless you're talking to them one at a time] are going to believe which lies they are told, you have to get all the facts out there for everybody.

which is all somewhat, but not completely, separate from both marketing and selling.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

In places like Hartford, which depends on the insurance companies. There were a whole host of layoffs in the late 80s at all the insurance companies there, which depressed the local economy for some time.

Happily, though, Obama is announcing a stimulus package, right? So surely there can be some mechanism for targeting the laid-off workers who suffer as a result of the shift to single payer, right? Right?

The other thing is, as big as the health-insurance business is, it's not the only thing that these companies insure. Life, property, casualty, auto, industrial, payroll, etc. I mean, insurance companies thrive in countries which already have single-payer, so why not here, after some adjustment?

Submitted by hipparchia on

the unemployment question is going to be a bigger issue in communities that depend on health insurance and managed care companies for their economies, and less so in places where companies with more mixed lines of business are located.

i'm less than sanguine about obama's stimulus package, but those green jobs will need clerks and sales people and so forth, and there's no reason why those industries can't at least partially spring up in areas where there are idle workers just sitting around begging for jobs.

not to mention that in the first couple of years at least, if not longer, the 45,000,000 of us who haven't been able to get health care are going to use a lot of it, thereby guaranteeing that not all the administrative jobs are going to go away overnight. the govt is going to have to either hire some number of these displaced workers, or contract with their present employers, to administer an expanded medicare, and the hospitals are going to keep some number of their administrative workers to handle the increased utilization. between the increased demand for care, which should take a few years to level off [2-5 years is the range of estimates i see most often] and the fact that under hr 676 conversion of for-profit providers to non-profits is slated to take 15 years, there will be a massive shift in employment out of one sector into others, but there's no reason that it has to happen overnight.

but yeah, count me a gloomy cassandra who is convinced that things in general are going to get somewhere near great depression levels before somebody pipes up and says i remember reading something in my history books about something called wpa and something else called ccc....

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

i like the "civilized country" thing most too, but it only works on people who actually have gone beyond all the "we're #1"/"we're America and automatically good"/"we're the best"/"we're the most powerful"/etc stuff.

When the other side uses "uniquely American", they're relying on that deeply-embedded view -- that we lead, and that we're the ones who tell other countries how to do things -- not the opposite -- ever. That we're the model for the rest of the world, etc.

It's just not compelling that civilized countries do things a certain way. Too many of us see us as the most civilized, and most free, and most best, etc ...

Submitted by hipparchia on

civilized countries works with some people, but again, not with all of them.

that's one of the problems here, i think, is thinking that one angle will reach all 300,000,000 people.

Submitted by hipparchia on

though i'm not averse to adding a few new angles too. y'all are the marketing geniuses, i just go around trying to debunk lies [that's about all us science geeks are good for, dull boring factlets].

Submitted by ohio on

So dishonest.

Unless we turn it around on 'em.

"Got my knees fixed in India, nose in Malaysia, hair transplants in Australia, lipo in Norway, implants in Japan, tummy tuck in Austria, cancer treatment in Ecuador, prescription drugs in Canada---But America is #1!"

Or something.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

that some people are actually flying to other countries -- and even 3rd-world ones!-- for necessary care bec they can't get it, or afford it, here.

Cost-saving surgery lures 'medical tourists' abroad

including countries that already have national health --

Canada welcomes medical tourists

South Korea Joins Lucrative Practice of Inviting Medical Tourists to Its Hospitals

... South Korea has joined Thailand, Singapore, India and other Asian nations in the lucrative business of medical tourism. Heart bypasses, spinal surgery, hip-joint replacements, cosmetic surgery — procedures that may cost tens of thousands of dollars in the United States — can often be done for one-third or even one-tenth of the cost in Asia, with much shorter waiting times and by specialists often trained in the West.

Americans fleeing the high cost of medicine at home have spurred the trend. Last year, 750,000 Americans sought cheaper treatment abroad, a figure projected to reach 6 million by 2010, according to a recent study by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions, a consultancy. Asian nations are also wooing wealthy Middle Eastern patients who have found it more difficult to get a visa to enter the United States since the 2001 terrorist attacks.

...

Submitted by lambert on

Can you do half a dozen more like that?

Submitted by ohio on

You mean, like match up parts with countries?

Now?

Edited to add countries and areas of treatment:

Costa Rica
Cardiac Care
Cosmetic & Plastic Surgery
Gastric Surgery
Heart Surgery
Orthopedic Surgery
Urogenital Surgery

El Salvador
Dental Care

France
Cardiac Care
Cosmetic & Plastic Surgery
Cosmetic Treatments
Heart Surgery
Orthopedic Surgery

India
Cardiac Care
Cosmetic & Plastic Surgery
Gastric Surgery
Heart Surgery
Orthopedic Surgery
Urogenital Surgery

Malaysia
Cardiac Care
Cosmetic & Plastic Surgery
Gastric Surgery
Heart Surgery
Orthopedic Surgery
Urogenital Surgery

Mexico
Cardiac Care
Cosmetic & Plastic Surgery
Gastric Surgery
Heart Surgery
Orthopedic Surgery
Urogenital Surgery

Poland
Cosmetic & Plastic Surgery
Gastric Surgery
Infertility Treatments
Orthopedic Surgery
Urogenital Surgery

South Africa
Cardiac Care
Chemical Dependency Programs
Cosmetic & Plastic Surgery
Gastric Surgery
Heart Surgery
Orthopedic Surgery
Urogenital Surgery

Turkey
Cosmetic & Plastic Surgery
Dental Care
Infertility Treatments (heh, gives a whole new meaning to "turkey baster")

Submitted by ohio on

And they sent me a passport application and a map.

I asked my HMO about my liver transplant and they gave me an airline-approved carry-on cooler.

Phrase Book for the New Tourist:
How much will my new corneas cost?
Combien mes nouvelles cornées coûteront-elles?
Wieviel kosten meine neuen Hornhaute?
¿Cuánto mis nuevas córneas costarán?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

like:

"My mom had to go to India to get a new heart -- 60,000 other Americans died because their HMOs failed them."

"My mom had to go to India to get a new heart -- will you have to do the same?"

"My mom had to go to India to get a new heart -- American healthcare failed her."

"My mom had to go to India to get a new heart -- her HMO failed her. Will yours?"

"My mom had to go to India to get a new heart -- since when do Americans have to leave to get help?"
...

Submitted by lambert on

My mom went India to get a new heart...

And all I got was this lousy t-shirt!

Single payer: A uniquely American solution!

* * *

17,000 people die each year...

because the insurance companies couldn't make a buck from saving their lives. Will you be one?

Health care is a right. I support single payer!

* * *

So, two formulas. We can compare!

Submitted by ohio on

We could do a graphic with a human body with call-outs saying where you go to get stuff fixed.

People have been goinng to BC to get Lasik for years here.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Do we hear anyone saying that S.S. is a "right"? Some may say that, but I can't remember hearing that.

The difference that SS has been around for a while is important, but what are people's views of SS and how can we tie health care into a similar frame? Even despite the scare tactic that SS would crush the economy in the near future, people did NOT want to touch SS, even if they believed the worst about the economic projections.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

I can't recall anyone who really knows about those stories. My question is, does this resonate beyond this group? Hell, it doesn't even resonate with me.

I'd prefer something like: "My parents declared bankruptcy to pay for medical bills... and all I got was this lousy T-shirt"

Submitted by ohio on

tomorrow,

Saturday, dec. 27, 8EST

for our real life house party update.

Roads are terrible still, so if anyone was thinking of coming up, don't. Unless you're coming by dogsled, which would be okay because I like dogs, enough to overcome my antipathy toward sleds.

Onward and upward, you all.