Join The Debate!

The Liberal Acid Test

Whenever I hear a Liberal professing a "deep-felt" belief in a dream or political goal that requires heavier than existing tax funding (which means heavier taxpayer sacrifice and forced corporate support) - like Hilary's goals of Socialized Health Care, or the new Collectivism she's been spouting about, my first thought is, "When YOU throw YOUR millions into the pot as a good faith symbol for something you "so deeply believe in", I might start paying attention to what you have to say". It'll never happen. They don't intend for these programs to impact them.

Bill Clinton made a big deal, in speeches over and over, about how Bush's retroactive tax cut resulted in Clinton receiving a check for $100,000. Then he would shrug his shoulders and grin, as if saying, "I'm wealthy enough that I don't need the 100 grand". He would go on to explain exactly that point - in my opinion to try to breed jealousy amongst the "commoners" over the large amounts of money that the so called "tax cuts for the rich" were kicking back.

But, I never saw him produce the check on stage and tear it up. THAT might have actually had an impact on me on some level.

MIchael Moore

Michael Moore-on sez it all.
cc

uwcharlie & Norman

"You must be very gullible to use a silly and worthless study like you mentioned to conclude there is a disaster and high time for a change. People's relative heights don't prove anything about the efficiency or success of a health care system. You and Michael Moore would make good buddies since you haven't got the sense to realize the truth of Stossel's points. Please, can't you do better than talk about how tall people are? If there was ever a "duh" point, yours was it." (from Charlie)

I see, you have decided that the study is
silly and worthless because.....??

"You should try looking up some of the various health problems that come to people who are really tall. There are a number of people who died at earlier ages because their height caused serious medical issues." (from Norman)

I see that you too believe that height has
something (a great deal?)to do with health. Good for you. Since I posted my original response to the column, I have talked to three doctors, an anthropologist, and 2 Univ. Profs in Science (it is nice to live in a university town & go to a church that has lots of professors in it), and all agree that health and height track fairly closely within the general population.
A couple of them also said that prolonged
disasters (such as WWII) can affect both health
and height also of a people.

Back to UWCharlie, I just happened across the
statement and included it. I wasn't using it
to prove anything. The fact that our health
care system for the average citizen is in
shambles has been proven a long time ago so that
it hardly needs to be a talking point any more.
The only talking point is - what are we going to
do about it.

beowulfe

Could you please blog your Hillary timetable and post the link here so it can be linked to directly and Dugg?

Why is it fair....

that people are forced to pay for something for other people they don't even know when those other people can provide for themselves? Health care, education, housing and other things are commodities, and do not spring up on their own. It requires talent and effort to make such things happen, and all of it needs to be paid for. Just because you socialize an industry doesn't mean the costs disappear.

Certain things I'm willing to pay for because we all use them as a society, such as roads, highways and bridges, police, fire, and national defense, and administrative costs involved in all of these. Anything else more than these is suspect. Being forced to pay the health care or the education or retirement, among other things such as welfare in any form, is a violation of civil rights. Even if you approve of paying the taxes for Medicare and Social Security, it doesn't change the fact that it's wealth redistribution and it is a civil rights violation.

We have a right to keep what we earn and to spend it as we please so long as what we do isn't criminal (like buying slaves, illegal aliens, illegal narcotics, sending money to terrorists, etc.). If I invest money in a company, that gives me some bit of say in how that company performs. If I don't like how a company performs, I can sell my shares. If government takes my money and spends it or gives it to someone else for whatever reason, we don't have much of a say in how that person performs. You can't tell someone you don't know receiving welfare to stop smoking and start exercising and eat better. When government steals money for education, you don't have much of a say, if at all, in how a student does in school. You can't compel someone you don't know to do better in school. Why is this all fair?

RickRussellTX -- Both Right -- NOT

quoth RickRusselTX: "This is one situation where I think Mr. Stossel and Mr. Moore need to have a meeting of the minds."

Not gonna work. Terribly obvious joke about Moore's "mind" to be left for others.

RRTX: "Health care, like criminal justice, is always going to be judged by its fringe cases. Moore is absolutely right to ask, "Why does an uninsured person need to pay $70000 to fix an injured finger?" The borderline cases that Moore examines are part of a large group of borderline cases that point to a serious problem with the way the health care system is financed."

You can't "fix" a system by looking at "fringe" cases. A small percentage of "fringe" cases include people who are only 4 ft high. Does this imply a government subsidy to provide ladders in every home?


RRTX: "Moore's solution, based on his examination of health care systems in other countries, is to eliminate the broken finance system with government intervention."

Which is to make it even more broken. Moore clearly has glossed over *all* of the problems in these government "solutions."

Moore has not "examined" anything. He started with a conclusion and looked for things that support it.

RRTX: "Stossel's solution, based on his belief in free market principles,"

You already show your bias. For you, Moore, a self-acknowledged left-wing ideologue and self-acknowledged -- shall we say "Stretcher of Truth" -- has "examined" the state of affairs. According to you.

Stossel, according to you, bases his solution on his "belief."

Moore, examines. Stossel, believes. Do you see the bias?


RRTX: "My question for Stossel is this: can we point to an example -- any example -- of a technologically advanced and effective medical care system based entirely on free market principles? I'm not sure such a system exists."

There are no such system of 100% Free Market in ANYthing ANYwhere in the world. Which, by itself, is not indicative of anything.

What you have to do is look at the correlation between how "broken" the system is and the level of government involvement. When you *examine* these facts, you find a strong correlation. The more broken a system is, the more government coercion, somewhere, somehow, is involved.

It is so frustrating to hear people call for new government involvement to solve the problems created by prior government interference.



RRTX: "Part of the problem is that most people want to be covered in the event of catastrophic injury or illness."

That's not a problem. That's exactly what insurance is for. That's why you buy auto insurance, even when it's not mandated by the state (which makes rates go up). That's why you buy fire insurance for your home and your property. That's why you buy life insurance.

Medical insurance is no different -- except, of course, that it's the only insurance that is very commonly never paid for by the end user. And so the end user is insulated from price changes.

The *problem* is that the people who *use* the services are insulated from the people who *provide* the services. In a normal Free Market situation, when prices go up, people buy less. In today's situation with all these various regulations, people don't find out about increased prices until it's too late. Or they don't find out at all, because the people paying for the service simply take the money from someplace else.



RRTX: "If we could point to an example of a working medical free market that covers catastrophic cases,"

I.e. insurance, bought and paid for by the end user. Unless said end user freely chooses not to purchase said service. Which means the insurance company would need to entice more buyers with better value.


RRTX: "I think we could make an argument for government dis-intervention. Until that happens, I think we need to consider that Moore's solution may be less evil than the current solution, even if it's far from optimal."

Moore's solution involves getting MORE of what CREATES the problems in the FIRST place.

I think the blunt force of government

Should be used to force liberals to crack a friggin history book sometime.

And RickRussel, yes, in fact, I do know of one such example -- laser eye surgery. It's not covered by insurance, as it's deemed "cosmetic". And what has that meant? It's been getting safer, more effective, and cheaper for the fifteen or so years it's been on the market.

MarineDad

Churchil also wrote

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."

Insurance companies run healthcare

All of you should go ahead and read your entire health insurance policy (which can be anywhere from 35 to 75 pages long).
Then figure out if you are actually covered for anything that could happen to you.
I guarantee that none of you could.

Or better yet call your insurance company and see what they have to say.
They will refer you back to your insurance policy and then leave it up to you to figure it all out.

Some people in the United States are being DENIED insurance coverage because they have pre-existing conditions and some people in the United States are being denied insurance reimbursements because their claims are being DENIED

Just last May 2007, Blue Cross of California settled a class action law suit that accused them of ILLEGALLY DENYING CLAIM PAYMENTS to people who already had insurance!

Plus the cost of healthcare in the United States is the number one cause of bankruptcy (even for those who have insurance).

The Insurance companies run health care in the United States.
What good is paying for insurance if the insurance companies have the power to decide who they will allow to be insured and who they will allow to have their claims paid??

Self-employed & denied health insurance

45 cents out of every medical dollar spent in the U.S. comes from some government entity, be it WIC, medicare, medicaid, etc. Add this to the fact that medical aid from our tax money is also sent overseas in enormous amounts, and you have to come to one conclusion.

All this money is being essentially "washed" through the government and dumped into the already bulging pockets of the various corporations involved in health care. This money is taken from the citizens of the U.S. at gunpoint, by force, through taxes.

I am a weightlifter and fall outside of insurance companies BMI charts and cannot buy health insurance. If I break a bone or something and need to go to a hospital, I am charged 2 to 4 times more than people with insurance due to a deal with the hospitals that if you don't do business with an insurance company, the hospital is to gouge you for your insolence.

But I am forced to subsidize health care for everyone else, including citizens of other countries...does the word "slavery" come to mind at all?

To be truly honest, we should stop comparing our system to the systems of poor countries such as England, Cuba, Spain, etc., and try comparing our system to Japan's or Germany's...and admit that out system is already almost already half socialized.

You'll never really understand the problem this country has with health care until you have been told by your own society "your too big...if you get cancer, there's the gutter, go die in it..."

Halliburton corrections

Canard #1: Halliburton got its business from no bid contracts.

Fact: In actuallity, the bulk of Halliburton's contracts werte subject to competitive bidding. The fuss stems from a contract for KBR (a Halliburton subsidiary) that was awarded a contract for Iraq operations without utilizing this process. It was perfectly normal, however. The DoD made the determination that, because of KBR's existing contracts, no other vendor was capable of completing the tasks as efficiently or effectively and, because revealing the nature of those activities to the open bidding process would reveal aspects of US military strategy in Iraq, it was determined that it ws in the best interests of the United States to award that one contract without competitive bid. Dick Cheney was at no time involved in the decision.

Canard #2: Cheney had a conflict of interest or, at least, the appearance of a conflict.

In fact, Cheney, before taking office divested himself of all ties to the company that he possibly could, leaving only certain stock options that he could not legally divest and a deferred compensation package that Halliburton was legally obligated to continue. In order to eliminate any conflict related to these items, he obtained insurance on the income streams so that they could not change reagdless of whether Halliburton went belly up or not and then placed these assets in blind trust (that he cannot interfere with) that donates all proceeds directly to charity.

In a political grandstanding move, Cheney was accused of a conflict (I think by Leahy) but the actual report indicated that there MIGHT be a conflict IF Cheney were subject to House rules (he is not) and IF he received the proceeds (he does not). It was a lie.

what? You didn't expect liberals to get their facts straight, did you?

Access first, then let compete

The primary problem with the private health care system is that its very nature is to deny benefits (using excuses, like "pre-existing" condition, etc.) Any business that works so hard at screwing its customers is not a good business.

Of course, the main problem with the insurance business in general is that the price ultimately follows risk. As an investor in the S&P 500, I want my insurance companies, like all my companies, to maximize revenues. Unless we as a nation want to make some folks pay more than others (especially for a condition or history beyond their control), we need to spread the risk.

As I see it, there are only 2 ways to spread the risk - some sort of national health care system, or some sort of a voucher system (paid for by general revenues) that would make up the actuarial difference for anyone that is not the ideal clean history, 18 y.o., non-smoking, white, hetero male. As a subsititue for the latter, I would accept a system that allows for folks to buy in the federal employees health plan (with full FICA and incomae tax pre-AGI deduction), with the price being the same as the standard well run self-insured large corporations. Why don't any Republicans push this?

Of course, there is also the problem of how to force people to buy into this program, as well as how the lower incoem folks would afford it (and yet make the net cost not be marginally opressive so as to discourage people.) But once that is figured out, then folks can do an apple to apple comparison as to whether the increased efficiency of such a private system would make up for the profit that would need to be extracted. If that would be the case, then such a private system would work; otherwise, a public system would be better.

Colosteve -- Insanity --

quoth Colosteve: "Isn't there something written that an insane person does the same thing over and over again but expects a different result next time?"

As a matter of fact, there is.

"Doesn't that sound like some of the liberals here? They say that gov't is incompetent but wait, this time it will be different!"

This isn't really the way liberals think - - -

The problem with liberals is, they believe the government is incompetent because *they* aren't the ones in charge!

An insane person

Isn't there something written that an insane person does the same thing over and over again but expects a different result next time? Doesn't that sound like some of the liberals here? They say that gov't is incompetent but wait, this time it will be different!

I'm sure Mr. Moore

will be using the gov't run healthcare system when he has that heart attack due to weighing 600 pounds.

Michael Moore

Michael Moore is an idiot. He's a typical leftist who refuses to look at the facts that socialism and big government never work. Socialism has been tried over and over again and again and has failed every time. Still people like Moore want to turn America into antother socialist bureaucracy. Michael Moore should be hung.

Haliburton

Yup. Conflict of interest because Cheney once worked there. Edwards, the trial lawer...conflict. Most of the Klinton cabinet now MSM reporters... Conflict. Bill Klinton speaking for millions to foreign groups...Shrillary Conflict.

Gosh, you mean that every person in the world who is qualified for office worked somewhere before and after that office? Who would have thunk.

M. Moore and his latest: Correction

I fumbled around and wrote, "The essence of the Court's holding is that the Canadian system does for the patient nothing more than generate ling waiting lines."

Of course, that should have been LONG waiting lines.

TurnLeft -- Arguing with Conservatives

Well, TurnLeft, it appears you have some very strong arguments to support your case.

We await your first use of them.

Stossel

Absolutely a shame there are'nt more Stossels in the LSM. Maybe I'd make a little better return on my holdings in'em, at least the few I still have. As usual,the moonbats came out in force,telling us how paranoid we are of the greatness of socialism,and how the free enterpise system is a total failure.Hey Turn Left, I would suggest you turn left like into a lake, but that would be using a irrational polluting agent on it,so skip that idea.Like other posters here,a better idea for you is to lay off the Kool-Aid for awhile.You really will feel better.

So tenacious, all of you.

Ah, conservatives. The bad guys we all love to hate.

Your "not thinking" is the problem

"I do not think 'Government' - in & of
itself - is inherently 'evil' nor incompetent. I believe it's the PEOPLE who staff the "government" that determine the quality of what it produces."

But that is demonstrably not the case, whether you examine it from the economic calculation problem which demonstrates unequivocally that government cannot allocate resources as efficiently as the free market or you approach it from the basics of public choice theory which demonstartes that the people in government do not - in fact, CAN not - act selflessly rather than in their own interests (typically placing job retention above all other considerations.

"Republicans are in love with putting down the government..."

Pointing out the (obvious) inefficiencies of governmental forays into the economy (whether in the area of charity or research or health care) is not about emotions like "love" and "hate". It's about a rational assessment of what works and what doesn't.

Then you discuss still further failures of government (not endorsed either by all conservatives or all Republicans - which are not the same thing) while defending a course that would place still more power in governmental hands.

"I feel it's our elected officials who are COURTED BY & SUCCUMB TO big money..."

To the contrary, it has been fully understood for thousands of years that "Caesar demands tribute". Liberals see all the money that flows through Washington (because of programs such as the one you endorse), come upon the typical shakedown to get money from the citizenry (and, if you don't give you can be attacked under anti-trust activities like Microsoft was) and insist that the victim be shot!

"...lobbyists for the PRIVATE SECTOR mind you (the 'free market'), that, in fact, is 'THE PROBLEM'."

Lobbyists for federal largesse can only exist in an environment where government takes in the vast sums of money to be used in offering such largesse. Any intervention - even at the request of lobbyists - is a violation of the most basic free market principles.

"The 'free market' - the insurance companies, the drug companies, BIG BIG MONEY - can simply BUY our elected officials."

Just a suggestion: You might want to do some research into basic economics, history or even simply real world conditions instead of voicing mindless liberal platitudes that have no basis in reality.

"But again, GOVERNMENT, in & of itself....is a solution."

That gross misconception is what underlies most of your other misconceptions.

"I FEEL AN OBLIGATION to help those less fortunate than myself."

And yet you would understandably object to someone imposing his will upon you regarding your sexuality utilizing the power of government so how can you justify doing the EXACT SAME THING by imposing your moral standards with regard to charitable giving on every one else using the power of government?

"We live in a truly Darwinian system where the best & the brightest 'wins' in the 'living standards' game..."

We live in the most generous society that has ever existed on the face of the planet. Just imagine how much more good could be done if the government didn't enact welfare state policies that actually INCREASE poverty and create an entrenched underclass, allowed greater economic efficiencies resulting from less governmental intervention to permit even greater numbers of people to prosper and left more resources in the hands of charitable people who already give more than 2% of GDP to charitable causes (which are overwhelmingly better at meeting need than any governmental program) even though the government has taken up so much of the charity market.

"...but I just feel it's the HUMANE thing to spread that wealth around to those less fortunate. Government SHOULD be that vehicle in a democracy."

What if I and a simple majority of your countrymen felt that it would be the HUMANE thing to imprison you lest you might otherwise soil yourself - or harm your immortal soul - by engaging in homosexual activities? I don't but then I'm not the one advocating the use of governmental force to impose a HUMANE agenda on everyone else.

"It's our crazy SYSTEM with powerful lobbyists & succumbing politicians & a rabid "free market" where the bottom line is always profits over people.... that's the problem. AND I'M NOT GETTING PARTISAN HERE."

The statements are contradictory.

"Government-run healthcare would be ideal, if only we had half-way intelligent & incorruptible men implementing it."

Okay. Maybe. But since the existence of such a government is flatly impossible, it is nothing less than foolhardy to advocate a policy that only works if it were not.

RE: TurnLeft

"The Post Office is a great example of a pay-as-you-go government-run agency that does fine for those that use it, and does not keep UPS and FedEx from existing."

So, I take it, you missed that whole thing about how:

1) The USPS almost always runs at a deficit, and is allowed to do so only because it can just take tax dollars for its funding (I think it was just a couple years ago that was the first time that the USPS was in the black since like the 1940s). Thus it ISN'T an example of "pay as you go" service.

And 2) The USPS is a monopoly. UPS and FedEx don't compete in the area of First Class mail delivery because it is illegal for them to do so. And in the areas they are able to compete with the USPS with (package delivery), they provide a better service for a cheaper cost. Even with the USPS's predation -- that is they charge a lower price than it costs them for the service -- UPS and FedEx are cheaper than the USPS.

And I call you "kiddo" because it is common for children (and apparently lefty wingers) to flat out lie about something in order to try to persuade others to do something that they not only otherwise would not do, but would also be harmful to them.

Now if you are holding up the USPS as the way that health care ought to be run, you do realize we'll be paying MORE for a service that is WORSE.

Heck, earlier this year I received a package in the mail from the Massachusetts Department of Revenue with a letter that said "Obviously the post office ruined your check and tax return. Please re-issue the check and resend your return." Contained within the package was what remained of my return and check...utterly shredded (I was probably one of the few people who could legitimately claim that my tax return was late because the Post Office's dog ate my return :p ).

Now were that health care, would you REALLY want your heart shredded by the official government surgeon? Is 'oops' an ok response at that point, like the USPS is prone to say?

Just last week, I sent a package USPS where I got the state wrong on the address, but I got the zip code right. The post office scribbled out the Weare (NH, though I inadvertantly put MA) and replace it with Were (MA) instead of just looking at the zip code (which was for Weare, NH), then expected me to pay a second time to pick it up from the Post Office when they couldn't find an address in Were, MA that matched the one on the box. Do you think that UPS or FedEx would get away with that? No, they wouldn't. They'd instead check the zip code then realize it was heading to Weare, NH, and deliver it, like any rational human being (as opposed to massive government bureaucrisy) would.

What if your government doctor accindentally received instructions to remove 2 kidney stones from your heart instead of, say, from one of your kidneys? Would it be ok if he scribbled out the kidney stones and replaced it with "valves", removed 2 heart valves, and after killing you, expected your family to pay for the procedure twice?

Turn left

If the Post Office is so great why does it consistently run at a deficit.

And public education is socialized...and thanks to the feds, local gov'ts have less control now than they ever had. And what do we have now? A mess....I don't give the locals a free pass on this either. I don't know where you live, but in most parts of the country gov't run schools are about as inefficient as it gets. Take a look at your property tax statement. Anyone that says there is not enough money in education is lying to you!

My wife is a teacher and the school system that she works in is the worst run business I have EVER heard tale of. The wasteful spending is horrifying....and little of it impacts the classroom positively.

{ouch}

My butt hurts from all the spanking. But Beowulfe, you made it all better with your condescending "kiddos". Made me feel so young! Thx! ~wink~

Thank you Jim, and Will, for your thoughtful posts. I don't think Jim was being sarcastic at all. The Post Office is a great example of a pay-as-you-go government-run agency that does fine for those that use it, and does not keep UPS and FedEx from existing. Pay-as-you-go, single-payer, government-run healthcare is the way to go. (Obama '08!)

I'm not a Socialist (really, I swear), but of all the things that could use a little injection of socialism in this country, it's healthcare and education. And my only reason is that the health and education of the poorest among us never stops being exactly as important as the health and education of the richest. I will never stop believing that.

RE: will

"Are all of you rabidly free-market guys happy with farming out the military jobs to "private" corporations like Halliburton?"

The running of the military is something that the free-market cannot possibly do. The very concept of the military requires centralized government control.

However, all of the nifty toys the military uses are created by the free market.

Your little "but, but what about the military" crack doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It is nothing but a strawman.

"Why not let Halliburton staff our police departments & fire departments & the entire U.S. military army while we're at it? Let's privatize EVERYTHING."

There are many privately run police and fire departments accross the nation, and they have a pretty darn good record. When your job and paycheck depend on who well you perform, that's a pretty darn good reason to perform well, now ain't it?

"What I hate most about some of you posters is that you think that by screaming "PRIVATE ENTERPRISE ONLY" will somehow "fix" healthcare."

Conversely, what I hate about most lefty wingers is that they think government intervention is the "solution" to every perceived "problem". So what if the long history of government intervention proves otherwise, they simply believe that the NEXT TIME the government intervenes, they'll get it right. How many "next times" are necessary before they are convinced that that might not be the right thing to do?

"Our current healthcare crisis is CAUSED by the manipulations & (sometimes) criminal activities of health insurance companies WHOSE PRIMARY GOAL NOW appears to search for artful ways to DENY the policyholder healthcare benefits."

Were that the case, the customers would go elsewhere for their insurance. That is why the free market works.

However, if it were the government, and the government alone, that provides that service -- like is the case in Canada -- where are you to turn when that service fails you?

"IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST of the "for-profit" system to deny access to funds (You pay in....put it's like pulling teeth to get legitimate pay-outs). Denying access to funds is now a cottage industry in healthcare...& the practicioners reap huge bonuses if they can deny enough people coverage."

It is in the best interest of for-profit corporations to keep their customers happy because, in failing to do so, they would not have any customers.

What, pray tell, is the incentive for government bureaucracies to provide good service when their job and pay are in no way related to the level of service they provide?

"But PLEASE: Stop all this "fear of socialism" stuff. It's juvenile. Look around us here in the States. We live daily with socialism. Think our your church as a socialistic government. You pay into the system...through a collection plate....& the church-government spreads it around."

People are not threatened through the infliction of violence if they decide to withhold their payment to the donation plate. Your "churches are socialist" is yet another strawman.

"What we need is a competent government."

You, of course, assume that such a thing could possibly exist?

The whole notion of the free market system is that each individual knows what they themselves want, and are allowed to seek what they want on an individual basis.

Socialist/communist systems assume that some massive bureaucracy knows what each person wants, and can then provide it to them.

Just look at the example of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union in the 20th century was unique among Eurasian nations in that it had the resouces to be 100% self sufficient. They had a form of government that tried to provide what everyone wanted or needed instead of letting the individual determine what they wanted and needed. Unfortunately, the Soviet Union was rampant with shortages and surpluses. One part of the nation would have so many pairs of shoes that they filled their garbage dumps with brand new ones while 100 miles away people had to walk around barefoot. People starved while 20 miles away food was rotting on the docks undelivered.

Government bureaucracies cannot know what each person wants and needs as much as each of those individual people know themselves, and it is that simple fact that is the reason why the free market, while not perfect, is ALWAYS better than socialism.

Another deluded liberal joins the fray

"Are all of you rabidly free-market guys happy with farming out the military jobs to 'private' corporations like Halliburton?"

Defense is a typically concede to be a government fucntion, but if a private enterprise can perform some service more efficiently than the government (as is true in this case even with the complaints - many of which are overblown) so be it.

"I mean, the government pays Halliburton WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS! Our U.S. government is a middle-man."

Our government is supposed to take responsibility for how it spends our tax dollars. THAT is the problem.

"Why not let Halliburton staff our police departments & fire departments & the entire U.S. military army while we're at it? Let's privatize EVERYTHING."

No one has suggested any such thing. nevertheless a great many fire departments ARE privately funded (they were a private sector invention) and even some police functions have been performed satisfactorily by private enterprise.

"Whether you guys admit it or not: The United State is already a MIXTURE of socialism (the police & fire depts, etc.) and free enterprise."

While certainly our society (sadly) has socialistic elements (most notably the welfare state), the police function is not one of them and even municipal fire services do not typically fall under the generally accepted definition of socialism.

"What I hate most about some of you posters is that you think that by screaming 'PRIVATE ENTERPRISE ONLY' will somehow 'fix' healthcare."

No one is screaming and it is the implementation of that ideal that would solve the problems.

"Our current healthcare crisis is CAUSED by the manipulations & (sometimes) criminal activities of health insurance companies..."

...and then the Good Witch of the North told Dorothy to tap her heels together three times...

The problems with our current health care system are overwhelmingly the result of the governmental intervention that has already occurred - everything from granting the AMA pseudo-governmental power to restrict the supply of doctors to creating the conditions that drove employers between health insurance cnsumers and health insurance providers to patchwork price caps and mandatory offerings.

"...WHOSE PRIMARY GOAL NOW appears to search for artful ways to DENY the policyholder healthcare benefits."

...and Samwise lifted Frodo on his shoulders and resumed the trek toward the gate into Mount Doom..."

That canard simply refuses to die.

"Denying access to funds is now a cottage industry in healthcare..."

Which is why stores can be found on your local newscast every night about the people dying in the street because insurance companies told them to "bugger off".... Whats that? There isn't. There's just enough for dissemblers like Michael Moore to pretend that the exceptions are really a widespread problem? Oh, never mind.

"I have heard so much spin on this site about Britain's National Health Service & Canada's healthcare system that I'll have to do some research myself."

Go to the Fraser Institute and look at their data. And when you have convinced yourself that it's all a bunch of conservative "spin", go to Health Canada - the official Canadian government source - and learn that there numbers are exactly the same.

"But PLEASE: Stop all this 'fear of socialism' stuff."

It isn't "fear" - it's "rejection of stupidity".

"It's juvenile."

Mischaracterizing the objections to socialized medicine certainly meets that definition.

"Look around us here in the States."

We enjoy the economic prosperity that we have achieved in large part because we have adopted socialistic practices to a much lesser degree (and in many cases much later) than other countries. Why undermine a good thing?

"We live daily with socialism."

We live daily with disease as well. I'm not gonna cheer about either.

"Think our your church as a socialistic government."

My church doesn't file a lien on my property if I tell them I'd just as soon keep my money.

"You pay into the system...through a collection plate....& the church-government spreads it around."

But, again, the church only takes what I voluntarily give them. And government does such an abysmal job allocating resources, why should I fund such idiocy?

"What we need is a competent government."

Exoecting government to efficiently allocate resources given literally centuries of history demonstrating that it can't is simply irrational.

"Our U.S. government embarrasses me sometimes."

Me too. Why feed it?

"The British uncover terrorist plots so intelligently & thoroughly, it leaves me AMAZED & bewildered. While OUR government investigating the same terrorist plot is like Larry, Curly & Moe."

You have no idea what investigative successes and failures have occured in either place. Meanwhile the British police have far more authority to just go into a private home and perform a search. Do you advocate adopting that here?

Will

You've lost your mind...Think of the church as a socialistic gov't? What? Are you kidding?

Last time I went to church, the minister didn't hit me over the head with a club, rummaged through my wallet, and took what he thought I "ought" to be giving.

What we need is a competent government? Government is inherently incompetent at certain things.....that's why this country was made great through self determination and rugged individualism.

And just because we have socialistic programs (SS, etc.) doesn't mean it's ok to expand them so that, dollar by dollar, our freedoms are taken away.

Give me a break.

Roger and Me

was the first and last film I ever saw made by Michael Mooreon. I guess I am just not hip. His methodology of documentary film making has not changed one bit. 1. Go out and interview people about subject of interest. 2. Edit, re edit, and re edit again to twist those people's statements to support the agenda that he has. A picture is worth a thousand words. Sit back and enjoy the millions earned from taking pictures of misery and blaming it all on 'the man'. I bet Michael Moore, like most libs, would not bother to offer a hand to some poor handicapped person but is forever demanding that the guvmint forceably tax everyone to help them.

As Walter Williams is fond of pointing out. Helping someone in need is noble. It is called charity, a christian value. Demanding that the government thru force confiscates money earned by others to help those in need is called theft. It is immoral and unchristian.

Response to Will

I acknowledge, for factual purposes, that the U.S. has a great deal of socialism in it. I advocate removing the socialism.

The difference between my church and my government is that I can pay in as little or as much money as I see fit. If my church is not spending my contributions to my satisfaction, I can go to another church. I cannot go to a competing federal government within the U.S., and I certainly will not leave this country to satisfy those who care to infringe on my natural rights, including my right to keep what I earn.

Insurance companies do try to minimize payouts, in order to ensure that we do not waste money. The system isn't perfect, but you have not made the case that government regulation would make things any better.

Lastly, I find it amusing that so many liberals admit that the government is incompetent, but favor giving it so much power without proposing a way to correct the government's incompetence.

RE: sjt18

"Is a gov't mandated private corporation... and they are self-funding."

Well, partly true. The USPS usually runs at a deficit, even though they run far less efficiently than would a private market competitor. This, by the way, is the EXACT reason congress made the USPS a government-mandated monopoly (they are the only institution that is allowed to deliver First Class mail). During congressional hearings on the topic of making the USPS a monopoly mandated by the government, it was justified because congress realized that there was no way that the USPS could compete with private mail carriers.

What's worse is that they USPS is INTENTIONALLY inefficient. For example, did you know you can be FIRED from the USPS for doing too good of a job? That's right, mail carriers for the USPS have been fired because they were able to complete their routes in less time than it was supposed to take them.

"People make decisions... liberals hurt those people, their children, and society by allowing them to evade the immediate consequences through social programs that encourage bad behavior."

It was either Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell who once said something to the effect of "minimizing the consequences of folly maximizes the amount of folly."

This notion has been demonstrated countless times:

Welfare: It was once the case that mothers on welfare were given bigger welfare checks for the more children they had. The result? Predictable. They had more kids so they could collect bigger checks. Then welfare reform happened in the '90s that limited the pay-per-child concept and required the able-bodied recipients to work for their money. The result? Also predictable. Welfare rolls were cut in half.

Crime: Starting in the 1960s, the penalties for criminal behavior were systematically reduced. The death penalty was prohibited in many states, prison sentences were reduced accross the board, and many felons were simply released from prison simply because some liberal thought "they've paid a big enough price already". The result? Predictable. Crime skyrocketed. Now we see New York Times headlines like "Crime Rates Fall As Prison Populations Rise" (amusingly, the "intelligent" people over at the NYT just don't see the correlation).

"Part of the reason our drugs are so high is that price caps in countries with socialized medicine cause the companies to have to recoup most of the costs from American consumers."

Oh so true. While the US has about 5% of the world's population, we contribute 50% of the money to pay for the world's drugs. Is it any wonder why virtually every single drug manufacturer on the planet is based in the US?

Our neighbors to our north should be thanking us every single day they head out and pick up their diabetes medicine. Their prices would be double or tripple (while ours would be half or less) were we in the US not the most generous nation on the planet, subsidizing their drug costs.

Thanks, guys

Already having made the Christopher Robbin reference, I just ran with it.

Drug R&D

Part of the reason our drugs are so high is that price caps in countries with socialized medicine cause the companies to have to recoup most of the costs from American consumers.

More ideas for Moore

For his next film, I'd like to see Michael Moore follow the development of a new drug from start to finish, just to see exactly how much money a pharmaceutical company has to spend, and how much paperwork it has to file with the FDA, just to get a new treatment on the market. I don't know, but I've been told that drives up the price of health care, just a bit.

Alternatively, let him follow around a doctor from, say, West Virginia who is trying to stick around and treat patients who can't always afford to pay...but who has to leave the state because the mandatory malpractice premiums are too high.

Maybe Moore could interview a jury who awarded a patient a ridiculous verdict because they figured the insurance company or doctor could afford to spare a cool million. Even if the verdict would get overturned, there still is all the money the insurance company would have to spend on litigation.

Lastly, I recommend Moore follow around people who take absolutely no responsibility for their own health, and who, at the same time, complain about constantly achy knees, upset stomachs, and raspy throats.

I would bet money that government regulation and irresponsible personal behavior (and irresponsible civic behavior on the part of jurors) have done more to make health care "unaffordable" than anything else. Why Moore thinks more of the problem can result in a solution is beyond me. But then, I believe in acting logically.

Re-introduce...

the market to health care and you'll see a healthier country and a country that pays less for better service.

Introduce more gov't to health care... and we'll go bankrupt or ration health care. The present inefficient system is more efficient than anything liberals can dream up.

They one a single payer system... we need an individual payer system where people can be rewarded for healthy habits and customize their insurance to their needs.

Stossel is dead on.

Socialized Post Office

I just can’t wait for Moore and his ilk to insist on a Socialized Post Office. This idea that I must pay postage for all the mail I send, and pay each and every time I send it, is just ridiculous. Why not pay an annual fee (camouflaged in my taxes) then I would be able to send all the mail I want to send, needed or not.

Oh, you say, the PO is already a Govt. run agency, and it works just fine on a pay as you go, and as you need plan. But for some reason that will never work for Health Care, right?

Free healthcare (or any other free Government item) means that if you don't want it, or don't need it, your taxes bill does not go down.

If you pay your own health bill and postage, the less you use, the less you need, the less you pay.

That’s why the PO — pay as you need, and only when you need postage plan — is the only way to go for any thing, Govt. run or not.

RE: TurnLeft

"Sorry, beowulfe, I should have clarified. I wasn't talking about your family. I was talking about the rest of America."

Sorry, not in this reality, kiddo.

Net worth: All time highs -- at every level of wealth.

Home ownership: All time highs -- particularly among "the poor".

Income: Rising, at all income levels.

You can spew your lies all you want. Repeating debunked lies doesn't suddenly make them true, no matter how desperately you wish they were true.

"And yes, conservatives are xenophobic in general, and their trepidation concerning universal healthcare is a perfect illustration thusly."

Yeah, uh huh. That we agree that communism is a failure means we hate those who aren't exactly like us.

You can't construct a SINGLE legitimate argument for ANYTHING, so you repeat lies and toss ridiculous insults and hope the stupid people out there will support you in doing so.

"You fear the truth of America's financial situation."

And this coming from a person who has to LIE about the financial situation to begin with.

"and reminding single mothers that they really should have a father for their baby"

After all, it's those darn daddies that are the problem, right? Oh, wait a minute, 75% of single mothers are ranked among the nations poor! Is that just a coincidence?

"You remind working folks that they really should open an IRA, even though they can't afford to even start to think about saving a damn dime, instead of ensuring the health of their already existing medicare and social security accounts."

And I bet you were one of the loudest screamers when Bush was actually trying to do something about social security, huh?

"Your priorities are screwy."

So are your facts, kiddo.
"And though your hearts may be in the right place, the methods you support leave the hungry unfed, the cold unclothed, and the sick uncared for."

Funny, I was just about to say the same thing about your "war on poverty".

"And the GOP is somehow, for SOME strange reason, aligned with Christianity. For shame."

Yeah, cuz Xstians are evil and blowing up our children all for their God. Wait, who were we talking about again?

F1etch

Would you quit it.....I can't get any work done. You are WAY too good at this stuff.

Heffalumps and woozles...I almost fell out of my chair. Thanks for the laugh as well as the articulation of the argument.

700 Theaters, Coolnout?

I also recall the movie "I Spit on Your Grave" was in 700 theaters too....a real classic.

Afer seeing Bowling for Columbine and Farenheit 911, I pretty much can tell you that if I want to see a re-worked and re-edited fantasy film, I'd prefer good ones like Harry Potter or Transformers.

One day soon, Michael Moore will get sick. He will either be dealt the hand of diabetes or heart disease. He will require healthcare and meds.
I sure do hope the media follows him around with cameras and microphones as he enters and leaves his doctor's office and hospitals in the US. I'd like to hear him verbally take a leak on the system that keeps him alive.

Turn left and again and again

Circles in your mind.

"All of your examples of government-run institutions that have failed are simply the result of Republicans stripping away all funding. This is especially true for public schools and hospitals."
Of course you must be right. After all, when the government adds 5% - 10% to the budget the Army has for medical care each year between 1995 and 2006, that is stripping away the 50% (or is it 150%) that could have been given.

Of course, the 5-10% is larger than inflation but it is required by liberals that government growth must always be larger than inflation.

And schools? Have you looked at the number of dollars that have been added to the systems?

I am sorry, Mr. Left, but you sound like a fool.

Holy F'ing crap, turnleft!

Can you really be that f'ing stupid? Republicans strip away education funding? You must really be smoking the good stuff! Or in your world an increase is the same as stripping. Or maybe the increase wasn't as big as the Dem's masters at the NEA wanted so it gets called a cut instead of what it really is.

Washington DC schools get, on average, $13,000 per pupil, yet they continuously underperform in every standardized test. Tell me how more money will make parent(s) give a hoot. The best indicator of how a child will perform in school is how involved the parent(s) is/are in MAKING them perform. No amount of new computers is going to improve that.

More nonsense from the Left

"Sorry, beowulfe, I should have clarified. I wasn't talking about your family. I was talking about the rest of America."

So was beowulfe. the actual data completely refutes your position about "the rest of America".

"And yes, conservatives are xenophobic in general..."

Well, thanks so much for your (silly) opinion. Perhaps you can explain why people like me and Walter Williams and John Stossel who WROTE this column favor freer immigration for productive individuals (even if we have a HUGE problem with importing unproductive ones). Thought not.

"...and their trepidation concerning universal healthcare is a perfect illustration thusly."

So, objecting to a system that is at least as lethal (due to waiting periods) as delay in receiving care is in this country NOW is "xenophobic" how exactly? Objecting to a move to a system where the ACTUAL CARE (not insurance availability or - misrepresented - cost) is inferior is "xenophobic" how exactly?

"You fear the truth of America's financial situation."

No we've actually looked at the data instead of relying upon anecdotes and liberal talking points.

"You combat it by decrying the 'moral erosion' of our society..."

I can't recal beowulfe ever meking that argument.

"...and reminding single mothers that they really should have a father for their baby..."

Now, THAT'S really a radical concept, isn't it?

"...instead of ensuring basic healthcare and daycare for the mom and baby."

There's a difference between objecting to a system that INCENTS such irresponsible behavior and objecting to effective (read: non-governmental) solutions to such societal problems.

"You remind working folks that they really should open an IRA, even though they can't afford to even start to think about saving a damn dime, instead of ensuring the health of their already existing medicare and social security accounts."

...and then Chrstopher Robbin asked Piglet why Pooh was up in the honey tree...

"Your priorities are screwy."

Objecting to a system that has never worked is an example of "screwy" priorities. Gotcha.

"And though your hearts may be in the right place..."

What an amazing concession.

"...the methods you support leave the hungry unfed, the cold unclothed, and the sick uncared for."

Actually, a better description of the welfare state and socialized medicine I couldn't possibly imagine.

"And the GOP is somehow, for SOME strange reason, aligned with Christianity. For shame."

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Biblical admonitions are personal and cannot be discharged by a third party (i.e. government) particularly by forcing others (taxpayers) - against their will, if necessary - to act on their behalf. I dunno.

"More than happy to clarify."

Me too.

"Wouldn't socialism require that you NOT be able to have your own healthcare?"

No. State control of the emans of the production/provision of any product or service either directly or in a de facto manner through regulation meets the definition of socialism.

"As a gainfully employed, pretty well paid professional, I can afford great healthcare through my company, and I have an IRA."

Good for you.

"And yet, I am absolutely willing to pay higher taxes to ensure that my fellow Americans who are NOT gainfully employed, can also not be sick."

Then do so. Or better yet, give to a charitable organization engaged in such efforts. The problem is that you wish to employ force to get other people to do what YOU want.

"That's not socialism."

Actually, yes it is.

"It's common human decency."

Helping others may be described as common decency. FORCING others to do something cannot be. "Government mandated common decency" is a contradiction in terms. It can exist in the real world as much as heffalumps and woozles.

Turn left

Greedy? Hardly. Human decency? Human decency is called charity. Gov't telling me how I need allocate the money that I bust my butt EARNING is called stealing by most right minded people.I don't mind having my fair share of taxes taken from me, but a line needs to be drawn somewhere.

I am glad you are so happy to give your money to the gov't to be wasted by the bureaucracy. I for one don't have the extra money lying around to "happily" pay more. Just like I always say, maybe one day I can afford to be a liberal.

Turned around

"Just like Obama said about the welfare issue, can't we talk about this as a 'both/and' situation, instead of an 'either/or' situation?"

I'm at a loss as to which point is more absurd - the notion that "universal" care can be "eithor/or" or the notion that the government's handling of welfare (which has accomplished nothing but the creation of an entrenched underclass and an INCREASE in poverty for the low, low price of just $7 TRILLION) in some way indicates that further government intervention into health care (which has caused the problems in the first place) is a good thing.

"Is Moore proposing that the market, private companies and enterprise, completely separate from the health care industry?"

Actually, yes, he has made exactly that kind of proposal (on his website).

"Is he asking all you nice rich folks to say goodbye to your pretty doctor's office and go to City General instead?"

Who says we're rich? We are objecting to the implementation of a system that, Moore's outright falsehoods and distortions notwithstanding, does more harm to the very people it is supposed to be helping.

"Wake up, people. You're living in the same towns and cities with literally millions of people that can't afford to get antibiotics for their children."

Actually, no I'm not. If you take into account that the REAL coverage level is about 92% (rather than 85% which is the source of Moore's number which he inflates even further without justification - this reflects the more than 14 million people covered on demand by "free" government insurance that have simply not enrolled), the fact that a sizable percentage of those remaining live in households with incomes greater than $50,000 per year, and that nearly 6 million people who are uninsured find themselves in that situation for 6 months or less, you quickly realize that all the overblown claims about millions of children being left out in the uninsured cold are largely mythological.

"Everyone who calls Moore's very valid points..."

Anyone who calls any point Moore has every made "very valid points" is so divorced from reality as not to be trusted with sharp objects.

"Your countrymen are poor and getting poorer."

Not according to the actual data available from the IRS and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They say exactly the opposite. In fact, poverty is declining, unemployment remains near historical lows, real incomes are rising and real compensation is rising even faster, homeownership is at or near all time highs...

...but that doesn't stop misinformed liberals from claiming otherwise.

"Wake up."

Good advice. Perhaps you should consider heeding it.

WOW...

It happened...

This is at least the 3rd debate in the past 2 months where a Liberal has had to resort to calling Conservatives "Xenophobic."

Never fails. Liberals can't win an argument so they resort to discrimination attacks.

elong

More than happy to clarify.

You asked: "Or are you saying that "sure, you can have your own healthcare, but you're still going to have to pay taxes to help everyone else out?"

Exactly.

"If it is the latter, how is that not socialism?"

Wouldn't socialism require that you NOT be able to have your own healthcare?

As a gainfully employed, pretty well paid professional, I can afford great healthcare through my company, and I have an IRA. I wouldn't give up any of that for anything. And yet, I am absolutely willing to pay higher taxes to ensure that my fellow Americans who are NOT gainfully employed, can also not be sick.

That's not socialism. It's common human decency. And if it needs to be government-mandated common human decency because of greedy blowhards like yourself, so be it.

turnleft

So let me get this straight. Are you saying some form of "universal" healthcare will be (or should be) optional, and that we could not pay what is sure to be much higher payroll taxes if we want our own "private" healthcare? (yeah that'll happen) Or are you saying that "sure, you can have your own healthcare, but you're still going to have to pay taxes to help everyone else out?" If it is the latter, how is that not socialism?

I just want to make sure I am understanding you.

Moore said it all...

At the end of the column where he admitted that the US has "invented so many things" and that his English friends cannot come up with anything that they have done like that.

But for some reason he thinks that we should follow their lead on socialized medicine and other such things. Because somehow doing it their way (by government diktat) will be superior to letting our "can-do spirit," as he called it, solve the problems. The government has never shown a can-do spirit in any other areas, as Stossel so well highlights.

John Stossel's excellent column

Would waging war count as something that government does better than private enterprise? Just wondering where to draw the line.
Tom

Something to look forward to:

January, 2009: Hillary Clinton takes the oath of office for President of the United States. Democrats overwhelmingly take the House and Senate.

March, 2009: Hillary Clinton signs into law a sweeping health care "reform" bill that not only offers "free" health care to everyone in the US, citizen or not, legal or not, but also imposes strict price caps on prescription drugs.

September, 2009: The health care "reform" bill takes effect. Democrats rejoice.

March, 2010: The Office of Management and Budget reports that the federal deficit exceeds 30% of the GDP, mainly due to the "free" health care provided by last years "reform" bill. Later, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports that economic growth has reversed, and we are now officially in a recession, due mainly to a failure of the 13% of the economy that used to be our health care industry, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that unemployment has skyrocketed, mainly from the 30,000 jobs a month that are being lost in the health care industry.

June, 2010: A blue ribbon panel reports that the US health care system is a disaster. More than 30% of the nation’s doctors have left the profession, or left the country. Average wait times for MANDITORY surgery exceeds 2 months, with an escalating number of patients dying while waiting for said surgery. Americans are flooding the Canadian border for their needed care.

...

May, 2017: 4 years after Hillary Clinton finally left office, an outbreak of a new and virulent strain of the Bird Flu has been detected in northern California. The outbreak is spreading fast, and already more than 300 people have died, with another 1,200 infected and expecting to die. The president has called for the drug industry to fast-track vaccines for the infection, but most have discontinued any new research of drugs due to their inability to fund said research thanks to the drug price caps.

July 2017: A national emergency is declared, and martial law is imposed. This after more than 6 million have died from this new strain of the Bird Flu. No progress has been made on a vaccine because no drug companies have even begun the research.

August, 2017: Price caps are lifted, and the "free" health care program has been defunded by executive order.

September, 2017: A vaccine is developed and the president ordered the FDA ignore its normal protocols for approving a new drug. It is quickly distributed.

October, 2017: Higher than normal deaths are reported as a result of the vaccine because the normal testing clinical tests were skipped, but hundreds of millions of lives are saved because of the fast distribution. Disaster has been averted.

November, 2017: Democrats in congress, now remanded to third party status, demand the executive order defunding the "free" health care and drug price caps be lifted. Two days later, on Election Day, the last few Democrats are defeated in monumental landslides.

December, 2017: The president signs into law a new national holiday celebrating the disbanding of the Democratic National Committee.

thinker

notice Hollyrude would rather give their money away to other countries? They do very little to help anybody here at home. No one ever taught them charity begins at home.

Average height

Average height in this country is declining because of the immigrants who come to this country from poor 3rd world countries including Mexico. My immigrant grandparents and parents are on average shorter than my generation.

The wonder of our country is that, once here, the immigrants' children will grow stronger that their parents.

Moore is an idiot.

Socialized Medicine in America

I am an ER doc that just got out of the Army, so I have seen socialized medicine first hand. While there are many dedicated medical professionals in the Army, there just were not enough to take care of all the retirees, active duty soldiers and dependents -- even before September 11th. The answer for these people was to descend upon the ER for their needs better cared for by their regular doctor--I am not trained in managing blood pressure or diabetes in the long term, but I am not allowed to turn these people away, so they will get inferior care due to regulation and not being able to see their doc. Also we had retirees that would wait hours in the ER so they could get their 'free' Tylenol.

Other factors that are missed by the general population is the cost of government regulation. I agree that we should have safe, non-chemically impaired physicians, but the amount of documentation that has to be performed to get paid by the government or other HMOs increases exponentially each year, while the rate of reimbursement decreases. It also requires me to hire people to perform coding and billing functions in addition to regular overhead-nurses, building, heating and AC costs. This makes the $200,000 bill for medical school seem like a real bad investment.

Then there is the lack of tort reform that congressmen and senators like John Edwards will not let through the system-which adds to overhead in the form of malpractice insurance costs.

The democrats plan for equality will make everyone equally miserable.

All men are created equal, we just deteriorate at different speeds.

A Real Problem

Yes, there are serious problems with American health care. The most serious problem is that we have too much government involvement in the process, so how is more government invasiveness going to solve that? http://www.poorgrandchildren.com

REDRX8

I'm sure your son will do well in life as long as he remembers what you taught him.
I believe:

We are the sum of the choices we have made in our lives. Oh sure we do not have control over everything that happens to us but, we do have control over how we deal with those things.

You shouldn't rely on others to save or provide for you. That leads to laziness of mind, body and spirit. People do at time need a helping hand but be careful to not let it become a hammock.

Freely help others this sharpens the mind, body and spirit. Especially when you help people to be self sufficient or better able to take care on themselves. This leads them to greater freedom.

This is one of the reasons I problems with libs, as defined in this day of age. They seem to be always looking for someone or thing to help take care of their needs regardless of whether or not it leads to dependency and not self sufficiency.

jesus c.

If you are who you claim you are, WHY DON'T YOU HEAL THE SICK!

If Michael Mooreon and Other Liberal Idiots are worried about health care for the poor, WHY DON’T THEY PAY FOR IT OUT OF THEIR MILLIONS!

I’ll tell you why! They are a bunch of Fat, Gutless, Lazy, Stupid, Liberals who if they ever had an idea, it would die of loneliness!

What a bunch of MORONS!

Mass-lib

As to the question of how Fatboy Kennedy and Jawn Kerry keep getting elected see Mass-libs post. The people that Mass-lib mentioned get health care. All they have to do is walk into an emergency room and they are taken care of. The thing is they dont pay for it , the rest of us do. If you doubt me Mass-lib read about all of the hospitals in Calif that are closing due to the massive illegal alien population.

What a fool...

As for the European issue, look at the state they're actually in.
Their "social security" and "free" health care systems are in actuarial freefall. They cannot be financially sustained, which is one of the reasons they let in so many Third World immigrants, to work and pay taxes to support the ponzi schemes a little longer. (It's not working, and has created political and cultural cancers on their society --note to US politicoes.)The French are realizing now, I think, that the workers paradise can't be manintained. For one, people have to actually work, which was discouraged under the French welfare state. One in six Europeans lives below the US poverty level, and if you look at the standard of living in a lot of European countries, you wouldn't trade your "oppressed" US lifestyle for it.
As for Canada, their healthcare nanny state is in freefall as well. Private insurance and private healthcare used to be illegal there, but the Supreme Court has opened the way for it because the government system can't meet the demand, even though there are only 32 million
Canadians (as opposed to 300 million in the US--think of the bureaucratic mess). Illegal clinics are already operating and the government turns a blind eye because they provide quality care, though off any books.

But at bottom, there is a more basic issue. I am responsible for MY healthcare and anyone for whom I assume an obligation, such as parents or any of my family. I am NOT responsible for anyone's healthcare for whom I do no assume a voluntary obligation.
I don't want to be forced to subsidize the health care of John Q. Citizen, who takes no responsiblity for his own well-being, or treatment and, increasingly, is apt to be a lazy lardass like Michael Moore.

osthode

"massachusettsliberal
Isn't that name an oxymoron?"

No, it's just a moron.

You get what you reward

Marx's maxim was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Socialism in all forms follows this maxim to some degree...yes, here too. When need is rewarded by GETTING, you end up with more need. When ability is punished with ever greater unrewarded demands on it, you get less of it.

It is so stupidly simple, one can only conclude either profound stupidity or malice among those who still adhere to it.

Almost nothing...

There is almost nothing that the government hasn't made worse. The cost of our health care is tremendously higher than it needs to be because of the huge volume of paper work mandated by governments. Add tort liability and the costs of defensive medicine, (running unneeded tests just as a CTA)...especially with Medicare paying for it, malpractice insurance that can run into six figures easily, the costs just keep going up.

Every industry has huge expenses just to keep up with requirements mandated by government.

As for socialized medicine, I have lived under it. In some European countries you can't buy an aspirin without a prescription and going to a pharmacy. A doctor I spoke to from western Europe a few years ago came here for advanced study and told me they were twenty years behind us in medicine.

The Michael Moores out there report everything through the prism of their biases. They are incapable of taking an objective look.

Sherlock Holmes's Dog

In a new version of the dog that didn't bark, we have the medical procedure that didn't take place. For example, it has been said that the French people have not heard of a root canal procedure for their teeth. French dentists will just pull the tooth instead. Easier and less complicated, but obviously worse for the patient.

Yet, even with this dumbing down of procedures, the french citizen will rate their socialized dentistry system very highly, because the dentist alleviated the pain and it was done at no cost. So take satisfaction surveys with a grain of salt. And amusingly smile the next time you see the poor state of European's teeth. Our system in America is clearly better.

socialized medicine - a fool's game

REDRX8 writes: "I feel no obilgation to pay for people who do not and alot of peoples medical problems are based on thier unhealthy life styles"...

A very valid opinion in my humble opinion...

One wonders if this person feels this way about having some of his/her income taken about educating someone else's child or feeding them?

I think that socialism it all its forms (LBJ's war on poverty programs where there never is an exit strategy - Roosevelt's Social Security nonsense as just a couple more examples) should be banished...

I want to keep control of my own....

health care. I have no desire for the goverment to have that much control over my life. Plus people need to realize nothing is free and as someone mention above alot of folks think it will be just like it is now, only taxpayers will be picking up the tab. We have a population that is getting larger and large. Go to any Walmart on a Saturday afternoon and take alook at the tonage walking around there. As someone who takes care of them selves, works out, maintains a healthy weight and eats a healthy diet, I feel no obilgation to pay for people who do not and alot of peoples medical problems are based on thier unhealthy life styles. I have a sister-n-law who has had a brain tumor and breast cancer and is still puffing away on cigerettes, go figure.

hey, coolnout

just 'cuz Sicko is in 700 theaters doesn't mean it is worth the time and money to see it.

That's a good ol' bandwagon fallacy, mi amigo...

jesus c. ..

ya know what? i don't even want to waste the 2-or-so hours of my life on it. i would rather read a good book...

Do the folks that keep

saying that Moore is a blow hard (which he is obviously)and we shouldn't be giving him and his movie this kind of attention understand the fact that all the "attention" that he is getting isn't really about him?

Every "top tier" democrat candidate for President supports some type of "universal" healthcare. People are buying into this nonsense because of Moore's movie and the people that support the propaganda that it perpetuates. Besides do you really think that Hillary or Barack or "Johnny Hairdo" would actually go on camera with Stossel? I'm thinking no.

We need more people like Stossel in the Media that actually use common sense when it comes to issues such as healthcare.

Hey, jesus c

I am not going to waste my hard-earned money to see the sicko movie at the movies. Why should we give Michael Moore-on any money?

I enjoy fantasy too

"Could it be he is a member of the MEDIA ELITE and Michael Moore represents the working people of America?"

Sure. And maybe the dark Lord Sauron has sent the Nazgul to the Shire in search of the Ring of Power...


Nah. I take it back. The latter scenario is actually far more plausible. No one could be so monumentally stupid at this point as to believe someone whose credibility has been as thoroughly detroyed as Moore's has time after time after time...

...could they?

Social Security checks

Social Security checks don't come in the mail anymore. It's direct deposit now. I'm just saying...

Viruddh...

...Well folks,I guess the Masai tribe in Africa has the best health care system in the world.Their average height must be about seven feet.I think you will like it in Africa,Viruddh.Please write.

simple question

Not even serious left-wing journalists take fatso seriously, so

Why should anyone else?



He's nothing more than an entertainer who gets his jollies (and lotsa money) doing what he does. That's all. Let him have his fun and STOP RISING TO THE BAIT and eventually he'll go away,

Canadians and doctors

Canadians never "rush off to the doctor" because most of us don't HAVE doctors. It took me six years to locate a family doctor and I only found one through a work mate who knew a doctor in my postal code who was accepting new patients. I can't see him when I want to; only when he has space. That could be six months from now. And when I developed a serious problem with one eye, it took five months for me to see a specialist, and I can only see him once a year. (I spent half a day in the emergency room to have a rough diagnosis of my problem and determine that the damage was already done and thanks to Canadian Health Care being stuck in the 1970s and rationed, nothing could be done about it but track it.)

Michael Moore would do what all the Nomenklatura do -- at the first sign of illness he would run to the United States for care. Incidentally, Mikey, the paper recently had a story about a man who had waited eight years for a gastric bypass and his notice came to his heirs the week after he died. Good thing you are happy being fat!

Shorter Americans

It seems to me that a more logical premise than a "high degree of social security in Europe" to explain shorter Americans - if indeed such be the case - is that Americans have managed in the last few decades to pack on 20%-50% additional pounds, practically from birth. Unlike gummint programs, gravity works 100% of the time. Nevadamistermom has cracked the code; socialists are so enamored of their beliefs, no amount of proof to the contrary will dent their shells.

Nevadamistermom...

I have to agree with you. The whole issue isn't really about healthcare... it's about socialism and the power that it brings. Libs like to talk about Conservative's blind allegiance to religious values, yet they continuously beat the drum for failing social programs. The only answer for that is the power that goes along with those programs.

I have to admit, the ideals behind socialism are seductive. Universal health care sounds great, just like welfare, social security and other social programs, until you realize that the programs are bureacratic messes, easily taken advantage of and completely unproductive for society. Our government is backed up on passport services, can't keep track of all the taxes, can't enforce our border or come up with a viable plan that will do so, and can't keep dead people from voting in elections. It's been the Liberals that have been complaining for the last 5 years that the government has been unable to find a 6'5" man in a turban, with a long beard and on life support. What makes anyone believe that the Government will be able to run an efficient health care system?

If anyone really wants to talk about health care in other countries, how about looking at the new trend in elections in those countries. Canada sidelined it's Liberal politicians a couple years back, and now FRANCE has given Conservatives such a strong majority that those Conservatives will be able to do almost anything they want with almost no opposition from their Liberal politicians. This isn't all due to their Universal health care systems, but it is due in large part to the many different social programs (health care included) that Libs have been installing for years, that have taken a toll on their economies.

to the nay sayers

I am sure you have heard the news:

The United States has gone from being the
tallest people to the shortest people in the
western world in a very short period of time.


John Komlos (University of Munich) and Benjamin Lauderdale (Princeton University) have written in the Social Science Quarterly:

‘‘We surmise that the health systems and high degree of social security in Europe provide better conditions for growth than the American health system, despite the fact that the system costs twice as much,’’

Not proof, yet, to be sure. But what does it take to make people understand that what we have
is something close to a disaster and that it is
high time for a change.

Transporting Moore to Cuba or Canada

Now you know darn well that if Moore lived in one of his fantasy-land socialist paradises, and ran into the kinds of problems that are inevitable in any socialist system, it would ultimately still end up being Bush's fault.

And then he'd make a "documentary" about it and get another gazillion dollars and another academy award.

Ego

Michael Moore is about Michael Moore and nothing else.

Nuff said.