Gandalf's situation

Sherry wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:32 pm, "Cheryl" wrote:
"Sherry" wrote in message

...

Maybe Cheryl just took offense at the comparison to third-world health
care,
which is maybe just a little inaccurate. Or maybe she doesn't think
rec.pets.cats.anecdotes is the right place to bash US health care
policy. Or
to bash *any* policies of *any* countries. I don't see why Cheryl has
to
be the one to be "polite" as you say if she doesn't like something.
My point was just that she takes every opportunity to bash the US and
sometimes it just hits a nerve and while I try not to say anything anymore,
sometimes it just comes out. I like Tweed, I really do, but her USA bashing
doesn't belong here. IMO.

I knew that was your point. I like Tweed too, and I think she probably
likes me okay, but I hate the political-policy discussions here too.

Sherry

Why should rpca be immune? Whatever the stated purpose of these
newsgroups, political discussion (along with spam) creeps in from time
to time. At least this group manages to remain mostly civil in our
discussions. (Unlike rec.travel.europe, where Obama bashing and American
right wing extremism has pretty well driven serious travel posters away
- especially those from Europe, who really couldn't care less.)

On Oct 24, 5:27*pm, wrote:
Kelly Greene wrote:

* Those on the Welfare dole here get good care.

??? You can't be serious. A welfare check is barely livable. Public
assistance is a nightmare.

I think she was referring to what I mentioned in my earlier post:
Anyone can walk into an emergency room and get treatment and just not
pay the bill. This isn't as good as being able to get follow-up care,
etc, but it does mean that being indigent doesn't mean no health care.
This is true for people in the situation I was in, not merely welfare
recipients. I had a job but no real-estate or assets that could be
found and seized. What could they do?

However, if you do have any assets you can be caught in a dilemma that
would not impact a poorer person.

--
Will in New Haven

On Oct 24, 5:05*pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:
Sherry wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:32 pm, "Cheryl" wrote:
"Sherry" wrote in message

....

Maybe Cheryl just took offense at the comparison to third-world health
care,
which is maybe just a little inaccurate. Or maybe she doesn't think
rec.pets.cats.anecdotes is the right place to bash US health care
policy. Or
to bash *any* policies of *any* countries. I don't see why Cheryl has
to
be the one to be "polite" as you say if she doesn't like something.
My point was just that she takes every opportunity to bash the US and
sometimes it just hits a nerve and while I try not to say anything anymore,
sometimes it just comes out. *I like Tweed, I really do, but her USA bashing
doesn't belong here. *IMO.

I knew that was your point. I like Tweed too, and I think she probably
likes me okay, but I hate the political-policy discussions here too.

Sherry

Why should rpca be immune? *Whatever the stated purpose of these
newsgroups, political discussion (along with spam) creeps in from time
to time. *At least this group manages to remain mostly civil in our
discussions. (Unlike rec.travel.europe, where Obama bashing and American
right wing extremism has pretty well driven serious travel posters away
- especially those from Europe, who really couldn't care less.)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sigh. I did not say rpca should be immune. I said I hated it. Politics
and
religion discussions never tend to end well.

Sherry

Will in New Haven wrote:

??? You can't be serious. A welfare check is barely livable. Public
assistance is a nightmare.

I think she was referring to what I mentioned in my earlier post:
Anyone can walk into an emergency room and get treatment and just not
pay the bill. This isn't as good as being able to get follow-up care,
etc, but it does mean that being indigent doesn't mean no health care.
This is true for people in the situation I was in, not merely welfare
recipients. I had a job but no real-estate or assets that could be
found and seized. What could they do?

However, if you do have any assets you can be caught in a dilemma that
would not impact a poorer person.

It's true, there are a lot of people who fall through the cracks -
poor enough to be unable to afford doctor visits or insurance, but
not poor enough to get on public health insurance. That plan was
put into place to help out everyone who can't afford healthcare,
but the reality is that the threshold for poverty has gotten lower
and lower over the years, until only the absolute poorest can get
public assistance. That leaves people who are pretty damn impoverished
without a safety net because they're not the absolutely worst off.

Joyce

--
Beauty and music seduce us first; later, ashamed of our own
sensuality, we insist on meaning. -- Clive Barker

"Cheryl" wrote in message
...
On 2010-10-23 3:16 PM, Christina Websell wrote:
et wrote in message
...


Cheryl wrote:
You really don't want to go there with what you don't know.

She doesn't? What doesn't she know? Given the escalating health-care
costs in this country, and the way so many Americans seem to fall for
the
propaganda being generated by the health care industry here, it's time
we
got some informed opinions from people whose governments look upon
health
care as a basic right for all! (Many of us feel that the "life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness" called for in the Declaration of
Independence implies health care under the heading of "life".)

If you all in the USA would agree to having an amount taken out of your
wages every month, like we do (well I'm not sure I agreed to it, but that
is
what we do) you would never need to worry about healthcare. Ever.
You would never see someone too afraid to go to hospital with suspected
broken ribs and other injuries, as I have seen on here in case it costs
too
much.

Tweed

In the US, if I may speak as a non-American neighbour, the many issues
don't include an unwillingness to pay something every month towards health
care. A lot of Americans do exactly that - they buy health insurance.

For themselves.
Tweed