How much did the taxpayers in Spain pay for your medical care?

Oh yeah! Everybody talks about socialized medicine being free healthcare, but like mama always said, “there’s no such thing as a free meal.” Somebody pays.

How would you like to pay taxes at the same rate Spanish citizens do? Bottom earners, those who earn $33,836 US dollars or less before allowances pay a tax rate of 24%. Top earners, and it only takes $86,698 US dollars before allowance to qualify as a top earner, pay taxes at a rate of 43%.

This means that the poorest people in Spain contributed almost a quarter of their income so you would pay nothing for your five week hospital stay. That seems fair to me.

Sponges-R-Us yes sir, that’s tell’em how it is. As soon as you’re socialized medicine kicks in, you’ll have every free loader in the country getting free room and board for as little as a hang nail. This country has so many free loaders it’s pathetic to think that this country was built on the backs of WORKING Americans, that contribute to our society not bleed it dry. Eva, do you even have a job, pay taxes, and contribute to any nations benefit? Or do you gallivant around the world sponging off those that do?

Wanna know how to debunk these myths of superior quality in Europe? True, that a majority of Europeans, such as the Spanish, like their healthcare and see no need for reform, but the real question is whether are they getting superior care. There are plenty of sources and objective ways to find out.

Any individual can seek out things they like about the system, just like they way I sought to find things that I liked about socialist Cuba, although I never wanted to live there. I will start at the core of left brainwashing, Michael Moore, and if I get a good reponse we can continue. For sources, please see OECD 2007/2008 reports.

In Sicko, Michael Moore disingenuously seeks out facts that will suit his premise, namely the 2000 WHO report. There are several reasons to be skeptical of these rankings. In here, the World Health Organization study that ranks the U.S. health care system 37th in the world, “slightly better than Slovenia”. This study bases its conclusions on such highly subjective measures as “fairness” and criteria that are not strictly related to a country’s health care system, such as “tobacco control.” For example, the WHO report penalizes the United States for not having a sufficiently progressive tax system, not providing all citizens with health insurance, and having a general paucity of social welfare programs. Indeed, much of the poor performance of the United States is due to its ranking of 54th in the category of fairness. The United States is actually
penalized for adopting Health Savings Accounts and because, according to the WHO,
patients pay too much out of pocket. Such judgments clearly reflect a particular political point of view, rather than a neutral measure of health care quality.

Health care spending is not necessarily bad. To a large degree, America spends money on
healthcare because it is a wealthy nation and chooses to do so. Economists consider healthcare a “normal good,” meaning that spending is positively correlated with income.

On the other hand, the WHO report ranks the United States number one in the
world in responsiveness to patients’ needs in choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely
care, and confidentiality.

When you compare the outcomes for specific diseases, the United States clearly outperforms
the rest of the world. Whether the disease is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, or AIDS, the chances of a patient surviving are far higher in the United States than in other countries.
For example, according to a study published in the British medical journal The Lancet, the United States is at the top of the charts when it comes to surviving cancer.

As for Spain, lists vary from region to region but are a significant problem everywhere. On average, Spaniards wait 65 days to see a specialist, and in some regions the wait can be much longer. For instance, the wait for a specialist in the Canary Islands is 140 days. Even on the mainland, in Galacia, the wait can be as long as 81 days. For some specialties the problem is far worse, with a national average of 71 days for a gynecologist and 81 days for a neurologist. Waits for specific procedures are also lengthy. (OECD)

Most of the support for a European system is essentially a sham. When you look overall at the systems, they are by far not superior, and not even close to the many amenities that we enjoy. That’s not saying that we don’t need to reform. However, the case needs to be made for a free market, not more regulation and bureaucracy. Just look at the problems that we have with small medical issues like H1N1, don’t think that regulations have anything to do with it? I encourage you to research a bit.

There is already too much government involvement, and it looks like it stands to get worse.

Hmmmm, maybe you ought to immigrate to spain. Just a thought. We all have choices, at least for now, and I choose not to go socialist anymore than we already have here in the US. I don’t want that necessary evil, ie, govt, involved in my life anymore than it already is.

I hate elitist politicians of both parties and know they are not interested in what is good for the country, but rather only what will assure them office for life status—ted (the swimmer) kennedy for example.

If anyone wants a bigger role for govt in their lives, why not spare the rest of us and go to whatever little socialist heavan you can find. Why are you people so adamant in jacking up this great country for the rest of us?

G-d, get a life!!

I want socialized medicine.

Of course you do Eva, you are unable to care for yourself and want others to do it for you. Fortunately there are enough productive members of society in order to do just that. It’s interesting that you comment on “rude behavior” when your topic is targeting health care.

Since “how much free stuff can I get” is your barometer for choosing your living quarters I recommend that you consider Spain.

Well, those of you who don’t want socialized medicine think about this: We ARE paying for uninsured hospital stays, right now, and we are paying a PREMIUM for them. It is our taxes that fund the unisured. In a socialialized system, there would be cost controls that would prevent 64,000% markups on medicine, etc. That’s right: 64,000% markups on prescriptions. That is NOT a made up number. That is what we are paying right now, in our uncontrolled, unregulated, given-away-by-the-Bush-Administration-to-Big-Pharma-for-free environment we live in now – oh, not exactly free because the legislators that sold us down that river subsequently quit and accepted huge salaries from Big Pharma! Yeah, I saw Sicko, too. Why is it not criminal for legislators to sell us down the river and then go to work for the robbers who wrong us?

In one of the most affluent countries in the world, doesn’t it bug you that we are so – for lack of a better word -un-Christian when it comes to our fellow man? Gee Thomas, why do you assume that anyone who’s uninsured is a free-loader? Oh yeah, that old game: first objectify the human being, then dismiss them as freeloaders. If you saw Sicko, you can see that there are millions of Americans who did everything right: raised and educated their children, saved soe money, bought a house, etc. Their ONLY CRIME was getting sick and being abandoned by our current healthcare system. I don’t know about you but when I see that happening I immediately think: There by the grace of God goes I – NOT, oh they are a bunch of freeloaders. Once you get that the system is corrupt and that you can do everything right – save for the future, pay your health insurance premiums, etc. – and then, when you need the coverage, the insurance companies can call your illness a “pre-existiing condition” and refuse to cover you and then you lose everying you’ve worked for your entire life. These are NOT isolated incidents. This is happening every day. We need to change the system and socialized medicine is sounding better and better to me.

As for waiting 65 days to see a specialist or whatever, I have a sis that lives in a socialized medicine country and she assures me that if it’s an emergency, ever, there is no wait. If it can wait, you might wait 65 days but who cares when you know that if someone needs the care more urgently than you do, they will get it.

Wake up, people. We’ve been scammed so long and we can’t wait any longer to fix this corrupt, ineffective medical system.

The question is, would you rather dump a significant portion of your salary into the corrupt beaurocracy that defines our health care system now or dump your money into taxes so you can actually get a valuable service that is effective and improves your quality of life? I can give you at least ten examples of people in other countries (citizens AND non citizens) who recieve top quality health care that surpasses anything they would have been able to afford in the States. Equally, I can rattle off more examples of people here in the States whose lives have been ruined becuase of the health care status quo. Anyone who thinks that they aren’t losing an incredible amount of money to the health care system now is an idiot. And guess what? YOU GET NOTHING FOR WHAT YOU ARE SPENDING. Money is money no matter where it goes. Taxes or a health insurance company, it makes no difference.

Also, don’t criticize the person who wrote this letter for using Spain’s health care system. What else was she supposed to do, die? Those systems exist to HELP PEOPLE, not turn a profit.

And all this “America is the greatest country on earth” rhetoric is bullshit that is hand-fed to you from a young age by your state education. On an international level, America is actually one of the least desirable places to live on Earth at the moment. We have an incredibly low standard of health and living compared to most western AND eastern countries. We do pay quite a fair amount of taxes that we see relatively little for. Our health care is shit, our public education is shit, our cities are filthy and we generally lack effective public transportation.

Socialism is not a dirty word, its a system of government that actually provides services to the people. The only reason any of you are oppsed to “socialism” is because of archaic cold-war propogranda that is still accepted within American education for some reason. Our governement now is corrupt as fuck anyway, and having state funded health care wouldnt change that one bit.

You are all just a bunch of hypocrites. If you had the same health care system as England or Japan for one week and it was taken away, you would all be screaming for it. Especially if you were seriously ill. And if any of your loved ones have been seriously ill, so would they.

open your minds.

Whole industries and banks are biting the dust; unemployment lingers close to double-digits; government deficits rise like a mountain of nuclear waste; the communist Chinese are buying up our debt in anticipation of God knows what kind of future demands; and more soldiers die needlessly while the President dithers with his golf game. Purely mad social engineers — Obama, Pelosi, & Reid — are on a determined march toward nationalizing one sixth of the entire American economy. Their scheme will have far-reaching effects on one hundred percent of the men, women and children in this country. The whole idea is patently ridiculous, especially in light of the host of other impending disasters.

But the fact that these Democrat power-mongers are attempting to foist upon us a system already tried-and-failed so many times in so many places pushes the current national healthcare debate into the realm of pure lunacy.

As one of Einstein’s most oft-quoted bits of genius reminds us, doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results, is insanity.

In his determined efforts to persuade a resistant public, President Obama has offered exaggerated horror stories about our own healthcare system. He has cited phantom doctors amputating healthy limbs for profit, doctors unnecessarily removing children’s tonsils, as well as a few sordid stories about the failure of health insurance companies to deliver on their promises. But turning doctors into greedy villains and insurance companies into monsters has proved a bit difficult, since more than 80% of Americans consistently report satisfaction with both.

It’s much easier to find horror stories from the medical delivery systems being touted by Democrats as the far warmer and fuzzier “options.” These oft-cited models include Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand. Amy Ridenour and Ryan Balis of the National Center for Public Policy Research highlighted one hundred individual nightmares rendered by these failing healthcare systems in their book, Shattered Lives.

Babies born at home, in hospital linen closets, and in parking lots without medical assistance due to bed shortages occurs in the highly touted British system. A full six percent of Britons have engaged in do-it-yourself dentistry, including tooth extractions, due to the dentist shortage. A 54-year-old smoker was refused surgery for accidental multiple fractures to his ankle because doctors said he wouldn’t have as high a recovery rate as a non-smoker. British citizens are routinely denied expensive cancer-fighting drugs because they’re the wrong age or live in the wrong district. As if these horrors weren’t bad enough, the medical care denials are dictated by a sort of “death panel” coined by Orwellian bureaucrats to spell NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence).

The elephant in the room with these touted healthcare models, of course, is the size of population served. None of the countries studied by Ridenour and Balis comes even close to America’s 300-million-plus population. The largest of these national healthcare systems is the United Kingdom, with a little less than 62 million people served. This is the rough equivalent of the combined population of California and Texas alone. Canada has just under 34 million citizens, which is nearly 3 million less than the single state of California.

Democrats tout Medicare as the test model, but Medicare is on a financial collision course with reality. The Massachusetts model, used by Mitt Romney to boost his presidential bid, is taking the state under water so fast that the Red Cross should send the citizenry life preservers. The Democrats are trying to take an already failing business model from mom-and-pop-small-town-corner-size to national mega-franchise overnight, and they seem not to even see the nitwit nature of that.

If anything positive can be said about the countries now experiencing the disasters and “shattered lives” rendered by full-tilt, single-payer healthcare delivery models, it is that they didn’t know any better when they started down this road. There weren’t clear failures marking every turn.

But the United States has no such excuse. Democrats are on a hell-bent tear to take American taxpayers straight off the proverbial cliff in their purely insane insistence to follow a path strewn with catastrophe. Why on earth would they expect a better result, especially when they have hundreds of millions more people to please?

Insanity. It’s just pure insanity.

Perhaps instead of sending all those don’t-do-it petitions to the folks in charge up there in D.C., we ought to try shipping them straitjackets and Valium. That might help them get a better handle on what we think of their national healthcare schemes.

Want a real fix? Two things in less than fifty pages: tort reform and a national competitive market for insurers. I think I’ll run for President.

The congressional vote to “fix” health care is almost upon us. Right now, five bills — two in the Senate and three in the House — have passed their respective committees. Congress will most likely vote on some version of these bills next month. Should the legislation pass — after more massaging and another vote by both House and Senate — it will be forwarded to the President to sign into law.

This is a good time to review the health care debate leading up to this point. First, Obama declared that the nation’s most urgent problem was that 45 million people do not have health insurance. Then someone pointed out that 15 million of those aren’t Americans. When 15 million illegal aliens are subtracted, 30 million Americans — or 10% of the population — are left without health insurance. Then someone else noted that many of that 10% are temporarily without insurance because they are unemployed.

Others observed that many young people opt not to buy insurance because they feel they don’t need it. And there are also those living way above the poverty level who just don’t want to spend money on health insurance. So you net out all those folks, and you have about 15 million — or 5% of the population — without health insurance.

This is the point where the debate got murky. Somehow the Obama coalition (including major media) attempted to convince the American people that not having health insurance meant not having access to health care. But everyone has access to the emergency room and emergency medical service, even folks who are here illegally. More than 7,000 clinics all over the country provide health care to the uninsured. These uninsured are then charged according to their ability to pay. Hospitals, drug companies, and local governments also provide indigent care.

Some asked, is the level of medical care for indigents comparable to the care members of Congress enjoy at taxpayer expense? Probably not, but it’s still better than what regular folks get in Afghanistan, Somalia, China, or Russia. And it can be even better than the care provided in places like Britain and Canada — “free countries” with socialized health care. Currently in Canada, the average waiting time between the first visit to the physician’s office and treatment is over 18 weeks! For many reasons, the American health care system is just about as good as it gets. But that may not be true for long.

Should we spend 83 to 130 billion dollars a year and allow the government to take over 16% of our economy to provide what the supposedly deprived population already has? Remember, the President promised to make this change without adding one dime to the deficit!

The US started down the socialized medicine path in 1967 by spending $2.7 billion on Medicare for roughly 7% of the US population. At the time, that expenditure was 1.7% of the total federal budget, or about $180 per person annually. Today, Medicare provides coverage for 15% of the population by spending 430 billion. That represents 10% of the total federal budget, or about $10,000 per person annually, which is almost twice the 1967 rate (adjusted for inflation). Historically, the government doesn’t have a good track record on programs and spending, as you can see by its exponential growth.

Do we really need to spend billions more on a program that will, according to a recent Congressional Budget Office study, cover only about 10 million of the 30 million who are not insured? All this spending and fuss, and the government can’t cover even one third of their target.

In 1961, Ronald Reagan gave a speech warning that socializing medicine was the quickest way to political socialism. He was dead-on in that observation.

The ObamaCare supporter should be asked the following questions:

1) Why is socialized medicine being “sold” as a way to make health care affordable without addressing the crippling costs of medical malpractice insurance?

2) Why is tort reform not a major part of any of these bills?

3) If coverage does not include illegal aliens, why are providers not allowed to ask proof of citizenship from the patient?

4) How does a public plan promote competition? There are over 3,000 health insurance providers today. When the government whittles this number down to one — itself — how is that competitive?

5) How can you provide health care to another 30 million folks without a massive increase in medical staff, equipment, pharmaceuticals, and hospitals?

6) How will government increase staff when it has pledged to limit pay and cut revenue to hospitals and doctors? Every other government provider of health care in the world must limit care. How will our system avoid limiting care? Unfortunately, our socialized health care system will have no choice but to limit health care. There will be death panels. Decisions that have historically been made by individuals, families, and their doctors, will now be made by government employees — strangers who assess statistics, medical expediency, and finances rather than ethics, religious principles, and freedom.

So, 7) Will the health care legislation provide federally funded abortions?

8) Why does the Obama administration seek to silence or counterattack every organization and individual that has opposed the plan? Isn’t debate a critical part of democracy?

9) Why is legislation to give Congress three days to read and comprehend what will be a 1000- to 1500-page bill being squashed by the Left? Thirty days is not enough to review a bill of this magnitude. I predict that it will be forced through in record time à la Cap and Trade in the House, where they had less than half a day before the bill came to a vote.

It’s ironic that the same administration that pushed for more comprehensive consumer protection from the banking industry is dead-set against protecting the taxpaying consumer in its haste to get this freedom-destroying legislation passed.

Obama’s health care reform is not about health care — it’s about control. This legislation will destroy what we have and we’ll never be able to regain our current quantity and quality of service. Someone recently said that “just because there isn’t blood in the streets doesn’t mean we’re not in the middle of a revolution.” I’m worried that this is true and most of us don’t realize it. Look up “revolution” in the dictionary and you will find that it includes the term “change.”

Amen Ben, good post. Too bad most others will simply scan over it and attack you since the post doesn’t match their agenda.

100 examples upon the millions of people who have been denied health care in this country and have died or been socially disadvanteged because of it?

80% of people in this country satisfied with health care? What media network fed you that made up number? Just go to fucking Denny’s and take a survey you moron.

I suggest you peel your eyes away from Fox News for a second to actually open your eyes and examine whats going on.

Have you ever even left the United States? Until you do so you have no business commenting on this so called “failure” of other health care systems. Yep, this failure is why Americans are the most fat, unhealthy people on Earth. You don’t need to read “Shattered Lives” to figure that out.

Obama is just another corrupt politician making profit off of lobbyists no doubt. You have to be a moron not to see that healthcare reform is the best thing he has to offer this country though. People like you are just selfish.

Btw, were in debt to the Chinese thanks to the Bush administration that I’m sure you so vehemantly supported. Hypocrite.

This isn’t about

One can always tell when the product of the public school system doesn’t like what is said: they admonish the violator to “open their minds.” The implication is that their mind is open while the mind/s of the object of this invective is/are not. How arrogant can one be?

Socialism is much more than a dirty word and artifact of the cold war; how simplistic. It is the seed of a dangerous ideology which is anathema to the foundational roots of, yes, our great nation. It is contrary to American Exceptionalism and the values and emphasis on INDIVIDUAL rights, freedoms and responsibilities. And I for one want nothing to do with it.

State sponsered education indeed ms. andalusia. Obviously you have no conception of what a truly unique and great thing Americans have going here. The point is that bureacracies have a way of becoming malignant and thereby lethal to the body politic in the long run. “The path to hell is paved with good intentions.” The fact is I do not trust the current crop of political elites to pour pee out of a boot with the instructions written on the bottom. DO you?

I agree with ms. shiver above, “Want a real fix? Two things in less than fifty pages: tort reform and a national competitive market for insurers.”

I saw Sicko too and I believe every word of it. Michael Moore is a genius and republicans are so stupid.

Andalusia, you are a genius, we don’t need any facts because, hey, we are progressive, that means, looking for advanced ways to do everything. An expert supports it, so there is no need to question it. Who cares if it doesn’t work? At least it sounds good to me, if it fails, well, at least we tried!

Nevermind about the rest of America, they’re too stupid and need us and Obama to force them to do it—What a new and novel idea. I’m progressive!

xander

Please don’t try to brand yourself as some enlightened intellectual. You’re just a smartass and nothing more. I guarantee you that the general populace of any of the countries you think are “socialist” have ten times the education of you or I. The fact of the matter is you really don’t know anything about the real world do you??? It must be nice to have such narrow minded views, you don’t really have to care about other people.

Do you think that people in Sweden enjoy less freedom in America just because they have governments with socialist tendencies? People in Japan? People in Norway? People in Spain? People in France? People in Portugal? People in Canada? I have lived in both a post-USSR satellite country and a Scandanavian country and believe me when I tell you that they enjoy just as much freedom as we do. They live better lives because they are healthier and their standard of living is higher as well. These countries don’t have governments akin to post WW2 USSR, they have socialist LEANINGS that are designed to provide services to people.

YOU are in a fact an artifact of the Cold War: socialism and Lenin’s/Stalin’s interpretations of Marxist ideologies are two different things. You don’t even have to read a book to realize that, just open a dictionary. To you, socialism is a dirty word BECAUSE you think that it is the “seed of a dangerous ideology”.

Unique and great thing?? Exactly what about anything that happens here is unique? Believe me, it’s not. The only thing that is unique is how ridiculous and illogical a lot of American ideology is.

Take that Xander,

Analusia doesn’t need to back himself up, only you do.

What ideologies are illogical, oh great man of reason?

I also need help on understanding what is wonderful about socialism ideology, so I can tell all my friends!!

Thanks!

andalusia: i may have assumed you are female because of the name, but now i assume this because you are rather emotional.

I do not “brand myself as anything but what I am, an American. And proud of it. I guess that annoys you though.

“smartass and nothing more”
No, me saying under other circumstances you could have been monica lewinsky is being a smart ass. By responding to your arrogance and calling you on it you got your undies in a knot.

“I guarantee you that the general populace . . .” You have no way of knowing this. What? Low self esteem much.

The countries you mention are definitely on the decline and generally have no inpact on world events. In a generation or two they will be under the thumb of eihter islam or the russians. Take your pick. The two coutries you refer to are interesting only in that you did not name them, and their enjoyment of freedom is/was purchased by American diligence and treasure. If America fails, they lose.

Obviously the product of public school system. If you ever spent more than a two week bus tour of europe right out of high school you would have a clue on how special America is. And if you appreciate their socialist tendancies and freedoms and health systems etc, and i say this only because I believe in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, and you seem so unhappy with America, immigrate. You’ll be happy, America will benefit. It’s a win, win. No?

Andalusia,

Wow! Nothing shows knowledge like profane language, ad hominem attacks, and invectives.

Why, if this country is so awful and you have lived in better places, are you still here? Certainly, from your eloquent discourse provided above, we can all tell you gain nothing by being in the United States. We are all apparently backwards rednecks who are completely uncultured and have added nothing of value to the world.

“Yep, this failure is why Americans are the most fat, unhealthy people on Earth.” I’m so glad you enlightened us. To think all these years I thought it was high caloric intake combined with lack of exercise and temperance that made us fat and unhealthy. Now I know it is healthcare providers and insurance companies. I guess the science of biological processes was thrown out the window.

“On an international level, America is actually one of the least desirable places to live on Earth at the moment.” If this is true, why are millions of people clamoring to immigrate to the United States? The US only has the 25th highest immigration rate out of 180 countries, putting us in the top 15%. This of course is in relative terms. 1,046,539 persons were naturalized into the US in 2008, a record number. This was even during the Bush presidency.

Back to topic. Do we need healthcare reform? Yes. Do we need socialized medicine? No.

What are the biggest health problems afflicting America? Preventable (or as I like to call them, lifestyle) diseases. Lack of personal responsibility. Let’s smoke, drink, do illegal drugs, eat fatty foods, and consume thousands of gallons of soft drinks, and then expect the healthcare system and taxpayers to fix all of our problems.

Current prices charged are based on the highest rates allowable by Medicare. Who sets those rates? Oh yeah, the government. So we are already paying government prices.

Libtard, you’re killin’ me!

JES, go easy man, you’re dealing with an unbalanced hyperbolic socialist, not a rational being.

andalusia: while you may not be an out and out socialist, maybe a social democrat would be a more likely label, if you will. Remember, Eric Blair (aka george orwell) wrote on how communist society always results in tyranny, though he never acknowledged that socialism degenerates into communistic style tyranny over time. What is so wrong about being an independant individual who doesn’t want the govt to do anything but what it is mandated to by the Constitution?

There seems to be a lot of “I don’t know you, I don’t care about you, and I do not want to pay for you so just die.” attitude to other individuals in the US so a quality health care system is not something Americans want as they would have to pay for others as well as the whole thing about the Democrats being morons for not just pushing a single-payer non-profit government-only run health-care through…. :(

I want Progressives to stay out of my life. I don’t want to take care of you. I expect you to take care of yourselves. You want to be an equal then learn to live like one. You want permanent parents to take care of you find a sugar daddy or sugar mama, which ever the case may be.

Chayal, Xander and all the other right-wing, “love it or leave it” folks – a question for you:

If our private health care system is so superior to those in Canada, Europe, and Japan and if the Canadian, European, etc. health care systems are so awful…

How come not one of these countries have given up its system? How come not one of the countries with a ‘socialist’ publicly-funded health care system switched back to what we have? Some of these countries have had national/public health systems for decades. Why is that?

A few years ago Taiwan decide to reform its health care system. They examined the health care policies and insurance systems of every major developed country (including the U.S.). Taiwan’s solution? They chose a government-funded single-payer system. Why?

Can you answer that? (Bonus points if you can do it without using ad hominem personal attacks on me, or the president, etc.)

Just because Meron claims socialized medicine works in Spain (which itself is debatable; you did only tell an incomplete part of the story) doesn’t mean that it would work at all in the United States, either practically or politically.

Most Americans may say they are in favor of a fair, equitable health care system, but are much less likely than, say, the Spanish, to support infinite tax hikes and new bureaucracies.

In addition, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, in its first ten years, the Baucus bill (which is less extreme than a fully socialized system) would cost over $800 billion. Proposing a system that would result in conditions (high taxes, more agencies, etc.) that most Americans disapprove of, as well as adding more nearly a trillion to the monstrous $10 trillion national debt in order to provide for a new system without “rude” nurses is a real gamble.

Lawrence, establishing programs like a single-payer health system are done so because they are politically popular. If they weren’t, they simply wouldn’t have been enacted. The reason they haven’t, thus far, been tried here is that Americans have, traditionally, opposed more government action in domestic realms than what is deemed necessary. As I have said before, supporting a system of nationalized health care requires higher taxes, more regulations, and more bureaucracies, which Americans have seen as outweighing any potential benefits of a socialized system.

Furthermore, when you create a new, massive welfare program, you create new, massive welfare classes. If we did it here, we would create thousands more bureaucrats and government health workers and millions dependent on the public system, as well as a middle-class stuck in the middle with the tab for it all. Scaling back such a system, even if the program is causing major problems for the society, is highly unlikely since you may, well, piss off the dependent classes of people. And this is something politicians who rely on the dependent class’s vote want to avoid. If we enacted such a program, that would be pretty much all the politicians in Washington.

Sorry, I misspelled the author’s name Meron. I meant Dameron.

ooo oooh I’d like to answer the question Lawrence.

Actually in Canada there are numerous “illegal clinics” all over the country that provide the elite, almost like a black market, the needed health services.

The reality of healthcare is in other countries is that many many of them is going broke, and they ARE indeed trying to get away from the single payer system. Countries like Spain have numerous elite who hire and pay doctors for the specialized services that they need. Think that the common folk get it? Think again.

You are on to something here Lawrence, with a little more research you will find all the answers, and surprisingly they do not support government run systems. Trust me, why would I want to endorse something that is failing??

Our system is far from a capitalist approach. YOu can also see my post above for more answers.

Great questions!

Wow, my first sentence is real grammar, I hope you know what I mean.

Damian: “Actually in Canada there are numerous “illegal clinics” all over the country that provide the elite, almost like a black market, the needed health services.”

I don’t suppose you care to provide a citation or reference? Because I have heard of no such thing. Sounds like bull to me, the sort of crap that right-wing pundits simply make up and then put say it on a right-wing talk show, or ppost on a web site, or a certain right-wing “news” network. Then right-wingers believe it and repeat the talking point over and over as if it were true – even htough it’s not.

BTW, you still did not answer the question: not one of the other developed countries has stopped providing national health care.

Here’s another question: Own and drive a car? If so, please explain how public roads and streets are NOT “socialist.”

I would never expect an apology from a person like you. Your ideas are corrupt. Next time check yourself.

http://www.canadians.org/media/council/2008/7-May-08.html

Your move Lawrence.

Now you cannot attack the website, its the Council for Canadian Affairs. You could read the whole thing and find something that supports your thesis (and there is, hint: polls). I hope that you will, I’ll be waiting.

Oh and roads are not socialist, ideas are. There is actually so very very good arguments for the privatization of roads if you would like to venture there too.

And its not “right-wing” talk because many of them, like O’Reilly do not support laissez-faire like I do. Just FYI. I see democrats and republicans in a very similar boat.

Larry,

Read Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” sometime. It will explain, in great detail, the proper role of government: defense, a functioning legal system, private property rights, and infrastructure, no more, no less.

These enable those of us who don’t make excuses because of our background to succeed or fail on our own merits.

You don’t succeed on your own merits, you succeed under a specifically constructed framework. Private property rights and armed thugs to defend them privilege capitalists.

JES, schools and health care are included under infrastructure. Adam Smith would be appalled by a health care system that would condemn citizens to financial ruin.

Here is Adam Smith on progressive taxation:

“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

Do you agree with that? I’m in France and the health care here is fine.

JoeAmerican, I hope that you will specifically respond to my post, it is long but I appreciate the debate.

You really should take a closer look at the heatlthcare system in France, just because you are there, does not make it an argument—i.e. I live in the U.S. and the healthcare is fine.

Nice quote on Adam Smith, however, this addresses property tax and not healthcare. This view depends on the patently false idea that competition would be enhanced by the addition of a new player – the government – in the insurance market.

Smith lamented the old mercantilist policies of Europe which, like the “public option” plan, did not allow competition and choice. He was pro-capitalist and pro-competition. Government is regulating the hell out of private insurance and the healthcare system so that it no longer can function, offer a “choice and competition plan”(heard that?) so that everyone is forced into a single-payer system. Its what the UCLA professor and single-payer architect ____ Jacobs (I cannot remember his name) called the “trojan horse”—just repeat “choice and competition” then destroy the free market with regulation—people will gravitate towards the “public option”. And you agree with social engineering? A more proper quote would be:

“The policy of Europe occasions a very important inequality in the whole of the advantages and disadvantages of the different employments of labour and stock, by restraining the competition in some employments to a smaller number than might otherwise be disposed to enter into them.

The exclusive privileges of corporations are the principal means it makes use of for this purpose. The exclusive privilege of an incorporated trade necessarily restrains the competition, in the town where it is established, to those who are free of the trade.”

Anyone who is remotely familiar with Smith’s ideas, let alone the basic ideas of introductory market capitalism, knows how implausible JoeAmerican’s claim is. Adam Smith was pro-capitalist and pro-liberty. With government run healthcare, it is anything but.

Actually, the truth is, the French system works in part because it has incorporated many of the characteristics
that Michael Moore and other supporters of national health care dislike most about the U.S. system. More than 92 percent of French residents purchase complementary private insurance. (OECD Health Working Paper no. 12, 2004)

France imposes substantial cost sharing on patients in order to discourage over-utilization, relies heavily on a relatively unregulated private insurance market to fill gaps in coverage, and allows consumers to pay extra for better or additional care, creating a two-tier system.

This is clearly not the commonly portrayed style of national health care. They are also having major issues with the public healthcare and are gravitating towards more privatized medicine. (this can be found all over the net).

You gotta love chris muir

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2009/10/11/

I am one of the Spanish taxpayers that paid for Eva’s attention at the hospital in Barcelona, and I am proud of it. The Spanish health system has many problems but I consider it a matter of humanity to treat anybody who is sick, whether they can afford it or not. Health care is not a commodity, it is a human right. You cannot treat a life saving treatment the same way you would treat a plasma TV. It creates no moral problem to me that people who cannot afford a TV do witout one but I cannot suffer that a sick person has to go broke or die for lack of proper treatment. Does anybody not see the difference?

You do not have a right to another man’s services. Plain and simple. You should not forcibly make another person provide services because you believe it is necessary. Understand? We abolished this idea under Lincoln and the Spanish healthcare system is riddled with problems, you should learn about it.

I think Damian covered it quite adequately, any more questions lawrence?

btw, my rhetorical question posed to andalusia was just that, rhetorical. I live here in new mexico because I want to. If I didn’t, I would move somewhere else, and I can live anywhere I want. I just don’t understand people who constantly carp about American or its history and institutions, etc. and still stay here. I know a few who have actually left, and seem happy, in their fashion. I know people who have come here seeking their fortune and freedom and liberty, and found it, though they are now worried aobut the direction we are headed; they know from personal experience what it means.

I myself have considered leaving, but then the reality hit me: there is nowhere else to go. This is it. This is the last bastion of true personal freedom and liberty in the world, where the individual is his own king and his success or failure is his to pursue. Frankly I am often shocked at the attitude of some of the people who post in these discussions. What happened to the true individualist? The true free thinker? I am glad to see that is is still manifest in some, and I take confort in that. I decided to stay and fight. My country is worth it.

I agree with you, nobody has a right to another man’s services. Doctors need to be adequately compensated. The way it works is we all pay doctors through our taxes. The doctors get a decent salary. If someone gets sick, the person is treated. Considering everybody will need health services at some point during their life, it will eventually even out.

If it turns out I am lucky enough to never get sick, never have cancer, never have a child, never get old, then I will be glad to have lost money in the deal.

The Spanish healthcare system is riddled with problems. I said that in my first post.

Waiting lists are a problem, but consider that this week I called a dermatologist in the US and they could not give me an appointment until December 5th. As for bureaucracy, I read somewhere that administrative costs take up as much as 25% of the money spent in healthcare in the US. In Spain it is about 6%.

One of the problems is foreigners coming to Spain and getting treatment for free. The case of Eva is not uncommon. When the Spanish system deals with Norway, Sweden, Britain or other countries, they seek compensation from these countries. In the case of the US, this is not possible so the Spaniards pick up the tab.

Should we leave foreign nationals, especially Americans, to die when they do not have insurance? I do not think so. Do the Spanish authorities need to figure a way to prevent abuses, wasteful spending, etc? Sure, ask any Spaniard and they will tell you so. However, go and explain to people we are going to change the system and make it more the American way and people will take to the streets.

Having said all that, I understand that things are not easy to change because there are many elements intertwined. For example, a Spaniard can become a doctor in a Spanish public university paying for tuition less than a medical student would pay for parking in a public American university (let’s not mention private ones. If graduates from medical school start their careers with over $200000 in debt you can understand they want to make money fast and resist change that can affect their earnings. I do agree doctors need to be well paid.

You mention the French system in a previous post. This is a good example, and probably more suitable to the US than the Spanish system. If I am not mistaken, the French public coverage is 80% of most services and there are co-payments for some procedures. Buying the extra coverage is affordable and everybody gets it. I believe it is about 40 or 50 euros a month, I am sorry I do not know the French system better. Probably the US should look at a system like this. Spain has been considering making changes in this direction. By the way, the private sector is alive and well in Spain, where about 10% of people decide to buy extra coverage. The private sector also has agreements to provide services through the public system.

The US will find a way to reform something that is clearly not working. It will not be the Spanish or the French or the Japanese system. Hopefully it will be an improved, revised American version of a mixture of all of these, but I am convinced Americans will realize that solidarity, compassion and helping those in need is not only part of the American way, it also makes financial sense.

Nancy Pelosi was recently asked by a reporter, ““Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”

She replied, “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Yes Madam Speaker, we are serious. At least, I am. In my opinion, our Constitution is the most profound political document ever written. Many Americans besides me would really like a “serious” answer to that reporter’s question.

Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer at least made an attempt at an answer. He was also asked where in the Constitution was Congress granted the power to mandate that a person must buy a health insurance policy.

Hoyer’s answer:

“Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end. The end that we’re trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility.”

News flash for Congressman Hoyer: “general welfare” is mentioned only twice in the Constitution. The phrase appears once in the Preamble, but the Preamble gives the legislative branch no authority whatsoever.

“General welfare” is also mentioned once in Article I, Section 8. Here is what it actually means in that section.

The powers of the legislative branch are stated in the Constitution. The powers specifically granted to the Congress are spelled out in Article I, Section 8. Since it isn’t that long of a section.

The words “general Welfare” show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States …”

Notice that the Constitution doesn’t say the “general welfare of the citizens of the United States.” It says “general Welfare of the United States.” This clause only gives the Congress the power to raise money to defend the country and pay for the day-to-day operations of the government. It says nothing at all about building bridges to nowhere, or paving bike paths, or spending money on any other kind of pork barrel project — including health care. Read the rest of Article I, Section 8 below. The exact powers of the Congress are listed there.

That’s it. That is all the constitutional power that Nancy and Steny have. I know this because the people who wrote the Constitution stuck on two pesky amendments. I like to call them the “And we really mean it!” amendments. Here they are:

Amendment 9 The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The exact wording of the 10th Amendment is important. Here, the “United States” clearly means the federal government. The powers of the United States (according to the Constitution) are not the same as the powers of its citizens (“the people”), nor are they the same as the powers of the individual states.

So the phrase, in Article I, Section 8, “general Welfare of the United States” only applies to the inner workings of the federal government. The Framers could not have made the point any clearer. Pelosi and Hoyer have no power over the citizens’ health care because they are given that power nowhere in the Constitution.

The words “health” or “health care” appear nowhere in the Constitution.

So according to the 9th and 10th Amendments, the “right” of health care must be guaranteed and paid for by each individual state. For example, Massachusetts has made access to health care a “right.” According to the Constitution, the citizens of a particular state can do that. Massachusetts can make government-mandated health care a “right.”

Whether or not the citizens of Massachusetts can afford to pay for that “right” is turning out to be quite a problem. But that is a dilemma for the people of the state of Massachusetts to work out. If the folks in Massachusetts don’t want to pay for the “right” to government-mandated health care, then they can elect some different politicians and repeal the law — or they can move to a state the does not guarantee a “right” to government-mandated health care.

If a particular state does not provide a government-mandated “right” to health care, the choice to provide (or not to provide) for our own health care is up to each of us. Health care is our choice, but it is not a “right” if it has not been made a right by an individual state.

At least that’s what the Constitution says. Seriously.

Wow Larrey, thanks for that.

Isn’t there a supreme court justice that wrote on this as well? OR a book or something. Stating that there is much more emphasis on “general” than “welfare”. I dunno, I heard it before.

Very informative though and I don’t really miss too much in these matters.

I have said this before but I’ll say it again. Wake up folks. Capitalism as we have known it is dead. We are living in a different age. Our tax system needs to be restructured so that the wealthiest are paying their fair share. Access to basic health care should be considered a right and not a privilege. Most other countries give people with the ability to go to college have that opportunity without paying the amounts we pay in the states. Medical schools in Norway, pay the fees for primary care studies. There are fees for studying to be a specialist. This is how they manage to have enough primary care physicians for a universal health plan. I am an American and don’t want to live anywhere else. However, I feel that we can make America a better place for all by changing some of our ideas and ways of doing things.

Doris,

Of course, you are right about capitalism. And it is pathetic that it your line of reasoning that follows is what has led it there. The wealthiest already pay more than 90% of the taxes out there, yet you want more. This isn’t about fairness Doris, is it? This is about destroying the competent. Rather than build a system that provides everyone with a better life, you would rather build on that breaks the legs of everyone so that the crippled feel “equality”. You have no ability to reason and are the epitome of failed concepts.

As is displayed time after time after time again, that which you absolutely close-mindedly refuse to acknowledge: Socialism is has failed Doris. And its the inability for you and your like to understand history that your ideas will once again bring another country to its demise.

Capitalism and success will once again shine as many European and far eastern countries are realizing that which will raise their levels of success, and your kind will once again hide in its shadow with your complete relentless jealousy and resentment—then again strike when emotionalism and confusion is high amongst the complacent.

Damian:

“I would never expect an apology from a person like you. Your ideas are corrupt.”

I don’t owe you an apology. As for your usual ad hominem, that is not worthy of a response.

Good for you, you have a source for illegal private clinics in Canda. But, you misrepresented the source: you take one factoid out of context; the author was condemning these clinics for violating Canada’s public health law and thus criticizing the Canadian government for not funding its public health system adequately.

“You could read the whole thing and find something that supports your thesis…”

Yes, Damian, I did find something: the whole thing; the point of the article; the author’s argument. Did you miss or flunk reading comprehension in school? Here are the concluding paragraphs – read carefully:

“A public system is better for everyone because it means health care dollars are spent on patient care rather than private clinic profits, and services are provided in accountable facilities rather than ones that are not nationally regulated.

“Consistently, polls have shown that Canadians’ support for a public medicare system never wavers. Public health care is seen and respected as a foundation for our society. The federal government has a duty and responsibility to protect and enhance the public health care system – and not let private clinic owners fuelled by profits systematically dismantle it.”

http://www.canadians.org/media/council/2008/7-May-08.html

Pulling one little factoid or passage out of a document/source to prove a point, when that source/author actually would disagree with you, is just another form of lying. It’s “out of context,” or “misquoting.” Those Candian clinics don’t prove that public health systems are bad; they are a sign that Canada has not been funding its sytem properly. Potholes do not prove that publicly funded roads are bad.

Read Al Franken’s “Lies” sometime; he goes through the various ways one can lie even when quoting or referencing another source – like you just did above.

Doris: don’t take this personally, but I absolutely do not agree with what you say. Once again, if things were so great for the norwegians, their biggest export wouldn’y be their young people. Sure they get educated, then leave for greener pastures. Keep the hope and change. I like America as the founders intended.

I attack ideas, not people. IF your ideas resemble those to which I vehmently disagree with, I will do my best to discredit them. If you do not want to be attacked personally you should avoid comments like “Did you miss or flunk reading comprehension in school?”

Its interesting how you change the argument to something completely different. It makes no difference as to whether the author supports or disagrees with the FACT that there are private clinics, does it not? I needed a source that I knew you couldn’t label as “right-wing lies” so I found one. This one was opinionated but I knew that you would only read it if it agreed with your point of view (thats how you win debates is learning the other side’s attack angles—and I’m not a lawyer, just a scientist). You originally said this:

“I don’t suppose you care to provide a citation or reference? Because I have heard of no such thing. Sounds like bull to me, the sort of crap that right-wing pundits simply make up and then put say it on a right-wing talk show, or ppost on a web site, or a certain right-wing “news” network. Then right-wingers believe it and repeat the talking point over and over as if it were true – even though it’s not.”

Now, you change it to something else. Before I even bother debating your points again, can you at least acknowledge that you were wrong?

I hope so, I have a whole arsenal of facts to follow the one that completely discredited your assumptions in the first place.

Look Lawrence, I don’t want to get disgusting or ugly, however I believe that many ideas associated with the left are out-right awful. Do I dislike or hate those that support them? OF course not, my own best friends and family support them. So I can continue to debate you but you must admit that you are wrong when you are…this time you were wrong about private clinics in Canada, were you not?

xander: “I think Damian covered it quite adequately, any more questions lawrence?”

No xander; damian’s argument is not only inadequate, it is thoroughly flawed. Let’s review:

“You do not have a right to another man’s services. … You should not forcibly make another person provide services because you believe it is necessary. Understand?”

He then adds: “We abolished this idea under Lincoln,” which I take to mean a public health system = slavery. This argument is ridiculous on the face of it; but I’ll break it down anyway just for fun:

Under U.S. slavery, Africans were captured, sold as property, stolen to America and thereafter treated as chattel, mere commodities and not as humans; practically no human rights at all (this did vary by state; LA allowed slaves to marry at least). Slaves were forced to work by their masters.

Somehow damian thinks that a doctor treating a patient who is paid through some sort of public insurance is “forcing” the doctor to perform work. First, the doctor is paid (well-paid!) for his/her services. Second, s/he is not forced to do it at all; under the wonderful free enterprise system damian so believes in, students CHOOSE to go into medicine as a profession. Established physicians also CHOOSE what patients to take or not take; perhaps he’s not aware that some doctors refuse to take Medicare patients because the reimbursements are too low.

Speaking of Medicare: is that ‘slavery’ as well? Some patients pay with cash; more will pay with private insurance from a private employer. Many will pay with private insurance from their PUBLICLY-funded employer. Those over 65 (who they can refuse) likely use Medicare. What difference does it make? How on earth is this forcing the doctor to do anything?

Damian’s argument makes no syllogistic sense at all; it’s a stretch to say the least to compare how a physician is paid to human slavery.

Does this apply to other professions or workers, damian? If you check out a book from the public library, is that “forcing” the library staff to perform services? Are you forcing the fireman to rescue you? Should the police force be privatised?

Absurd. Such a fallacious argument should get a ‘C’ in a high school English composition, let alone any college-level course.

You are WRONG Lawrence, its interesting how your assumptions lead to bad reasoning. FIrst, lets just point out that Lawrence decries ad hominem but then provides no answers, just attacks on others.

I was going to go easy on you, however your attacks are disgustingly misinformed. ANd, just for the record, Medicaid reject goes to prove my point about just how bad government run healthcare already is.

Are doctors able to decide what medical procedures that they can perform? What they can charge? who they can see and treat, not just rejecting Medicaid, but others? Just a yes or no answer will suffice.

Here I can help you out:

For example, emergency room specialists and anesthesiologists are already required to do pro bono work, and managed care and Medicare continually try to squeeze more effort out under increasingly oppressive bureaucratic oversight, for less and less reward. Patients, and doctors are left with one choice, quit or work under the bureaucrats rules—in that case you are right, it is not pure slavery, but are they really free?

As individuals, doctors have a right to offer their patients treatment according to their best judgment, and to charge such fees as they judge their expertise to be worth.

American doctors have been stripped of their professional freedom by all the various oversight agencies (which include licensing boards, the Health Care Financing Administration, managed care companies, peer review committees and more), but—more important—they have also been morally disarmed. Our intellectuals have taught doctors that need comes before ability, and that healthy and rich doctors have a duty to support sick and poor patients.

To save themselves, doctors must proclaim openly that they refuse to regard themselves as anyone’s servants. They should be left free to enjoy their careers as they see fit. It is important that as doctors we assert our moral right to be free. On the issue of their rights, doctors need to be inflexible and intransigent. They need to declare openly and loudly, “It’s my life—hands off!”

Sorry the last sentence is from Dr. Rosman from Pasdena California.

I certainly don’t believe that any of the posts in the lobo change anyone’s opinion or perspective. But it is a good outlet, and I like reading sensible posts from Damian, Ben, Jes, and Shiver. I’m still trying to figure out what Libtard means in any of those posts, a high amphetamine intake is my guess. Andelatid is freaky!

The point I have an affinity for is that of course medical costs have risen too high. I also concur that we need to provide health care to everyone, except chronic drug abusers, people who will not follow at least a moderately healthy diet, and those who endanger themselves intentionally and count on someone else to pick up the tab. We do this quite well in Albuquerque on a daily basis. The funding comes from property tax, but we sure as hell don’t achieve the level of care we have by giving that money to the government, or asking them to run the health care system. They are running the H1N1 vaccine program and it’s a complete failure- that’s a picture of health care rationing that’s coming down the pike if we all jump on the government run health care band wagon.

There are ways to fix the health care problem, two good ones are to substantially limit tort law and encourage interstate insurance competition. The doctors, nurses, and allied health care practitioners are not obligated to provide care, they choose to do so for varied reasons; none of which are “government control”.

So yes health care reform is needed, Obamacare, Pelosicare, government run health care, is not necessarily an ideal solution to this need. All I’m sayijng is; be careful what you ask for.

Lawrence, the speciousness of your “If you check out a book from the public library, is that “forcing” the library staff to perform services? Are you forcing the fireman to rescue you? Should the police force be privatised?” is apparent yet surprising from a man educated in letters as you claim to be. But to your pitiful discourse: When you were hired to be a librarian your job for the pay received is to perform the service of helping a patron find the book. Your acceptance of those terms of employment negates the need for a patron to “forcing” you to get the book. Firefighters are paid from the public till to rescue people- that is their job description. We see lots of private police forces; they patrol private property, provide security in prisons and government facilities.

Now why are doctors different? We do not demand that RN’s work the ER or clinics without pay. The kitchen staff at the hospital are paid for every hour they work. If you think MD’s earn too much because Michael Moore says so, you are a lemming. Who else gets too much money? I think Moore is not worth the millions he makes from his movies, but you do if you go see them because your admission fee pays him the big bucks.

We do not tell the airline what the fare will be, they tell us what they have decided it is worth. Same is true of the restaurant, plumber, care mechanic and all others. The government now tells MD’s who are being paid for treating a medicare or medicaid patient, how much they will be paid. Some payments are below the cost of providing that care which is why MD’s refuse some patients. The baker will not sell bread at a loss, why should the doc? Isn’t bread “the staff of life?”

Please spare us your mean spirited snide comments if you respond.

I think once this health care boondogle gets rammed through the congress, it must be challenged as being un-constitutional. As Larrey above has illustrated it doesn’t appear to be constitutional.

He also makes an excellent point that issues such as these should reside with the individual states. In a ideal world all govt pork projects would be invalid on this basis and the states would be responsible for themselves.

All that is necessary is for some courageous individual or group to try a test case in the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS is our only hope to stop all this madness. This has actually been done before, in the roosevelt days; he tried to set prices for goods and a family of poultry producers won an appeal to the SCOTUS—I don’t remember the case name. I think there may yet still be some hope . . .

Man, people get up heated up at each other in here. Good stuff!

it is obvious to me that most of you haven’t even spent a day inside of a hospital either as a patient or as a employee…and thus many of you have absolutely no understanding as to how health care works in this country.
the bottom line is that if you are paying for “health insurance” you are paying a corporation who’s bottom line is PROFIT not your well being. if you truly believe that a corporation has your best interest at heart than perhaps you should pay more attention in school instead of drinking your existence away.
i have worked for hospitals in this country for over 10 years and corporate insurance does America no favors.

dk, amen!!

Dumb: “i have worked for hospitals in this country for over 10 years and corporate insurance does America no favors.”

Dumber: “dk, amen!!”

Guess what, most Americans work for a profit, betchya never heard of that, have you?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts960

Damian, corporate insurance doesn’t do America favors; they do themselves favors.

Ad Hominem attacks again… yes this is the same poster as Ha.

DAMIAN lets start with your first misconception… a corporation is not an American please educate yourself on the matter here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
while corporations are often given the rights of a human being they are never held to the same accountable standard in any sense of the word…
point in case i promise if you come into my ER after being stabbed for calling everyone dumb i wont treat you untill i can make a profit off of doing it. I will be happy to watch you bleed to death on the floor untill you can pay me 5% of your salary for the rest of your life… exactly what HMO’s and insurance corporations want to do to you.
i can personally take you to talk to any cancer patient at UNMH, Lovelace, or Presbyterian and you will find that once you are diagnosed with any cancer you can no longer be covered under insurance and no matter how much money you have you can not get coverage.
there are many viable options to having a universal health care for everyone that many have not even discussed… for example we could easily cut back on spending on the military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
this is an outrage amount in fact the united states spends more on our military than the rest of the world combine spends on their military budgets.
there is also the idea of legalizing the sale of narcotics and the taxes and sale could easly provide for the care of all of us.
the last two points i would like to point out is that most doctors in America are first generation American immigrate or not American at all… the fact of the matter is that its too expensive to become a doctor here in the first place and if we do not make not only health care but education a right of every citizen then America is gonna to uneducated themselves right out of being a superpower and instead become a nation of fat zombies who vacantly stare at the TV.

dk brings up some good points, insurance companies are striving to make a profit, and I agree they bring very little or nothing to the health care table. Additionally they are not fond of granting coverage to customers if they demonstrate that they have cancer or any other debilitating disease. On the other hand it is false to believe that cancer victims fare better in France, Cuba or Canada due to Universal health care. They do not, in fact in many cases they fare significantly worse, as in the case of breast and colon cancer. So while the insurance companies are not going to sign you up if you have a pre-existing condition, it’s more than likely a fallacy to believe that Obamalosie care will greatly improve that situation.

If you arrive stabbed and bleeding in an Emergency Room, EMTALA regulations stipulate that you must be cared for and stabilized prior to any transfer or wallet biopsy. The statement that profit is initially evaluated is untrue.

Our society does many things that do not appear to be common sense, having the only super power in the world is not one of them. This is one of the fall-back positions of the tree huggers who believe that “no one is out to get us”. Which is of course untrue. Should we get involved in so many small countries and force democracy on them- probably not. Should we maintain the world’s greatest super military power? I vote YES. There are many other dollar saving activities that we can embrace prior to any attempt to shift military dollars to health care.

Most doctors in America are are first generation doctors is blatant lie. There may be more foreign medical students and residents attending UNMSOM, but its definitely not that way across the country. People flock here for obvious reasons. Expense is not the limiting factor for medical education. But I wont get into this aspect at this time.

In state med school in NM costs about 14K/year, at this rate it is one if the most economical schools to attend. There are many programs that foreign students benefit from that US citizens do not. Additionaly paying 20-40K/year for a career that will allow you to generate at least 200K/year in salary is not crazy math. What the US could do is shut the borders and allow more US citizens to go to med school. What we want to make sure of is that we do not have any Affirmative Action activities in Medical School, when I look up into the face of my doc after an accident I don’t want to have to wonder if he got his degree because of his ethnicity, I want to know that he was intelligent enough to do it without any help from our liberal politicians and tree huggers.

Wow, I stand corrected, corporations are not American, I didn’t know that. That really took me awhile to figure out. They employ Americans. You were wrong on that point so once again tried to change the argument. THe comment was dumb because there was zero explanantion for why, then dk foolishly responded to this silly comment. I stand by the criticism because it is as shallow as the original comment.

What kind of point are you making about being born in America and being a doctor? They, regardless of where they come from, are mostly American citizens.

As for your point on cancer—lets try Obama’s (or whoever’s) idea of pre-existing conditions. What is the point in buying insurance if I can wait, not pay, then pay the penalty when I need treatment? What is the point in insurance?

I could care less about your initiative to cut military spending, however it should be used to pay off the ridiculous debt that Bush and Obama has laid on you guys from the failed stimulus (if you are of the younger generation).

As for the Americans watching TV, well, why do you want to pay to cover them?—especially if they now do not have to pay more into a system due to their behavior (insurance is not allowed to do this now because of discrimination laws, however, think of what an incentive it would be if you had to pay more for your lathargic behavior).

SLowhike covered the “bleed to death” argument, it does not happen now, we are talking how to reform healthcare for money purposes not because people are not getting care. A majority of the uninsured are college age young folk that are completely healthy but Obama wants you to pay MORE for say, a 65 year old smoker—doesn’t sound fair does it?

As for the Pres, Lovelace etc., spare me, many individuals in my family are doctors (neurosurgery). Many friends are neurosurgeons, some of the best in the country, and they do not support this healthcare either—which is why I am so passionate on this subject and do know a hell of a lot about it. But I need to get back to raking leaves.

Address some of Slowhikes comments please, specifically. I’d like to hear answers.

Slowhike, what the hell do “tree huggers” have to do with what you are talking about? and what is wrong with caring about the environment? jerk

slowhike, damian etc

I used to live in Britain and my roommate has an aunt that was diagnosed with a brain tumor and was on the operating less than a week later. She is doing excellent and will have nothing but the best aftercare for the rest of her life. A brain tumor is basically means death here in the States unless you are very rich.

On the other hand, another one of my friends mothers here in America was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and her insurance company dropped her because she had not had a pelvic exam within the last 6 months prior to her diagnosis. She died 6 months later.

Tell me, how is this a situation that doesn’t need to be fixed? How is that a failure on the part of a universal health care system and a success on the part of the profit driven American system?? No system is perfect, but a serious illness means either death or bankruptcy to most Americans. That is the bottom line. Somethings gotta give. The fact that a lot of people have health insurance means ZILCH because when the chips are down, it is going to mean nothing because they will come up with some excuse not to treat you and spend money on you, before or after any medical procedures you might need.

As for the argument that there are more foreign doctors here in the States than there are American ones, I don’t agree. Becoming a doctor is actually a cheaper and more efficient process in most other countries because medicine is an undergraduate rather than a graduate degree. Additionally, medical students in other countries pay their normal domestic fees for 3-4 years rather than the ridiculously high American medical school fees of 15,000-40,000/year depending on where you go. What is the initiative there? Also, foreign students DO NOT have access to forms of financial aid here in the states that American students do not. I know this for a fact as my fiancee (British) is currently paying to go to school here out of his own pocket. We investigated possibilities for financial aid for him and believe me there are none. No loans, no grants, zilch. It is the same for Americans studying at foreign institutions as well: governments and the institutions they fund do not want to to give aid to someone is probably going to go back to their home country once they graduate anyway. They “give nothing back” so to speak if they are just going to go home at the end of their studies. All foreign students here in the US are either receiving a competitive private scholarship (doesn’t produce enough students to create a disproportionate amount of foreign docs here in the states) or are paying for it out of their own pockets. And who wants to pay $100,000 for something they could get cheaper and quicker in their home country?

“SLowhike covered the “bleed to death” argument, it does not happen now, we are talking how to reform healthcare for money purposes not because people are not getting care. A majority of the uninsured are college age young folk that are completely healthy but Obama wants you to pay MORE for say, a 65 year old smoker—doesn’t sound fair does it”

As a young healthy person, (for the record, I have health insurance but it is basically worthless.) I don’t think it is unfair at all because everyone gets sick or has some sort of medical emergency at some point in their lives. And as I said before, it means absolutely shit if you have health insurance because they will come up with some reason not to treat you. If I were hit by a drunk driver while walking on central tonight, my life would be ruined if I survived. A ride in an ambulance alone runs around 2,000 by itself, so once you factor any other medical procedures i might need into that it’s curtains as far as hopes and dreams. People may be getting care but it is financially crippling. I would never be able to take out a mortgage, take out student loans, or SHIT even get health insurance from that point on because an accident like that would surely do serious damage to my body and thus make me uninsurable for the rest of my life. My life would be RUINED. I know I am young so this is unlikely, but what if I got cancer?? I would either die or my life would be ruined. Even if I had good insurance, they would fight me every step of the way and I would end up broke because of it anyway. Also, I am not trying to say I sit on a moral high horse or something, but I would want that 65 year old smoker to have access to the same care as I do under this hypothetical system. Why is my life, as a young person, more valuable than his? The idea that it is “universal” may be scary or illogical to some but it is not like you would be getting nothing for it. You get SECURITY.

I honestly feel that a lot of assertions that universal systems don’t work is scare mongering on the part of the American media. The Canadian system sucks ass, there is no doubt about that, but it does work in the rest of the world. Every system is a little bit different. I have seen it, I won’t type out all the examples I can give here because it would take forever. Equally, I can give examples within my own family of the health insurance system here in the states failing. Shoot me if I am going to go off of actual personal experiences of people I know and my family (and I am not talking about people I don’t see/talk to regularly here) rather than what the god awful American media are going to try and shove down my throat. I don’t buy into ideologically driven arguments like the ones I see here.

TREE HUGGERS UNITE! Yes tree hugger is an ancient term for liberal “save the whales” exuberant old world hippies, who have nothing positive to contribute to society, but don’t mind putting people of out work only to go hungry, in order to save a minnow or an owl. I apologize for using that term.

As an avid back packer, hunter, skiier and hiker; I love the outdoors and definitely support maintaining it. Only idiots fail to support taking care of our earth, we need to slap corporations who dirty up the environment with trash and pollution with big time fines. Eating fish with a high mercury contents is not my idea of fine dining!

However, there are disagreements at this time about what is causing global warming, and what, if any impact, CO2 has on the sun’s radiant heat. If we do have global warming, no one appears to know whether screwing in curly light bulbs and driving clown cars will really fix it. But clean up the ocean and rivers and stop dumping trash where it doesn’t belong. Yes indeed!

What does “jerk” have to do with what we are talking about?

“If we do have global warming, no one appears to know whether screwing in curly light bulbs and driving clown cars will really fix it.”
Well, actually, no. There isn’t a single peer-reviewed article supporting claims that global warming isn’t human-created. Becoming more responsible about CO2 emissions will help reduce it, but I agree that that won’t fix it. We are already past the breaking point of 350 parts per million (which is, in fact, peer reviewed), and drastic measures are needed, much more drastic than getting a more efficient light or car won’t cut it. We’d need much more than that.
I’m also pleasantly surprised to see that you approve of regulating polluting corporations (or I assume that’s what “we need to slap corporations who dirty up the environment with trash and pollution with big time fines” means). Even if you don’t believe in global warming (though it seems hard not to from a scientific perspective..), if you suddenly realized that it was true, would you then support regulating corporations with such policies as Cap and Trade? Just wondering hypothetically.

I do believe in Global Warming, however, data exists indicating it’s extent to varying degrees (pun intended). I would also mention that while I support clean energy, what I don’t support is evangelical like-saviors like Gore and Moore, strutting around making complete fools of themselves to conservatives, making wise men of themselves to liberals, bashing my country, and getting rich all the while.

Peer review smeer review, it’s not been proven, at least not to me, that CO2 created by dirty forms of energy, is the main cause of this phenomenon. I prefer to keep an open mind at this time rather than jump on either band wagon.

My father is dead, however, his use of medical care steadily increased as he grew older and his insurance company never dropped him from coverage, failed to pay for his care, or thwarted his physician’s attempts to provide health care services. If they did anything, they paid for too much becaues it was deemed acceptable in the medical journals. To state that health insurance companies always abandon their customers in time of illness is ludicrous, and simply untrue.

My mother is growing older and uses her health care insurance to a great extent, and while the insurance company knows that her life will not be extended as a result, they do not shirk their responsibility to cover her medical expenses. If insurance companies dropped their customers when they became ill, no one would buy it and the companies would go out of business. Do they throw up road blocks to service and make it difficult to get care in order to profit- yes they do. Is it a royal pain in the ass to contact a health insurance company and attempt to discuss care with them- yes again.

I agree that health care could use an over haul, BUT I am definitely not in favor of assigning this responsibility to the government, for three main reasons. 1.) I don’t have any faith in the government to do a good job and 2.) I think, as I’ve stated before, that there are other, more economical, intelligent and overall better ways, to over haul the system. 3.) I prefer minor intrusion of the government into our way of life in any form, including healt care.

If we speak strictly in theoretical terms, we could assume that “Universal Health Care” would mean the same health care for virtually everyone. One cannot take a scarce resource (any resource) and furnish it to a higher volume of individuals and have that resource retain the same value. It’s simple basic economics. As a result, the quality and extent of health care, once spread over the 320M people in the USA would diminish proportionately with each expansion.

Additionally, you will not hear Obama and his colleagues promise to use Universal Health Care, and strictly speaking, it will never exist in that theoretical form. Health care in France is also dismal at this point, and you can add that example to Canada’s. As the population grows, benefits are routinely reduced.

I am sorry about your father and I am glad to hear that your mother hasn’t been shafted by her insurance company, but at the risk of sounding like a presumptuous dick thats probably because she can afford to have it. Even if that is not the case, that isn’t the situation for a lot of people. Even if you HAVE insurance it doesn’t do any good. The main issue here is affordability: sure we have tons of good doctors in this country and you can get procedures when you need them but the issue is affordability and access for those who can’t afford the creme de la creme of healthcare plans. I am glad you have had positive experiences with the healthcare system because if, god forbid, you or your loved ones became seriously ill it seems like you and your loved ones would be covered but unfortunately I can’t say the same. You have your experiences, and I have mine. My brother has had some health problems in the last couple years, has health insurance but still owes $20,000 in hospital bills. They just refuse to pay it, due to some “cap” they have on the type of treatment he needed. Fair?? FUCK NO. What are we paying for?? Nothing. $20,000 is a life making or a life breaking amount. And that is the reality for people who are suffering under this system. I would bet everyone here screaming about “socialism” is firmly middle class and has a good health insurance plan. Some people aren’t so lucky. I don’t agree with pure socialism, because people are just too individualistic (including people at the top) for it to ever work. However, I do believe in is giving everyone a fair shot at LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. For me, pursuit of life and happiness includes access to good healthcare. And the current situation is exploitative and unfair, bottom line. You can wave the constitution around all you want when you are ideologically defending the “capitalist american way”, but the fact is that this is a document that allowed slavery and segregation. It is NOT perfect by any means.

And I do consider the fact that we have an amazingly high population in this country, so maybe european style “universal” care is not the answer, and it doesn’t have to be. I am open to any suggestion that has a possibility of working. But from where I am standing, with my experiences with socialized medicine and whatnot, I don’t believe that any system that is driven by profit has a place within a lightyears length of healthcare and peoples lives.

The furies,

I will not call you a liar but you should really research about the differences between healthcare in England and healthcare in the U.S. Because you can point to some specific example does not make it so for the entire system. See Cato.org they will set you straight with extensive facts and citations.

The system is broken, it is not because of the free market, it is because of government intervention. What we need to do is free the market, your misunderstanding is apparent. Ever wonder why left leaning websites do not address the arguments from the right or if they do, they are pretty shallow. Sites such as Cato.org do address the arguments from the left, in great depth. WHy? Because they have the facts to negate these fallacies.

See for yourself. OTherwise provide me with information or somewhere I can get the “facts” as you see them.

sigh

you make several personal assumptions about me based on the fact that I think that socialized medicine is AN OPTION and nothing more. Not trying to be a dick but that is pretty annoying. I don’t watch CNN or MSNBC. I think ALL pundits, left and right wing, are media whores. Nor do I establish my opinions from “left-leaning web sites” nor from libertarian think tank websites like cato.org who are going to have an obvious bias. Nor do I think I am right 100% of time. I made it perfectly clear: I base my opinions on EXPERIENCE and historical trends. And the trend here in the States is that health care is goddamn expensive and not everyone can afford it and people suffer because of it. Maybe I didn’t say it clearly enough before: I think the right has had some good ideas. I think that good points have been made on both sides. I am pro ANYTHING that reigns in insurance companies. I am just trying to have a rational conversation about HEALTHCARE, not get into a playground “nah nah nah” regarding socialism v. capitalism. Plus, we live in a capitalist country dude, and that will never change. No reason to freak out and point me towards cato.org.

And I am “misunderstanding” something just because I don’t agree with you??

its very funny to see so many people believe that embracing a universal health care for all of us will somehow make us as a country socialist. not only is that a crock of shit but caring for every man, woman and child in this country can only make America a better country. End of story there is no possible argument that can even justify anything else.
expect for the argument of greed.
I served this great country honorably for 8 years and that is the dream of my brothers n sisters in uniform. That not only can every man woman and child in America enjoy our freedoms but every man woman and child one day in the world can enjoy the same freedoms.
I have a masters in critical care nursing and i promise you that every doctor nurse and tech also have the same dream.
The fact of the matter is we should tear down to the ground any corporation or government that stands in the way of that dream.

Hey DK, I agree with much of what you are saying, relative to having health care more affordable. There are a couple of rubs, that we probably disagree on though. It’s difficult for me to consider the provision of health care for all Americans when our immigration laws are not upheld on any border, and legal immigration depends more on the immigrant than it does on the border control. In other words- there’s no final number, no total, just open revolving doors. All the nurses and doctors you know may want universal health care, but I bet I know just as many, if not more, that are not so sure. There’s no reason to believe there wouldn’t be caps on payments under Obamalosi care, rationing, less care for the elderly. The thing is we just don’t know what it would be like. I wouldn’t argue that its too expensive, but go ask some of those health care professionals you know so well if they’d be willing to take a pay cut to bring the cost down and let me know what the answers are.

DK,

You are free to do whatever you like as long as it does not impede on my life, and I promise to do the same for you. Focing me into universal healthcare is anything but. YOu are free to start your own society that has socialized medicine, but please just don’t make me pay for it. That is how we live peacefully, without physical coercion.

Sound fair?

Socialism doesn’t work first because you can’t substitute politics (plans) for the market and get anything like a rational allocation of resources, and second because without the incentive to accumulate property most people are not going to work very hard. Third, without private property as a basis for the system, you can’t have the kind of democracy, individual rights etc. that we’ve grown accustomed to and human beings seem to want. Your preferred form of socialism also depends on people reading Michael Albert, understanding what he’s talking about, and agreeing with his prescriptions. Meeting these conditions is impossible in the real world of human beings as we know them

You can’t confront me with all the atrocities of capitalist states, because, unlike you, I don’t believe that the mode of production determines everything we need to know about a society, or that we can escape the human condition by creating “new men” and “new women” and usher in a new millennium in the process. What I know about capitalism is that it has brought a level of comfort, leisure and freedom to billions of lives and through its ability to develop new technologies (something all Marxist regimes – including Cuba’s – have lacked) has raised the quality of life for ordinary working people to a level beyond that of kings, less than a hundred years ago.