is it unsisterly to think that Sarah Palin is horrid and the worst possible example of a woman in power

[beforesunrise]

ok, I used to think that as women we ought to support other women to almost unreasonable levels. i was totally for Hillary despite Obama's star appeal.... but then came Sarah Palin. i abhor her and everything she stands for. i am incredibly disgusted by the level of PC that prevents people from stating the obvious, ie that she is an incredibly BAD mother and she gives women a bad name.. i mean WTF, going back to work after 3 DAYS of giving birth, exposing your pregnant 17 yo to national attentionand not being there for her while she needs you most... she keeps banging on about being a hockey mom but having delivered 5 children is not the same thing about being a good mum. she is also incredibly, scarily unqualified for the job. i cannot find one ounce of feminist feeling for her... and it makes me question my beliefs!

AN, Here is a look and comparison of Obama's tax plans vs. McCain's tax plans:

Obama?s Tax Plan Better for Working Families Than McCain?s

95% of working families are better off under Obama's plan. If I lived in the US, we would be paying slightly more under Obama's plan than McCain's but there would still be a substantial tax cut, but IMO, the knowledge that all my fellow citizens would have equal access to healthcare is certainly worth the extra. Only the very wealthy would pay more, so I very much disagree with you that these taxpayers cannot afford it. Under Obama's plan, a taxpayer would not pay more if they earn up to about $600,000. And the taxpayers who really are struggling in these hard economic times would get the tax relief.

I have two sisters who live in Chicago who both get healthcare provided by the government. So do their children. They get better healthcare than I do on the NHS.

I think the patients rather than the insurance companies are the true losers in a system of nationalised heathcare.

Do Obama's figures include pulling out of Iraq? My guess is they do. And I think pulling out of Iraq now is actually not possible so I believe he can really achieve that savings.

Must admit, I should a bit more research on budgets. But, generally speaking, the domocrats like to raise them and the Republicans like to lower them.

I am largely unpartisan myself but am a neoliberal (as apposed to neoconservative - thjough they might be very similar) - I support progressive humaitarian policies - but also believ that moving out of Iraq would be humanitarian catastrophy far worse than the situation now (or even before we went in).

and some of the stuff Clinton did in office is the opposite of what you would expect from a democrat - they talked the talk, but went the opposite way with the walk. I'd recommend 'no one left to lie' for an expose of the Clinton sleight of hand.

The story behind his 'womanising' the intimidaion of women who were past conquests so they wouldn't speak up is abominable

Athene, on what basis is your sister entitled to healthcare?

I would really dispute this picture though. My mother is a doctor in the US and it's in meltdown. She does a lot of pro bono work, and the conditions are borderline inhumane as opposed to those who are insured (privately insured).

Have you had the clip of the Gina Gershon impersonation yet?
here

I saw SP on the news today being interviewed about her son going to Iraq etc. I was speechless. And scared.

I guess the basis is because she has basically no income. She gets a tiny bit of child support from her x husband, but that's about it.

Well, while I am pleased for Athene's sister and children, for the majority of uninsured Americans, they do not get good healthcare, and most not at all.

What is appalling is that it is viewed as a partisan issue. It is not! Yes, I disagree with Athene as far as the best method in which to achieve this - she believes in small government, and I believe that it's a human right to expect health care. But there are other examples - look at the Oregon model where the state effectively affords its citizens a basic type of health care.

I don't think its unsisterly - just like men some women are also bad and Sarah Palin is just awful.

I don't really care about her poor family but anybody that believes it can be right to make a child ensure labour is inhumane IMO.

I have a hard time believing the figures of Americans who get no cover. How come all the poor people I know are not suffering from these circumstances. My sisters don't get special treatment. They get what all poor people get. Are you including illegal immigrants in these figures?

We all pay an awful lot of money in the UK for the NHS, and I can't see we get much for it. Looks more like a black hole for my hard earned tax money. The service is okay, depending on your post code of course. But it's not great. And it certainly doesn't hold a patch on the US system.

About a month ago my DS bashed hi head on the merry go round (roundabout?) and was dizzy and then vomitted. Nanny called an ambulance after having been refused treatment at the GP across the street because we weren't registered there. And then when they got to the hospital, they said that he probably threw up because he was nervous about those doctors whome he didn't know. What?!?!?! erm...my boy had a concussion. When I told my SIL in the US (who is training to be a nurse) she was truly shocked and couldn't believe they didn't keep him over night and offer some scans of his brain to be sure he was okay.

A&E was the appopriate place to go in any case, but does your nanny not have transport? They only keep people in ovenight (do scans etc) if there is a worry about concussion. As presumably your son is fine then weren't they right in sending him home (where I presume he wanted to be). My experience of the US healthcare is that there is lots of overtreatment, tests etc so long as they are sure of payment. Not that I think the NHS is perfect. I have US friends who are still paying off medical bills several years down the line. My dh was recently made redundant. The cost for insuring our family is $1,200 every month if we want to continue with cover.

Oh and as we are in NYC we won't get turned away if we have an accident, but we can't access any preventative care or the equivalent of GP treatment (ie my husband would have to pay straight up to get his infected ear looked at by an E&T specialist). When I had an accident in Utah a few years ago I was taken to a local hospital and had to give my insurance details before they would even look at me. It was half an hour before I was seen because they were checking I was covered, and I had blood dripping out of my chin (turned out I had broken my jaw and my arm). I was chased for a bill of over $20k.

While A&E was the appropriate place for him to be, you'd think the GP could have called the amulance for them or at least suggested they do so. They just said "Because you aren't registered here, we can't help you" Good thing nanny had the good sense to know what to do!

And then, the stupid people at A&E failed to recognise his symptoms as a concussion.

So two complaints in this story.

I agree insurance companies can be a pain and I am certainly not their friend. I had knee surgery when I was at uni. It was £30k. I had to chase and chase the insurance company. I finally threateneted to report them to the better business bureau and suddenly they paid the hospital. So there a tip for you: threten the BBB.

"We all pay an awful lot of money in the UK for the NHS, and I can't see we get much for it."

PMSL

I couldn't have demonstrated a better example of predjudice based on blind ignorance. Now I know a debate is not to be had with you. No amount of facts would shake you of your convictions - which is of course another definition of predjudice.

Underfunded children's mental health services aside, I have always had excellent care using the NHS. When my prem baby was in SBCU for two weeks, I stayed in the hospital with her to work on feeding issues. My GP has made home visits just to see how my poorly baby was doing. My DC have had immediate attention in A&E when required and one of them has had years of ongoing specialist consultant paediatric care.

When I lived in the US, I had to give up my insurance for awhile while a student and I couldn't afford it, and wouldn't you bet that I had a medical problem that needed urgent attention. Took me years to pay it off.

I think I read recently that we pay on average about £2,000 a year for the NHS. Which is not very much. To call an abmulance here in the States I would pay $500, and our insurance for a year would cost over $10,000. Healthcare is very expensive.

Athene - you are actually arguing for some sort of safety net as far as health care. Medicare/Medicaid is a federal program, which is what you sister would be getting, so am not sure what your objection is?

I don't think your nanny should have called an ambulance unless you ds was obviously injured (I assume not if she took him to the GP). Ambulances are very misused here (as is A&E for that matter).

He had a concussion. He hit his head. Was immediately dizzy and falling asleep. Then he vomitted. Any moron knows those are classic concussion symptoms.

Anyway, the point is that a government run health system does not, in my opinion, provide a better service. I think it provides an equal but worse service for everyone.

So, back to SP, I forgot to list one of things I don't support: stem cell research. I mean I don't support her opposition to it. I think it's saft to prevent this research. Surely they have not saved a life because no one has an abortion so that they can contribute to stem cell research.

A total free for all + basic safety net gives a good but inefficient system to the well off and employed (ie insured) and a survivable system for the poor (Medicaid/Medicare) but major problems for those in the middle (those with insecure jobs, or jobs without insurance benefits). There are well documented problems with pretty much all health systems due to aging populations and growing costs, but the inequalities of the US one are a major concern.

The Obama plan is mainly about widening insurance so that everyone has some sort of cover, and tightening up on regulation. It is not particularly radical - no nationalising of hospitals or insurers, so really no socialism involved. However I do think fixing the US system would be extremely difficult and expensive, and involve defeating a number of vested interests.

So why didn't she drive him there? I see that the doctor's was across the road from the playground, so fair enough to visit there. I expect the receptionist blocked access to a doctor/nurse though, which was a pity, they can be very territorial.

She doesn't have a car.

OK. Point taken. Sorry to have gone on a bit. Anyway not really relevant to this thread I guess.

I worked for the NHS and whilst I know there are many flaws still think it is a great and good thing that in the UK people don't have to worry about paying medical bills (in general, because there are the cases where it has been decided that a particular treatment is too expensive to fund). Now I live in the States I feel even more what a huge social benefit we have. As I managed both complaints and claims (and poor performance too) I know that things are not always how they should be, but I have no doubt that this is true in any system (I certainly hope so as I want to get a job out here).

I agree that both systems have their flaws. And I also agree that there are areas where the NHS does a fantastic job. Insurance companies can be a real thorn in my dise in the states. And I agree they have too moch control over medical policies. For example the length of your stay in the hospital is largely determined by how many days the insurance company will pay for it.

But, what I find of enormous benefit in the US system is patient choice. There is no catchment area which says you must go to this GP and that hospitl because you live in such and such PCT. In the US I would look up doctors in my area, I would find out things liek what they specialise in, where they went to school, how many years they's been in practice and then I would decide which doctor I wanted to go to.

Whilst this post is a bit long winded I think it is relevant because I think Obamas plan is the thin edge of socialised medicine wedge. And, also, I think his plan will be for more costly than he says. How can he possibly indroduce medical cover for everyone and cut taxes? I find that claim unlikely if not impossible.

Well I agree with you on the last point. Increasing coverage will be expensive, as has been shown in the states that have tried it. It should have benefits to the economy, but that will take some time to happen, and may be very difficult to show (too many confounding factors).

However I don't agree with your first point. Most people are insured through work, and most plans (especially the cheaper ones) have limitations on who you can see. For example when trying to find a GP equivalent for the children we could not find the closest practice and walk in, we had to pick from the list provided by the insurance company. None of which were within walking distance, and none of which had been recommended by other parents we know. I can't say I think we had a good level of choice there! A friend of my husband's did a lot of research about where to have her baby, and then found out she would have to pay a premium for the one she wanted. Again not great.

In the UK we had four or five practices to choose from, and usually three hospitals for most routine care (probably more now with the whole choice thing). I had four choices for maternity care. I also think choice is fine for routine or elective care, but not so great when you are highly stressed, when in the UK you can simply say to your GP you make the choice (as many do), rather than pull up lists of specialists and start to research about things where you may have little confidence in your ability to make a good choice.