BlogHer - Australia, NZ & Oceania - Comments

Women and the Great Depression

dkdanielson — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:15:38 -0600

Hi Suzanne - Thanks for including us in this. Glad to see people discussing the topic and not assuming it has "gone away." Your comments made me think back to some of my historical research about women in the Great Depression. Here's actually a good summary of how the women's movement stalled during the Great Depression, yet there are some parallels to what is going on now. http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/egd_02/egd_02_00550.html.

P.S. I'm with you on the more male caregivers being a big deal. It's an interesting twist. Especially because more people miss work for elder care than child care and it's going to be am even bigger issue. I'm thinking that maybe it's son's out of work? having to move back home? or Single/Divorced? Also, I note that my brother will have the responsibility because he lives near my parents. So, it may be a geographic thing.

Diane K. Danielson ceo, DowntownWomensClub.com

Women and the Great Depression

dkdanielson — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:46:13 -0600

Diane K. Danielson ceo, DowntownWomensClub.com

The Non Pink, Shiny Unicorn to Fairyland Approach

NOfreelunch — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 23:46:17 -0500

"Everyone in this country has talked the problems to death." Sorry that the continued pinpointing of problems in the proposed health care bill is irritating you loralee, but part of coming up with solutions is identifying what should NOT be done by any means along with what should be done. So prepare yourself for more of that pesky talkin'. Or would you rather rush to pass crappy legislation that is the equivalent of dumping gallons of lighter fluid on a big bureaucratic fire of deficit that's already raging out of control? No need to rush something that will have a massive impact on the quality of our lives and the lives of future generations, as well as strain our economy and inflate taxes for the long term.

"Read the links or don't but your implication that they shouldn't be
linked if they don't agree with you or carry some credential you deem
appropriate will not fly here." Ok. So why then are you saying that I am in the wrong for linking to the Washington Times or anything else that supports my opinion? Because you don't agree with it or it doesn't carry some "grass-roots blogger credential" that you deem appropriate? Well it ain't flyin.'

I could blather on in my wordy way about how the health care bill leaves loopholes wide open for abuse by people here illegally, therefore further increasing the deficit and cost burden on taxpayers. Or about tort reform to quash the billions of dollars worth of unnecessary testing done to cover medical butt, therefore driving up insurance costs.

Instead, I'm going to link to what I believe is one of the best articles I've seen yet on the issue. It contains sensible, reasonable ideas for reform, every one of which I strongly support. Reform that can happen without the public laying down and giving the government heretofore unrivaled power and control, letting them dictate and steamroll over them while guaranteeing the entire system becomes as Fubar as the rest of the "helpful" programs they bankrupt and run into the ground. But prepare yourselves, because it's from *wheeze* that evil, published affront to the left, the Wall Street Journal. Yes, the article written by the CEO of Whole Foods, the store from which far-lefties all over are now grabbing their last boxes of tofu before the big boycott, all because he had enough testicular matter to go out on a limb and publish the truth.

Hmm...

loraleechoate — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:50:07 -0500

So, we have heard your opinions. I'd like to know what your non-fairyland-shiny-pink-unicorn solutions are?

Do you think that the system doesn't need change at all?

What would you and Pushy have to see to feel better about a reform bill passing?

Everyone in this country has talked the problems to death. I feel strongly that it's time for solutions to be focused on. You seem passionate about the topic and I'd like to hear that passion turned into ideas and problem solving.

So? What do you think would solve things? Where are the areas you could be flexible to work with the other side of the aisle on this?

Thanks

phdinparenting — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:38:12 -0500

Thanks for this. I didn't see your replies before I added mine!

PhD in Parenting - http://phdinparenting.com

Dr. Doig is the lead lobbyist for doctors

phdinparenting — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:36:27 -0500

It is important to note that Dr. Doig is not exactly an objective observer. She is the lead lobbyist for doctors in Canada. Of course she is going to say the types of things that will result in more resources being given to doctors. That is her job. If she got up and said "everything is great", then she (a) wouldn't have been elected to her position and (b) would be falling down on the job. The Canadian health care system is not perfect and I am glad that there are people like Anne Doig, our politicians, special interest groups, bureaucrats, and so on working to improve it. But "imploding" is certainly an exaggeration.

PhD in Parenting - http://phdinparenting.com

I wasn't going to respond, but

Maria Niles — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:58:36 -0500

to your Mad Libs-style collection of ideological talking points because they are off topic to the post. However I have been deeply troubled by one of your assertions:

Or maybe he does in another sense: he is destroying the American way of life and using health care to institute de facto racial "restitution" for slavery.

And while I remain hesitant to add any oxygen to your fire, I must say that not only is this statement deeply troubling but, as the descendant of slaves who had to flee their captors and also the country until it began to "destroy the [then] American way" and begin to live up to some semblance of the notion that all human beings are free and equal and they could return, it is also overwhelmingly offensive.

I encourage you to read the piece itself

Maria Niles — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:43:46 -0500

In the debate about healthcare reform the models of what other countries do are brought up as arguments for what the U.S. should or shouldn't do as I said at the beginning of the post. I described the models in other countries and pointed out, using the proposed legislation itself, which elements from other countries are or are not present. I did not advocate for a Canadian-style system.

In my comment about the incoming head of the CMA, I am pointing out that it is worth taking into consideration that the head of a lobbying organization might have a vested interest in a particular point of view and might not be the most neutral source of information. The Washington Times would not present her voice if it did not conform to their agenda and that does have bearing on their presentation of her opinion.

If I were writing this from my bias I would do everything in my power to advocate for HR 676. Instead I pointed out, factually, that the bill has been introduced for many years, barely has any support and the president, for whom I voted knowing full well that this would be his stance, explicitly rejected any support for the bill or for efforts to implement a Canadian-style health care system in the United States.

In my links to bloggers I included voices in support of and in opposition to the U.S. adopting elements of other countries models. You may not wish to read or give any credence to blogger voices (which of course encourages anyone reading here to ignore both your voice and mine - which is fine - I'd encourage people to read the actual proposed legislation and base their opinions on those facts), however it, as I have pointed out before, is part of BlogHer's mission and mine as a CE to share the voices of women bloggers. Read the links or don't but your implication that they shouldn't be linked if they don't agree with you or carry some credential you deem appropriate will not fly here.

Again, the purpose of this post is to look at what the differences are between the models used by other countries and not to just lump them all together and to see what is actually on the table here in the U.S.. You are free to express your opposition to the president and his policies and positions. And I am happy to engage in further on-topic discussion relevant to this post.

I seriously doubt

NOfreelunch — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:18:54 -0500

...that you are not writing from a stance of absolute bias yourself and are not trying to find sources that support your opinion as well. Isn't that how you have a legitimate debate? Citing sources? Not all of your sources are nonpartisan. Some are just opinions by random people. Of course Canadian citizens have pride in their country and many are going to want to defend their healthcare system. The fact remains that in U.S. states all along the Canadian border, Canadians are regulars at our hospitals and clinics there. Hrm. Why isn't it the other way around, since their system is so stellar and our system is so horrifying and broken?

The fact that the quote comes from a Washington Times opinion piece has no bearing on the fact that Dr. Doig said that about their system there. Completely disregarding a quote from an M.D. who is President of the CMA because you're implying that she's greedy is pretty disingenuous, is it not?

Also, that part about the Canadian system "outperforming" the American system across the board? You're kidding, right? Tell me you're kidding.

Comment from PhD in Parenting's post

Maria Niles — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:59:31 -0500

Certainly you are free to weigh and evaluate sources as you see fit. And if you don't wish to take the point of view of bloggers there are certainly quite a few neutral, non-partisan resources linked in my post. There are many, many resources available for readers to use to investigate the issues and come to an informed decision.

However, I suspect you wish to find and believe sources that confirm to your ideology and position. As to how neutral and informed Dr. Doig's position is (and The Washington Times is hardly a neutral source) I'll share this comment from "Grant" from PhD in Parenting's post and excellent discussion in the comment section:

Try to keep in mind that the head of the CMA is rather like the chief lobbyist of the doctor’s union and take anything they say with an appropriately sized grain of salt. Being hyperbolic is just one tool in their arsenal to get attention for their cause… which is generally half “give us more resources” and half “we want bigger paychecks”. If they went out and said “Umm, yeah, we’re good… everything is working generally well, we have a few things we’d like addressed buy nothing major, don’t sweat it, no hurry” then they wouldn’t keep their job very long.

If the Canadian system actually WAS “imploding”, then given the comparative statistics on system performance between the U.S. and Canada I can’t even think of an appropriate word to describe the American system considering it’s being outperformed by the Canadian one almost across the board.

More Canadian Voices

NOfreelunch — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:57:03 -0500

How about this "Canadian voice," spoken loudly and clearly by the incoming President of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Anne Doig? According to this Washington Times article, she talks about the necessity for Canadian doctors to address the terrrble problems with their system. Dr. Doig's exact quote is,

"We all agree that the system is imploding, and
we all agree that things are more precarious than Canadians perhaps
realize."

I'll take Dr. Doig's professional opinion over an opinion on a message board or from a blogger any day. Comparing the United States to other programs such as ones in tiny countries in Europe really isn't legitimate, unless you want to take the problems they have and magnify them to the scale of a country this large and a government this inept. Good point on the clunkers program, Pushy. I don't think I'm interested in my health becoming a "clunker." Also, since some of that all-important stimulus money actually was sent to murderers and rapists in prison recently who all began cashing in their checks, I doubt the current administration is very good at making sure money isn't wasted and is applied correctly, despite their claims to the contrary.

To me, anyone who actually believes it's a great idea to give any ol' government employee access to our private health care information, let them take part in handling anything as crucial and complex as our national health care while they fumble at funding it in this broken economy without wait times, red tape and more human suffering than we have now needs to go ride off into fairyland on a shiny pink unicorn.

Thanks for adding these voices

Maria Niles — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:37:09 -0500

I'm so glad you shared these posts. And thank you for your post. It was very thoughtful and has generated terrific discussion on your blog.

I hope people will take time and actually ready your and others perspectives and help reduce some of the fear mongering.

A few more Canadian voices

phdinparenting — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:50:10 -0500

Thanks for writing his and for linking to my post. I had been thinking of doing a post here and linking to a few of the other Canadian voices on healthcare, but perhaps I'll just add them here in the comments instead.

Amber from Strocel.com in Canadian Health Care tackles some of the basics and battles the myths.

Childbearing Canada with a vision for Maternity Care Alternatives (discussions on how to improve care for everyone and reduce costs and burden on the system become very important in a public system where providing excellent value to taxpayers is a priority, rather than making profits for insurance companies and health care providers).

Loukia from Loulou's Views writes Loulou's Anatomy (my take on Health Care)

Thanks again for sharing this information and helping Americans to develop a more informed view of what public health care means and looks like in other countries.

PhD in Parenting - http://phdinparenting.com

Socialized Medicine

PushyMom222 — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 20:02:20 -0500

Our government can't even run the Cash for Clunkers program effectively and there is no constitutional grounds for much of what has come about since the depression era, so we don't need to wreck the best health care system in the world just to let Obama have his way. He has never run anything of significance and does not know what he is doing. Or maybe he does in another sense: he is destroying the American way of life and using health care to institute de facto racial "restitution" for slavery.

Out with the current Congress!! We need real statesmen who act according to the constitution and the good of the country.

Susan http://www.creativelifenow.blogspot.com http://fun-home-preschool.com

wow, this is a big one.

kazari — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 01:46:16 -0500

I'm curious about which course of action you chose?

Honestly, it would not have occurred to me, that such a question would be a breach of ethical standards. Mainly because I very rarely encounter religious people who are wary of claiming their religion. (or atleast, i'm not aware of it, because they don't share.)

On reflection, I can see that if you are expecting prejudice, it would be a threatening question.

I'm assuming that the class is somewhat related to religion, if the teacher thought it a relevant question to ask. If so, I'd assume that through normal class participation, your perspective and beliefs would be revealed eventually, anyway. But I'm assuming a lot, there.

Anyway, I'd love for you to share your final decision.

http://myrope.wordpress.com