|
Post by yoell on Aug 29, 2009 20:14:06 GMT -5
I have been watching and reading a lot abut Ted Kennedy. I never really know much about him. But, I quickly learned he was a great asset to our country. He championed numerous legislation. Disability rights, civil right, heathcare, and much more. I have gained a sense of respect for the man, even though he did have his hiccups in life. He did make good though. So, with that said I have a lot of thoughts and wonders about him and his impact on our society.
Ted Kennedy at a young age was involved in a plane crash that nearly left him paralyzed. Which leads to my point. How would our society be different if he did end up with a SCI. Would we be further along with SCI research? Could he have been voted in as a Senator, and could he have kept it. Where would we be he did not end up in the Senate? I have more thoughts. But, I do know if you had a spinal cord injury we would be different. Better off, maybe? Worse off, possibly. I am not quite sure.
I leave this open to any thoughts. I am curious to read what other may think?
|
|
|
Post by Ouch on Aug 30, 2009 0:50:55 GMT -5
Massachusetts feels a bit empty without him.
|
|
|
Post by Ray T on Aug 30, 2009 2:10:22 GMT -5
well i have been told that he is a loud obnoxious drunk that is a total womaniser and only votes for diability rightsto get his other bills voted for... but who knows
|
|
|
Post by Ouch on Aug 30, 2009 9:18:52 GMT -5
well i have been told that he is a loud obnoxious drunk that is a total womaniser and only votes for diability rightsto get his other bills voted for... but who knows I think that's a rather ignorant view of him...
|
|
|
Post by Inigo Montoya on Aug 30, 2009 9:41:51 GMT -5
Well, he'd been in Warshington (just for you, ray ) a long time, so I'm sure if you look at his voting record there'd be something for each of us to disagree with. Simply the the sheer volume of stuff that he'd voted on. And years ago, he was a hard partier, but had basically turned all that around, I think. I hadn't even realized that until my mom was talking to me about his funeral... she watched all of it, she'd seen all of the JFK and Robert stuff as well. She was telling me about his turnaround after marrying his current wife. And the gratitude of all the nieces and nephews he'd stood in father's stead for. Which I think is probably about as wonderful a testament as any man can have. They're an exceptional family and I think this generation is doing a decent job of continuing the good work. In many ways, he was the last of his kind. The last of Joe Kennedy's boys. Was he perfect? Nope. He got into lots of trouble in his lifetime. But I think he worked hard and I'm gonna assume that he did the best he could and did a lot of good in that work. I may not always agree with everything said and done, but I appreciate the way the Kennedy's have shared themselves with our nation. They've done a lot of service and given a great deal to us. And I think they do a pretty darn good job with it, usually. (Yeah, yeah, we all know of the incidences where they didn't do right...) Anyway, Yoell, from my Kennedian phase when I was younger, I know that JFK also had a spinal thing. One that required the use of crutches sometimes and caused a lot of pain... but that's the extent of what I know about it. Dunno if it was a cord injury or not. If Ted had been left with an SCI... I think he'd have still wound up in the Senate. I just read that he originally took his seat to replace John when he left. And so, I think that even if it hadn't happened then, it would've happened later. Because that's what the Kennedys did. :-) I'm not sure what it would have meant for disability rights or SCI research, though. Possibly an earlier ADA? I'm sure it would've made some sort of difference, but I'm not sure how much.
|
|
Phil
Junior Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by Phil on Aug 30, 2009 13:11:40 GMT -5
Teddy was re-elected to the senate laying in bed healing from the plane crash. SCI wouldn't have stopped him, politically, in Massachusetts. (JFK's back injury occured during WWII when his PT boat was cut in half in a collision with a Japanese destroyer).
Had Teddy been SCI'd, I doubt reasearch would have been pushed faster. There was little hope and lots of cope back then. Doctors & researchers really had no hope for finding cures. I'm sure access and equality would have been moved along faster, most likely stronger than the ADA of today.
The man had his faults and made some pretty terrible choices; drinking too much (Irish disease, lol) being the most influential in his personal life. He did a lot, though, for the "everyman" people.
|
|
|
Post by Triassic on Aug 30, 2009 18:32:20 GMT -5
yeah....he mighta had a few faults; like driving off a bridge, saving himself by swimming free but leaving his young female companion to drown(apparantly, anyway), then hiking into town...but neglecting to tell anyone about the accident for-what?-12 hours or so.
|
|
|
Post by Inigo Montoya on Aug 30, 2009 18:45:31 GMT -5
I was too effusive, huh? Actually when I made the comment about the stuff they did wrong I was thinking about his nephew who raped the girl and his involvement in that. I wasn't even thinking about the bridge thing...
|
|
|
Post by Ouch on Aug 30, 2009 22:45:27 GMT -5
He was the best argument I've ever seen for congressional term limits. To answer your question about how things would have been different if he had an SCI, I think he was driven enough that it wouldn't have stopped him from getting in/staying in the Senate. But I really don't think he would have pushed ADA-type legislation or cure funding any harder. He never did claim to represent people like himself. He came from good old capitalist wealth, yet spent a career trying to tear down the capitalist system. He pushed for universal health care and social security, but clung fiercely to his Senate retirement and health care programs, which, of course, are much better than what he felt was good enough for the rest of us. Seriously, can someone with a net worth of $100,000,000+ ( www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php) really, sincerely, represent the "every man?" I contend that he did what he had to do to get votes in his ultra-liberal state of Massachusetts. I contend that he certainly gave a damn about people, unlike the Republican Party that would rather leave Health Care to work like the Stock Market and Banking, because that worked great, right? I met Senator Kennedy in person, and he sincerely believed in what he was doing, and not just to get votes in Massachusetts. We're rather informed about our political choices in Massachusetts, and he had a great legislative track record for effective and efficient legislation, and that is why people voted for him. What you may perceive as 'ultra-liberal', is what we call 'what makes sense' in New England...strangely, the rest of the world seems to agree...
|
|
|
Post by Triassic on Aug 30, 2009 23:21:56 GMT -5
NOT HERE IN GOD'S COUNTRY, WIND....we'll make a cracker good ol' boy outn yew yet!
|
|
|
Post by Ray T on Aug 30, 2009 23:41:18 GMT -5
LOl I knew that would get the post going lol... I truely do not know much about the guy other than what is blasted on the T.V. about him I just thought i would get things stired lol i am so glad to see it worked...
|
|
|
Post by mike on Aug 31, 2009 1:28:43 GMT -5
Wind,
With regard to the health care issue, it's not that we are cheap, it's more like we have seen the government deal with the issue many times in the past, with ambivalent results - at best. For example, most people generally agree that Medicare is flawed, but sorta OK, however look at MedicAid (MediCal in California) and you get a completely different picture. MediCal doesn't pay the health care providers enough to even cover their costs. If you are on MediCal and need a flu shot, the doctor gets a portion of the 'allowable charge'. The allowable charge for a flu shot is $4.80, and currently they get about 65% of that. That doesn't cover the cost of the medication, not to mention the cost of running an office, billing staff and the doctor needs a profit too, or they cannot stay in business. The actual amount they get (the 65%) is determined from year to year according to budgetary constraints. The 'allowable charge' for a cardiac bypass surgery is $1,500. Try to find a cardiac surgeon who will accept that - good luck. Oh by the way, you are eligible if you have little to no income, and no assets you can sell, such as a home. If you own a home, you need to sell it before becoming eligible, and they will take the proceeds of the sale first. And if your parents are on MediCal, the government will come looking to you to be repaid.
What assurance do you have that a new program will be like Medicare and not MediCal? And by the way, what ever happened to the National Health service? Or the Indian Health service? Or any other program we have had? Well they all started out with good intentions and then devolved into something pretty bad.
When we went into the military, we were promised the VA would care for us, but you know how that works? The first step is a 'means test', which puts you into one of eight categories. Each year the budget determines a cut-off. So for example, if the cutoff is 6, and you are a 7, you are denied any care at all. If you are between 4 & 6, they pay about half. If you are higher than 4, they pretty much pay the entire bill. If you ask veterans about the VA, the 1's & 2's like it, but the 7's & 8's hate it. Rationing? Well if it quacks like a duck....
The naysayers don't need to look at the intentions of the current bill, they look at what has happened all the other times we have tried to cover large groups of people. Good intentions have a way of succumbing to political and monetary realities, and devolve from there.
If you want a horror scenario, imagine if MediCal was THE single payer. Could your doctor stay in business? I seriously doubt they could, so what would you do at that point?
I sincerely believe Obama means well, but remember, the President doesn't write the laws, Congress does. Furthermore, they have already succumbed to the Drug company lobbyists and dropped the proposal to purchase drugs via collective bargaining, and the Insurance company lobbyists have precluded the 'government alternative' insurance plans. So what makes anyone think things will get better?
If I thought we would end up with a good program I would support it, however historically that is not what has happened. I have been around long enough to have watched what has happened every other time, and don't think you would be happy with the results. If your political leaders listened to their constituents instead of lobbyist money, things might be different. Some countries are pretty careful about keeping the money out of politics, and consequently get good systems, but that's not how our government works at the moment.
Sorry for the rant, but I get tweaked when people think the naysayers are just cheap. Consider their concerns, and look at history and you will see the fears are well-founded in history.
|
|
|
Post by Dee Dee on Aug 31, 2009 1:56:56 GMT -5
well i have been told that he is a loud obnoxious drunk that is a total womaniser and only votes for diability rightsto get his other bills voted for... but who knows I think that's a rather ignorant view of him... I second Windrider´s opinion. I can tell you, that Ted Kennedy (R.I.P.) is mourned here in Denmark as well and that the politicians here speak highly of him. Personally I hope there´s a political crown prince or -princess to take over his place in the left wing of the Democratic Party. The United States need more politicians like Ted Kennedy to defend the rights of people, who are otherwise often overheard in public debate.
|
|
|
Post by Dee Dee on Aug 31, 2009 2:16:55 GMT -5
I must say that I find it to be very sad that one of the world´s largest economies and one of the richest countries in the world hasn´t got a health care system, which works for every one.
How about ... dadadada ... raising the taxes? And let them pay for a decent health care system? We do pay a lot in taxes in Denmark and we have a free health care system. Just think of all the costs we save: people can go back to work quickly, they can stay in their homes, children can go back to school etc. And that´s just the economical costs. A lot of important human lives are saved too, obviously to the overall benefit of the Danish society.
|
|
|
Post by Ray T on Aug 31, 2009 2:33:13 GMT -5
Health care is a privlage not a right... it did not start out as a goverment paied your bills it started as you were sick you paied the dr to make you well... what is wrong is the Prices the Drs are now charging because of things like malpratice insurance and drugs... oh do not get me started.. what we need is not a health care paied for by the goverment that will decide if saving your life is worth the cost... we need the goverment to regulate the prices of healthcare so everyone can aford it on a normal pay scale... which meand you do not work you do not get care... I worked for my insurance and was in the army for 13 years to get my VA health care. and i paied all 610,000 of my medical bills after my accident. I know there are some that can not but there should be exceptions made for that... but we will never see such a thing as this because there are to many people getting rich off the cost of health care...
|
|