« It's a Bad Day to be Famous.... | Main | Chief Justice Roberts Update »

Another Canadian Speaks Against Health Care System, Moore

Another day another Canadian telling the truth about the failing heath care system in their home country. I clipped a longish bit, but it is worth the read:

'Sicko' slant irksome even in Canada

By SALLY C. PIPES
The Providence Journal

In his new movie "Sicko," Michael Moore uses a clip of my appearance earlier this year on "The O'Reilly Factor" to introduce a segment on the glories of Canadian health care. Moore adores the Canadian system. I do not.

I am a new American, but I grew up and worked for many years in Canada. And I know the health-care system of my native country much more intimately than Moore. There's a good reason why my former countrymen with the money to do so either use the services of a booming industry of illegal private clinics, or come to America to take advantage of the health care that Moore denounces.

Government-run health care in Canada inevitably devolves into a dehumanizing system of triage, where the weak and the elderly are hastened to their fates by actuarial calculation. Having fought the Canadian health-care bureaucracy on behalf of my ailing mother just two years ago -- she was too old, and too sick, to merit the highest-quality care in the government's eyes -- I can honestly say that Moore's preferred health-care system is something I wouldn't wish on him.

In 1999, my uncle was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. If he'd lived in America, the miracle drug Rituxan might have saved him. But Rituxan wasn't approved for use in Canada, and he lost his battle with cancer.

But don't take my word for it: Even the Toronto Star agrees that Moore's endorsement of Canadian health care is overwrought and factually challenged. And the Star is considered a left-wing newspaper, even by Canadian standards.

Just last month, the Star's Peter Howell reported from the Cannes Film Festival that Moore became irate when Canadian reporters challenged his portrayal of their national health-care system. "You Canadians! You used to be so funny!" exclaimed an exasperated Moore. "You gave us all our best comedians. When did you turn so dark?"

Moore further claimed that the infamously long waiting lists in Canada are merely a reflection of the fact that Canadians have a longer life expectancy than Americans, and that the sterling system is swamped by too many Canadians who live too long.

Canada's media know better. In 2006, the average wait time from seeing a primary-care doctor to getting treatment by a specialist was over four months. Out of a population of 32 million, there are about 3.2 million Canadians trying to get a primary-care doctor. Today, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Canada ranks 24th out of 28 countries in doctors per thousand people.

There is now a "consensus" that the health care system is Canada has failed. The only people who say otherwise are a few "deniers" who don't know what they are talking about.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/23026.

Comments (108)

Ain't truth grand? :)... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Ain't truth grand? :)

The thing that's wrong with... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

The thing that's wrong with the American medical system is that it covers too many people, not too little. Yeah, I said too many. Let me repeat again. It covers too many people. Government should get out of healthcare and giving incentives to be "disabled" by giving 20 year-olds too lazy to get a job Medicare coverage.

I guess when your party fla... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

I guess when your party flatlines, your president flatlines,your conservative movement dies and you are staring into the abyss questioning whether Ann Coulter really is a tranny, you can still pull a post like this out of your ass.

Excuse me but I have to go watch some paint dry.

Every time someone talks ab... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Every time someone talks about universal health care/coverage we hear about the long wait times in Canada. Who said we had to have Canada's system? Are you telling me we can not do better?

Other countries do a far better job than Canada, and better than ours and for a lot less:
U.S. insurance administrative costs are more than three times the rates found in countries with the most integrated insurance systems (France, Finland, and Japan), and 20 to 30 percent higher than those in Germany and Switzerland, two countries where private insurance plays a substantial role. If U.S. administrative costs were on a par with the best countries, we would save $85 billion a year.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/site_docs/annualreports/2006/msg_pres07.htm

If you want to see how well our health system rates (not very well) you can see for yourself here:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=401577

I "like" this part:<p... (Below threshold)
marc:

I "like" this part:

Moore further claimed that the infamously long waiting lists in Canada are merely a reflection of the fact that Canadians have a longer life expectancy than Americans, and that the sterling system is swamped by too many Canadians who live too long.

Isn't that what EVERYONE is predicting for America's future?

That the "graying of America" will lead to a catastrophe of major proportions in Social Security and other services.

All WITHOUT the disastrous socialized medical system Moore and his ilk (hi Shillery!) are pimping.

Paul,Judging from ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Paul,

Judging from dr lava's post (containing only personal attacks and no rebuttal), you really hit a nerve.

Nice.

Thank god someone is here t... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Thank god someone is here to defend the poor, poor insurance companies and their lobbyists.

Bless you, Paul.

Yeah, in liberal land, Ann ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Yeah, in liberal land, Ann Coulter has an Adam's Apple so the Canadian heath care system must be better than ours....

Spoken like someone all out... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Spoken like someone all out of facts jp2.

jp2Thank ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

jp2

Thank god someone is here to defend the poor, poor insurance companies and their lobbyists.

Can you point out where that happened here? Thanks.

"Spoken like someone all ou... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"Spoken like someone all out of facts jp2."

Yes, facts Paul. You cite an op-ed piece by a conservative who runs a conservative "free-market" think tank that is sponsored by - guess who! - Phizer, Lily and PhRma!

GREAT work.

Just change the title to:
"Another Conservative Sponsored by Pharmacuteical Companies Speaks Against Health Care System, Moore."

Far more accurate.

jp2, so you don't ... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

jp2,

so you don't like info from Pfizer . . .

so you get your "facts" from M. Moore??????????

I'd guess you get fitness advice from Stabenow.

jp2, you cutting and pastin... (Below threshold)
Paul:

jp2, you cutting and pasting comments gain?

Why don't you speak to the substance of the post...


Oh, you'd rather not.

By the way, this is for the... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

By the way, this is for the libs to think about. If Coulter is a tranny, as you say, why would she hide it? Declaring from the get-go would give her even more credibility and value. Like a black conservative is valuable for conservatives (i.e. Lynn Swann, JC Watts).

It's the liberal logic like saying President Bush is dumb, but then that he was the mastermind behind something like 9/11. Or that Reagan was the greatest President or . . ., never mind that -- even honest liberals don't dispute that.

You cite an op-ed ... (Below threshold)
kbiel:
You cite an op-ed piece by a conservative who runs a conservative "free-market" think tank that is sponsored by - guess who! - Phizer, Lily and PhRma!

Good one jp2. You hit 'em hard with that argumentum ad hominem. Now, throw in a straw man and a red herring or two and you'll convince me and every other American of the validity of government-run health care.

I'm still looking for the s... (Below threshold)
jp2:

I'm still looking for the substance Paul. It's a common problem here.

If you think that someone funded by pharmaceutical companies defending pharmaceutical company profits is "substance" then I guess that's where we just disagree. Sure fits the bill here though.

Do you honestly think her opinion is at all important? She's paid to think this way. It's actually pretty creepy that she brings her dead mother into it.

"U.S. insurance administ... (Below threshold)
Gizmo:

"U.S. insurance administrative costs are more than three times the rates found in countries with the most integrated insurance systems"

You've got a point there! We'd be a lot better off if we just turn the administration of such things to a recognized leader in the arenas of cost control, organizational efficiency, and keeping administration costs to a minimum: The US Government. Sign me up!

>If you think that someone ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>If you think that someone funded by pharmaceutical companies defending pharmaceutical company profits is "substance" then I guess that's where we just disagree. Sure fits the bill here though.

GREAT so I have you on record that all the environmental "studies" from environmental groups are worthless too. Right? Right?

>It's actually pretty creep... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>It's actually pretty creepy that she brings her dead mother into it.

But Cindy Sheehan is a paragon of virtue right?

"If you think that someo... (Below threshold)
Gizmo:

"If you think that someone funded by pharmaceutical companies defending pharmaceutical company profits is "substance" then I guess that's where we just disagree. Sure fits the bill here though."

It's the same old whine that's used against oil companies. If Pharma companies, like Oil, would one day declare that they were now "not for profit" companies and set their pricing so profits would zero out, you'd only see a 10%-20% (even if you drop the oft maligned marketing programs) drop in the costs of their products. OK, so that drug that costs $300 a month now might then cost $255. That's not the revolutionary change most people envision when they rail against Big Pharma.

It's actually pret... (Below threshold)
kbiel:
It's actually pretty creepy that she brings her dead mother into it.
You're right jp2. The author would have been less creepy had the Canadian NHS saved her mother.
I've only heard good things... (Below threshold)
Eric:

I've only heard good things about the Canadian health care system from two kinds of people: healthy people and Americans.

I work with an ex-Canadian who tells me "The health care system there is great. If you have a cold all you have to do is walk in, show your card, and they treat you!" Of course, she was 25 when she left, and had never had anything more serious than the flu.

On the other side a Canadian friend blew out his knee skiing, and got put on a ten-year waiting list for reconstruction. Ten years? He had it done in buffalo in less than six weeks.

The only reason there isn't a revolt over healthcare in Canada is they can come to the US to get knee reconstructions. And MRIs, CT scans, new drugs, etc, etc. A brain tumor can go from treatable to nonoperable in less time than you wait for a specialist in Canada. This stuff matters.

The one thing they do in Ca... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

The one thing they do in Canada and all systems.

Shutdown the trial lawyers!

The Canadian system wouldn't have limp along like it did for as long as it did if they hadn't.

The most egregious case of malpractice I can remember had a rare award of $100,000. There may have been bigger awards but I'm having trouble remembering them.

I expect the Trial Lawyers are all frothing at the mouth thinking that they will be able to tap the pockets of the US taxpayer. Think again. Despite how much they believe they own the Democrats, national healthcare will so corrode in cost and quality so quickly lawsuit will not be tolerated.

If our healthcare system is... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

If our healthcare system is great than why do we live shorter lives and have a higher infant morality rate than counties like France, Germany, Sweden, England, Finland......

Why do we put up with such crappy care and still pay two to three times as much.

PS, I would really like the right to lifers to address the infant mortality rate issue.

Infant mortality rate by co... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Infant mortality rate by country (source WIKI)
180 United States   6.37
181 Korea, South   6.05
182 Cuba   6.04
183 Faroe Islands   6.01
184 Isle of Man   5.72
185 Italy   5.72
186 New Zealand   5.67
187 Taiwan   5.54
188 San Marino   5.53
189 Greece   5.34
190 Monaco   5.27
191 Ireland   5.22
192 Jersey   5.08
193 United Kingdom   5.01
194 Gibraltar   4.98
195 Portugal   4.92
196 Netherlands   4.88
197 European Union   4.80
198 Luxembourg   4.68
199 Canada   4.63
200 Guernsey   4.59
201 Liechtenstein   4.58
202 Australia   4.57
203 Belgium   4.56
204 Austria   4.54
205 Denmark   4.45
206 Slovenia   4.35
207 Macau   4.33
208 Spain   4.31
209 Switzerland   4.28
210 Germany   4.08
211 Andorra   4.03
212 Czech Republic   3.86
213 Malta   3.82
214 Norway   3.64
215 Finland   3.52
216 France   3.41
217 Iceland   3.27
218 Hong Kong   2.94
219 Japan   2.80
220 Sweden   2.76
221 Singapore   2.30

Barney spews "f our healthc... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Barney spews "f our healthcare system is great than why do we live shorter lives and have a higher infant morality rate than counties like France, Germany, Sweden, England, Finland......"

Life span is not solely a function of health care, Barney. Learn to understand the statistics you use, for once.

Secondly, infant mortality is higher in our country because of larger minority populations. Comparing the white caucasian infant mortality rate to the those countries would reveal we do better, not worse.

Secondly, infant mortality ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Secondly, infant mortality is higher in our country because of larger minority populations. SPQR

Are saying that if we gave equal access to healthcare to both whites and blacks that blacks would still have a higher infant mortality rate?

"There is now a "consensus"... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"There is now a "consensus" that the health care system is Canada has failed."

I didn't even read that line! Brilliant Paul. A consensus among Pharma-funded conservatives that the Canadian system has failed. Even your joke is a joke.

Are saying that if we ga... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Are saying that if we gave equal access to healthcare to both whites and blacks that blacks would still have a higher infant mortality rate?

Are you saying a pregnant woman can't walk into any hospital in country and be unable to receive care ? Are you saying that you're so ignorant you've never heard of WIC ?

BarneyGump:Are sa... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

BarneyGump:
Are saying that if we gave equal access to healthcare to both whites and blacks that blacks would still have a higher infant mortality rate?

Please cite a case where someone was refused to be sold health care because of their race.

Wow! Cuba is way up there t... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

Wow! Cuba is way up there too, you know, with the US, so they have crack babies in Cuba? Didn't Mr. Moore say they had much better health care in Cuba? So it's maybe only a little better, or possibly infant mortality rates are related more closely to several other factors which means these statistics mean next to nothing as far as health care systems are concerned.

Barney a bogus claim from a... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Barney a bogus claim from a wacky left wing site isn't exactly evidence.

==========

NOW JP2... Do I have you on record that all the environmental "studies" from environmental groups are worthless too?

Well? Answer the freaking question!

Maybe there should be a rul... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

Maybe there should be a rule that "progressives" have to take Macroeconomics 101. If one lowers the perceived price of an item below the price as set by the market then a shortage will occur. Plan and simple, instituting universal health care without increasing the doctors per capita will cause you/me to have to wait for service. It doesn't matter if it is in Finland or Tahiti.

Paul - cite me a study. </p... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Paul - cite me a study.

barneyGRUBBLE:... (Below threshold)
marc:

barneyGRUBBLE:

If our healthcare system is great than why do we live shorter lives and have a higher infant morality rate than counties like France, Germany, Sweden, England, Finland......

em... er... personnel choice.

You could ask Ronald McDonald, The KFC guy, Dave Thomas (if he were alive, too many triples w/cheese I suspect) or ask anyone "running for the border" and gorging themselves on barrito supremes with sour cream.

Key point of the article:</... (Below threshold)
jim:

Key point of the article:

There's a good reason why my former countrymen with the money to do so either use the services of a booming industry of illegal private clinics, or come to America to take advantage of the health care that Moore denounces.

We have the best care in the US - if you're wealthy enough to afford it. That's why the wealthy from other nations come here.

But if you're working hard in the US, making a middle class income and raising a family, you just better hope nothing serious every happens to you.

That's why nearly all other 1st world nations have an average of longer lives and lower infant mortality rates - those of in the US without exceptional incomes get the shaft. It almost certainly has something to do with things as direct as, why people in other 1st world nations appear to be growing taller than us. Better treatment for the young affects them their whole lives - it affects our nation as a whole, as well.

I think we can do better, and I personally think providing health care directly instead of through private health insurance companies would be a great start that might solve everything.

As for other nations' lifes... (Below threshold)
jim:

As for other nations' lifestyles, the French in particular are boozing cigarette smokers who eat a lot of raw red meat.

Also, I don't know if our ridiculously high infant mortality rates can be laid at the feet of McDonald's and KFC.

Sure, we can eat better - but it seems rather likely to me that a health care system which is leaving a large chunk of our population SOL might be playing a factor too.

But actually, I'd like to g... (Below threshold)
jim:

But actually, I'd like to get beyond, for once, this conversation of which system is better overall - Canada or other nations vs. the US.

I'd like to have a way that we can be better than these other systems in all areas, and retain our edge in what we're better at, too.

So, how can we change things so that we can cover everyone in this nation, and have the lowest infant mortality and longest average life span in the world - and retain our lead in medical technology as well?

Jim:The truth in you... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

Jim:
The truth in your post is that those who presently can pay for it, get it. Universal health coverage will allow those who now can't (or won't) pay get the services for free, or at reduced cost. Who will pay for the increased services? That's right, the same people who can and do pay for it now. Basically universal health care is asking someone else to pay your bills. I am not totally against universal HC, I would just like someone who asks for it to say they understand what it really means.

GREAT so I have you on ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

GREAT so I have you on record that all the environmental "studies" from environmental groups are worthless too. Right? Right?

Bwhahahahahahahah......good one.

They just step right into it, don't they?!! lol.

Barney,I know this h... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Barney,
I know this has come up here before...
Not every country reports on infant mortality using the same methods. Some only count children that were born after a full 9 month pregnancy. Others count any child born after a 6 month pregnancy.
The definition of infant is also inconsistent. Some count any child under 2, others only 1 year, others still only count up to 6 months.

ricardo, you got any stats ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

ricardo, you got any stats that prove that health costs will increase for persons that have it now?

Can you explain the math when current government run healthcare (medicaid) is running an overhead of 1.5% compared to private insurance that is running at 13% to 16%.

How is that we are paying a lot more than every other country that provides universal care?

Please explain this to us.

Actually, Ricardo, a form o... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Actually, Ricardo, a form of that happens already.

By law, an emergency room cannot refuse treatment for someone who has a true medical emergency based on their ability or lack of ability to pay.

So who pays the bills for these people? Why, the folks who can pay... or, more correctly, their insurance companies.

And that's one big reason that insurance premiums are so high.

All universal health care will do is shift the source of the payments from private companies to the government. And we all know how efficient the government is, right?

By the way, want a good example of what American-government-run health care looks like?

Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Remember when the lefties were up in arms (and, I must admit, rightly so) about the conditions there? And yet they never seemed to get around to mentioning that it's run by the same government that Hillary wants to put in charge of health care (different department, but same government). And isn't it curious that now that Hillarycare is back in the news, Walter Reed has disappeared?

Can't have the public seeing that shining example of government-run health care, now can we?

The reason Americans don't ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

The reason Americans don't live as long is they're quite a bit fatter than people in other countries. The younger generations in Europe and Asia are catching up, but it will take a generation or so before they start to have blood pressure, heart, and glucose problems.

And yes, Barney, blacks don't live as long as whites with the same access to health care. Part of the problem is lifestyle, and part of it is simple genetics.

Look, as any doctor will tell you, your habits have a much bigger effect on your health and longevity than anything he can do. There's nothing wrong with our health care system - the problem is our lifestyle.

Check this out. It's a shock Americans live longer than anyone.

Hey rickie, read this:<br /... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Hey rickie, read this:
High Administrative Costs. Insurance administra-tion costs contribute significantly to the high cost of care in the U.S., without contributing tocommensurate gains in quality of care or health outcomes. As a percentage of national health expenditures, U.S. insurance administrative costs are more than three times the rates found in countries with the most integrated insurance systems (France, Finland, and Japan), and 20 to 30 percent higher than those in Germany and Switzerland, two countries where private insurance plays a substantial role.

***If U.S. administrative costs were on a par with the best countries, we would save $85 billion a year.***

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/site_docs/annualreports/2006/msg_pres07.htm

Barney asks "Are saying tha... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Barney asks "Are saying that if we gave equal access to healthcare to both whites and blacks that blacks would still have a higher infant mortality rate?"

Yes. There are studies of infant mortality that show a higher infant mortality rate between the two even when corrected for economic status.

"There is now a "cons... (Below threshold)
FreedomFries:

"There is now a "consensus" that the health care system is Canada has failed"

Consensus? Hell, from another wingnut whacko like Sally Pipes hardly makes for consensus.

As I have said before, I ha... (Below threshold)
Robert the Original:

As I have said before, I have been to Cuba (legal) and spent some time in Cuban hospitals, the real ones.

The first thing one notices in Cuba is that the economy is a basket case and most things have not progressed much since 1959.

Buildings have not been painted, cars are '57 Chevy's held together with spit and bailing wire. There are no toilet seats. Access to special stores that have everything is limited to high party members, regular Cubans get crap.

Access to the special hospital is similarly limited. This one is not representative.

Regular Cuban hospitals are no different than the buildings - they are old and there is little new equipment. They are far, far away from our hospitals.

Believe me, we don't want nothin' Cuba got.

SPQR, back it up, and tell ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

SPQR, back it up, and tell us if "corrected for economic status." is the same as equal access to healthcare including prenatal OB care.

"By the way, want a good ex... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"By the way, want a good example of what American-government-run health care looks like?

Walter Reed Army Medical Center." CCG

Walter Reed had been a shinning light of medical care for our soldiers for many years. It was the poor management and oversight by the Bush administration that lead to the recent poor care.

If we elect competent leaders, and if congress lives up to it's duty of oversight the government can do great work (military, medicaid...).

So ccg, why do you others keep selling the great USA short? We are the greatest, strongest, smartest, hardest working and richest country in the world, but you guys say we can't provide healthcare to all our citizens even though dozens of country do it.

Barney, there have been a l... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Barney, there have been a lot of studies of this issue, go educate yourself, Google is not difficult to learn how to use.

There have been studies that showed that low income hispanic women have a better infant mortality rate than low income blacks - although the exact reason why is the subject of some speculation. My recollection is that there was a study in New York last decade that even showed that college educated, middle class blacks had higher infant mortality than their white equivalents.

"Barney, there have been a ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Barney, there have been a lot of studies of this issue, go educate yourself, Google is not difficult to learn how to use."

SPQR, if you can't back up your BS don't try to blame it on me!

>Paul - cite me a study.</p... (Below threshold)
Paul:

>Paul - cite me a study.

No No No No.... Do I have you on record that all the environmental "studies" from environmental groups are worthless or not?

Certainly a man of your integrity wouldn't be a hypocrite and try to have it both ways... Right?

Now answer the question.

The truth in your post i... (Below threshold)
jim:

The truth in your post is that those who presently can pay for it, get it. Universal health coverage will allow those who now can't (or won't) pay get the services for free, or at reduced cost. Who will pay for the increased services? That's right, the same people who can and do pay for it now.

There's two answers to this.

1) it's very likely that if for-profit health insurance companies are removed from the system, health care costs will drop for everyone who's paying health insurance - *including* the rich - *even though* others are added.

They suck that much money out of the system directly, and even more indirectly because doctors have to hire separate staff to get the money from them, etc. etc.

My evidence for this argument is that we spend so much more than other countries on medicine, while getting so much less as a total.

2) Basically universal health care is asking someone else to pay your bills.

That's one way of looking at it.

Another way of looking at it is, we're all part of this country - so we all share in it, including in each other's health.

But really, I think in the end it's a selfish decision, too. Having everyone covered is better for America, from every single angle. It's better for businesses, especially small businesses and entrepreneurs; it improves everyone's health and well-being, if everyone knows that they, their parents and their kids will be cared for if they get in an accident, get sick, miss a health insurance payment, or any other thing that really can happen to everyone.

That's my take on it...

Barney, you are not an adul... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Barney, you are not an adult.

Google gives me this:

In an October, 1999 report, "Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Healthier Mothers and Babies," researchers indicate "the greatest [challenge] is the persistent difference in maternal and infant health among various racial/ethnic groups, particularly between black and white women and infants." For example, one study comparing infant health in a low-income, minority community in East Harlem, and a high-income area from Kips Bay to Yorkville, all in New York City, found that pregnant women in the high-income area had six times the prenatal care and a three to four times lower rate of LBW babies than pregnant women in the low-income region. However, the study also states that, even when income and educational levels are more equal, a large disparity in infant mortality rates still remain-that black college-educated, middle income bracket women still experience twice the number of LBW babies as their white peer group. This study also notes that, although infant mortality in the U.S. is among the highest in industrial nations, once babies enter the health care system, their chances of survival increase drastically due to medical technology and physician expertise.

There are a lot of other similar studies to be found if one tries. Go try to do something useful and go grow up before playing with adults.

The fact that we're 37th in... (Below threshold)
jim:

The fact that we're 37th in the world in average health care, and Cuba is 39th, is actually pretty scary.

Cuba is a 3rd world nation that we, the most powerful country in the world, have had under an embargo for over 4 decades now - and they're only 2 places away from us??

We should be leaving them behind in the dust.

Barney, the kind of stuff t... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Barney, the kind of stuff that was going on at Walter Reed took a lot longer than 6 years to develop.

It should be noted, by the way, that most of the countries you lefties champion as paragons of universal health care are moving away from it and towards private funding.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2005 that the prohibition against private funding of healthcare was unconstitutional.

The UK has been privatizing large chunks of its National Health Care system.

Those are just two of the more prominent examples.

So why should we go towards a system that other major industrialized nations like Canada and Britain are moving away from?

Oh, cause it'll give politicians more control over American lives, of course. Socialism lives!

perhaps unclear in 54 - I m... (Below threshold)
jim:

perhaps unclear in 54 - I mean that the health insurance industry sucks that much money out of the health care system.

I note that Barney just dem... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

I note that Barney just demanded that someone else post links to back up his claims.

I shall be bookmarking this to use the next time Barney tells someone to "Google it yourself."

>Paul - cite me a study.</p... (Below threshold)
jp2:

>Paul - cite me a study.

No No No No.... Do I have you on record that all the environmental "studies" from environmental groups are worthless or not?

I have no idea what "environmental groups" means. Do you mean ELF? The EPA? I'm sure many are legit and many are bunk. But I can tell you that if a person/group has a specific profit to be made by reaching certain conclusions (like the op-ed you used today) I would be less inclined to believe it. I'll venture to say that most "environmental groups" don't have the profit margins that the pharma industry does.

But you don't really care what I say, as you are after some sort of "gotcha." I understand the anger as I have pointed out the utter pointlessness of your post. I bet you didn't even know who the source was and who funded her.

But maybe good will come of it since doing a little more research will save you some embarrassment.

Good luck CCG, I'll believe... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Good luck CCG, I'll believe Barney's "google it yourself" when he demonstrates an ability to use Google without help.

No embarrassment on my part... (Below threshold)
Paul:

No embarrassment on my part... I don't care who she is as long as she speaks the truth, you're the one trying to smear her....

But I need some confirmation... The next time we have a study or an Op-Ed or a quote from some group with a name like "The Center for a Better Planet" you will IMMEDIATELY say the quote/op-ed/study is bunk and should not be believed.

Right?

Because, again, I know a man of your integrity wouldn't be a hypocrite and try to have it both ways... Right?

jp2:But I can ... (Below threshold)
marc:

jp2:

But I can tell you that if a person/group has a specific profit to be made by reaching certain conclusions (like the op-ed you used today) I would be less inclined to believe it.

Is it safe to assume you also hold the same skepticism with regard to the U.N,s IPCC?

In all honesty all 2500 of them have a vested interest, (i.e. gov funding for "studies" on the environment) in keeping their cash flow flowing.

On the subject of studies, ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

On the subject of studies, there was a study done a few years ago that compared British National Health Service to Kaiser Permanente HMO in California and concluded that Kaiser provided better care at similar cost. Published in 2002 in the British Medical Journal.

So much for the claim that nationalized health care would be cheaper than US health industry.

There is more fraud in the claims of leftwing advocates of nationalized health care than any other subject I can think of ... except BDS sufferers.

jim:<br ... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

jim:


we're all part of this country - so we all share in it, including in each other's health.

I'm sure Karl Marx is smiling in his grave...

Stats? I have no lin... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

Stats?
I have no link or stats. No. But I do know this: The people in this country who pay taxes are the people who buy insurance. It's pretty much a 1:1 relationship. Universal Health Coverage will allow more people to receive goods and services. Are these services free? No, they are not. If we are more efficient then we can save money. Has the US government ever been more efficient than US business, well, at anything? Nope. Who do you think will pay for the extra goods and services rendered?

There is more frau... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:
There is more fraud in the claims of leftwing advocates of nationalized health care than any other subject I can think of ... except BDS sufferers.

In most, if not all, cases, the two groups are one and the same.

_mike_:em>I'm sure... (Below threshold)
marc:

_mike_:

em>I'm sure Karl Marx is smiling in his grave...

While not in her grave I'm sure Hillary would be also.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," - Shillary.

Sad watching how jp2's irra... (Below threshold)
TJIT:

Sad watching how jp2's irrational hate of pharmaceutical companies causes him to completely miss the immense amount of good the big pharma companies have done.

Big pharma continues to save people tons of money and massively improve their quality of life. jp2 and his blind hatred of private companies making money from doing good things for people causes him to miss that.

One small example of this impact is shown at the link below.

Why does everybody seem to hate the pharmaceutical industry?

The story of stomach-acid-blocking drugs such as Tagamet and Zantac illustrates how drugs save money by keeping patients out of the hospital.

In 1977, the year in which such drugs were introduced, surgeons performed some 97,000 operations for peptic ulcers. In 1993, despite population growth, that number had shrunk to 19,000.

The shift from surgery to highly effective pills -- a change that has made life better for tens of thousands of people with stomach problems -- is the sort of quiet development that escapes much attention.

The Boston Consulting Group's health care practice reported that it saves patients and insurers at least $224 million in annual medical costs.

For those doing the math big pharma reduced the number of surgeries by about 78,000.

Big pharma improves peoples health and quality of life.

jp2 and those who have an irrational hatred of big pharma are a clear and present danger to the ability of big pharma to continue the good work they have done in the past.

TJIT, it's not just pharma.... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

TJIT, it's not just pharma. They have an irrational fear and hatred of any large corporation. Just look at how the lefties foam at the mouth when you mention Wal-Mart, Halliburton, or Microsoft.

BarneyG2000 and his fellow ... (Below threshold)
TJIT:

BarneyG2000 and his fellow supporters of nationalizing healthcare have an impressive ability to studiously ignore the bad results nationalizing other countries healthcare systems has produced.

If you say Britain is bad they say Canada is better. If you point out that Canada has many of the same problems that Britain does they say France has a better system that overcomes the problems of Britain and Canada.

Well maybe not so much.

French health service on verge of collapse, says commission

A government commission has warned that without fundamental reforms France's national health service, rated the best in the world by the World Health Organisation, will collapse within the next 15 years.
Barney isn't interested in ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Barney isn't interested in any facts at all, he just terms "BS" anything that conflicts with his fantasy life.

That's why we'll see no sign that Barney has actually internalized my points above, considered what they mean to international comparisons, and come up with a new, more adult position. He'll just ignore it and call "BS" any one else's attempt to actually inform him.

Trolls are wastes of time.

I posted this article in an... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

I posted this article in another healthcare thread, but it is worth repeating here.

It's a well-researched article about how people measure healthcare, and quite revealing... revealing things the lefties would rather remain hidden, I suspect.

You people argue back and f... (Below threshold)
Mycroft:

You people argue back and forth about universal health care. My mind is made up by the simple exercise of my health care in 1994.

Quite simply, if we had had universal health care then, I would be DEAD. I spent 60 days getting worse and worse while they tried all kinds of tests to figure out what was wrong with me. Each test they did during one particular week in the hospital would have taken days/weeks to arrange under universal health care. Under pay as you go, I even had two different specialists show up to do different procedures at the same time.

The diagnosis came on Nov 10. Just delaying that diagnosis until Christmas would have been fatal, according to my doctors. (It was nearly fatal anyway). One doctor didn't even see me the first time until Nov 12. He took one look at me and figured me for dead, no matter what he did. The last time I saw him (Jan 2005), he had the biggest smile on his face as I ended his Friday on a high note and he told me never to return to his office!

I am also alive partly because of a new drug that was not cleared for use in universal health care countries, simply because it was still too new.

So, you libs, take your Universal Health Care and Shove IT

You want another example? When my mother was pregnent with me, my Dad was in the Air Force. (That's universal Health Care folks) My mother's case was so unusual at the time that the Air Force PAID for her to go to the local health care because they couldn't handle it. At the time, the odds were 4-1 against me being born alive.

So, let's see that makes it "Pay as you go" 2, "Universal Health Care" 0.

jp2...Since ... (Below threshold)
Paul:

jp2...

Since

1) You're no longer around.

and

2) I know you're not a two-faced lying hypocrite:

If I don't get an answer saying otherwise on this thread I'll put you down as saying:

"Yes, from now on when a study/op-ed/quote comes from any left winger who gets paid to be a left winger, their statement shall be disqualified as being invalid in the debate.

Because I know you're a man of honor, I know you'll agree.

Paul - "I don't care who sh... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Paul - "I don't care who she is as long as she speaks the truth."

So let me get this straight - you will support any source whatsoever if it fits into your point of view? Frightening.

It's amazing where the conservative imagination takes you:

Apparently I hate pharmaceutical companies and love environmental groups, Cindy Sheehan, the Canadian Health Care system and Michael Moore. Why don't we bring the Dixie Chicks and Ward Churchill in as well?

Has the US government ev... (Below threshold)
jim:

Has the US government ever been more efficient than US business, well, at anything?

Yes. Examples: the US military, the police and fire departments, the interstate highway system, rural electrification, and Social Security.

I'm sure Karl Marx is sm... (Below threshold)
jim:

I'm sure Karl Marx is smiling in his grave...

Sure, if by Karl Marx you mean the founding fathers.

'E Pluribus Unum'.

Or perhaps you mean Jesus Christ.

`Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

Social Security more effect... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Social Security more effective than US businesses?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The Social Security Administration itself puts the lie to that one, Jimbo!

Most financial advisors say you'll need about 70 percent of your pre-retirement earnings to comfortably maintain your pre-retirement standard of living. If you have average earnings, your Social Security retirement benefits will replace only about 40 percent. The percentage is lower for people in the upper income brackets and higher for people with low incomes. You'll need to supplement your benefits with a pension, savings or investments.

A good company pension will over far more than 40%!

Quit listening to the folks at DU and Kos, Jim, and do some of your own research and thinking.

SPQR, what you sited actual... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

SPQR, what you sited actually backs up what I have said from the start that access to quality care was the largest factor and not race. You highlighted education and income but not access to care. Here is what your study said:

"This study also notes that, although infant mortality in the U.S. is among the highest in industrial nations, once babies enter the health care system, their chances of survival increase drastically due to medical technology and physician expertise."

Has the US government ev... (Below threshold)

Has the US government ever been more efficient than US business, well, at anything?

Yes. Examples: the US military, the police and fire departments, the interstate highway system, rural electrification, and Social Security.

Really? lets examine that quickly.

US Military. - This is an organization that's known for being so inefficient that there is the old joke about $500 hammers being procured. Now we are hearing that for many services they are using civilian contractors (aka Mercenaries) to perform many of the functions that we think of as military. The US military is not more efficient than a business. It just can take greater loses without worry and has greater starting resources which makes it able to overwhelm an opponent. There aren't many mercenary units on this planet that can afford to field 1 tank, let alone the thousands the US military can.

Police and Fire Departments - the US government disaster services have been much maligned as of late. And for the most part the US government does not field fire departments, except in the national forests. Police and Fire are state/city level services. And even there you hear many tales of problems due to poor management.

Interstate Highway System - Its breaking down due to a lack of funds. Now we are seeing many state highways being sold to private concerns to make tollways. And while there ahve been some bad tollways, the vast majority are as well maintained as any interstate.

rural electrification - I wouldn't say that the US government was more efficient. The costs associated were immense, but the US government had the money to spare and didn't have to show a profit or be effiecent. Its one of the benefits government has, it doesn't have to show good returns on its expenses, and rural electrification definitely was a money losing proposition. Also much of this occured during the New Deal of Roosevelt, and was as much a jobs program as an attempt to bring electricity to rural farms.

Social Security - you really need to definite the efficiency you believe occurs here. Social Security has been correctly derided for being a legalized "Ponzi scheme" and if any US business had the same returns on its pension plans as Social Security has. The pension fund managers would be spending time at the crossbar Hilton for malfeasance.


Just got back today from 10... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

Just got back today from 10 days hiking in Jasper National Park (west-central Alberta, in the heart of the Rockies). Had to come out of the mountains early as my daughter's tonsils became severely swollen. Went to the ER in Jasper, waited 5 hours to be looked at. She was diagnosed with tosilitis, and charged $750!!!!!

The paper pusher who took my $ was embarrased and kiddingly said "well, I guess our system has to stay afloat somehow, even if on the backs of you folks from the states".

$750 for a diagnosis reminiscent of my childhood in the 50s. No strep test, no blood work, NOTHING. Yup, it's a great system fat mike. I'll take her to our family doc tommorrow for a real diagnosis, paid for by the personal health insurance I pay for. No more govt sponsored medicine, please. The Jasper ER's next move may have been to bleed her with leeches.

ODA315, You should just giv... (Below threshold)
scrapiron Author Profile Page:

ODA315, You should just give it up and comitt suicide. One para and you lied you ass off. If you have 'medical insurance' it would pay for the ER visit. You can't have it both ways even in your liberal nightmares.

No need to argue about socialized/communist medicine. It's coming because Socialism and Communish has never worked simply because the democrats weren't in charge. I don't think the liberal are going to like it when they get what they fight for. ODA, Sounds like you have young children. Want to bet that you won't watch one of them die in an understaffed ER under socialized medicine? People will watch a lot of family members die when you convert the best medical system in the world to the ever popular Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) style administration and service.
As a long time fireman I wonder when the U.S. government ever helped us, other than sending down regulations that are impossible to follow, so we just ignore the ignorant and get the job done. Government lackies work in building with few or no windows, yet they pretend to know what is going on in the real world. Just like all liberals, if they ever find out what's going on they will be amazed.

A loony canadian student I ... (Below threshold)
Tim in PA:

A loony canadian student I know blamed shortages of drugs on us - "you Americans are buying all of our drugs!"

o_O

Dear ScrapironPlea... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

Dear Scrapiron

Please re-read my post. Yes, I have health insurance that I pay for, not the govt. The 750 I shelled out was because the Canadian socialists feel the need to soak the yanks to help keep their shitty system afloat, the one that gave a third grade diagnosis for my teenage daughter's ills. Hopefully Asuris will reimburse. Of, course if Hillary and gang have their way there won't be an Asuris to reimbuse,.....just Uncle Sugar there to take care of us, cradle to grave.

As far as me being a liberal...well I'm an ex-Army 31V3S as an NCO and an 11A as an officer with 15 years in the 10th SF and 2/506 PIR (101st Abn Div), born and raised on a ranch, team and calf roping, now retired young from my own business, raising my daughter right as she barrel races her heart out, living the american dream. Yeah, I sure sound like a lib. Next time properly check and mark your targets before squeezing the trigger.

De Oppresso Liber

Jim:Yes. Examp... (Below threshold)
marc:

Jim:

Yes. Examples: the US military, the police and fire departments, the interstate highway system, rural electrification, and Social Security.

When has U.S. business ever attempted to perform any of these functions on a scale that would make it a valid comparison?

The only thing close would be the U.S. Postal service and UPS and FedEX beats them hands down.

Truly, I say to you, as... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

Yes, Jim. Abortion is a terrible thing. Glad you're seeing the light as far as what Jesus what think about it.

No jp2, I support anyone te... (Below threshold)
Paul:

No jp2, I support anyone telling the truth.

I know to a liberal "Telling the truth" means "agreeing with me" but to most people telling the truth means saying that which is not false.

I know it is a hard concept for you.

But still I'm glad to know that you -since you did not say otherwise- agree that:

"Yes, from now on when a study/op-ed/quote comes from any left winger who gets paid to be a left winger, their statement shall be disqualified as being invalid in the debate."

Because in the days and weeks and months to come, I plan on holding you to that. STRICTLY.

I bookmarked this thread so I can point you to it later.

Get some salt jp2, those words are going to be tasty. Very tasty.

As with any insurance syste... (Below threshold)

As with any insurance system - health, homeowners, auto - there is always a level of abuse and fraud that helps drive prices up.

People never look at themselves as part of the problem. They're always blaming the insurance companies inefficiencies and their evil profits.

We have short memories too. As with the never ending litany of complaints about HMOs and how bureaucrats determined whether or not you needed a procedure or a particular medicine, what makes you think the government won't use the same bureaucrats to do the same thing? They will also use those same bureaucrats to determine what a doctor should get paid for his services while he is forced to absorb any other costs.

Take a good long look at other countries' socialized healthcare. Look at the things they don't cover - unless of course you don't mind waiting six months for treatment for a life threatening illness.

This will not get rid of the class warfare that goes on in regards to health-care. The poor will get stuck with the government's system and the rich will pay for it. Ask anyone who uses medicaid now. Long waits in the doctor's offices, searching for a doctor who accepts medicaid, being shoved thru an impersonal system that has to take on more patients to make ends meet.

Then try suing the government when you get misdiagnosed or had to wait too long to preserve your health or even your life.

Think they'll give you vouchers so you can opt-out and buy your own insurance? I'll answer that for you. No. You're going to subsidize it whether you use it or not.

I'm sorry, I don't share the same level of faith that some here do in our federal government's ability to administer our health care costs. Especially when they'll gather their premiums as part of your annual tax bill under the threat of jail time.

"There is now a "consensus"... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"There is now a "consensus" that the health care system is Canada has failed."

I didn't even read that line! Brilliant Paul. A consensus among Pharma-funded conservatives that the Canadian system has failed. Even your joke is a joke.

28. Posted by jp2 | July 30, 2007 7:21 PM |
"There is now a "consensus" that the health care system is Canada has failed"

Consensus? Hell, from another wingnut whacko like Sally Pipes hardly makes for consensus.

47. Posted by FreedomFries | July 30, 2007 8:44 PM

Heh. It flew right over their heads, Paul.
Typical.

jim:<br ... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

jim:


Sure, if by Karl Marx you mean the founding fathers.

'E Pluribus Unum'.

Or perhaps you mean Jesus Christ.

`Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

Hardly, the only thing you left out was the 'from each according to his ability...'

Note neither of the statements you posted mention anything using FORCING someone else to provide for you.

The hive of liberals like m... (Below threshold)
moseby:

The hive of liberals like moore and shrillary preach and cry about infant mortality out of one side of their two-faces as they foam at the mouth about abortion rights out the other side. WTF?

jim:<br ... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

jim:


`Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

I want to expound on this, jim. You're missing a fundamental fact. When people deal with one another they have only two means - by reason or by force. Using reason, you can attempt to convince someone to do something that you might want them to do. They retain their right to free will to decide whether or not they want to comply. Using force, you rob the other person of their free will in the original choice and make the choice comply or die.

When you advocate government should require people to do X, what you're actually stating is that government should use the threat of force to compel people do X. The threat of force is the only means available to government to accomplish its goals.

Further, government has no wealth. It has one (and only one) means of acquiring wealth though - by seizing the wealth of its citizens through the threat of force. So when you advocate that government should pay for health care, what you're actually advocating is that government should use the threat of force to seize wealth from one person to spend it on another.

How exactly is taking something from a person, which is rightfully theirs, using the threat of force a 'Christian' thing to do (regardless of what you intend to do with it) ?

Barney #80, you misrepresen... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Barney #80, you misrepresent my point completely. As noted in the discussion of the LBW study, access to health care does not explain all of the differences between racial LBW ( a factor in infant mortality ). Accordingly, comparing infant mortality between nations as a measure of access to health care is not valid when the numbers can't even be compared between minorities in the US in support of your claims that they are proxies for access. That was my point, that was what you called "BS" and that is what I backed up with evidence. I've shown you ignorant of the subject on which you spout off upon. Not to mention a waste of time. This of course probably does not surprise any regulars.

When has U.S. business e... (Below threshold)
jim:

When has U.S. business ever attempted to perform any of these functions on a scale that would make it a valid comparison?

1. Fire departments used to privately run and compete with each other. Great, right? Free market and all that.

You can still see signs of this in some older cities, were a brownstone has a bronze plaque nailed into the side of the wall with the name of an old independent fire company on it.

That plaque was there, so a fire company could see this was one of "their houses" and put it out. If it wasn't, the company would often turn around, go home and let the house burn. And the home owner would simply be SOL - because they hadn't had the psychic abilites to know who would respond first, and pay them in advance before the fire started.

The Free Market is great for a lot of things. Helping people put out fires is not one of them.

2. Police
We used to have a lot more private police in this country. The Pinkertons in the late 1800's and early 1900's were an example of that. They basically were an investigative force and army which were available for hire. They were guilty of many documented abuses and even murders, because they operated for profit first, and had no reason to give a crap about the law.

They're still around today, of course, under a different name.

3. Social Security
Social Security is a trust fund. I'll leave it to you to see the many instances of private trust funds which went belly-up due to embezzlement, fraud or simple administrative costs.

4. the US military
I think we can all see that we are best off with a US military that's funded by the government, as opposed to funded by private interests.

CCG, re: Social Security - ... (Below threshold)
jim:

CCG, re: Social Security - hey, if that's what SS was intended to do, you'd have a point.

However, SS is and always was intended as a safety net, so the old, sick and infirm wouldn't starve to death. It does this with incredibly low administrative costs - about 4% I think is the figure. And those checks to tens of millions of people roll out on time.

Mvargus:US Mili... (Below threshold)
jim:

Mvargus:

US Military. - This is an organization that's known for being so inefficient that there is the old joke about $500 hammers being procured.

That's not inefficiency. That's payments to private for-profit corporations.

And I think it's pretty clear what that sort of payment is - it's a kickback. It's a way to keep the for-profit big defense contractors doing well, in their downtime while developing some new tank, plane, missile, or top secret weapon.

Now we are hearing that for many services they are using civilian contractors (aka Mercenaries) to perform many of the functions that we think of as military.

Right - and they are paying those contractors **several times** what they are paying US volunteer military soldiers, to do the exact same jobs.

That actually shows the US military as more efficient.

the US government disast... (Below threshold)
jim:

the US government disaster services have been much maligned as of late.

FEMA in particular worked fine under Clinton's administration. Unfortunately Bush felt the position wasn't worth having an expert, and put in the ex-horse lord Brownie instead...

So just because someone can run a gov't emergency service poorly, doesn't mean that the service itself is always doomed to failure.

Police and Fire are state/city level services. And even there you hear many tales of problems due to poor management.

Sure. There will *always* be issues of poor management, in any human enterprise. Government, corporation, political party, rock band, or church.

It's just that the structure and competition inherent in for-profit ventures, don't suit themselves to all human enterprises.

Interstate Highway System - Its breaking down due to a lack of funds.

That's still not a fault of the Highway System. Just the people in charge of it.

The Interstate system itself, is a great example of something which aids the entire nation while not directly making a profit for any one company. And if a company were to run it, it would have a stranglehold over the entire economy which would stifle the US, including the free market, in all areas which rely on highways. Which is nearly all of them.

Now we are seeing many state highways being sold to private concerns to make tollways. And while there ahve been some bad tollways, the vast majority are as well maintained as any interstate.

Sure, some tollways are being sold off. And that's good and bad, as per the particulars instances. But the highway system as a whole, and the similar mirrored system by which municipal, state and county government authorities pay for and maintain roads, benefits the nation as a whole because they're not run for-profit - they're run for the benefit of the citizen.

rural electrification - I wouldn't say that the US government was more efficient. The costs associated were immense, but the US government had the money to spare and didn't have to show a profit or be effiecent.

Efficiency is also effectiveness. Rural electrification was taken on by the US gov't, because it would benefit rural communities but *might not* have shown a profit to any particular corporation who did it. Therefore, companies didn't want to touch it.

The US government was therefore far more effective for the entire nation than for-profit corporations.

I think the argument could be well-made, that rural electrification actually made a profit for the US government. I expect that the industry and economic booms that electrification made possible, increased wages and therefore tax receipts far in excess of what the US invested...but I think it all worked in the first place because the emphasis was on the benefit to the US citizen rather than the benefit to be gotten *from* the citizen.

Yes, Jim. Abortion is a ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Yes, Jim. Abortion is a terrible thing. Glad you're seeing the light as far as what Jesus what think about it.

Well of course Jo, I don't think a fetus is a human person from the moment of conception forwards. And we can push that argument around all day.

Would Jesus approve of all children being well cared for, after they're born? Yes or no?

When people deal with on... (Below threshold)
jim:

When people deal with one another they have only two means - by reason or by force....Using force, you rob the other person of their free will in the original choice and make the choice comply or die.

Mike, I'm glad you brought this up in this way. I can see what you're saying. And if I thought that government was exerting force **and** private health insurers were **not**, I could agree with you.

But is this a free choice?

"Your money or your life. Hey, it's your free will. If you don't want to pay, fine. Just be financially ruined for the rest of your life, if you can even find a doctor to work on you."

That's not a free choice. That's extortion.

And this is always the risk when for-profit enterprises run the essential services which people need to live. When customers need something to live, corporations can charge anything they want and customers have no choice but to pay.

That's why deregulation of power utilities almost always results in increased costs. That's why we have government-run fire and police departments, and a Federal military - because if they were run for money, only those with money can depend on getting what they need to stay alive.

(Which as a side note, ends up degrading the whole society, so that it's less healthy and more dangerous even for the rich....)

So when you advocate that government should pay for health care, what you're actually advocating is that government should use the threat of force to seize wealth from one person to spend it on another.

That's the nature of having a country. We're all in it together. All for one, one for all. If we're not that, we're a bunch of thugs who can't trust each other, and will kill each other for a scrap of meat. I submit that's not a healthy nation, and a terrible situation for anyone involved.

Do you object to government "taking your wealth", for spending on the military? Or for how it did this to build our interstate highway system?

Then, IF the government can save us money on health care by taking out the gouging insurance industry middlemen, I think we should have the government do that.

How exactly is taking something from a person, which is rightfully theirs, using the threat of force a 'Christian' thing to do (regardless of what you intend to do with it) ?

Are the health insurers acting in a Christian fashion? I submit they are not.

Therefore, let's say we have two rotten situations where people are taking the money of the average citizen.

In one, the health insurers are taking **more** of people's money, via a false "choice" of "your money or your life." And they can't be depended on to even follow through on their agreements. And they second-guess actual doctors to cut costs and push their profits, even if patients die. So the average citizen is actually getting less.

In another, the money that goes to health insurers goes straight to a Federal pool to pay for costs directly. We immediately save a minimum %20 profit margin, and extra dividends of early treatment, and extra dividends of health care for kids in their growing years - which, while not only moral, is also in our best interest, as they will be more happy and productive for the rest of their lives.

It seems to me that the second situation is more Christian - and just more effective.

jim:<br ... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

jim:


And if I thought that government was exerting force **and** private health insurers were **not**, I could agree with you.

That's laughable jim. Please cite an where a private health insurer use threat of force (physical violence) against someone.

So when you advocate that government should pay for health care, what you're actually advocating is that government should use the threat of force to seize wealth from one person to spend it on another.
That's the nature of having a country. We're all in it together. All for one, one for all. If we're not that, we're a bunch of thugs who can't trust each other, and will kill each other for a scrap of meat. I submit that's not a healthy nation, and a terrible situation for anyone involved.

Holy crap, jim. The nature of 'having a country' is that we should use force to take from one person to give to another ?? That, jim, is what's called cannibalism.. that one person should be able to seize the life of another, through force, to feed their own life. The alternative to being cannibals, you've proposed, is to be an individual who deals with other individuals through logic and reason. When the two individuals decide that some action would be mutually beneficial, they both consent.

Ignoring the morally repugnant aspects of your statement for a moment, can you cite a legal basis for your "that (taking by force from one person to give to another) is the nature of having a country" ? That's very counter to the basis upon which this country was founded.

That's laughable jim. Pl... (Below threshold)
jim:

That's laughable jim. Please cite an where a private health insurer use threat of force (physical violence) against someone.

Mike, as I explained previously, force in real life is the essence of this statement, which I included in my previous comment:

"Your money or your life. Hey, it's your free will. If you don't want to pay, fine. Just be financially ruined for the rest of your life, if you can even find a doctor to work on you."

Now, that's technically a choice - but in reality that is no choice at all, because it's the only chance people can have at staying healthy and not being ruined.

Which is why applying a free market to **everything** can look good on paper - but in the real world, can end up being more destructive than no market at all.

To say it again, another way:

In the US, people are free to not get health insurance - and

a) risk not being treated if they get sick or in an accident
b) risk financial ruin for the rest of their lives if they get sick or in an accident

In reality, that's extortion.

Holy crap, jim. The natu... (Below threshold)
jim:

Holy crap, jim. The nature of 'having a country' is that we should use force to take from one person to give to another ?? That, jim, is what's called cannibalism..

No, Mike. Actually, cannibalization is preying on creatures who are the exact same species as you, and killing them and eating them because they're weaker and you're hungry.

What I'm describing is taxation - which is the nature of all government throughout history, since the beginning of time.

And this actually comes from a deeper principle, which is the essential building block of all human organizations - everyone pitches in, and helps out the weakest when they can, to the benefit of the entire group.

This is in fact a primary aid to evolution. Groups which care for each other and aid the weak in times of difficulty have more flexibility, resilience and therefore success than those that don't.

Of course, there is competition within all primate groups, as well as successful governments and organizations, also. And between groups, too.

Thus, an entirely competitive system with no built-in caring for the weak doesn't work; but an entirely non-competitive system where there are no benefits to being strong doesn't work either.

Now, do you think the current taxation that exists to fund the military, is cannibalism? Yes or no?

You neglected to answer thi... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

You neglected to answer this jim

_Mike_:


Ignoring the morally repugnant aspects of your statement for a moment, can you cite a legal basis for your "that (taking by force from one person to give to another) is the nature of having a country" ? That's very counter to the basis upon which this country was founded.

Well, actually I thought I ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well, actually I thought I had answered this, Mike. But I'll answer it more clearly.

Taking from one person and giving it to another, is the very definition of taxation.

This country has had taxation in many forms, from the very beginning of this nation. Their rallying cry was "No taxation without representation!" and not "No taxation!".

And further, no country in human history has ***ever*** existed without taxation in some form or another. Either in money or, before money, in resources and agriculture.

That's just how it is, and it is that way because it works.

jim:Taking from o... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

jim:
Taking from one person and giving it to another, is the very definition of taxation.

Actually, that's a bastardized definition of taxation. Taxation is how government is funded to perform its proper roles. You then make the leap (without even acknowledging the leap) that a proper role is spending one person's wealth for the benefit of another. I can cite instances as far back as Thomas Jefferson illustrating that this is counter to the founding basis of this country. What you're advocating is nothing more than using the government as an instrument of plunder to steal that which you don't produce enough to be able to purchase.

Revisiting your perverted use of the concept of force:


"Your money or your life. Hey, it's your free will. If you don't want to pay, fine. Just be financially ruined for the rest of your life, if you can even find a doctor to work on you."

You're attempting to make the argument that by not simply giving you the health care you 'need' the physicians are 'forcing' you to choose between your life and your money.

When you go to the grocer and tell him that you 'need' food to continue to live to which he replies that you must pay for it, by your tortured reasoning the grocer is apply the same 'force' - your money or your life.

The two instances are the same. The physician and the grocer aren't forcing you to request their services; however, you are making the demand, your services (i.e your time, i.e. your life) or your life.

(and note jim - stating 'this is the definition' isn't the same as providing a citation)

I'll get into your response... (Below threshold)
jim:

I'll get into your responses, Mike, but first, I wonder if you could answer this question of mine?

Now, do you think the current taxation that exists to fund the military, is cannibalism? Yes or no?
I think that I would tend t... (Below threshold)
lise:

I think that I would tend to agree with the author. A year or so ago I was at work and started to experience shooting pains in my chest and felt like I was going to pass out. I drove myself (as I do not have insurance that would cover an ambulance ride) to foothills hospital and after waiting 12 hours or so without being seen decided to sign myself out as I figured I wasn't dying of a heart attack. There were people in the waiting room who had been there for over a day.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy