Essentially I was referring to the 5% of communists you are talking about. I read an article a while ago (and don't have the source, sorry) that talked about Greeks having problems with NATO, and outside influence, and being insular and isolated. That is essentially what you are describing, it seems.
Its good to hear that the majority doesn't hold such an opinion because I am of the belief that said unions are beneficial (though I can understand them not wanting to join NATO).
I really need to do some research into the EU, so forgive my ignorance. I don't understand the inequity: by that I mean I don't understand why Greece wouldn't have as much a say as other more politically vogue countries? There is a lot I'm realizing I don't know about.
The healthcare issue is close to my heart because it is, and has been, affecting my mother for quite a while now. Though I plan on making this generally factual, I guarantee this won't be finished without a bit of my opinion, which is certainly liberal. I'll do my best to describe what is going on.
Currently in the United States, healthcare is run by a handful of conglomerate private countries. Companies and individuals pay these companies money directly. The insurance companies take the money and do several things with it. They do pay doctors, surgeons, professionals etc but its based on a defined amount. Basically, the insurance companies get together, decide "X" surgery is worth $40000 so they pay the surgeon something around that amount (it usually is under, though not by a lot, but it does vary to my understanding). This is paid using the money given to the insurance company by the customers. Part of the problem is that the customers money also goes to lobbyists (which are people sent to influence the decisions of politicians and government officials), pays the healthcare companies often ridiculous salaries, and goes all sorts of places that aren't the doctors or the hospitals that actually perform the procedure.
The other part of the problem is that the insurance companies often don't approve many claims and will refuse to pay out and will deny care to its customers. If its a life-or-death operation the individual often will have to pay out of pocket resulting in crippling debt, the inability to be insured in the future, and no guarantee that the ailment has been treated completely (especially in cases such as cancer).
The third problem is that if an individual tries to acquire it, often times its very expensive. The government provides help for the old (62 years and older) and the extremely poor (usually food stamp and welfare recipients) but there are many cases that people that own their own business or are not insured by the company they work for cannot afford to purchase their own policy and cannot pay the monthly premiums. Thusly we go back to problem two - life or death situations result in crippling debt and the impossibility of being insured in the future.
The reform going on right now is partially there, but not all they way. This is more speculation from here on, the above is fact as I know it to be true. The issue is giving government control of healthcare, socialized healthcare, which is all over the world already. The first step will be giving universal coverage to everyone in the country, or at least citizens. The second step will be to eliminate the middle men. Healthcare would be less expensive if the money wasn't so inequitably distributed. Ideally (though this is not a likelihood) there would be a 1 to 1 ratio where the citizen would pay out of his/her wages directly to the government. The government would then pay directly the hospital and/or doctors. Another possibility is that the corporations would still exist but they would be contracted by the government, and the citizen would pay the government who would then pay the corporation to handle the claims.
There are several variations on how the reform should take place, what should happen, all that stuff. If you're interested I'll delve further later.
The problem now is just getting the issue on the table. Many less educated individuals who lack understanding of the situation thinks government-run healthcare is akin to Communism which is of course, totally incorrect. The town hall meetings have been a disgrace, and I'm ashamed American people could be so misinformed, classless and clueless as to how things should actually be. Generally speaking they don't care to understand, they just "don't want no damn commie pinkos takin' there monies and givin' it to the freeloadin'" (not an actual quote). Many of these people have been fortunate enough to not having something so debilitating that they have not seen the generally greedy and unconcerned side of the business.
It needs to change regardless, if nothing else but to ensure no one can be denied healthcare.
I do understand they are businesses and need to make a profit. That's the problem. The doctors, hospitals, nurses and all those that actually care for, help, and treat the individuals deserve to make plenty of profit, and should be payed accordingly. It is inequitable. That's not to say that doctors can't or don't make sizable amounts of money, I know they do, but my personal opinion is that I'd much rather pay the doctors as close to directly as possible. By that I mean that I'd just rather pay the government over the course of my life as a worker, and then have that money go directly to the professionals/facilities rather than lining the pockets of corporate fools, politicians, and others that stand only to make money.
I'm sure I left out a chunk here or there. I'm certainly open to debate and correction, provided it is civil and it can be substantiated. Not right now, but at some point in the future, I'll give some links to articles I've read about the situation, if anyone is curious.
Thanks Siren
. I know its gotta be tough, I have to remind myself that English is not your first language and I tend to write pretty verbose, English major and all, I enjoy flexing my vocabulary skills. If you have any more questions or anything, please ask.
