Government-run health care scary stuff
If Thomas Sowell’s description of his experiences with our national park monopolies isn’t a harbinger of what government-run health care would be like in America, I don’t know what is (“National park monopolies,” June 21).
He observes that “it’s easier for government bureaucrats to deal with a monopoly than with the ever-changing array of competing enterprises, such as are common in the private economy.” Translate that dynamic to the health-care industry with features such as ever-changing medical technologies and techniques, updated treatments and evolving standards of care for patients.
Sowell couldn’t even get a monopoly- run taxi to pick him up at his room when he became ill due to the arbitrary policies of the taxi service that would only pick him up at a faraway entrance. With government-run health care, one might be in dire need of a tourniquet and all that would be available would be a Band-Aid. This horror show would be endless.
Consider also how pressure groups within the government might force the directing of taxpayer money to research favored by some powerful lobby group, while a competing research project that had more promising outcomes would be left to flounder. Very scary stuff and all too real.
Gayle Storatz, Lakewood
Jest goes ta show ya, don't it? Ifn tha Lord had meant folks ta fly, why he'd agiven em wings; an them thar horseless carrages air agonna be tha death o some good souls yet, ifn they let em outn tha dad blamed city, whar they done got them thar new fangled thangs what run on tracks ta deal with already.
Why, ol Uncle Tom most done got skeered ta death tha ither day, whan one o them steam engine thangs done come ahuffin and achuggin right at him, ashreekin an a blastin thet thar whissul to it. Horse done doggone near upped an bucked him off with all thet thar noise. Tha road belongs ta folks what air awalkin an aridin peaceful like, not ta them thar machine drivin upstarts.
Ifn the guvmint caint do no better'n thet with aregalatin them thar thangs what's this world agoin ta come to? Tain't nacherl fer folks ta hafta put up with thangs like thet. Next thang ya know they're agonna want ta string them thar fool electric wires inta houses. Tain't bad nuff now them thar dang lightnin rod hucksters are abotherin everbody bout abuyin one o thar silly setups ta keep tha house an barn from abein rightly burned down when tha Lord sends down his wrath on them thar what air sinners.
An thet thar pill peddler what wants ta take our chillun an give em thet thar whatchamacallit, one on them thar vacsinations, ta keep em from ahavin small-pox, what the Lord done sent ta teach us ta be humble afore Him. Oughtn run him outen town on a rail; an thet thar feller what wants ta pull teeth thouten folks ahavin the pain an sufferin what the Lord intends fer ateachin pashunce an humility right long with him, too. What air this world acomin to?
Tha times they shore air agettin nigh tha end, what with all thet thar dang foolishness. Ol Uncle Tom shore knows what he's atalkin bout, whan he tells em bout it, too. Caint no good at all come from none o them tarnation fool ideas bout adoin diffurnt than what we've allus done, tha way its sposed ta be.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 2, 2007 05:36 AMFor me, the question is not how good the health care systems are in other countries, but rather how good would they be if they spent as much on health care as we do in the United States?
It goes back to that old adage about trying to compare oranges and baseballs. I think the figures show that these other nations that use socialized medicine get a bigger benefit per dollar spent that we do in the United States. Why? Socialized medicine.
For example, according to the statistics below, the United States has over three times as many doctors per 100,000 people as England. How much faster would the service be in England if it tripled the number of doctors?
The United States spends over 2.5 times as much on medical care per capita as Canada. How much better would health care be in Canada if it increased its expenditures 2.5 times?
I wonder how it would affect the quality of health care in the United States if we reduced our spending on health care by half? Or if we reduced the number of doctors by half?
Here are some statistics from the Human Development Index:
Column A: Private funds as a % of GDP
Column B: Public funds as a % of GDP
Column C: Average amount spent per capita
Column D: Number of doctors per 100,000
I thought I'd see how this will work.
....................A.......B....... ........C.......... D
USA............6.6... 8.0 .............5,274 ....549
Canada ......6.7... 2.9 .............2,931 .....209
Norway ......6.6 ...1.6 .............3,409 .....356
Australia ....6.5 ....3.0 ............2,699..... 249
Sweden .....7.8.....1.4........... 2,512 ......305
Japan ........6.5.....1.4 ...........2,133...... 201
Finland ......5.5.... 1.8........... 1,943...... 311
Denmark ...7.3.... 1.5........... 2,583..... .366
England ....6.4.... 1.3........... 2,160...... 166
France ......7.4.....2.3........... 2,736........329
Germany ...8.6.....2.3........... 2,817 .......362
Spain ........5.4.....2.2 ...........1,640....... 320
We have a bad case of socializephobia in the United States. Much like the communistphobia of the Joe McCarthy period. There are still posters here who are living in the nineteenth century and think the government should not even have a concern about such things as child labor, industrial safety, food and drug safety, etc. If anything is clear, it is that we have socialized capitalism in the United States and have had for many years. That is, the predatory capitalism of the late nineteen and early twentieth century has been socialized, made fit to benefit rather than exploit the people. Capitalism can be likened to a wild horse. With predatory capitalism, there are no reins on the horse and it does great damage. With socialized capitalism, there are reins on the horse and it does great good. The greed that motivates the capitalist model cannot be left to its own devices.
The great and unique beauty of the socialized capitalism we have today is that harnesses that human vice to the advantage of the people. It does not take the wind out of its sails, but rather makes sure that those sails are moving in the right direction, toward the people, not away from them.
Does it work perfectly? Are you kidding? What does? It needs constant vigilance; wild horses don't tame easily.
Socialized medicine NEVER works!! People suffer when governments dole out medical care.
I don't want the state or Washington D.C. forcing me and my family into universal disasterous medical care!!!!! No thanks Michael Moore!! No thanks Democrats!!!
Posted by A on July 2, 2007 08:04 AMYou want socialism Truth? Plenty of places in the world for you to go to so you can live out your dream. Our county, and our economic system is just fine the way it is. You don't like it? Leave. You and your fellow travelers will never live to see the day that America becomes the Socialized paradise you envision. Too bad, and you can post here all you want, but you will lose.
Posted by R on July 2, 2007 08:08 AMI agree that would be scary but what you don't realize is what insurance company's is doing to us is very scary also. We need something done or no one will be able to afford it except the rich. That is why Bush don't care. OH and A Washington DC is not a state. You go to the same school as Bush?
Posted by larrymc on July 2, 2007 08:12 AMTo R and A: your dunce caps are in the mail. Wear them proudly because you have earned them. You may find it a problem because its apparently been sitting in dry dock so long, but try using your brain the next time you post. It's fun.
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 08:35 AMBack at ya truth
Posted by R on July 2, 2007 08:42 AMA and R willl have eye-opening experiences with our healthcare system one day.
Posted by It's True on July 2, 2007 08:44 AMTurth,
Sort of reminds me of others who use initials to spout the old McCarthyisms - especially the one about, "OUR WAY, or get out of the country". My or my! How I miss POGO, and that old wildcat with the shotgun lurking behind a tree!
But then again, those boys - and girls - wouldn't catch on anyway. After all, they're the "true Americans" - Trade Mark Registered.
Anyway, we really should thank both old Uncle Tom and the letter writer here. Just goes to show how elastic the conservatives can be at times; and how far they can stretch even the thinest possible excuse and critique to cover their opposition to anything and everything. This one is about like the idea that, since the grapes in the vineyard were mis-handled, and didn't become a prize winning wine, that is evidence - or sure proof - that the apple orchard will be a total failure, with a rotten crop.
Or . . . ? Well, anyway, good old Uncle Tom on the "evils and ills" of government, as usual - as seen through the eyes of "Gayle Storatz" that is.
And then they claim that the media is all "liberal controlled" yet!
Posted by on July 2, 2007 09:02 AMIt's True. I've already had experience with the private health care system. Worked fine, and I paid for the treatment I received. I don't want to experience health care as delivered by a government bureaucracy and I don't want to pay for your treatment. You're on your own.
Posted by R on July 2, 2007 09:06 AM"You're on your own.
Posted by R on July 2, 2007 09:06 AM"
R, you can make that dream come true. All you have to do is to move to a third world country. There isn't a first world country around in which the government, that is, the people, are not concerned about the health care of all of its citizens. Let us know how you make out. Don't you just hate the words "compassion" and "community"?
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 09:18 AMI can't fathom how anyone could favor a government-run socialist healthcare system after looking at the way our socialized system of education works. I really don't want my health in the hands of an organization that often fails to produce literacy in students after 12 odd years of schooling. I understand where you're coming from with wanting other people to foot the bill( I'm very favorable towards a socialized Ferrari program), but I'd rather get quality care when I'm ill, rather than the cheapest bidder possible quality that is typical of government projects. I also happen to think that someone who spends an extra decade of their life in school to become a doctor should make a bit more money than the dropout flipping burgers across the street, so I don't expect my transplant surgery to cost 200$. Here's an idea: why don't those of you who are in favor of socialized medicine break off from the insurance companies and found your own healthcare company/system where the care is cheap and you get what you pay for, and let those of us who understand that you sometimes have to shell out a little extra to get high quality service continue to pay out of our pockets? Oh yeah, then you'd still be paying for your own medical care instead of having Joe taxpayer do it, silly me.
Posted by on July 2, 2007 09:30 AMTruth. I'm not going anywhere. I'm happy with the system we have and I have plenty of compassion and community awareness. It's just not the flavor you like, so you want to change it. So why don't you find a "first world" county of your choice to plant your socialist rear in. They will be happy to have you.
By the way, no thanks on the Dunce Cap. I wouldn't want you to part with a family heirloom.
Posted by R on July 2, 2007 09:41 AM09:30: give us an example of the kind of post you'd write if you used your brain.
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 09:41 AMR: "I wouldn't want you to part with a family heirloom."
Touche.
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 09:44 AMTruth, I know it makes you a little insecure to read ideas from people who put them into their own words, rather than finding someone else's ideas to cut and paste for every post, but a lack of civility hardly makes you seem like you're standing on strongly supported ground.
Posted by on July 2, 2007 09:46 AMFor those here who keep claiming that private enterprise is inherently more efficient than government enterprise, I would like to relate that I went to Wendy's yesterday, and instead of a regular size french fry they gave me chicken nuggets, and instead of the Dr. Pepper I asked for I received a Diet Coke. Yes..... very efficient.
Posted by Dan on July 2, 2007 11:11 AM09:46AM: "Truth, I know it makes you a little insecure to read ideas from people who put them into their own words."
Of course, it's a lot quicker and involves less need for brain power to say something like that than to try to refute my premise that if you don't put enough money into health care it won't work very well regardless of how it is funded, and that the obvious problem with the socialized medicine nations is that they put around half or less as much into health care as the U.S. does, and they have half or less the number of doctors.
My impression is that my argument is so solid that it has you so scared that you won't touch it with a ten foot keyboard. And you talk about me feeling insecure.
Posted by on July 2, 2007 11:21 AMBut Dan, the difference is that government isn't confiscating my money to pay for your fries. If you choose to stop going to Wendy's until they start hiring English speakers, eventually Wendy's will take the hint, and it won't cost me a dime. If government were to take over health care, we will all be stuck with the monster, no matter how badly they get it wrong.
Posted by R on July 2, 2007 11:31 AMTruth, your intellectual power makes the world tremble. Who could possibly refute a guy that never provides a source for anything he says and then talks like a supercilious fool who thinks that they( or whoever they are plagiarizing) have just leveled a dominant debate point. Did you happen to take Ward Churchill's "If it comes out of my mouth, it doesn't need a reference" class? Do you have any support for your argument/solution? It sounds a lot like the one that rich people use,"Throw enough money at it and it will go away". I posted a reference to an NY Times article regarding the impact of more or less doctors/money in healthcare on another thread, here it is again "Kolata, Gina. "More May Not Mean Better In Health Care, Studies Find." NY Times. July 20, 2002." One of the studies referenced in the article was researching the impact of more doctors in an area under government payed healthcare conditions. The study found that more doctors meant more visits, but not better health. I don't really feel like retyping what I already wrote on another post regarding my qualms with free health care systems, here's a link to it
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/07/denial_of_health_care.html#more
Leave Truth alone!
We are on opposite sides here as I want no part of being in a nationwide version of the VA but he attempts to use logic and satatistics to support his views.
I use many of the experiences that I have had to state that the current system is not any fun for my family but we prefer personal responsibility and the elimination of the middleman in healthcare.
That is where Truth and I agree. I want to put the people in charge of their own healthcare by promoting the MSA and other plans where the consumer can choose healthcare as they choose other things instead of "walking blind."
Truth wants to put the government in charge. (I suspect he has never had a longterm experience with the VA)
But, please listen to what he says. From all I have seen and read he is really a caring person and deserves respect. ( And to be teased often.)
Posted by momma y on July 2, 2007 11:39 AMR,
My argument wasn't about subsidization at all, it was about efficiency. I am refuting the argument that I hear over and over that private enterprise is run more efficiently than government programs, despite numerous examples to the contrary: from fast food to Grease Monkey to mortgage companies to cable companies. Claiming private industry is efficient demonstrates incredible naivete.
I am not making the argument either that government entities are run more efficiently than private enterprise. My point is both are run, from my perspective and from numerous examples, rather inefficiently.
If you want to make the argument against government run health care because you are opposed to taxpayer subsidiest, fine.... but don't use the rather tired talking point that privately run health care is better because it is "more efficient", because that is ludicrous and no one has provided a single data point to prove this.
Posted by Dan on July 2, 2007 11:44 AMMomma, is the VA bad because government and government workers are by nature useless, or is it because the VA is starved of funding and sabotaged at every turn?
Am I the only one here who read Thomas Sowell's orginaly mentioned article?
How the letter writer read that linked it to healthcare and then decided the problem is the government is beyond me. Correct me if Im wrong, but dont monopolies tend to form when there is a lack of regulation? Hence antitrust law etc.
Posted by flimflam on July 2, 2007 11:49 AMMy husband had a triple by-pass at VA, my uninsured friends with heart problems get medicine. Some VA centers and treatments work wonders for the veterans. Some don`t.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 2, 2007 12:01 PM11:36AM: "Truth, your intellectual power makes the world tremble."
Thanks, it's always great to hear from a fan. Your T-shirt is in the mail. But for God's sakes, quit that trembling. I'm here to solve all your problems.
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 12:06 PMmomma y: 'Truth wants to put the government in charge. (I suspect he has never had a longterm experience with the VA)"
That's true, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn one night.
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 12:10 PMThat was absolutly the MOST RACIST characterization of Thomas Sowall I have ever seen . Old Grouch is without a question a pathetic BIGOT!!!
Posted by tj1961 on July 2, 2007 12:23 PMTruth, I guess - you say "...refute my premise that if you don't put enough money into health care it won't work very well regardless of how it is funded, and that the obvious problem with the socialized medicine nations is that they put around half or less as much into health care as the U.S. does, and they have half or less the number of doctors."
Well here you go - America is well funded because people and corporate benefit plans fund the system and Dr.s can make a nice living providing the most affordable, advanced and attentive care in the world.
Universal (socialized) health care survives on individual income tax confiscation schemes that feed the egos of politicians and bureaucrats, but do little to provide health care to the "insured".
So using your example above, illustrating health care funding by country, maybe you can explaing why the funding problems experienced by the socialized health care nations is superior to the U.S. system, funded and chosen by individuals, It doesn't make much sense to me. Dunce Cap and all.
Posted by R on July 2, 2007 12:23 PMR, there is something in your thinking that escapes me.
Corporations only have to be sensitive to the stock price and the profit, they serve customers and stockholders.
Governments have to be sensitive to voters, and they serve the voter.
To be a customer you must buy, and the more you buy (or will buy) the more you are listened to, and the same basic idea holds for shares.
To be a voter you only have be a citizen, no purchases or payments necessary to vote.
If you don’t like the way an insurance company does things, or the way a hospital works you have to be a valued customer or a shareholder. Otherwise they don’t care.
If you don’t like the way the government works you vote for it to change.
R: The GDP/PPP, or Gross Domestic Product/Purchasing Power Parity in 2005:
United States: $48,000
In the better off European nations, it is around $30,000 for each.
So, due to the socialized capitalist system in the United States, the United States has a lot more money available to put into health care. Contrary to your emotional outburst, each dollar spent by socialized medicine nations provides more benefit to the people than each dollar spent in the United States. That is apparent from the difference in total expenditures in the different countries. I wonder how many uninsured there would be in the United States if we spent only half as much on health care and had half as many doctors. There are none in the socialized medicine nations who spend half or less as much as we do and have half or less the number of doctors.
Your statement "Universal (socialized) health care survives on individual income tax confiscation schemes that feed the egos of politicians and bureaucrats, but do little to provide health care to the "insured" is the emotional outburst I refer to. It is simply an emotionally rather than intellectually driven, empty and gratuitous insult with not justification. You have no idea what motivates those people, yet you take it on yourself to judge them. I consider that to be a gross lack of integrity.
Those kinds of comments proliferate on the forum, thanks to you and others.
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 01:32 PM"Governments have to be sensitive to voters, and they serve the voter."
That scenario only works in theory Bango. Look at the latest crop of crooks that were recently elected on sucha flimsy platform as a new direction. Nobody even seemed to care what that meant exactly.
And you want to put those same voters in charge of my healthcare? No thanks.
"If you don’t like the way an insurance company does things, or the way a hospital works you have to be a valued customer or a shareholder."
No I don't. I pay for my coverage and I choose which insurance company to go with based on their services. Same for the hospital. If I don't like the level of service provided I go elsewhere.
Posted by KW on July 2, 2007 01:39 PM"Those kinds of comments proliferate on the forum, thanks to you and others".
And thanks that they do.
Do you expect to post here day after day, delivering you socialist clap trap and go unchallenged? You claim knowledge of the "truth" but deliver propaganda. You post data from from like minded sources, but you ignore any opposing argument. I've been exposed to the liberal lie, and observed/experienced its' failures since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Your arguments are not new, the accomplishments of socialism are few and inconsequential, but the true believers like you are relentless, in spite of the record. You don't like my message? You think I'm emotional? Tough. You might wish we non-believers would go away, but we are here to block your every move. You've had your say and you've had your way, and you've had time to demonstrate that this time it will be different. It isn't, and it won't. You no longer control the message, and when exposed to scrutiny and debate your argument is exposed for the lie that it is. Get used to it.
Posted by R on July 2, 2007 03:04 PMR - They also think this blog is for solving world problems. They get real touchy when you tease them. Bango even told me my fact challenges are disruptive to the people here that truly want to learn more from him.
Maybe we should put our heads on our desks or do a time out or something.
Or not.
Posted by KW on July 2, 2007 03:24 PMOk.... I should have said I DON'T want the STATE OF COLORADO .....OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT dictating to me or forcing me into socialistic health care.
Our system isn't perfect by any means but it is better than what socialistic medicine has to offer.
Posted by A on July 2, 2007 03:38 PMKW, I think we you wrote "fact challenges" you were more correct than you could possibly imagine.
Do your homework people, other countries do it far cheaper and get far better results than we do. Sticking your fingers in your ears and blathering about the evils of socialism is not productive. Do you have anything to go on that isnt anecdotal evidence about my friend's grandmas sister in Europe?
Posted by flimflam on July 2, 2007 03:41 PMHi, R. I see you've run out of pills again. Bad for the heart. Not only am I used to it, I thrive on it. Thanks for the help. I hope you get to feeling better soon.
Posted by Truth on July 2, 2007 03:54 PMtj1961,
Waaal, anyhow, ya read it. Fer which, thanks. Nice ta be appreciated from time ta time thar.
R, Etc.,
All the complainers seem to be taking for granted that ANY proposed changes for inprovement in health care just have to be either "government run", or "socialist" - not that a single individual criticizing even knows what "socialism" actually is; or knows enough history to recognize that every part of our socio-economic fabric that applies to the general welfare has been - at one time or another - derived from a "socialist" origin.
Course "R" and his claque would gladly do without food and drug controls, vaccinations, anti-trust laws, public education, social security, and all the rest of the endless list of basic items of social welfare the rest of us have today. For them, everything is frozen, someplace around the end of the 18th Century; and the sooner everyone just quits moving forward the better.
Then, they can go out and get back to the "good old days' when people chopped down trees to burn in the fireplace, to heat the log cabin; hauled water out of the creek; dug outhouse holes for necessity; skinned animals for body coverings; used hog tallow to make candles; and scratched some kind of bare subsistence living out of the ground, all the while burying babies - and mothers - whose "health care" might have been a bottle of snake oil bought off the peddler at the County Fair, if they could manage to walk to town and back once a year.
That's the sign of the 'true American" (Trade Mark Registered); and none of that government interference wanted or allowed.
But time doesn't run backwards. And the Nation does not regress either.
They toss around statements like "your argument is exposed for the lie that it is". But, oddly enough the only argument they are really making is the one they themselves keep inisisting is the way things "ought to be". NO ONE of them has yet offered a constructive alternative plan, or, for that matter, any plan whatsoever that deals with pragmatic reality.
"Truth", and others, do offer thoughtful ideas. And, earlier on, there was a line of postings on the "single pay" form of funding. It, too, offered starting points from reality. So, I'd say that "Truth" and those who at least try to deal with the ideas are far and away out ahead of those who have nothing more to say than "against it".
Posted by Old Grouch on July 2, 2007 04:06 PMBango,
The problem at the VA is that they are not run by medical people but by a bureaucratic method designed to prevent anyone from ever being responsible for any mistakes. Nothing can ever be traced to a person. The only way they can manage that, in their opinion, is to make rules for every situation because they don't trust the doctors to make decisions. They think fair and equal means exactly the same. I posted elsewhere a more specific tale of the last two years. The care is a bit better now than before but I am used to shaking office toadies up and since I can't walk around for another two weeks...now that's entertainment.
OG
Time doesn't run backwards and I agree that one real solution that will help many and be a positive change will be to open free clinics open long hours or even 24/7 in cities starting in the lower income neighborhoods but also the middle class neighborhoods as they are often the ones in greatest need of help as they fall through the cracks.
Add the same clinics to ER's so that triage will get those who need care separated from those in extreme need. It will improve care for all.
And I dare anyone to Tell ME I'm in favor of socialized medicine.
Posted by momma y on July 2, 2007 04:32 PMR said:
"Well here you go - America is well funded because people and corporate benefit plans fund the system and Dr.s can make a nice living providing the most affordable, advanced and attentive care in the world."
Well according to the WHO our corporate health system is doing a "bang-up job" (you know, just like Brownie in New Orleans). We're sure kicking the asses of Brunei & Bahrain - and if we give the insurance & pharma lobbies more tax breaks we'll be sure to catch Morocco, Dominica & Oman in no time! (we'll just ignore the 50 million Americans who are uninsured because, well, we're insured - but we have "compassion" & "community awareness" just like R).
World Health Organizations ranking of world health systems:
Rank Country
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
OK FlimFlam. How about you do your homework. Which countries? I admit, I don't read Daily Kos or Howard Dean's talking points, but I've missed all the nice talk about socialized health care except from those who want it here. Talk to some Canadians who are stuck with it. Find out how well it works when you're diagnosed with a terminal illness. Ask the British why they have to buy personal health insurance if they want competent treatment. Seems you're fudging a lite with the "facts" yourself.
Posted by R on July 2, 2007 05:12 PM
KW said "Bango even told me my fact challenges are disruptive to the people here that truly want to learn more from him."
No I didn’t tell you that, but I did once call you a “vomiting garden gnome”.
As much as you would like to picture yourself as the stalwart Conservative voice of reason, your "fact challenges" are more like "factually-challenged outbursts” or just troll-vomit. You are disruptive because you think it is clever to pollute conversations by tossing handfuls of irrelevancies into the mix, and because you get contexts cocked-up and your facts wrong.
I told you that ” It would be a far better thing if you would improve your research skills, take to heart the constructive criticism you have been given, and apply yourself to understanding and spreading understanding rather than the acts of conversational sabotage and willful ignorance that you have displayed to date.”
I stand by that statement.
In other words, "just agree with us" and all will be just fine. Willful ignorance that you just won't buy what we all are selling.
All those fine "progressive" gubmint programs, as OG pointed out.
Take Social Security. Please. One big ponzi scheme.
Medicare, Medicaid. These big three social welfare programs which will soon be consuming nearly a third of the U.S. budget. That's progress, all right.
Then there is the Bush backed prescription drug program, an even bigger financial disaster than was predicted.
When "progress" involves the gubmint running a program "for the good of society" I say it will cost much more than they say it will. But, you know, these are "progressives" pushing these ideas - the folks that know better than you or me how to run our own lives.
Remember when Bush proposed fixing SS by allowing people to create a voluntary private account for themselves? These folks (Dems) blocked it. Why? Because we are too stupid - we might lose money in a private account. Yeah, and we might get more than a 2% return, too. It's voluntary!! Look it up.
According to OG, for progress to be made the gubmint must be involved in your life.
Posted by RU Serious on July 2, 2007 07:42 PMWow KW. You mean that Bango Bongo gave you constructive criticism and you didn't follow it? He explained the liberal world view to you and you still don't understand? You're guilty of acts of conversational sabotage willful ignorance? And worst of all, you have poor research skills. You must be a really bad guy KW. Or maybe Bongo is just a pompus nobody who thinks he is the smartest guy in the room. Keep shining the light on these leaches KW. Eventually they will all slither away into the dark.
Drew, Nobody is asking you to ignore the uninsured in America. You could do something all by your little self. Heck, you could team with 9news and set a date every month for you and your fellow travelers to write a check to pay the insurance premium for one of your 50 million uninsured buddies. Instead of buddy check9, you could call this Write a Check9. Once a month you could call your buddy and tell him that you just wrote a check for his health care plan. Think of the possibilities. You and all your liberal friends could solve this problem in no time, with your own money. Think about how good you would feel.
And sorry, but your WHO rateings are absolutely meaningless. People from all over the world come here for health care when their life is on the line. They don't go to France or Russia or England or Costa Rica. They come here. That should tell you something about what the people of the world think of WHO and their health care rating system. People act in their own best interest. That's the only survey that counts All the rest is BS and meaningless liberal drivel.
Posted by R on July 2, 2007 08:49 PMmomma y,
One of the best offerings of a start towards improved health care I've read yet. But I bet not one of the "against it" claque even read it.
RU Serious,
I'm still waiting for one of you "against it" people to offer an alternative. Or is that all you have to offer already, "against it"; and "someone else thinks government has to be involved". So, Where's an idea from you for improving health care that does not involve government?
Posted by Old Grouch on July 2, 2007 09:18 PMR,
How about the overwhelming number of foreign Heads of State who go to Switzerland?
Oh! That's right! If you don't mention them, they don't count. That's just "BS and meaningless liberal drivel".
I have yet to read anything from you offering something other than BS and totally meaningless Right Wingnut drivel. So I guess it evens out.
Posted by Old Grouch on July 2, 2007 09:24 PMR, google "medical tourism"
Posted by Bongo Skink on July 2, 2007 09:53 PMThat's good Old Grouch. Build a straw man and then demand the "against its" offer an alternative. You think the system is broken. We don't. You want it fixed, fix it. Put your money where your mouth is.
You really are you know.
Posted by R on July 2, 2007 10:26 PMYep, some heads of state go to Switzerland. Most of the rest needing treatment come here. What's your point? Switzerland's better?
Based on the postings I've read here, I have a long way to go to draw even with you in the meaningless drivel department. But actually, I could care less if you read or respond to my posts. You're a committed socialist-liberal and grouchy old gas bag, and your rantings are predictable, unintelligible and not worth my time.
Posted by R on July 2, 2007 10:40 PMR, do you have any references to back up your claims or are you going on occasions that you have heard of?
For instance, do you know if there is a net inflow or net outflow of medical cases?
Additionaly, how do you account for the WHO and other rating that show the US as having the highest per capita expenditure but not having anywhere near the highest quality of healthcare or patient outcomes?
Posted by Bango Skank on July 3, 2007 09:52 AMBango. Nope I don't and I don't know about inflow or outflow, and you know, I don't care And I can't/won't try to account for WHO or their ratings. But I do know this. If you're for it, I'm for sure going to be against it. If you believe that U.S. health care is inferior to that provided by others in your world community, believe away. But, when your side ponies up socialized medicine for the U.S. I'm for sure going to cancel your vote.
Posted by on July 3, 2007 10:11 AMR,
As I said on another post (and Bongo Skink mentioned here), google "medical tourism" - scores of people are heading out of this country to India, Thailand and other countries for good cheap healthcare, especially surgery.
And tons of people go to Europe for healthcare as well - but apparently you haven't heard about it so it must not happen.
"And sorry, but your WHO rateings(sic) are absolutely meaningless" really? The World's most respected health organization is "meaningless" because R says it is! Well stop the presses!
And I'm glad you came out with your little tirade about the uninsured:
"Heck, you could team with 9news and set a date every month for you and your fellow travelers to write a check to pay the insurance premium for one of your 50 million uninsured buddies."
This just sums up conservative philosophy in a nutshell. You make fun of 50 million people who are in dire straits - Why? Because you're OK Jack, so screw the rest of you. Compassionate Conservatism at work.
Ultimately,R, you're the one who's "absolutely meaningless."
Posted by drew on July 3, 2007 10:42 AMDrew: "You make fun of 50 million people who are in dire straits"
Where did you get that number drew? Census Bureau?
The bureau report, if I remember correctly listed appx 30 million uninsured. Another poll taken to increase that number asked questions like "have you at anytime in the last 12 mo been without med insurance."
So if you changed coverages, jobs, or anything that left you uncovered for even 1 month you were grouped into the "uninsured" catagory.
That poll also didn't take into account the number of people who elect to not have med coverage such as younger people, small business owners and the like who rarely see a doctor and pay cash on the rare occaision when they do.
Regardless which report or poll you're quoting, where did you glean such information that caused you to declare these uninsured are in "dire straits?"
Typical liberal drivel. You lie and twist stats to help make your point.
Posted by KW on July 3, 2007 11:33 AM30 million, 50 million? What do you care KW - you've got yours?! Actually it's around 46 million - so sue me. You can rationalize as much as you want - and then after arrogantly dismissing the millions of families & kids who can't afford treatment, I'm sure you'll show up at church on Sunday with your most sanctimonious face on and say what a good, God-fearing Christian you are. Do you have a hotline to Jesus, too, just like Bush? Typical con.
see http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm
THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED AMERICANS IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH
(Aug, 2006)
"Data released today by the Census Bureau show that the number of uninsured Americans stood at a record 46.6 million in 2005, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage...
The increase of 360,000 in the number of uninsured children is particularly troublesome,” Greenstein said. “Since 1998, the percentage of uninsured children has been dropping steadily, from a high of 15.4 percent to 10.8 percent in 2004. The new Census data show that the uninsured rate among children moved in the wrong direction in 2005, rising to 11.2 percent.”
Greenstein warned that matters could get worse. In fiscal year 2007, which begins October 1, children’s health insurance programs in 17 states face federal funding shortfalls totaling an estimated $800 million, equal to the cost of covering more than 500,000 low-income children."
Posted by drew on July 3, 2007 11:56 AMVery illuminating.
R (not the free statistical package) said ” Bango. Nope I don't and I don't know about inflow or outflow, and you know, I don't care “
In that case you really don’t know if more people come here for advanced healthcare or more people from here go elsewhere for it. Kinda weakens your claims, but let’s forge on.
”And I can't/won't try to account for WHO or their ratings.”
Ok, but then you don’t have any argument when they show a disparity between what we pay here and what we get. No worries though, the best is yet to come!
” But I do know this. If you're for it, I'm for sure going to be against it.”
Aha!
So it really doesn’t matter what the reality is, you just want to pick the opposite of whatever I say, because I am some kind of enemy and you think it is better to oppose me in every way than to understand what the reality is. I think this is a form of insanity, but maybe you were just brought up that way.
So I say that you should be a moral, law abiding person that is polite, thoughtful, doesn’t do drugs, pays their own way, and shows respect for traditions whilst being your own person and loving freedom and justice for all.
Go to it mate, take the opposite stance to that.
” If you believe that U.S. health care is inferior to that provided by others in your world community, believe away. But, when your side ponies up socialized medicine for the U.S. I'm for sure going to cancel your vote.”
Belief is neither here nor there, it’s the truth that counts. Either it is or it isn’t, either we are being gouged or we aren’t and my belief on the matter is irrelevant. My view is that we need to find out and if we are being ripped off, or this system isn’t doing what we want, then we should change it so that it does.
My “side” is the side of good practice, of ethical behaviour, and of solid science, and it is unrelated to political parties or artificial and rather childish “Liberal vs Conservative” mythology.
Whether socialized medicine is the answer or not should be determined by the facts and what the citizens want as outcomes, not what guff comes from the politician that is searching for a wedge issue.
Incidentally, I can’t vote so if that’s all that was driving you, I am afraid you are on the wrong bus.
The obvious problem with KW is that he just doesn't like the United States. He wants a place in which the government does not concern itself with the problems of its people, a government stripped of compassion and a sense of community. Fortunately, that is not the United States.
Posted by Truth on July 3, 2007 12:58 PMNor is socialism a part of the USA Mr Truth.
Thankfully we have a Constitution to keep your kind of socialist ideology at bay.
Posted by KW on July 3, 2007 02:44 PMDo socialists sulk on the 4th of July?
Posted by KW on July 3, 2007 02:45 PM"Do socialists sulk on the 4th of July?"
nope, they party and meet friends and family in this country, in others they carry on as usual.
What do Conservatives do on May 1?
Posted by Bango Skank on July 3, 2007 04:00 PM"What do Conservatives do on May 1?"
We go to work.
Posted by Mike on July 3, 2007 04:37 PMWot, even if it's on a sunday?
Money must be more important than Jesus then, eh?
Possibly, if it falls on a Sunday. It depends on how busy I am.
"Money must be more important than Jesus then, eh?"
Yes.
Posted by Mike on July 3, 2007 05:59 PMBango - One word...
FREEDOM
It's what our founding fathers dreamed of.
Posted by KW on July 3, 2007 07:42 PM"Freedom" eh?
So with more laws than you can shake a stick at governing every inch of your life, an ideology that covers everything the laws couldn't reach, and you reckon you are free?
You need to explain this to me sometime, because I doubt those founding fathers had this in mind.
Bango,
Do you honestly believe that liberals are more supportive of individuality and individual liberties, than conservatives are?
Who supports more government involvement in every aspect of our lives? Liberals.
Who supports more restrictions on business, personal freedoms, property rights, etc...? Liberals.
Who supports a confiscatory tax system? Liberals.
I think you have it backwards.
About the only thing liberals are liberal about, is abortion.