Four months ago, Alejandro Escovedo collapsed after a show in Phoenix and was hospitalized due to complications from Hepatitis C. He is currently recooperating at home and his illness has postponed his busy touring schedule and the recording sessions for his next album which had just begun before his collapse. He has no health insurance to cover the mounting bills and loss of income. A committee of friends, fans and associates have established a trust for him to handle donations.
You can send checks made out to Alejandro Escovedo to this address:
ALEJANDRO FUND Attn: Heinz Geissler
Texas Music Group 805 West Ave. Suite 2
Austin, TX 78701
http://www.alejandrofund.com
The Alejandro Escovedo Fund
It's a problem for most freelance type folks who aren't rich. It typically costs between $200 and $500 a month, and even then some plans are quite limited. Obviously, not every musician -- even some fairly well known ones -- can afford good insurance.
Basically this is a matter of "Canada good/America bad".
When in comes to politics and knowing what's good for us, we're a nation of nitwits and morons.
When Clinton first came in, we had a chance at national health insurance (though not Canadian style single payer, which we fear and loathe because you Canadian folks are obviously in such poor health compared to us robust yanks). But a series of inane "Harry and Louise" commercials and poof -- it was gone. (And don't get me started on the pathetic nature of the putatively liberal Clinton presidency, really just GOP lite -- now looking every more like a shining, golden past in comparision with our current nimrod-in-chief ....)
Rant over.
Basically this is a matter of "Canada good/America bad".
When in comes to politics and knowing what's good for us, we're a nation of nitwits and morons.
When Clinton first came in, we had a chance at national health insurance (though not Canadian style single payer, which we fear and loathe because you Canadian folks are obviously in such poor health compared to us robust yanks). But a series of inane "Harry and Louise" commercials and poof -- it was gone. (And don't get me started on the pathetic nature of the putatively liberal Clinton presidency, really just GOP lite -- now looking every more like a shining, golden past in comparision with our current nimrod-in-chief ....)
Rant over.
http://www.forwardtoyesterday.com -- Where "hopelessly dated" is a compliment!
-
Copenhagen Fan
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 3:00 am
- Location: København, DK
- Contact:
Well, just because we pay for it, American health care isn't all that convenient, you still have to wait and deal with frequently uncaring and arrogant doctors. And for people who can't afford it, well, it's a freaking nightmore. Remember, we're talking about as much as a ONE-THIRD OR ONE-HALF of a typical low-to-low-middle income's person monthly take home pay -- I can't imagine that Danish taxes for medicine are anywhere near as high as that. Our emergency rooms are filled with people waiting for hours for treatment they might not have even needed if they had anything remotely like decent medical care. No one knows how many people die not so much from disease or accidents, but to pay for the crime of being sub-middle class.
Personally, I think its better for everyone to get decent, if inconvenient care, than for the rich to get fantastic care and the poor to get next to no care at all. But then I'd like to live in a civilized country where "the right to life" our conservatives so worship is limited to unborn babies and people with enough money to afford decent medical care. Things are getting downright Dickensian in the U.S.
I'm lucky to have good medical insurance, but if you're don't have it, and you have the misfortune to become sick here, you're utterly screwed. Socialized medicine may a drag in a lot of ways, but it sounds a lot better to me than the law of the jungle, which is what we currently have.
Personally, I think its better for everyone to get decent, if inconvenient care, than for the rich to get fantastic care and the poor to get next to no care at all. But then I'd like to live in a civilized country where "the right to life" our conservatives so worship is limited to unborn babies and people with enough money to afford decent medical care. Things are getting downright Dickensian in the U.S.
I'm lucky to have good medical insurance, but if you're don't have it, and you have the misfortune to become sick here, you're utterly screwed. Socialized medicine may a drag in a lot of ways, but it sounds a lot better to me than the law of the jungle, which is what we currently have.
http://www.forwardtoyesterday.com -- Where "hopelessly dated" is a compliment!
-
Copenhagen Fan
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 3:00 am
- Location: København, DK
- Contact:
Some policies are definitely better than others.
Most involve "co-pays" where you pay a certain amount, usually $20.00 or somewhat more these days, for a visit or for drugs (i.e., you wind up paying, maybe, about $50 or 60.00, if you need a prescription). That's not such a bad deal when the same thing would have cost your as much as $500-$1000 if you'd just walked in.
Anyway, I want to remind folks that this started as a board for Alejandro Escovedo. See the first thread and lend the guy a hand.
Most involve "co-pays" where you pay a certain amount, usually $20.00 or somewhat more these days, for a visit or for drugs (i.e., you wind up paying, maybe, about $50 or 60.00, if you need a prescription). That's not such a bad deal when the same thing would have cost your as much as $500-$1000 if you'd just walked in.
Anyway, I want to remind folks that this started as a board for Alejandro Escovedo. See the first thread and lend the guy a hand.
http://www.forwardtoyesterday.com -- Where "hopelessly dated" is a compliment!