Home | About | Donate

Not In Poor Taste, Connecting McCain's Cancer to Trumpcare "Is the Goddamn Point"


Not In Poor Taste, Connecting McCain's Cancer to Trumpcare "Is the Goddamn Point"

Jon Queally, staff writer

"It isn't in poor taste, and it isn't political opportunism—it's the goddamn point."

That's what Jon Pavlovitz, a pastor from North Carolina, writes regarding the importance of talking about the recently-announced cancer diagnosis of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)—which he calls "tragic" and "horrific"—in the midst of a raging national debate over healthcare.


Keep McCain alive long enough to choke on Medicare for All.


“It’s the whole goddamn point.”

These are pretty strong words, but when the poor fools here in the US are so financially poor that the so called medical care givers (insurance companies an drug ripoff artists) go through an act of offering help without actually doing so, except in occasional charity events as described here, there can’t be any decent way for a resident in this country to react with absolute abhorrence. Even people who think that they have a tidy little nest egg in their retirement years will be devastated by the self-serving raptor capitalists. Everyone seems to now be catching on, let’s hope.




It’s EXACTLY the Goddamn Point!



What a powerful statement by pastor Jon Pavlovitz, followed up by an equally potent letter by Ed Sinderman as well as Larry McKnight’s example of one of the victims of our failed health care system, Still not close to catching up to Germany of the 1880s, two centuries back.
In looking after our own we are not just dead last of all prosperous nations, but that by a wide margin.
That must change!


“He deserves to have every available resource exhausted to try and make him well.”

Any attempt to make this the approach on a national basis is unrealistic and unaffordable.


If everyone else can do it, what prevents US to do the same?
All it takes is to abandon the now prevailing system and to re-allocate the funds to a single payer medicare for all program and we will have plenty of money left over to spend on post secondary education, as long as we do not use it for more wars.


Exactly, all healthcare systems must engage in triage of some sort becasue resources are not unlimited. For example in the case of the 80-year old McCain and the very poor prognosis of a glioblastoma, only palliative care would probably be done under the UK’s NHS - so that resources can be better be used to try to save a younger person and/or a more treatable condition.

But in the USA, unique in the industrial world, that triage is based on the wealth and social status of the sick person. Recently, the 90 year old Jimmy Carter was saved from normally terminal metastatic melanoma in his brain by a new experimental treatment. But this treatment would have almost certainly been unavailable to young, poor USAn without insurance - or maybe even with insurance.

Some brave people - out of solidarity with the poor working class, have foregone very expensive life saving treatments. I recall that the folk singer Utah Phillips dying of heart failure was a good candidate and apparently had the insurance for a heart transplant. He turned it down. He figured that at the age of 73, he had lived a fulfilling life making sure that Joe Hill had never died.


Everyone else isn’t doing it. End of life care is very expensive and grandma getting a hip replacement or a terminally ill person getting expensive treatment is an american phenomenon (partially due to how our system is structured).


Exactly - a million dollars can be spent for a treatment that at best only extends the live of a person (who is already usually pretty old) a couple months at best. Why? Becasue unique to the USA, there is profit and return to shareholders in doing it.


Somehwhat. The point being any type of socialized or national healthcare is going to have limits. It isn’t going to magically cure everyone or make them happy. Which is exactly what the person quoted in this article seemed to imply.


Oops - it seems that I forgot to mention that the extraordinary end-of-life expenditures are available only to the rich or well-insured and inadvertently made a wrong argument for capitalist healthcare. Let’s try again…

Capitalist healthcare has the same limits - recall the axiom of Economics 101 - all resources are limited. It’s just that the limited resources under capitalist healthcare and social healthcare are allocated completely differently - based on the differing moral visions of capitalists versus social democrats or socialists.


Name one prosperous country, which “does nor do it” and which is shying away from your “expensive end of life care”.
Your name suggests, that at least part of you ancestry is German. There Otto v. Bismarck installed social legislation in the 1880s, which we can only dream of even today, >130 years later. And Germany could “afford” it ever since through two lost world wars, Nazis and allied occupation.
Tell me, at what age would you like to send your patents or grandparents to their graves?
Let them die without care?

When are you going to tell them, that you don’t give a shit for their lives?



The USA is behind EVERY OTHER WEALTHY COUNTRY ON EARTH, and behind many less-wealthy countries as well, in providing basic health care to everyone. They are not all “unrealistic and unaffordable” they are all REALISTIC and AFFORDABLE and they have BETTER HEALTH THAN WE DO and they spend LESS MONEY THAN WE DO.

Your bullshit propaganda is UNREALISTIC and UNAFFORDABLE.


A HORSE STALL. That’s what a chance at a modicum of medical treatment for some in this country has come to, and this is not new. More than eight years ago we all watched on the news as hundreds or thousands lined up in county fairgrounds, after having slept for days in their cars, just to see a doctor for 10 minutes in rural America during Obama’s campaign. This has not “changed.”

This is a travesty and neither the democrats nor republicans are going to do anything about it. Maybe it’s about time Nancy Pelosi suffer the indignity of having a pelvic performed in a horse stall with other patients with health issues examined in the next stall. Nothing and I mean nothing will ever wake these people up.


Mr. Schmidt never said anything about refusing basic healthcare - he is simply pointing out that under ANY healthcare syatem, resources are limited and must be allocated via triage - the only question is the fairness of the allocation. The British NHS has a system where very costly treatments on people past a certain age or with 99.9% fatal outcomes are refused - either outright or after a review by a panel - so that everyone can get basic - or more saved from more treatable conditions fairly. But some people with an excessive sense of entitlement protest anyway and take their cases to court - like here:


We have some of the best care in the world. As someone else said it’s access and affordability that is the problem. The basic lifesaving care a poor (or rich) person gets if they are rushed to the hospital is some of the best in the world.


Correct. I’m not against it. If someone can afford treatment they are free to pay for it or via their insurance. A national type of system would have limits as other countries do. Thank you.


If you choose to live in an area where there are no doctors that is your problem. Unless of course you are going to propose we tell doctors where they have to live