Focus on social issues instead of economics in GOP hurts

[AtroposHeart]

The other night I saw something that should out of a Sheri S. Tepper or a Margaret Atwood novel. Men who were running for the highest position in the World (for now at least) where discussing the morality of birth control.

Birth control not abortion.

Also whether or not to allow force Catholic hospitals to give Morning-after pills to rape victims.

This just shows how out of touch the Republican party has become with the general American population. Most American do not view birth control as wrong and the majority of American women take some form of it. Mind you this may be because the supporters of these men are largely right -wing, extremely Fundamentalist Christians.

I've seen the reactions this audience of the Republican debates have had

They booed Romney because his father was born in Mexico

They booed a solider serving in Iraqi because he was gay.

They cheered at the mention of a man dieing because he could not afford medical care.

An audience of average Americans would not have done any of this.

The more you think about an issue the more extreme you become about it.

The extreme turn to the right and ironically Social Darwinism is isolating the Republican party from many key demographics. They brought up the birth control situation. The catholic birth control bill had been sitting since mid-January with no media coverage until Newt brought it up and started the media firestorm.

The average American does not care what the Catholic bishops think and it will not influence there discussions so they had to turn it into backing Obama look like he was the enemy of religious freedom.

In reality this is not about Religious freedom, but about religious privilege.

The sudden swift to social issues shows that the Republican party is insecure about it's ability to win the Americans on Economic issues. Mind you that will likely change in the coming months with conflicts in Iran will lead to the highest gas prices, yet.

Then they will use that fear of Iran to win over the American people with promises of protection of military toughness. In the end if war with Iran happens....

Post originally from my personal blog

http://salt-onlywhoresusefrozenorangejuice.blogspot.com

[Aurora]

They cheered at the mention of a man dieing because he could not afford medical care.

http://salt-onlywhoresusefrozenorangejuice.blogspot.com

Are you serious, really?

[MrsYoungie]

Are you serious, really?

oh yeah. i saw it too. unbekievable, but true!

[Conuly]

OMG is there a video of that?

[Austin]

Are you serious, really?

Yes, Ron Paul was asked in a debate, given his stance against government mandated health insurance, what he would do if a healthy 30-year-old man who did not choose to get insurance came into the hospital and needed critical care. Before Paul could even begin to answer, someone from the audience shouted "Let him die!" Other knuckle-draggers applauded. It was heartwarming.

And then Paul answered, and didn't make his side look any better :(

[AtroposHeart]

OMG is there a video of that?

[Elle]

Are you serious, really?

I know a young mother who hasn't been able to get insurance. She has all the signs of a certain cancer, and she and her husband can't afford to even get her diagnosed. Her husband, who isn't yet 30, has been a non-stop taxpayer for 13 years, and she's a stay-at-home mom now who is pretty sick right now. They won't be able to get a diagnosis until she's sick enough an ER can't give her a quick look and tell her to go see another doctor on her own time. She has to wait until it's too late to save her life to get a diagnosis, so everyone just has to wait to see if it gets to that point. They make just too much to get any care on a sliding scale, but not enough to pay out of pocket. This is the kind of person that these Republicans are saying shouldn't get health care.

Those who don't work, whether because they can't, can't find jobs, or are just lazy fucks who don't see a point in working (they do exist!), already qualify for state health care and free care at clinics. This isn't even part of the debate. All that's being debated is people like that young mother who isn't living on any sort of aid who is a part of a struggling working family being able to access care to make sure her child has a mother growing up.

[Elle]

The #1 reason people go without insurance is that it's a financial hardship to pay for if they're healthy. A policy that's just $200-$300 won't cover very much, and you can expect a very high deductible to pay before anything will be paid for. Can't afford the deductible? Then you can't use the insurance your'e paying for. That's the price range for a policy that you get just because you're forced to have one. $200-$300 is more than many people have to spare a month, even people who are living no frill lives. So yes, a lot of healthy people make the decision to go without insurance BECAUSE THEY NEED TO PAY RENT AND EAT FOOD.

[Maude]

...and this is coming from the so-called 'pro-life' folks. :doh:

[Austin]

The Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to pay for a preventive care visit annually with no copay or coinsurance.

http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factshee ... sforAdults

[chiccy]

They booed Romney because his father was born in Mexico

Really? Are you sure about this? I saw one debate where he mentioned that his father was born in Mexico, and I don't remember anyone booing. Do you have a link to what you're talking about?

[chiccy]

I know a young mother who hasn't been able to get insurance. She has all the signs of a certain cancer, and she and her husband can't afford to even get her diagnosed. [...] She has to wait until it's too late to save her life to get a diagnosis, so everyone just has to wait to see if it gets to that point. They make just too much to get any care on a sliding scale, but not enough to pay out of pocket.

Obviously I don't know what this woman's situation is, and I'm sorry she's going through this. However, I really don't buy what you're saying. You literally said that "she has to wait until it's too late to save her life to get a diagnosis" because "they make just too much to get any care on a sliding scale, but not enough to pay out of pocket." Really? Some sliding scales go up pretty high, and there are a number of free clinics that accept everyone. I refuse to believe that this family who is not at the poverty level (=not eligible for sliding scales) cannot find any way to get a diagnosis. Also, "she has to wait until it's too late to save her life to get a diagnosis" sounds like bluffing.

I'm sorry for her situation either way, and I realize that many people are in extremely difficult positions because of the way health care works in this country, but the way you're describing this particular case does not sound realistic.

[AtroposHeart]

Really? Are you sure about this? I saw one debate where he mentioned that his father was born in Mexico, and I don't remember anyone booing. Do you have a link to what you're talking about?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/16/gop-debate-audience-boos-romneys-mexican-heritage/

[chiccy]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/16/gop-debate-audience-boos-romneys-mexican-heritage/

Thanks. This is bad alright.

[AudreyE]

Obviously I don't know what this woman's situation is, and I'm sorry she's going through this. However, I really don't buy what you're saying. You literally said that "she has to wait until it's too late to save her life to get a diagnosis" because "they make just too much to get any care on a sliding scale, but not enough to pay out of pocket." Really? Some sliding scales go up pretty high, and there are a number of free clinics that accept everyone. I refuse to believe that this family who is not at the poverty level (=not eligible for sliding scales) cannot find any way to get a diagnosis. Also, "she has to wait until it's too late to save her life to get a diagnosis" sounds like bluffing.

I'm sorry for her situation either way, and I realize that many people are in extremely difficult positions because of the way health care works in this country, but the way you're describing this particular case does not sound realistic.

I'm not questioning your healthy skepticism at all, because stories like this can't be taken at face value, but I am equally skeptical that there free clinics available to most people. I've never seen one in any of the places I've lived (several cities in Michigan, southern Cali and the South).

I personally was caught in the middle for many years. I made too much for get Medicaid, but not enough to afford an individual policy (which ended up being $450 per month for our family when we finally made enough money to get one.)

[jaelh]

I refuse to believe that this family who is not at the poverty level (=not eligible for sliding scales) cannot find any way to get a diagnosis....

the way you're describing this particular case does not sound realistic.

And here in lies the issue, chiccy. That you 'refuse to believe' something does not mean that your state of non-belief is, in fact, correct.

Presumably there are details of the story missing, but I'll note you've made a few assumptions:

1) that the family isn't on the poverty line

2) that anyone over the poverty line can afford medical co-pays - the corollary of which is

3) that "some sliding scale" will meet the families needs/goes high enough

and based on these you conclude:

4) that the story "sounds like bluffing"

We all see what we want to see when we read a story like this; and we all fill in the blanks according to our belief system. While I'm completely with you, that there must be details missing, I'm surprised you go straight to "bluffing" before enquiring to see if your assumptions can be substantiated.

[chiccy]

And here in lies the issue, chiccy. That you 'refuse to believe' something does not mean that your state of non-belief is, in fact, correct.

Presumably there are details of the story missing, but I'll note you've made a few assumptions:

1) that the family isn't on the poverty line

2) that anyone over the poverty line can afford medical co-pays - the corollary of which is

3) that "some sliding scale" will meet the families needs/goes high enough

and based on these you conclude:

4) that the story "sounds like bluffing"

We all see what we want to see when we read a story like this; and we all fill in the blanks according to our belief system. While I'm completely with you, that there must be details missing, I'm surprised you go straight to "bluffing" before enquiring to see if your assumptions can be substantiated.

I assumed #1, that the family isn't on the poverty line, because Elle said "they make too much to get any care on a sliding scale." From my quick bit of research, it seems that most sliding scales at clinics include people on the poverty line and even above. Or, if we are to assume this is true, and that this family is in fact too wealthy to get discounted care anywhere, then it seems like a stretch that they can't afford to get a diagnosis until her cancer is no longer treatable. Maybe it would put them into debt to get a diagnosis, but they damn well should do it anyway! This is why I'm not buying it.

That leads to the other thing I thought was unrealistic. The part I called "bluffing" was when she said, literally, "she has to wait until it's too late to save her life to get a diagnosis." This was in the context of an unconvincing explanation about how the woman couldn't possibly get an evaluation at the ER until she was beyond help: "They won't be able to get a diagnosis until she's sick enough an ER can't give her a quick look and tell her to go see another doctor on her own time. She has to wait until it's too late to save her life to get a diagnosis." Doesn't seem literally true.

I have no idea what the woman's actual situation is, and it might well be very bad. It could just be that Elle is prone to hyperbole or has misunderstood what is happening to her friend. I don't think I "filled in the blanks according to [my] belief system"; I have said I don't know the truth of the situation. I am specifically calling bluff on the things Elle is saying; logically speaking, at least some of them must be exaggerations, because they don't fit together.

[chiccy]

I'm not questioning your healthy skepticism at all, because stories like this can't be taken at face value, but I am equally skeptical that there free clinics available to most people. I've never seen one in any of the places I've lived (several cities in Michigan, southern Cali and the South).

There are a bunch in my area (including clinics that charge a nominal fee, like $10-20.) However, now that I think about it, a free clinic probably isn't the best place to get a cancer diagnosis, especially if it's something complicated. They do have doctors working at these places but I'm not sure how many of them have access to oncologists. So I'll withdraw what I said about free clinics' being a good solution in this case.

ETA: A little more research has shown that free clinics dealing with cancer specifically are not that uncommon (example: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/healt ... g-the-soul), but they do seem to be restricted to low-income people. So it's back to what I was saying before.

The "donut hole" (broadly speaking) is a really sucky place to be; I don't dispute that. My problem is really that I think Elle should edit her language so her story doesn't sound unduly farfetched.