Kerry Speaks to Black Baptist Convention

Kerry likes to quote The Holy Bible. In St. Louis, I think that he used the Catholic Bible in a Protestant church.

The GOP should not send speakers into arenas where they are going to be booed by the audience as if they were talking to a bunch of college students. In spite of Kerry's efforts to hold the Black vote in the Democrat column, more and more are going to vote GOP because they have found out that they can be successful in life without a government program that really is a snare. Already, we have seen many Jews take an interest in the GOP for the first time since 1928.

Here in Indianapolis, Black Congresswoman Julia Carson is calling for UN observors on election day and many Blacks still think that Florida was stolen in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Kerry may be faced with low turnout more than defection.

 

And, what is *this* statement designed to do?

 

It's unfortunate really... democrats proclaim they are for blacks, for middle class, etc... but all of their actions to 'help' these people have only the effect of keeping these people bound in their situation, or dependent on the government to help them out.

Republican measures are meant to help people get out of their situation, and rewards people for bettering themselves. It takes the 'responsibility' for people off the Government and lets people determine their own destiny. The difference is that in the democratic system, the government is responsible for U and your decisions... in the republican system You are responsible for you and your decisions. If you screw up your life, or are too lazy to get a job or try to better yourself or your family, then the democrat's system is for you, and you will do better under that system. On the other hand, if you are driven, motivated to better yourself and your family... and willing to take the responsibility for doing so, then the republican system is for you.

The democrat's system is cheaper easier, but has far less potential. The republican system is harder, but the results are real and the potential is unlimited.

For example - I saw a thing on the news about a goverment health care system in Europe. A man said it took his son 8 weeks to be seen by the right doctor who could treat his illness because of all the bureacratic red tape they had to go through to get everything government approved. The kid did recieve treatment, but was limited to the ammount and quality of the treatment by the costs of each proceedure. In some countries, for example, you don't get health care if you are deemed a 'lost cause' or have an incurable disease. Why? Because it would cost the government too much money to pay for your treatment, and you aren't going to recover anyway. So you have effectively lost your ability to choose your treatments, your doctors, and the very choice of life or death for you is in the governments accounting department's hands. Anyone ever deal with the IRS? Just imagine having to talk to the IRS when you wanted a perscription filled... or if you needed surgery.

The Democrats are into 'helping' their constituants remain dependent on them... it helps their re-election chances and prey's on the laziness and insecurity of people. The Republicans think people are capable of making their own decisions and giving them the opportunity to get out of poverty and do something. Growth and increase is encouraged, while those who CHOOSE to remain stagnant will get exactly what they earn for themselves. But those who CHOOSE to try and better themselves also will get exactly what they earn for themselves... a better life. It takes the responsibility for YOU off the government and puts it where it belongs... on YOU. That means you can be as big or small as YOU want to be... instead of as big or small as uncle sam thinks you should be.

 

Here's the problem; in many countries with socialized medicine, people are healthier and live longer than they do here.

And they all spend less on health care than we do.

We pay more and get less.

So we should go for national health care, right?

Wrong. I don't trust the fools we have running the government. We'd end up with a boondoggle like the prescription drug program, costing more, and doing even less.

First clean up the WH and Congress, and then work on reforms.

 

So you want socialized medicine under John Kerry?

 

Yes.

Or Bush, but preferrably Kerry.

 

Um, do middle class people actually object to their "situation" in general? I'd rather be "bound" to the middle class by the Democrats than pushed into poverty by the Republicans.


What situation do you think Democrats are keeping blacks bound to?

Specifics? The spread between rich and poor expands during Republican regimes. In the 80s they even campaigned on the issue.

How, exactly, are people prevented from determining their own destiny by the Democrats? Taking away the safety net may add drama and risk, but I think it's a bad idea.

This is long on rhetoric and mighty short of fact.

(Btw, there is a major difference between "democratic system" which supposedly is the American way and the "Democratic system" which you apparently abhore.)

IOW, Democrats = loser; Republican = winner.

How is the so-called democrat's system (toss the drowning man a rope) cheaper and easier? In the so-called republican system (dog eat dog) who is the potential unlimited for? Which system benefits the greatest number of people?

The way you put it, the Democratic system is more forgiving, which I have always thought was one of the best of the Christian ideals.

Which one? Denmark? Greece? Bulgaria?

If the man could pay extra on his own, would the boy have received better care? I don't see how that is different from here, except that here, unless the man has very good insurance, he could wind up impoverished.

Which countries, for example? Mali? Haiti?

In your proposal, a person is deemed a 'lost cause' if he can't pay for treatment. Oh, unless he 'depends' on socialistic government-run public healthcare, which you seem to want to abolish.

Whereas here in America, if you have the money, you get the treatment - although 8 weeks to see a specialist is not unusual - if you have insurance, maybe they'll cover the treatment and maybe they won't and maybe they'll simply delay approval until it's too late, and if you don't have insurance or a lot of money, then we have the Democrats' solution of public healthcare via public hospitals. You seem to be advocating that people too stupid or lazy to be rich or well-insured may as well just die.

I take it you've never belonged to an HMO or dealt with a bad insurance company...

That's just nonsense. You haven't given one solid example that what you say has any truth whatsoever. Name one piece of Democratic legislation which prevents a person from taking responsibility for himself.

 

At last you admit that you want socialized medicine, Daisy. The truth is that we already have it for the poor. They go to county hospitals and get free treatment. A more likely case is that we might give health insurance through private companies to those who can't afford it. That is what we should have done with Medicare.

One of the other guys at work is an incurable hypochondriac; his only hope for a cure is socialized medicine because Blue Cross is just too expensive in deductables alone for him to buy all of the medicine that he needs.

As a person from rural Indiana now stuck in a God-forsaken big city, I think that the less one has to do with the government the better off one is. Afterall, FDR himself said that welfare is a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human soul.

Which brings us to the point again that Kerry may not get as many votes from minorities as he needs if they stay home because they too are sick of big government.

 

At last? I don't recall having denied it.

That's right. Are you opposed to this?

More likely than what?

I know that that is what the private companies are lobbying for. I'm not sure how adding another level of bureaucracy, that of the private companies, is going to save money.

If he is a hypochondriac, what kind of doctors prescribe unneeded prescription medicines? The money might be better spent on mental healthcare, but that's another story.

Did he say that? How very poetic of him.

True enough, but a big 'if'.

 

Daisy, let's look at your low expectations for all Americans.

The USA has the best healthcare system in the history of the world. You admit that the needs of the poor are met by county hospitals that give them medicine in spite of their inability to pay. Therefore there is no need for government control of medicine.


And talking about another level of bureauracy, that is a wrong assumption. Under socialized medicine, it would be administered by government bureaucrats. If the poor elderly were to be given health insurance to pay for prescriptions under Medicare, then it would be administered by experts in the health insurance business--a much cheaper prospect than an added layer of government workers. Governments already have too many people on their payrolls.

And, yes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt did say that welfare is a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human soul. He should know; he started it.

There are some minorities who do not look to the government for the solution of their problems. Those might vote for Bush or stay home. Kerry is not an attractive choice unless one wants more government spending, more taxes, and more government intrusion into private lives.

 

I've been on the state medicaid system, and it is NOT all that you guys seem to think it is.
One still ends up paying for needed treatment. For example, my daughter had an infected tooth. No dentist would take state insurance. I ended up paying for it. What if I wouldn't have been able to? I was told by the ER that they would give her antibiotics, but that they wouldn't pull the tooth, although the bill would be paid for. She'd have to keep taking the antibiotics for as long as the tooth was in her mouth.
Also, I was refused diagnosis of a visible tumor, because mammograms aren't "cost efficient" for people my age, so history didn't matter. They said to go back when I was 45. That was when I was 27. LOL
Then when they thought I had the same type of tumor in my brain, I couldn't get an MRI done properly because the type used to diagnose it wasn't covered. I remember commenting "but if that's what this is I could die suddenly, any minute if it grows. I have kids. What should I do?" . I was told to make out my will if I was worried.
Ever had an annual physical done from a doctor who isn't too thrilled that he's not getting paid much for it? OUCH
Is it fair to the doctors to get paid only a fraction of what they get from insured or cash paying patients?
No.
I still have medical bills being paid off slowly from my "free healthcare" time. I'm glad I'm not dead though! But...it is not a wonderful problem solving plan. About the only thing a number of people can do who are on it is use the ER, especially in rural areas because most doctors won't accept it. Then you have a government shelling out hundreds and thousands of more dollars to ER's for visits that are not emergencies, because the person couldn't find a doctor that would take the medical card.
Nah, it's not a good plan. Not for the poor people, and not for the government, and not for the citizens. It's good to have emergency care when you need it, but it's a really messed up way of getting it.
Without insurance? Hah. My first child was a c section and although we had a payment plan and had counted that in as a possibility, it is still ridiculous to have to pay that much for a baby to be born. Even without a c section is was near $4,000 totalled.
Gina

 

Indianapolis has a county hospital administered by the Indiana University School of Medicine. Those unable to pay--even illegals--are given heathcare. The hospital does ask patients to go to Medicaid to see if they qualify.

Probably rural Indiana would not have much help other than Medicaid. I do not know what Indiana Medicaid pays and what it does not pay. In Indiana, Medicaid is for people who will be disabled for at least one year. The system works in Indiana. For low cost dental or eye care, one can go to clinics staffed by medical students training under supervision of professors.

However, after Nine Eleven, the county hospital did get a federal bailout of some kind in the amount of four million dollars as I recall.

 

I don't know what you mean by "expectations", except that what we have now doesn't serve all that many people well.

By what metrics? We have one of the highest infant mortality rates of the industrialized nations. I don't know that we live any longer or better than most comparable (in terms of wealth) nations.

No, although they can get care at public hospitals, it usually is only emergency care. Many rural people don't live anywhere near a hospital and urban hospitals are generally way overcrowded & understaffed (if NYC hospitals are the norm). The public health clinics here were mostly closed during the 80's budget crunch.

The government controls much of medicine now through fees, licenses, regulations, research funding and grants.

Yes, and why not? We already have much of it in place with medicare and medicaid.

How would it be cheaper (except by denying care a la HMOs)? The insurance "experts" are often a clerk with an incentive to deny care and boost profits for themselves and the company they serve. A layer of bureacracy is needed in any case, if only to oversee the insurance companies, enforce compliance and sue when necessary. I say cut out the middle layer.

I haven't seen any of that demonstrated. Democrats have become the party of fiscal responsibility, in a weird switcharoo.

 

Just not true that Kerry is fiscally responsible. He has proposed massive increases in spending and additional tax increases.

The main problem with government employees is that someone has to work and pay taxes so that a government employee can be hired. Thus government employees are not responsive to the market place, as shown by your own statements about health insurance clerks who follow policy guidlines set by their corporations. Health insurance allows an individual freedom of choice in medical care. The private sector always operates cheaper than the public sector.

You speak of infant mortality, but you neglect to mention that you support abortion on demand. Abortion counts for thousands of deaths of people everyday, but where is your concern for that?

 

Another reason that minorities might not want big government is that part of the high cost of medicine is due to lawsuits by trial lawyers like John Edwards who sway juries based upon what is now known to be junk science medicine and raise the medical costs by millions of dollars. He leads the good life from his junk science; all of us pay for it. Not only that, but he also found a loophole and shortchanged the medicare system out of a half million dollars. So much for the social conscience of Democrats.

The AMA has been trying for several years to cap pain and suffering at a quarter of a million dollars in order to hold down healthcare costs. So far the Democrats have refused to allow that to pass Congress.

Some members of minorities are aware of the facts. Women are deserting Kerry--they don't like girlie men who wind surf at Nantucket in floral bathing suits.