Do you need to vent about things COVID-19?

[Silent Mistwalker]

With all the political arguing going on in this thread it has become useless to those of us who need it for its original purpose. Venting about Civid-19, NOT POLITICS.

 

Thanks a lot.

Edited November 3, 2020 by Silent Mistwalker

[Amina Sopwith]

I don't mind masks. Men keep getting things off shelves for me and insisting I go in front of them in queues, and people on tills keep IDing me when I buy alcohol. People think I'm young and sexy when they can't see my face.

[Luna Bliss]

5 hours ago, Maryanne Solo said:

The thread is about Covid-19 NOT USA politics.
Was the blame game in effect for Spanish Flu?
Covid 19 is laughing at you and no doubt will come knocking. Unfortunately.

We have zero new cases but I still wear a mask and use Isopropyl alcohol spray.
The issue goes far beyond politics.

Well it's an old saying so apropos here, Maryanne --  the personal is political. The political parties determine who gets health care in the US, and this is central to the Covid crisis where much treatment will be needed. Personally, I'd be dead without the push by the Democrats to enact the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that allowed 20 million more people in the US to obtain health insurance -- I needed expensive medication I could not afford unless covered by health insurance. But the Republicans want to end Obamacare, leaving millions of Americans without health coverage in the middle of a pandemic.

Various social service programs are also affected by how much money is allotted for them, especially needed in this Covid crisis -- disabled kids, hungry kids, homeless families...and more...are affected by political parties that decide who gets coverage. We have a major hunger crisis in America atm due to Covid, not to mention the coming homelessness when rents come due.

 

Edited November 3, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

10 hours ago, Atosuria Daviau said:

I know about autocrats and dictators I was a history teacher for most of my life.

your view on the mindset on both parties is .. instigating but is not supported by evidence

Evidence? I read a lot of books and watch presentations by various scholars. Authoritarianism is being discussed a lot lately. While it's good to get a sense of it, a firm background, by reading people such as Hannah Arendt from decades ago, authoritarianism has a different flavor in modern times, but the fundamentals are the same.

"Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of a strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.[1] Political scientists have created many typologies describing variations of authoritarian forms of government.[1] Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic in nature and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military".  A severe reduction in freedoms is the result.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

A good modern scholar to check out is Anne Applebaum, a Pulitzer-prize winning historian who writes about authoritarianism in various countries:

"Anne's newest book The Twilight of Democracy:The Seductive Lure Of Authoritarianism explains, with electrifying clarity, why some of her contemporaries have abandoned liberal democratic ideals in favor of strongman cults, nationalist movements, or one-party states.

Across the world today, from the U.S. to Europe and beyond, liberal democracy is under siege while different forms of authoritarianism are on the rise. In Twilight of Democracy, prize-winning historian Anne Applebaum argues that we should not be surprised by this change: There is an inherent appeal to political systems with radically simple beliefs, especially when they benefit the loyal to the exclusion of everyone else.

People are not just ideological, she contends in this captivating extended essay; they are also practical, pragmatic, opportunist. The authoritarian and nationalist parties that have arisen within modern democracies offer new paths to wealth or power for their adherents. Describing politicians, journalists, intellectuals, and others who have abandoned democratic ideals in the UK, U.S., Spain, Poland, and Hungary, Applebaum reveals the patterns that link the new advocates of illiberalism and charts how they use conspiracy theory, political polarization, social media, and nostalgia to change their societies".

https://www.anneapplebaum.com/

In short, we don't want a political party in power that has a cruel philosophy with excessive, concentrated power which protects the rich and has little to offer 'the little guy', the people without health care in this Covid crisis.

* Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedges -- also good sources, lots of books and presentations on YouTube. Panel discussions with them and other scholars of authoritarianism on YouTube as well.

Edited November 3, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

10 hours ago, Atosuria Daviau said:

he study states that while the median line of the views of the republican party have shifted slightly more to the right it shows that it is the Democrats that have made the greater shift further to the left .

When deciding if the US has moved more to the 'right' or 'left' we'd need to include more variables than this study provides. Also, we'd need to go further back in time to determine which direction the US has moved as a short period doesn't incorporate the complexity needed to make this determination -- to the time of the New Deal when the wealthy paid 91% in taxes, and even before when Socialism, unions, and even Communism had a strong presence in the US.

Rather than defining what is 'left' or right' though I'm mainly concerned about who is attempting to circumvent democracy. Nothing is more central to Democracy than the right of each individual to vote, yet the Republicans are working hard to disqualify votes as we speak. Fortunately, for the most part the judicial system is blocking these attempts...but what does it say when one party does not believe in upholding the most fundamental tenant of a democracy?  Hello, authoritarianism -- they are trying to attempt a one-party rule and force society to be how they want (hence the packing of courts with evangelical judges).  Trump even complained that if everyone could vote then a Republican would never be elected again.

I'll say it again....I'm so concerned about health care in the middle of this Covid crisis, but perhaps we should start a separate thread about authoritarianism if you're interested?

[Luna Bliss]

19 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

With all the political arguing going on in this thread it has become useless to those of us who need it for its original purpose. Venting about Civid-19, NOT POLITICS.

 

Thanks a lot.

I guess you imagine your health care is secure and you don't have to worry about the possibility of a party coming into power that would leave you without care in the middle of this Covid crisis?

Sometimes the issues are a little deeper than it seems on the surface...

Nothing is more central to this Covid crisis than appropriate medical care so people can recover or even survive.

[Silent Mistwalker]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

I guess you imagine your health care is secure and you don't have to worry about the possibility of a party coming into power that would leave you without care in the middle of this Covid crisis?

Sometimes the issues are a little deeper than it seems on the surface...

Nothing is more central to this Covid crisis than appropriate medical care so people can recover or even survive.

What health care? I'm on ACA and have been refused treatment TWICE for a disease that is killing me slowly. The only way I will get treatment on ACA is if I am literally dying, when it will be too late to treat the disease. Sure, I can get treatment for the common cold or flu but if there is something really wrong? Forget it.

Medical care is NOT POLITICS and should never be.

There is no such thing as secure health care in the US.

 

Edited November 3, 2020 by Silent Mistwalker

[Dafadilia Wayfarer]

4 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

What health care? I'm on ACA and have been refused treatment TWICE for a disease that is killing me slowly. The only way I will get treatment on ACA is if I am literally dying, when it will be too late to treat the disease. Sure, I can get treatment for the common cold or flu but if there is something really wrong? Forget it.

Medical care is NOT POLITICS and should never be.

There is no such thing as secure health care in the US.

 

Just wanted to send hugs your way...

[Luna Bliss]

10 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

What health care? I'm on ACA and have been refused treatment TWICE for a disease that is killing me slowly. The only way I will get treatment on ACA is if I am literally dying. sure I can get treatment for the common cold or flu but if there is something really wrong? Forget it.

Medical care is NOT POLITICS and should never be.

There is no such thing as secure health care in the US.

Even though you appear to hate me with a vengeance, I'm sorry you can't get treatment and have to suffer.

I've never heard of someone with ACA insurance not being able to get treatment -- is it because of this type of insurance or is there another reason?

True, there is no absolute certainty on any kind of insurance as you still have to deal with agents whose priority is to make money for the company. However, if we have a public option with the Biden plan nobody would have to deal with those cr*ppy insurance companies with their profit motive -- health care would be much more secure, on par with other developed nations.

How can you say medical care is not politics -- 'politics' is defined as "who gets what, and how".  Never is this more true in the case of who is allowed to receive medical treatment. They make the rules.

What would you do without any access to the ACA at all if it's eliminated?  That is what Trumpie is pushing for. You could have other health issues that needed treatment before the one you say is slowly killing you, and unless you had $ there would be no way to get needed care.

Edited November 3, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[Silent Mistwalker]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

Even though you appear to hate me with a vengeance, I'm sorry you can't get treatment and have to suffer.

I've never heard of someone with ACA insurance not being able to get treatment -- is it because of this type of insurance or is there another reason?

True, there is no absolute certainty on any kind of insurance as you still have to deal with agents whose priority is to make money for the company. However, if we have a public option with the Biden plan nobody would have to deal with those cr*ppy insurance companies with their profit motive.

How can you say medical care is not politics -- 'politics' is defined as "who gets what, and how".  Never is this more true in the case of who is allowed to receive medical treatment. They make the rules.

What would you do without the ACA at all?  That is what Trumpie is pushing for. You could have other health issues that needed treatment before the one you say is slowly killing you, and unless you had $ there would be no way to get treatment.

I don't hate.

If I didn't have ACA I wouldn't know I was dying from a disease that was contracted from a blood transfusion during life saving surgery in 1984 that has now caused cirrhosis of my liver. Not that it's any of YOUR business. Now Medicaid wants even more blood for more tests before they will allow treatment for the Hep C. 

There is nothing political about that. 

Again, not that it is any of YOUR business but I voted for Biden. Now you can piss off with your bs political agenda.

Edited November 3, 2020 by Silent Mistwalker

[Luna Bliss]

10 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

I don't hate.

If I didn't have ACA I wouldn't know I was dying from a disease that was contracted from a blood transfusion during life saving surgery that has now caused cirrhosis of my liver. Not that it's any of YOUR business. Now Medicaid wants even more blood for more tests before they will allow treatment for the Hep C. 

There is nothing political about that. 

Again, not that it is any of YOUR business but I voted for Biden. Now you can piss off with your bs political agenda.

You mention Medicaid, but Medicaid is not ACA insurance. I have heard that Medicaid is more strict with this modern and expensive Hep C treatment (often over 100,000 usd!).  Keep pushing for it, and you should get it.  They are realizing that paying 100k or so is cheaper than a liver transplant, and so you have good leverage.

I don't have a political agenda, I have a SOCIAL WORK AGENDA, and that means I believe in fighting against the powers that oppress others which keep them from having a fulfilling life. In the service of this mission we have to cooperate with and influence those who have the power in society and make the rules -- we have to change the policies of the parties.

* btw, it's very political regarding the determination of who even gets to receive Medicaid. Many states have Republican governance that would not allow Medicaid expansion to cover more of the needy -- the working poor primarily.

Edited November 3, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[Silent Mistwalker]

I am on Medicaid via ACA. I wouldn't qualify for Medicaid if it weren't for ACA. You don't how it works in my state and I'm not going to sit here for hours explaining it all to you. Keep pushing? With what? Do you have any idea how exhausting it is just to get up in the morning when you have a blood born disease that is slowly killing your liver which in turn is slowly poisoning your body? What is wrong with you?

Your agenda is political in nature even if you won't admit it. 

Go away.

[Rowan Amore]

IMO the only thing that will fix the health care issues in this country is a reform to the insurance industry and their ultra powerful lobby.  Why is it that, for example, an uninsured person must pay $150 for an office visit yet that same visit when covered by insurance, gets a discount so that the insurance only has to pay $20?  It seems to me, the person (individual) who NEEDS the discount is the one who is uninsured.  

I've had emergency surgery twice in my life.  Once insured, once uninsured.  When insured, my insurance got a discount on ALL items that were covered.  I still had to pay my percentage but it was overall, a lot less than I would have had to pay.  When I was uninsured, I was able to get the actual hospital bill canceled as our income was low enough to be eligible.  However, the surgeon, anesthesiologist. radiologist, I had to pay in full, no discount.  How is that fair?  Why do the companies who we pay hundreds of dollars to for insurance coverage, get a 'discount' on services when it's the ones uninsured who need it?

It's also interesting that when the economy took a dive in 08, I didn't see any insurance companies looking for a bailout.  They, not government or policy, are what's wrong with health care in America.

[Luna Bliss]

3 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

I am on Medicaid via ACA. I wouldn't qualify for Medicaid if it weren't for ACA. You don't how it works in my state and I'm not going to sit here for hours explaining it all to you. Keep pushing? With what? Do you have any idea how exhausting it is just to get up in the morning when you have a blood born disease that is slowly killing your liver which in turn is slowly poisoning your body? What is wrong with you?

Your agenda is political in nature even if you won't admit it. 

Go away.

You're right, I don't know the specificities in your state -- how the ACA interacts with Medicaid there. But this reflects a big part of the problem with health care in America -- we have all this confusing patchwork health care eating up funds via all the bureaucracies -- funds that should be going toward actual care of people.

My agenda is political in nature?  Who gets what and how?  Yes I do have an agenda with that -- we need to take care of the poor and marginalized in society and afford them the same rights as the wealthy, as much as possible.

 

[Silent Mistwalker]

Just now, RowanMinx said:

IMO the only thing that will fix the health care issues in this country is a reform to the insurance industry and their ultra powerful lobby.  Why is it that, for example, an uninsured person must pay $150 for an office visit yet that same visit when covered by insurance, gets a discount so that the insurance only has to pay $20?  It seems to me, the person (individual) who NEEDS the discount is the one who is uninsured.  

I've had emergency surgery twice in my life.  Once insured, once uninsured.  When insured, my insurance got a discount on ALL items that were covered.  I still had to pay my percentage but it was overall, a lot less than I would have had to pay.  When I was uninsured, I was able to get the actual hospital bill canceled as our income was low enough to be eligible.  However, the surgeon, anesthesiologist. radiologist, I had to pay in full, no discount.  How is that fair?  Why do the companies who we pay hundreds of dollars to for insurance coverage, get a 'discount' on services when it's the ones uninsured who need it?

It's also interesting that when the economy took a dive in 08, I didn't see any insurance companies looking for a bailout.  They, not government or policy, are what's wrong with health care in America.

You hit it on the nail head. The insurance "industry" is the root cause of the lack of health care and reasonable pricing. It's called greed.

Edited November 3, 2020 by Silent Mistwalker

[Luna Bliss]

13 minutes ago, RowanMinx said:

t's also interesting that when the economy took a dive in 08, I didn't see any insurance companies looking for a bailout.  They, not government or policy, are what's wrong with health care in America.

I agree with what you've said, but, we need a government that responds better to the needs of the people via controlling the corrupt insurance companies. We need them to put limits on wealthy corporations.

Only the people who make the rules have the power to limit corporations, for the most part, and we need to find a way to elect representatives who reflect our needs.

Edited November 3, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[Silent Mistwalker]

One of my concerns about getting tested for Covid-19 (even though I've apparently already had it back in Jan/Feb) is having something shoved up my nose. That isn't something I can allow. Thankfully I was able to find this very quickly and now I know that there is more than one way to obtain a sample whereas before I was under the impression a nose swab was the only way. That's one weight off my shoulders. Now if I could just get rid of the rest of that weight.

  

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/coronavirus-testing-basics

Edited November 3, 2020 by Silent Mistwalker

[Arielle Popstar]

7 hours ago, RowanMinx said:

IMO the only thing that will fix the health care issues in this country is a reform to the insurance industry and their ultra powerful lobby.  Why is it that, for example, an uninsured person must pay $150 for an office visit yet that same visit when covered by insurance, gets a discount so that the insurance only has to pay $20?  It seems to me, the person (individual) who NEEDS the discount is the one who is uninsured.  

To me that isn't an issue with insurance companies but with the medical profession itself. Can't blame insurance companies for making deals to pay the lowest rates as it helps them to keep their premiums somewhat manageable. The problem I see is that doctors make such deals where the disparity between the insured patients visit is so low that it is actually the uninsured patients costs that are supporting that doctors office.

When I was looking into the liberal health care platform I ran across an article that pointed out how a a dose of insulin that costs $8 to manufacture and costs a diabetic in Canada $35 but costs an American $300, I realized somewhat the extent of the problem faced by Americans when they are paying such exorbitant sums for what is fairly basic medicine. The real problem I see is not insurances or governments but the medical and pharmaceutical lobbies in being allowed to charge the sort of rates they do for their products and services. That is what makes healthcare unaffordable. 

Edited November 4, 2020 by Arielle Popstar

[Rowan Amore]

6 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

To me that isn't an issue with insurance companies but with the medical profession itself. Can't blame insurance companies for making deals to pay the lowest rates as it helps them to keep their premiums somewhat manageable. The problem I see is that doctors make such deals where the disparity between the insured patients visit is so low that it is actually the uninsured patients costs that are supporting that doctors office.

When I was looking into the liberal health care platform I ran across an article that pointed out how a a dose of insulin that costs $8 to manufacture and costs a diabetic in Canada $35 but costs an American $300, I realized somewhat the extent of the problem faced by Americans when they are paying such exorbitant sums for what is fairly basic medicine. The real problem I see is not insurances or governments but the medical and pharmaceutical lobbies in being allowed to charge the sort of rates they do for their products and services. That is what makes healthcare unaffordable. 

I do agree with you on the pharmaceutical companies charging way too much but I still believe it's the insurance companies again forcing doctors to increase their charges.  The cost of malpractice insurance has forced some Ob/gyns to stop practicing in their field.  When one company has that power over our health care, there's a problem.  So I'd say it's insurance and pharma that need to be reigned in.

[Arielle Popstar]

3 minutes ago, RowanMinx said:

I do agree with you on the pharmaceutical companies charging way too much but I still believe it's the insurance companies again forcing doctors to increase their charges.  The cost of malpractice insurance has forced some Ob/gyns to stop practicing in their field.  When one company has that power over our health care, there's a problem.  So I'd say it's insurance and pharma that need to be reigned in.

But there again, the malpractice insurance costs are likely a reflection of how many and much payouts they have had to put out. Shouldn't that be blamed on sue happy patients and courts awarding huge sums to plaintiffs? 

[Arielle Popstar]

Further with big pharma there is this article about a low cost alternative cure for Hep C but only for middle income countries like Malaysia and Thailand:

Quote

Malaysia and Thailand are among the many middle-income countries that are excluded from the voluntary licensing agreements that Gilead and Bristol-Myers Squibb, the intellectual property holders of the hepatitis C drugs sofosbuvir and daclatasvir, respectively, have concluded with generic companies. Of the up to 150 million people infected with chronic hepatitis C globally, approximately 75% live in middle-income countries.

That license allows them to charge $55,000-80,000 in Canada and over $100,000 in the US and yet 

 

Quote

Now the non-profit organization Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative and Egyptian drug maker Pharco Pharmaceuticals have signed agreements to provide a combination of the Hepatitis C drugs sofosbuvir and the antiviral ravisdasvir for further clinical tests for $300 US or less per treatment course.

$100,000 vs $300! Even in Canada with our national health care they can't afford to pay for treatment for everyone affected due to those sort of costs:

Quote

A combination hepatitis C cure that is so costly it's rationed in Canada will be available in middle-income countries for less than $300 US, a move that opens the window to more affordable treatment in this country, a physician with Doctors Without Borders says.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/hepatitis-c-1.3538623

https://dndi.org/press-releases/2016/dndi-pharco-hepc-malaysia-thailand/

[Silent Mistwalker]

What? Am I supposed to move to another country just to be able to get treatment? I can't afford to move across the street much less another country. 

What I'm saying is I'm stuck in the US and all that info about other countries is useless to me and those in similar situations.

[Maryanne Solo]

I overlooked personal issues and the nonexistant state of healthcare in the US.
Pardon my ignorance and off the cuff comment. 😬
Best wishes to all suffering under this outrageous ongoing debacle and those suffering under THAT outrageous ongoing debacle. 8-/

Edited November 4, 2020 by Maryanne Solo

[Luna Bliss]

12 hours ago, Maryanne Solo said:

I overlooked personal issues and the nonexistant state of healthcare in the US.

No worries...you are doing better than a great many people in the US itself who have no idea what's on the line in this election regarding our health care, or even what a democracy actually is and how Mango Mussolini is an authoritarian.

[Luna Bliss]

14 hours ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

What? Am I supposed to move to another country just to be able to get treatment? I can't afford to move across the street much less another country. 

What I'm saying is I'm stuck in the US and all that info about other countries is useless to me and those in similar situations.

This looks promising for you...lowering the Medicare age down to 60 years of age (or even 55 as is being discussed as well).

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/11/832025550/bidens-health-play-in-a-covid-19-economy-lower-medicares-eligibility-age-to-60

More funds are allocated to the so-called 'deserving' people who are eligible for Medicare.  This means your medication would more likely be covered with Medicare vs the Medicaid you currently have.

With a larger pool of people (a bigger market) we have greater bargaining power in terms of lowering drug costs too. This is why drug costs in all parts of the world are being discussed -- not that you need to move but if we model our system more like other places with lower drug prices we can lower our drug costs too.