Mabus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-08-09 04:17 PM
Original message |
Obama should say that health care = national security |
|
He should just come out tomorrow night and tell the American public that we're going to have a single payer system. He should then say that we will pay for it by taxing the richest 1%. If anyone dares to question him, he should refuse to answer and cite "National Security" and "classified documents" as the reasons that he can't answer them.
Oh well, I guess that only works for Republicans. :banghead:
|
pinto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-08-09 04:22 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Y'know, I've wondered why some kind of correlation hasn't been made before. |
|
Edited on Tue Sep-08-09 04:22 PM by pinto
(Given, it may have in some context, but I mean as a fundamental part of our national security. Or at least *as* fundamental as basic Health and Safety regulations that we all take for granted.)
:shrug:
|
liberaltrucker
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-08-09 04:38 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Off topic: Long time no see!
:hi:
A healthy population IS a national security concern.
|
xultar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-08-09 04:55 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Right on. But then the Republicans will be like well then you want health care join the |
sabrina 1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-08-09 05:03 PM
Response to Original message |
4. It IS a national security issue |
|
and has been referred to as such by many people. What does national security mean if not protecting the lives, safety and well-being of the American people?
When over 22,000 Americans die each year as a direct result of not having access to health-care why is it not at the top of the list of National Security issues?
Over a 250,000 Americans have died as a result of being deprived of health-care since 9/11 when just under 3,000 people were killed. We changed the Constitution and went to war in two countries, because of the threat to American lives that posed, or so we were told. And nothing has been done to stop the deaths from lack of health care.
It's clear that lack of health-care is a far greater national security threat so far, than terrorism. So is Global Warming for that matter.
Why don't Democrats call it what it is? I know it's been brought to their attention. They know the figures.
I think because it would have a powerful impact on people to see it that way and so many of them are owned by the Health Insurance Industry.
|
Feron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-08-09 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. Not to mention infectious diseases. |
|
When a person cannot afford health care, and this happens even with insurance, then that individual is going to wait until self-medication no longer works.
Well that individual may come into contact with many people in the meantime. And that gives the virus more opportunities to mutate and spread.
|
Mabus
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-08-09 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
I couldn't agree more.
I'm just so frustrated that discussions on a lot of issues (global climate change, health care, education, poverty, etc.) are given over to the lunatic fringe/extremists which derail actual discussion and education of the issues. For me, global climate change is the number one issue but, as you've pointed out, health care is a part of that.
Let me put on my tinfoil hat for a moment: what corporations and insurance companies don't want to acknowledge are clusters of diseases. Corporations don't want to pay for environmental clean-up and insurance companies don't want to pay for the health care. It's a win-win. Companies don't pay the people the millions they owe in health care and what it cost them in clean-up but they are willing to pay the insurance companies to give faux protection to the corporations' workers. And by the time the people start figuring it out, the corporations' subsidiaries have changed hands or have been moved out of the country and they have a pre-existing condition that won't be covered. That way the insurance companies stay off the hook for their share of the environmental clean-up and since they are in a position to help squelch reports to disease clusters they can wait until everyone has a pre-existing condition. In the end, both corporations and insurance companies keep their profits up.
|
FiveGoodMen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-08-09 05:12 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Then he'd have to explain why he's against the type that actually works |
defendandprotect
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Sep-08-09 05:28 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Excellent point . . . in fact, it was part of the New Deal Social Security plan originally... |
|
FDR's plan . . . and then his death -- Truman takeover . . . and he didn't get it thru.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 12th 2024, 10:33 AM
Response to Original message |