- Why so inconsistent, Mr. Rosen?
- Tax-hike request just too great for many
- Mexican-American resents footing the bill
- Voice of reason about CSAP tests welcome
- Questions could mean our survival
- Public servants could use higher pay
- Blackwater scandal
- Kohl Elementary cancelling Halloween parties
- Paul Krugman
- Broncos
Socialized medicine
A recent response to one of my letters attacking socialized medicine claimed I lack compassion. It is not compassion I lack, but a willingness to submit to tyranny.
The Oxford dictionary definition of compassion is ‘sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.’ Because a great many people fully deserve their suffering, whether to offer compassion to someone should be, like everything else, left to each individual to decide for himself. Compassion ‘offered’ at the point of a gun has nothing to do with true compassion, and everything to do with subjugation.
The Oxford dictionary definition of subjugation is ‘bringing under domination or control, ...’ Every program advocated by the socialized medicine crowd involves some form of telling people like doctors, nurses, hospital administrators and pharmaceutical executives what to do, telling ordinary people how they are to receive medical care, and stealing property from all of us to pay for it, i.e. bringing the medical profession under the domination and control of the state.
Most people believe tyranny can only come from a dictator, but tyranny can also come from your neighbor when he gangs up with enough others to vote you into subjugation. The Founders of this country understood this all too well. It is why they were so afraid of establishing a democracy, (contrary to what you’ve been told we do NOT live in a democracy), and were so determined to create a proper constitutional republic that was initially intended to guarantee each individual’s freedom (look what’s become of those intentions now after 200+ years).
In the spirit of those Founders I state most emphatically, “My life is my own, which means that I decide how I will provide for myself and my family, I decide how I will spend my money, I decide what kind of medical care I will pay for, and I decide who is worthy of my compassion.”
This letter has not been edited.
It's not compassion you lack, but intelligence.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18674951/
I'll ask the same question I always ask when this issue arises.
Why do you believe that we as a nation would be unable to adopt the best practices of countries who provide better healthcare at lower cost than we do?
Posted by jay on October 18, 2007 02:33 PMjay,
why do I have to pay for your family ?
Without giving us the Michael Moore version of other countries wonderful healthcare system, What other countries have a perfect system and are not being taxed to death, Jay?
Posted by on October 18, 2007 03:04 PMFresh, why do I have to pay for yours?Whether you like it or not, this country of ours is filled with several very important "socialist" institutions. You can start with the military.
Just once I would like to see an arguement against "socialized" medicine that wasn't based on scare tactics or a me first attitude.
Posted by flimflam on October 18, 2007 03:10 PMjay is a tiny gnat on the ass of the progressive movement trying to show he is worthy of squat.
if the other countries are so wonderful jay please run to gether they as they will treat you with kid gloves and take such wonderful care of you.
if you want better health care at lower cost you dont want the government involved at all.
There is no compassion with socialized medicine. Only supression!
Posted by A on October 18, 2007 03:22 PMJay is a welfare monger. Gimme gimme gimme is all the loser can say.
Posted by on October 18, 2007 03:22 PMlol...and here I thought there would be intelligent attempts to answer my question.
Posted by jay on October 18, 2007 03:30 PMIf socialized medicine worked, I would be first in line. However, all I see from my friends and families in countries with socialized medicine is sub-par care and waiting lists. In fact, I often have people from those countries staying in my home while they seek care (at their own cost) that they cannot wait for in their own countries. Sure, these countries are paying less for their health care, because those that can afford it are leaving and seeking care elsewhere (in the US!) I think that a safety net for the poor in our country and a system that checks the cost increases that the healthcare industries are passing on are worthy goals. But, please, don't give me socialized medicine!!
Posted by idk on October 18, 2007 03:32 PMLet me rephrase, for once I would like to see an arguement against socialized medicine that wasnt based on scare tactics, a me first attitude, or anecdotes about someone I once knew who was disappointed in socialized medicine. The plural of anecdote is still not facts.
Posted by flimflam on October 18, 2007 03:39 PMMr. Shurts is not being heartless, simpley pragmatic.
Jay - what, if any, are the limits, both high and low for health care in your ideal world?
Posted by bjs on October 18, 2007 03:53 PMFlim flam...... please give us examples of the government/state handling ANYTHING efficiently.
Please tell us why the government/state would be an excellent care-giver.
Because medical services (socialized)are made "free" by the state, demand for them goes up immediately, which means that every doctor QUICKLY becomes overbooked and overworked. The doctors get paid regardless of what, or how well, he/she did when providing service for patients.
It does not make sense to even think that doctors would work harder and better for some faceless bureaucracy than they work for themselves.
Flim flam.... doesn't it bother you one tiny bit, that, doctors, in effect, become short-order cooks in an uncompetitive, state-run, medical soup kitchen?
Are the citizens of Canada using "scare tactics" when they come to the United States for care that is delayed or denied under Canada's socialistic health care system?
Governmental intervention is always dangerous. But nowhere is it more so than in the health care industry. Keep government out of health care and we can all breath easier and perhaps live to take another breath.
Posted by A on October 18, 2007 04:11 PMA, for the third time today. For once I would like to see an arguement against socialized medicine that wasnt based on scare tactics, a me first attitude, or anecdotes about someone I once knew who was disappointed in socialized medicine.
All your offering here is answer a question with a question and more nonsensical scare tactics that are not supported by reality.
Posted by flimflam on October 18, 2007 04:44 PMFlim flam ...Once again why do you think the government would be an excelllent care giver????
I repeat please give me examples of government efficiency!!!
Answers would be appreciated!
Posted by A on October 18, 2007 05:05 PMflimflam - way to go. Keep on asking the same question over and over. The fear mongers can only answer with MOTS. The infection grows.
Posted by What? on October 18, 2007 05:06 PMThe post office is efficient. Not perfect, but no business is.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 18, 2007 05:27 PMA and all I have an answer, Look at the Kaiser Permante system. How well does it work. I mean for the subscribers not the CEO. Our government can't do anything else right, that's what most say, so why do you want them in charge of your health care?
Posted by JMO on October 18, 2007 05:57 PM"I repeat please give me examples of government efficiency!!!"
Please see link above that I posted this morning
Enough said.
Now...since I provided you with your example....why don't you answer my question....
Why do you believe that we as a nation would be unable to adopt the best practices of countries who provide better healthcare at lower cost than we do?
Posted by jay on October 18, 2007 06:13 PMJay, I read it, where is there anything about government efficiency? Isn't that an oxymoron?
Posted by JMO on October 18, 2007 06:24 PM"For once I would like to see an arguement against socialized medicine that wasnt based on scare tactics, a me first attitude..."- flimflam
But flim, with MY money it is a "me first" attitude; and, often, a "me only" one. Or, a "me and my family only" one. That's the point; I don't want to participate. I can afford my own health insurance, and I don't want to contribute to pay for anyone else's.
Go ahead; call me selfish, say I lack compassion, say I'm a mean person.
Why is it that we pay (most of us at least) for our own housing, food, clothing, transportation, etc... but we expect our employers, or government, to pay for our health insurance? How about nationalized life, car, fire, or flood insurance?
"Why do you believe that we as a nation would be unable to adopt the best practices of countries who provide better healthcare at lower cost than we do?"
Jay,
Your question assumes that those other countries provide better health care than ours; well, some would disagree. Maybe we could provide health care at the same level as those countries for the same cost; maybe not.
But, why should I be forced to participate in a program that I don't want to? Oh, I know, because you need my money for the program to have any chance of succeeding, since I would pay much more in than I would ever get back. No thanks.
Posted by Mike on October 18, 2007 07:21 PMI saw on the news up here in Canada where Hillary Clinton introduced her new health care plan. Something similar to what we have in Canada. I also heard that Michael Moore was raving about the health care up here in Canada in his latest movie. As your friend and someone who lives with the Canada health care plan I thought I would give you some facts about this great medical plan that we have in Canada.
First of all
1) The health care plan in Canada is not free. We pay a premium every month of $96. for Shirley and I to be covered. Sounds great eh. What they don't tell you is how much we pay in taxes to keep the health care system afloat. I am personally in the 55% tax bracket. Yes 55% of my earnings go to taxes. A large portion of that and I am not sure of the exact amount goes directly to health care our #1 expense.
2) I would not classify what we have as health care plan, it is more like a health diagnosis system. You can get into to see a doctor quick enough so he can tell you "yes indeed you are sick or you need an operation" but now the challenge becomes getting treated or operated on. We have waiting lists out the ying yang some as much as 2 years down the road.
3) Rather than fix what is wrong with you the usual tactic in Canada is to prescribe drugs. Have a pain here is a drug to take- not what is causing the pain and why. No time for checking you out because it is more important to move as many patients thru as possible each hour for Government re-imbursement
4) Many Canadians do not have a family Doctor.
5) Don't require emergency treatment as you may wait for hours in the emergency room waiting for treatment.
6) Shirley's dad cut his hand on a power saw a few weeks back and it required that his hand be put in a splint - to our surprise we had to pay $125. for a splint because it is not covered under health care plus we have to pay $60. for each visit for him to check it out each week.
7) Shirley's cousin was diagnosed with a heart blockage. Put on a waiting list . Died before he could get treatment.
8) Government allots so many operations per year. When that is done no more operations, unless you go to your local newspaper and plead your case and embarrass the government then money suddenly appears.
9)The Government takes great pride in telling us how much more they are increasing the funding for health care but waiting lists never get shorter. Government just keeps throwing money at the problem but it never goes away. But they are good at finding new ways to tax us, but they don't call it a tax anymore it is now a user fee.
10) A friend needs an operation for a blockage in her leg but because she is a smoker they will not do it. Despite paying into the health care system all these years. My friend is 65 years old. Now there is talk that maybe we should not treat fat and obese people either because they are a drain on the health care system. Let me see now, what we want in Canada is a health care system for healthy people only. That should reduce our health care costs.
11) Forget getting a second opinion, what you see is what you get.
12) I can spend what money I have left after taxes on booze, cigarettes, junk food and anything else that could kill me but I am not allowed by law to spend my money on getting an operation I need because that would be jumping the queue. I must wait my turn except if I am a hockey player or athlete then I can get looked at right away. Go figger. Where else in the world can you spend money to kill yourself but not allowed to spend money to get healthy.
13) Oh did I mention that immigrants are covered automatically at tax payer expense having never contributed a dollar to the system and pay no premiums.
14) Oh yeh we now give free needles to drug users to try and keep them healthy. Wouldn't want a sickly druggie breaking into your house and stealing your things. But people with diabetes who pay into the health care system have to pay for their needles because it is not covered but the health care system.
I send this out not looking for sympathy but as the election looms in the states you will be hearing more and more about universal health care down there and the advocates will be pointing to Canada. I just want to make sure that you hear the truth about health care up here and have some food for thought and informed questions to ask when broached with this subject.
Step wisely and don't make the same mistakes we have
Posted by on October 18, 2007 08:48 PM8:48 plase post a name so A can can be convinced,
Posted by JMO on October 18, 2007 09:09 PM8:48,
Thank you for your response, Maybe just maybe some of these socialized health care fanatics will start looking at the way things really are instead of listening to the liberal media's lies.
Posted by jgd777 on October 18, 2007 10:10 PMjay said:
"Why do you believe that we as a nation would be unable to adopt the best practices of countries who provide better healthcare at lower cost than we do?"
jay is still asking questions based on faulty premises. The report he keeps linking to is an extremely faulty and biased study.
He had not even read the details of the study so he doesn't even know what was measured.
Both the Commonwealth and WHO studies compare apples to oranges. The measurements are set up to automatically lower America's score. For example, paying out-of-pocket for a medical service lowers our score. Why? Because both studies reward countries that allow patients to send the bill to someone else. So, right off the bat, a free market system cannot win.
Also, both studies apply more weight to non-medical care related factors such as life expectancy and infant mortality rates. While these factors tell us a lot about our lifestyles, they tell us little about actual patient interactions with the health care system.
Yet, both studies have one thing in common; they both awarded the US the top rank in actual health care quality. Unfortunately, they give this measurement a much lower weight (25%) than the life expectancy factor (50%).
Imagine if we applied such intellectual blindness to baseball rankings. Instead of simply tallying up wins and losses, we throw in measurements such as prettiest ball park and cheapest tickets; and we apply senseless arbitrary weights to these measurements so that the prettiest ballpark measurement receives a 50% weighting while total wins gets only a 25% weighting. To further complicate the process, the judges of prettiest ballpark will all be Yankees fans.
Then, Yankees fans can post links to the sports page with headlines such as "Colorado Rockies are in last place despite high ticket prices."
Posted by John II on October 18, 2007 10:56 PMOkay, flim flam....A drug called Lantus was developed to help diabetics. It is a long acting insulin that allows diabetics to live a more normal life. That drug was available in the US three years before it was available in Canada. Chile has socialized medicine. All citizens are covered, however, the coverage is what the goverment deems necessary. Insulin pumps are not deemed necessary and thus not covered. Insulin pumps are recognized as the best care for insulin dependent diabetics...not available under that socialized system. In England, an MS drug was denied to patients due to the fact that the particular fund was out of money for "new" drugs for the year...patients had to wait until the next fiscal year to get the drug...Are those enough facts for you?
Posted by idk on October 19, 2007 12:21 AMMake more drugs available over the counter. Many were available in Mexico, Canada and Germany etc, long before they were over the counter here.
Drugs for motion sickness, headaches, nicotine gum and patches, lots of things were prescription only here but were easier to get elsewhere. Get the gov out of regulating these medicines. we are not babies.
Posted by Sharon B. on October 19, 2007 06:19 AMsharon how can you tell the socialist to get out of regulating medicines when they want to regulate all of your life and health care too.
Posted by on October 19, 2007 06:30 AMSharon B. said:
"Get the gov out of regulating these medicines. we are not babies."
Wow, Sharon B., is that really you? Now, you understand how government interference with the market delays the introduction of new medicines to consumers.
The FDA does more harm than good. It increases the cost of drugs. It slows the introduction of new drugs to the market.
Posted by John II on October 19, 2007 07:15 AMWhen one person is forced to work for the benefit of another its called slavery. When a persons assets are taken its called robbery. When a person's freedom is taken by a government, its called socialism/communism.
Posted by Freebird on October 19, 2007 08:26 AMjay said: "Why do you believe that we as a nation would be unable to adopt the best practices of countries who provide better healthcare at lower cost than we do?"
We can and we should. The issue before us is how - which often boils down to "how much?"
This is such a broad topic. Any significant changes require fundamental changes to several aspects of our society. Tough changes that require tough choices. Changes that may/may not be desirable.
In this post, I'm not advocating any position, I'm just pointing out how difficult the task is.
Posted by CA on October 19, 2007 08:33 AMCA,
On the surface, jay's question is valid. But, his premise is false.
Merely learning from others countries is not difficult. We're always comparing ourselves to other nations.
But, the comparison must be based on relevant and accurate data.
jay is convinced that we spend more for lesser health care quality because a highly flawed study told him so. According to jay, the US is ranked 37th in health care and that's that; No further analysis is required. Nevermind that the study was rigged to automatically disqualify a free market system; nevermind that the study was based on non-health care related data.
Of course, smarter folks than jay examine the details of such reports. They also examine what constitutes higher spending.
True, the US spends more on health care. We also spend more per capita on automobiles. Does that mean we have an automobile problem? No. We just happen to buy bigger cars with more options than our foreign counterparts. Why do we do that? Because we have more money to spend. We have the highest (or second highest) per capita income in the world.
What bothers me the most is how easily liberals will accept false data as the truth merely to justify their own ideology. This makes me wonder if liberalism truly is a religion.
Posted by John II on October 19, 2007 09:08 AMCan I direct the tax funds taken from me and sent to the military to be sent to healthcare instead? I don't agree with Socializing the military. Seems like something the commies would do.
Posted by Curious on October 19, 2007 09:51 AMAt least the Constitution provides the authority to the federal government to maintain a military. It says nothing about a national health care system.
Posted by John II on October 19, 2007 09:59 AMJust ask a veteran how he feels about his government run G.I.health benefits, and apply that answer for what to expect from socialized medicine.
Posted by on October 19, 2007 10:17 AMThe argument here never really approaches the point of HEALTH CARE from anything other than the "economics" of its administration, by an insurance company, a government agency, or whatever. Thus, all that happens is an endless, and useless, round of pointless arguments about the PAYMENT SYSTEM, with a few anecdotes concerning unsatisfactory personal experiences with SYSTEMS thrown in.
Unfortunately, this is true simply because the most windy and voceriferous posters are those for whom the matter of MONEY, and/or "economics", is the only area on which their fantasies and imaginations are focused. And, for them, there is nothing else to be considered.
For just one example, we have John II, whose whole argument can be boiled down to, "The more you spend, the 'better' are the things you spend it on; and since we spend the most on something that something is, always, 'better' that any other something. Thus, our 'free market system' MUST PROVIDE 'better health care' than any other system, because we spend more for it."
Which circular nonsense he will repeat in ream, after ream, after ream, after . . . with unending vigor, and equally unending individual examples of EXPENDITURE without relationship to the reality of HEALTH CARE as a whole.
I have seen an example of the thoughtful approach to HEALTH CARE as such in this line of postings. The individual cites Kaiser Permanente, where the HEALTH CARE provider(s), i.e., the MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS, are those who make the principal decisions concerning HEALTH CARE, not some middle management insurance clerk, or some bureaucrat in a government office.
Now, we can spend reams on anecdotes about the problems individuals have encountered even there. But, these aside - since, as has been pointed out, anecdotes, in however many numbers, do NOT invalidate a system as a whole - perhaps a look at the Kaiser Permanente approach would serve to give us a start at looking at a way to provide HEALTH CARE on as nearly a universal basis as might be possible for this Country.
At which point, we would at least be dealing with the ACTUAL TOPIC, rather than with all the foofaraw of political, social, and economic theories about "value", and/or other peripheral issues of that ilk.
And by the way, John II, you are the one who, on another line of postings where some of the same studies were being presented, cited our leadership in the area by way of what is really our "bedside manner", as being evidence of the "better" nature of the "free market system". So what?
As I replied then, and still hold now, after being informed that either insurance, government, or whatever economic system, will not provide actual HEALTH CARE, we also excell in the area of "bedside manner" - or perhaps more accurately, "coffin-side" - when the undertaker sells his solid bronze coffin to the survivors.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 19, 2007 10:30 AMOld Grouch lied:
"For just one example, we have John II, whose whole argument can be boiled down to, "The more you spend, the 'better' are the things you spend it on; and since we spend the most on something that something is, always, 'better' that any other something."
I never said that. In fact, jay and others are saying the opposite: We spend more therefore we don't get our money's worth.
But, as you've just pointed out with this comment:
"And by the way, John II, you are the one who, on another line of postings where some of the same studies were being presented, cited our leadership in the area by way of what is really our "bedside manner", as being evidence of the "better" nature of the "free market system". So what?"
Exactly. As I've said numerous times, both studies have said that the US provides the best quality health care in the world. So that means this assertion by jay is false:
"Why do you believe that we as a nation would be unable to adopt the best practices of countries who provide better healthcare at lower cost than we do?"
Furthermore, Old Grouch, your dismissive comments about a "PAYMENT SYSTEM" proves your ignorance on the matter. The payment system determines the cost and supply of medical services. You cannot take the economics out of health care.
George Washington/John II/or whatever fraud is playing today's spiritualist medium,
Your last set of italics is a QUESTION, not, as you call it, "assertion". Apparently your state of brain death is such that you are unable to distinguish. But, that's not unusual when charlatans "channel" the dead.
Your second set of italics is also fraudulent. You clearly stated that THAT PART of what you call "health care" - and which I described as "bedside manner" - is of the best quality, while the rest - actual HEALTH CARE itself - is below several other Nations in the ratings.
NO, Mr brain dead. The PAYMENT SYSTEM, in and of itself, DOES NOT determine the "supply" of MEDICAL services in all systems. It is especialy NOT the case in the example of Kaiser Permanente I cited.
But, being brain dead as you are, it is to be expected that your responses will be nothing more than the same old same old worn out record, recycling itself, round and round, round and round, round and . . . ad infinitum. After all, it is to be expected that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a brain dead corpse to "think outside the box".
Posted by Old Grouch on October 19, 2007 12:20 PMOld Grouch said:
"Your last set of italics is a QUESTION, not, as you call it, "assertion". Apparently your state of brain death is such that you are unable to distinguish."
Mr. Grouch, jay embedded a false assertion in his question. He is falsely asserting that we provide a lower quality health care at a higher price.
"NO, Mr brain dead. The PAYMENT SYSTEM, in and of itself, DOES NOT determine the "supply" of MEDICAL services in all systems. It is especialy NOT the case in the example of Kaiser Permanente I cited."
You are wrong. You are trying to extract the economics from a national health care system. You cannot do this. Whether it's with a single payer or free market system, economics determines quality, supply, demand, and cost.
*************
Now, everyone pay attention to this comment by Old Grouch:
**********************************************
"Your second set of italics is also fraudulent. You clearly stated that THAT PART of what you call "health care" - and which I described as "bedside manner" - is of the best quality, while the rest - actual HEALTH CARE itself - is below several other Nations in the ratings."
***********************************************
There is no other measurement of actual health care quality in the studies.
There is no other measurement of actual health care quality in the studies.
The Commonwealth study ranked the US number one in a category called "Right Care". The WHO study ranked the US number one in a category called "Responsiveness". These were the only categories that actually measured health care quality. All the other measurements were related to life expectancy, infant mortality rates and whether or not the patient paid out-of-pocket.
So, Old Grouch, you may choose to label the responsiveness category as "bedside manner", but there was no other category that measured doctor/patient interactions.
Furthermore, WHO weighted the responsiveness measurement by 25%, yet weighted the non-medical care related Life Expectancy measurement by 50%. Life expectancy is not a valid measurement of health care quality!
We can eat red meat, smoke cigarettes three packs a day, drink a six pack of beer every night, not exercise, and not practice safe sex and still receive the best health care in the world. That doesn't mean we're going to live as long as the quiet, peaceful, wine-sipping folks in Malta.
Posted by John II on October 19, 2007 01:01 PMjohnnie 2 boy....make up your mind who you're going to post as, please. Your disjointed arguments, faulty premises and interchanging other's questions for statements is hard enough to follow. Cut us some slack and stick with one screen name, please.
Posted by anonymous coward aka Johnnie 2 boy on October 19, 2007 01:04 PMSo we don't need socialized medicine but corporately socialized medicine is better? That's what we have now and it sucks. But I know the INSURANCE industry pays out a ton of your HEALTH CARE moneys to brainwash you into believing that their interests are YOUR interests (and still have enough left over to pocket record profits). Take off your blindfolds and see what is being done to you by those who claim to be on your side.
Posted by Stan B on October 19, 2007 01:07 PM1:04,
It's not hard to follow at all, 1:04. You know exactly what I'm saying.
Once again, you make bold assertions without backing them up. Can you name a faulty premise that I've made? Or do you just follow Old Grouch around with a cowardly yeah, what he said!
Stan B.,
Do you have health insurance? If so, why? You clearly despise insurance companies. So, why give them your money? Could it be that they offer a service that you feel is worth your money?
Posted by John II on October 19, 2007 01:12 PMJohn II,
I have health insurance and they are ripping me off. My business partner and I have pre-existing conditions and because our "Group" could not exist without at least two people, we would, at this time, be forced to purchase new policies which would not cover our pre-existing conditions. My partner is kind of uncomfortable with that choice. The "service" is certainly not worth the money. Insurance stinks and they know it. And you are one of those who are helping, abetting and supporting this blackmail and charade. What is your vested interest in this? Hurting people? Profitting from their unfortunate positions?
Well now, let's see.
The study cited dealt with "Responsiveness"; and the other study cited dealt with items such as longevity - or is that the other way around? Or whatever. Since it will always wind up whereever, and which way, John II wants it to anyway.
But, then again, "Life expectancy is not a valid measure of health care quality", asserts our resident expert.
Of course, he offers nothing "better" as a measurement of HEALTH CARE; but denies that HEALTH CARE and longevity have any "valid relationship" DUH! That's one of his better jokes.
Or, to perhaps put it in better perspective, one of his better examples of being brain dead; whatever the non sequitur about the, "quiet, peaceful, wine-sipping folks in Malta" has to do with health care.
But, of course, it's all economics. It has to be. Everything is, and has to be, "economics". That's the only area in which our brain dead poster has any function left. It's the "box" his dead brain is buried in; and Heaven Forfend! that anyone should even begin to have the idea that there is thought "outside the box", so far as he be concerned.
So, we're back to whatever place one finds one's self before getting to "GO", a useless circular roundabout on the "economics", without a single thought for the REAL meaning of HEALTH CARE, and how CARE is provided - or could be provided - in a more universal way.
Economics: That's the study in which you learn that when you cut the price (or rate) in half, you have more than you had before. Because you then DOUBLE your volume, to get to where you started in the first place.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 19, 2007 02:24 PMJust an observation: all the pro-socialized medicine posters discount any "personal" stories about socialized medicine in other countries as irrelevant. If the actual people that are living under the current socialized systems are uncomfortable, unhappy, etc with their coverage, shouldn't we find out why so that we don't repeat the same mistakes. And just out of curiosity, how is it a personal story that the drug Lantus was not available in Canada for 3 years after it was available in the US? Google it for yourself. Not a story, a fact. Lantus was largely regarded by the Diabetes community as the best treatment option next to insulin pumps for type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetics that were on insulin. For THREE LONG years, the canadian people had to wait. That is unacceptable!
Posted by idk on October 19, 2007 02:26 PMStanley the un-manly says:
"I have health insurance and they are ripping me off. "
So cancel it. Cancel your insurance. No one is forcing you to pay the evil insurance companies. Be a man, Stan. Take that money spent on premiums and put it into a savings account.
Obviously, insurance companies must provide some kind of benefit or you wouldn't still be paying them.
Posted by George Washington on October 19, 2007 02:41 PMOld Grouch,
You are a fool.
Life expectancy is largely a cultural matter.
Guess how many murders per 100k people there are in Japan: 1.4
Now, guess how many murders per 100k there are in the USA: 9.4
When a young black man murders another young black man in east Denver, there is no interaction with the health care system? Yet, that dead black man now lowers overall life expectancy.
Blacks commit 50% of all murders in this country. How many blacks are in Japan?
Posted by George Washington on October 19, 2007 03:18 PMGW,
I've already stated why I don't drop my coverage. Can't you read? And what is your vested interest in the insurance industry?
Posted by Stan B on October 19, 2007 03:40 PMI love my insurance. When I broke my hand, insurance paid the bill, no problems. My rates are reasonable. I have an HSA that I keep well funded for minor medical needs.
Even if I had no insurance, I wouldn't cry about it. Nor would I demand that anyone else owes me anything; nor would I demand someone else pay for me. That type of behavior is for pathetically weak losers like yourself. Instead of being a man and accepting your fate, you cry and whine that other people are not doing enough for you.
Do yourself a favor Stanley, read the The Discourses by Epictetus. Teach yourself to be a strong, proud man. Then work on being a strong American man. Manliness does not come from your body, Stan, it comes from your mind. There are no physical excuses why you cannot be a strong man.
Posted by George Washington on October 19, 2007 04:01 PMJMO...................A is TOTALLY convinced and has ALWAYS been convinced that "socialized medicine is the pits!!!
Thanks for your letter anonymous Canadian!!
Some people just can't stand, or won't accept the the truth, even when it hits them right in the kisser!!!
Posted by A on October 19, 2007 04:15 PMGW,
If you had no insurance and didn't have the funds to cover your ailment, guess who would wind up paying for your problem? We all pay for each others' illnesses. You can rant all you want but that doesn't change the reality. Premiums, taxes, savings, bankruptsies we all share these expenses. I just don't believe people should make obscene profit from the suffering of others.
I've read more books and articles than I could ever hope to recall. I even read the Bible but that doesn't mean it's "gospel". And if you and most of your neo-con buddies can't make a point without making derogatory comments about the person with whom you do not agree, then you're just demonstrating your arrogance.
Posted by Stan B on October 19, 2007 04:23 PMStan,
We all do not pay for each other's ailments. Why do you keep repeating that stupid statement?
Posted by George Washington on October 19, 2007 04:29 PMStan, do you know what a "neo-con" is?
Posted by George Washington on October 19, 2007 04:34 PMBy the way, Stan, if you want to know why I berate you, it's because reason and logic failed. I tried treating you like an intellectual equal last month. But, you refused to answer questions and acknowledge obvious points. So, now I must shame you into being a man instead of treating you like one.
Posted by George Washington on October 19, 2007 04:48 PMGW,
Your a waste a time, John II. Universal health care is coming and there's not a thing you can do to stop it.
Posted by Stan B on October 19, 2007 04:50 PMI love my insurance. When I broke my hand, insurance paid the bill, no problems. My rates are reasonable. I have an HSA that I keep well funded for minor medical needs.
Even if I had no insurance, I wouldn't cry about it. Nor would I demand that anyone else owes me anything; nor would I demand someone else pay for me. That type of behavior is for pathetically weak losers like yourself. Instead of being a man and accepting your fate, you cry and whine that other people are not doing enough for you.
Do yourself a favor Stanley, read the The Discourses by Epictetus. Teach yourself to be a strong, proud man. Then work on being a strong American man. Manliness does not come from your body, Stan, it comes from your mind. There are no physical excuses why you cannot be a strong man.
Posted by George Washington on October 19, 2007 04:57 PMStan,
Now you're getting advice about how to live from a corpse. Ain't spiritualistic mediums and channeling fun!
Ah! Well! We are coming up on Halloween; so it's natural the ghosts and brain dead would be out and abroad.
Just another head full of fertilizer there, expecting us to believe it produces well cultivated thoughts.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 19, 2007 06:08 PMSocalizing anything dooms it to confusion, incompetence and, ultimately, drains the public's pocket book with no positive effect resulting. Governmental control does the same bloody thing only with more energy. A free market place, on the other hand, while subject to fits of indecision and adjustment from time to time, succeeds in serving people with what can be called a fair deal as long as they are able to negotiate it.
Posted by Allen Campbell on October 20, 2007 08:01 PMOld, unfufilled, Grouch, Sir:
You obviously have a knack for wordage and verbage but, alas, no temperament for dealing with the unwashed masses. If one is to get a point across, one must not descent to electuary use of the english language. One must rise to the highest level of oratorical, ethical and proper delivery of the intended idea meant. Hear, let me do it for you.
Stan old mann you have, by god, made somewhat of a mistake in your arogant assumption concerning the issue of universal health care. First , it is not meant for the universe at all, I do believe. Secondly, it can't come, it will be in existence or not. Thirdly, nothing created by goverment intervention can long last, never mind being an unstoppable creature of government fumbling. Lastly, YOUR A TWIT, A BORE AND AN UNMITIGATED IGNORAMUS FAR TO MUCH FILLED WITH YOURSELF AND YOUR UNTHOUGHTOUT OPINIONS.
Just a suggestion my friend.
Posted by Allen Campbell on October 20, 2007 08:52 PMForgive the errors, it was just a hastely put together thing.
Posted by Allen Campbell on October 20, 2007 09:05 PMhaha...the far right folks here are still having trouble coming to terms with the FACT that the US pays more for lower quality healthcare than our global peers.
I'll ask this question again since no one has had the balls to answer it as of yet.
Why do you believe that we as a nation would be unable to adopt the best practices of countries who provide better healthcare at lower cost than we do?
John...please don't make me give you the smack down on the numbers again.
Putting your head in the sand and simply refusing to acknowledge politically inconvenient facts isn't a valid debate tactic.
Posted by jay on October 20, 2007 10:44 PMJay,
Fine, lets say you've made your point. Now if your superior intellect can come up with the answer to who is going to pay for it without every blue collar worker being taxed out of existence you'll win a pulizer. Maybe you have all the money you will ever need but, the majority of working stiffs and small business men and women don't. We have been taxed and regulated to the point of having to choose what dire necessities we can afford.
Our neighborhood tavern has lost 27% of it's business since the ban. And don't dare try to call it a marginal business because as the Department of Revenue statistics prove, that is close to the average loss in all bars and taverns across the entire State of Colorado.
Our family has own the Tavern for 35 years and it is experience and our retirement savings that keeps it going in spite of the devastating loss of business. And the government wants to add to that burden by increasing the tax on liquor and you want to increase even more taxes to pay for a propaganda justifyed federal health care program that will include illegal aliens, middle class adults and children three or four times above the poverty level while my wife and I are having to considering dropping our health insurance just so we can pay the bills.
You Sir, can go straight to hell with your social enginneering programs that wil destroy what the country is all about. We would be able to get by if the idiot legislators iterference in private property and business was seen for what it really is: tyranny of the majority over the minority justified by the lies and deception of tobacco control and their masters, big Pharmaceutical and multi billion dollar foundations and their mercantile interests.
We need less taxes people, not more and more ad infinity until we and therefore the country goes flat broke.
Posted by Allen Campbell on October 21, 2007 07:26 AMIf people don't wake up to the scams politicians are increasingly foisting on the taxpaying citizens of this once thriving and economically sound country, which is directly the result of the hardworking bluecollar people and small businesses that are the backbone of any free country's economy, then the slowly creeping into our lives tyranny they represent will put an end to this once proud bastion of freedom, justice and liberty.
Posted by Allen Campbell on October 21, 2007 07:44 AMMr. Campbell,
When dealing with . . . a certain level of fixations, shall we say? . . . I believe each of us has his, or her, own "style" of approach and response. Yours is, indeed, admirable; but, while I do thank you for the example, I'm a bit beyond the point of changing what already works for me in that area.
Having spent some 50+ years in the area of mental health CARE - 45+ of them as a headshrinker - I do tend to become a bit irritated with the inability to distinguish between the idea of CARE and PAYMENT SYSTEM - whether the latter be by tax, or by personal funding, with or without some form of participation on the part of employers, etc.
There is a great deal of the approach of taking for granted that a proposed system of CARE "won't work", because the METHOD OF PAYMENT - tax or other - is also - automatically and unthinkingly - taken for granted as being "bad" by the writer. This leads to a circular argument about imaginary conditions - fixations or beliefs if you prefer - rather than to any consideration of what the whole point of HEALTH CARE is about.
For example, the control of epidemic diseases - which has served to almost completely wipe out some early devastating contagious plagues for instance - is one that has been carried out by way of the cooperation between government and CARE givers, which cooperation is now being reviled as "socialism" by those for whom labels are more important than reason and judgment. Yet, these same labelers - who decry ANY governmental participation in anything to do with THEIR personal ideas of what should be in THEIR pocketbooks - are, also, the beneficiaries of the effort to eliminate plagues and epidemics.
However, they are the first to ignore the REALITY that, while we as a Nation have arrived at a point of freedom from some plagues, the rest of the world has not. And, WE, as individuals and as a Nation, are open to massive damage from those areas in which certain diseases are still abundant and endemic, if not epidemic, to the area.
But, rather than recognize that HEALTH CARE includes preventive - or proactive - methods and efforts, these same individuals would rather spend time and effort arguing about PAYMENT SYSTEMS than come to grips with the REALITY that someone from elswhere on the globe, sitting next to them on a bus, or on an airline flight, could infect them - and through them provide a serious plague for the Nation - with a disease to which we do not as yet have immunity. And, they are either completely "against" the idea of of providing preventive, or proactive, CARE, even for infants and children - or others at risK - if there might be ANY money out of THEIR pocketbooks involved; or they are just callously indifferent to the idea that others might suffer, because of lack of something in the pocketbook to pay for CARE.
And, not only that, they would prefer to sit around and blather about who ought to get the lion's share of the profits - in a "market driven economy" - rather than even begin to fund research for a treatment, vaccination, or cure.
A system of universal HEALTH CARE benefits EVERYONE in the long run.
Your last posting is quite remarkable for its rhetoric, praise of the status quo, and high sounding "patriotism".
Is that all you have to offer concerning improvement in HEALTH CARE?
Posted by Old Grouch on October 21, 2007 10:21 AMAlan, take a breath, calm down and breath.
Regardless of how we pay for our healthcare in the US...we can still benefit from adopting the best practices of countries who are providing better healthcare at lower costs.
Do you understand?
Posted by jay on October 21, 2007 10:46 AMImprovement on what? What if you don't have health care, what then is there to improve on, and that is what many people don't have. They don't want to hear grandiose improvement plans, they just want to hear someone say that they are going to get big pharmaceutical companies and special interests groups out of the health care business and lower the costs of health care by getting insurance companies to fund wellness care so people can provent there health problems from getting worse instead of waiting for the worst case example , then denying all payments that they can get away with.
Politicians however, are at best a selfserving lot and can't be counted on for being able to understand common sense or anything that is even remotely like it.
I don't have a clue how to improve on health care any better than that and that will take considerable effort by the powers but, through a complete embargo on paying tax by the public it could happen fast.
Posted by Allen Campbell on October 21, 2007 11:10 AMAllen, I'll ask you the same question I ask everyone when this issue comes up.
Why do you think our country would be unable to adopt some of the best practices of countries who are doing healthcare better and cheaper than we are?
Posted by jay on October 21, 2007 03:45 PMjay said,
"we can still benefit from adopting the best practices of countries who are providing better healthcare at lower costs."
Sure we can. No one would refute that statement. The trick is in identifying what actually is the best practice.
"John...please don't make me give you the smack down on the numbers again."
Why do you think posting the same numbers over and over again is a "smack down"? I've already seen the numbers. I've already refuted the numbers. You have no response to my refutations other than to repeat yourself.
jay,
The answer there lies in the first sentence of the "answer" John II gave. Quote: "The trick is in identifying what actually is the best practice".
And it is, certainly, a TRICK. A trick answer to a real question.
So long as HEALTH CARE and payment system are confused as one and the same thing - which for John II and his ilk is, simply, forever and a day - the matter of CARE, and "practice", will always be nothing more than the same old, same old, circular round of squabbles over "economics", and what either side labels as "socialism" and/or "capitalism/free-enterprise".
These people - both in and out of political office - DON'T WANT a resolution of the problem. indeed, as John II keeps insisting, there "is no problem to begin with"; since, whatever evidence be there to the contrary, he still insists that HIS IDEA of our having the "best system" is the "ONLY RIGHT IDEA"; and HIS interpretation of any report, or offered evidence, is the "ONLY INTERPRETATION".
And, sad to say, that's where the whole matter founders today, on the ideology, and/or belief-system, of the individual and the political party. The fixations on either side - and all sides - are so deeply ingrained as to be insurmountable obstacles to ANY form of intelligent discussion, much less the art of the achievable in politics, the compromise.
Attempting to actually debate with the John IIs of the world is a futile and foolish waste of time. They are incapable of exchanging IDEAS, simply because they are ideologues, who don't have ideas, only fixed ideologies that are always the ONLY ideology by which the "world (should) turn". They know it all, about everything, already. That's what makes them "conservatives", of whatever stripe.
So, why waste time bothering them with either ideas or facts?
Posted by Old Grouch on October 22, 2007 09:46 AMOld Grouch,
Are you actually saying that the payment system for health care does not greatly influence the cost, quality, and availability of health care?
I suggest you study a bit more about the issue. Otherwise, there's no use in arguing with you.
Posted by John II on October 22, 2007 12:07 PMJohn I think we're done here and consider the point conceded in my favor unless you can come up with any information refuting the conclusions reached by the several studies and reports listed above.
Glad we finally got you cornered on this one.
So...just to recap...and again to ask the question:
Why do you believe that the US as a country is unable to adopt the best practices of countries who are doing healthcare BETTER and CHEAPER than we are?
I still have yet to see a right winger honestly answer that question.
Posted by jay on October 22, 2007 12:39 PM