Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Socialized Medicine Is Broken and Can't Be Fixed
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Last week I pointed out that Michael Moore, maker of the documentary "Sicko," portrayed the Cuban health-care system as though it were utopia -- until I hit him with some inconvenient facts. So he backed off and said, "Let's stick to Canada and Britain because I think these are legitimate arguments that are made against the film and against the so-called idea of socialized medicine. And I think you should challenge me on these things."

OK, here we go.

One basic problem with nationalized health care is that it makes medical services seem free. That pushes demand beyond supply. Governments deal with that by limiting what's available.

That's why the British National Health Service recently made the pathetic promise to reduce wait times for hospital care to four months.

The wait to see dentists is so long that some Brits pull their own teeth. Dental tools: pliers and vodka.

One hospital tried to save money by not changing bed sheets every day. British papers report that instead of washing them, nurses were encouraged to just turn them over.

Government rationing of health care in Canada is why when Karen Jepp was about to give birth to quadruplets last month, she was told that all the neonatal units she could go to in Canada were too crowded. She flew to Montana to have the babies.

"People line up for care; some of them die. That's what happens," Canadian doctor David Gratzer, author of The Cure, told "20/20". Gratzer thought the Canadian system was great until he started treating patients. "The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting. You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! You just have to wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air! You just gotta wait six months."

Michael Moore retorts that Canadians live longer than Americans.

But Canadians' longer lives are unrelated to heath care. Canadians are less likely to get into accidents or be murdered. Take those factors into account, not to mention obesity, and Americans live longer.

Most Canadians like their free health care, but Canadian doctors tell us the system is cracking. More than a million Canadians cannot find a regular family doctor. One town holds a lottery. Once a week the town clerk gets a box out of the closet. Everyone who wants to have a family doctor puts his or her name in it. The clerk pulls out one slip to determine the winner. Others in town have to wait.

It's driven some Canadians to private for-profit clinics. A new one opens somewhere in Canada almost every week. Although it's not clear that such private clinics are legal, one is run by the president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Brian Day, because under government care, he says, "We found ourselves in a situation where we were seeing sick patients and weren't being allowed to treat them. That was something that we couldn't tolerate."

Canadians stuck on waiting lists often pay "medical travel agents" to get to America for treatment. Shirley Healey had a blocked artery that kept her from digesting food. So she hired a middleman to help her get to a hospital in Washington state.

"The doctor said that I would have only had a very few weeks to live," Healey said.

Yet the Canadian government calls her surgery "elective."

"The only thing elective about this surgery was I elected to live," she said.

Not all Canadian health care is long lines and lack of innovation. We found one place where providers offer easy access to cutting-edge life-saving technology, such as CT scans. And patients rarely wait.

But they have to bark or meow to get access to this technology. Vet clinics say they can get a dog or a cat in the next day. People have to wait a month.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Inconvenient Facts?
Sadly, none of this is going to make any difference in the long run.

Call me a cynic, but I predict some flavor of Socialized medicine in the US by 2010.

Actually, no, let me be optimistic instead.

2014.

Just The Facts Mam

Oh great. Now once Hillary sees this and Mr. Hussein and Mr. Johnny boy, we won’t have the pleasure of watching them make fools out of themselves any longer, or will we?

Hey Stossel
Did you respond to Julie Pierce's letter yet? She's one of the people you smeared in your half-assed hatchet job on behalf of the medical establishment.

Hey soothsayer, I predict...
that you will never let the truth get in the way of your opinions.

Stossel clearly points out the flaws in the case for socialized medicine, the disgrace of coercive government control over its citizens, and extolls the virtues of personal freedom and liberty that millions of our ancestors fought and died for, and all you can do is attempt to smear.

What do you have against freedom? How do you justify your attempt to coerce your fellow citizens to pay for your medical care?

Let's hear a rational argument, as opposed to infantile name-calling.

What a thigh slapper!
As I read:

"Not all Canadian health care is long lines and lack of innovation. We found one place where providers offer easy access to cutting-edge life-saving technology, such as CT scans. And patients rarely wait."

I thought, well there must be some place where routine Canadian med care works right. And then I read:

"But they have to bark or meow to get access to this technology. Vet clinics say they can get a dog or a cat in the next day. People have to wait a month."

and couldn't stop laughing. The drawback is that it's probably not free. Perhaps one could pretend to be a dog or cat.

There'd be a whole lot of premature dying in Canada if not for the US - and 'it takes a village idiot' Hillary wants to end that.

Not a question of a perfect system
The question is not whether socialized medicine is a perfect system (no one claims this), but whether it is a better system. The flaws Stossel points out in the Canadian system do not outweigh the 47 million Americans who have no reasonable access to health care in ours.


HMO on steroids
People complain bitterly about HMOs and the lousy care they get there. Many of the same people want some sort of socialized medicine; HMOs on steroids.

A 10 year plan to fix Healthcare
PHASE1 (1st five yrs)
* Medicare/Medicaid vouchers for the poor and elderly - yes, this perpetuates the status quo, but fairness dictates a short term 'amnesty'
* cease Medicare 'deduction' and employer match
* return the previously extorted Medicare funds (with interest) into the Health Savings Accounts of individuals
* continue tax deductibility of Health Savings Accounts - employers may choose to contribute into the Health Savings Accounts of their employees
* fee for service begins to eliminate the need for insurance companies EXCEPT for catastrophic coverage
* costs start to come down (supply-and-demand at work)

PHASE2 (next five yrs)
* Healthcare vouchers ONLY for the poor and/or for those who are above a certain 'cut-off' age
* tax relief for everyone else
* end tax deductibility of Health Savings Accounts

PHASE3 (the future)
* no more Medicare, Medicaid etc.
* the poor are helped by voluntary, private charity
* Return to fee-for-service
* Health insurance is relegated to its rightful status - as a hedge against catastrophic illness
----------------------excerpt ends---------------
http://voice.townhall.com/g/a121b8ae-abab-440b-aafa-f1fe61ffae4c

Pliers and Vodka?

Guys guys guys...

There are ample private sector plans right now nationwide for under $50 a month. I know, you thinking, "you get wht you pay for."

You are correct! So..instead of paying 45% to 50% to underwriters and pencil pushers and paperwork and eliminate all restrictions giving the people a rate at his/her physician which is equal to or slightly greater than what the doctor receives 50% of 3 months later for the underwriters........ anyway and you have the simple solution.

Don't sit here and tell me it does not work when 28 million Americans hold these type of plans right now.

Over half-a-million permanent physicians in the networks permanently, we don't need any politicians to break what works.

And the best part, pre-existing conditions included and any hospital stay is negotiated on the patients behalf "as per their abilty to pay."


Google Consumer Health Alliance and see for yourself.

Cheers...

Mike sitting here with pearly whites and no limits or deductibles ever for my entire household...including granny & my girlfriend!!

Dental Plans
Discover08 et. al.,
I had a dental plan for years, $25.00 a month for the plan guaranteed me 50% off if I paid cash after each treatment, no matter what the treatment.

Then one day I woke up. I went to my dentist and said, "I have been with you for years now. If I continue to guarantee you cash payment after each treatment does it matter to you if I have this plan or not?" He said, "No".

I cancelled my plan, save $25 a month and my household pays cash for treatments and we get the same price as we did before.

Talk to your dentist, amigos.

The answer is......
The answer is CAPITALISM....return health care insurance to the market place. The answer is never let the government in charge. The government is the PROBLEM!!!!!!!

Karl
Again with that specious 47 million people with *no access to health care*.

Here is the truth,for about the 1,000,000th time.

Of those alleged 47 million, a large percentage of them are in the three month waiting period between leaving one job and starting another. A larger percentage are between the ages of 18 and 30 -- ten feet tall and bulletproof kids who are confident they will never get sick or die and who prefer to spend their health care budget on beer and condoms. (However, my youngest who is working at Starbucks has a very good health care plan for $30.00 per month). Another significant percentage of that 47 million are ignorant of the fact that health insurance can be purchased privately; they believe you have to get it through your employer. They would have health insurance if they knew it was available to them.

And finally, another percentage of that alleged 47 million are wealthy and upper middle class people like the writer above who pay cash, reasoning that they will save money that way.

This leaves a core group of charity patients who are served by such hospitals as Grady Memorial in Atlanta,which has been cited as world class for neonatal intensive care, AIDS hospice care and gunshot trauma particularly (the main *diseases* of the poor). And, of course, illegal aliens.

So climb off that high horse and give it a rest.

Where's the problem here?
um ... a 45% tax rate (before the medicare levy)?

Karl
You quote a figure of 47 million who "have no reasonable access to health care..." I won't dispute the number, but I do dispute whether they have no reasonable access to health care. Of those 47 million, some elect not care purchase health care insurance, some are wealthy enough to self-insure, some are here illegally and ought be able to force legal citizens to pay for their health care. Even those who claim to earn too little to buy health care seem to have enough for cars, cable tv, restaurants, high priced sneakers, etc. There are few truly poor in this country. They should be helped. As for the able-bodied others, they should take care of themselves.

The trouble is
the so called 47 million are being pandered to by the hildabeast and their votes can swing this election. She will then push for a total gov't run health care system as she did before and her vision of a socialist/communist state will be achieved.

Leftists in general
What I don't understand is why, after 40-plus years and trillions of dollars spent on the war on poverty, you idiots on the left can continue to believe that the government is the solution to all your problems. Government is not the solution, government is usually the problem, as someone pointed out above.

And where does the gov't get the authority to administer the programs it has already botched- social security, medicare, medicaid, WIC, etc.? Not from the Constitution, it's not in there. We can't afford these grandiose schemes we already have, much less another one.

Suppose everyone had insurance to buy their groceries. Would your diet change? My guess is that a lot more steak and lobster would be consumed, raising the demand (and thus the price) for food. Works the same way for everything, including health care.

This country was founded for liberty and for opportunity, not equality of results. Hillary is a socialist, and socialism has proven not to work, over and over again. And again. And again and again. Get it through your thick heads, 'bats--socialism doesn't work!

American Healthcare
The trouble with socialized Medicine is we're capitalists and the brightest and smartest will not go into medicine if it stops paying well- so the supply of doctors, nurses,techs will dry up(not to mention research Rx). And like Stossel said demand will go up because its free -

Unfortunately no one teaches economics anymore (just platitudes about Castro, M. Moore and the wonderful way things could be if the government just took care of us...

For years...
...foriegn Socialists nations have been spending enormous resources training doctors.Many of these doctors,after they are trained,emigrate to America,where we get the benefit of their expertease.This is particularly true with Canada.I love the American system!

Anyone replying to sentido's post...
... need to be aware that this Leftist equus asinus is the same joker who, just a bit more than a week ago, speculated that when Hitler came up with the plan for using Zykon-B gas on the Jews, der Fuhrer might have been onto something.

So don't him seriously enough to respond soberly; just ridicule him and his Communist cant. That's all the man deserves.

As for the gummint role in health care..
... be aware that the government is responsible for a large chunk of the increase in costs.

Take Medicaid, which which reimburse, typically, about 25% of a doctor's fee schedule for a Medicaid patient; the doctor is required to write off the remaining loss. To make up the balance, the doctor has to raise his prices for his other patients. Not all of their insurance plans will reimburse for the new fee schedule, so he now has MORE unreimbursed fees to write off. So he has to *really* jack up the price on his uninsured patients, many of whom could have afforded a more ration fee for their visit, but can't possibly cover his new, jacked-up fees. So they simply don't pay, and the doctor has to raise his prices even MORE.

Never mind the cost of doing business added on thanks to jackals like John Edwards and the other malpractice lawyers. Or the forced scarcity of medical resources, thanks to the AMA.

You want medical costs to come down? Limit malpractice claims, slash the restrictive licensing power of the AMA, and get government out of health care ENTIRELY.

Inconvenient facts!
So many people, especially the left coasters, think and show through their talk and actions the following: Don't confuse me with the facts, I have already made up my mind! How can we / our country be saved from this? I have no idea! Well, I actually do, but it is illegal and I can get in to a lot of trouble! Ha!

you think your sick now......
Socialized Medicine is the quintessential definition of insanity:repeating the same thing over and over,expecting a different result each time.A six month wait is an improvement on what it used to be!I have a friend in Nova Scotia who sustainsd a spinal injury.Her doctor put her on painkillers until she could get an MRI and a specialist.A 2 year wait.Consequently,she became addicted to painkillers.Another year to get into a treatment program.What a mess.Dosen't inspire good doctors to set up their practice North of us..Heaven protect us from the Socialist/Democrat Party;they're literally going to kill us....

ALL
Check my blog for the LATEST on Frau Hitlary's MANDATORY health care plan.


Bunky
a woman flew into Montana to have her quintuplets from Canada because the SOCIALIZED medicine center there did not have any room in their neonatal care unit.

ALL, I've got a HOT ONE on Socialism coming out tomorrow on the ANTI-LIBERAL ZONE!

47 million lack health insurance
It is a problem that 47 million American citizens lack health insurance.

The overwhelming majority of them are low-wage workers who are working for companies that do not offer health insurance. The young who do not have health insurance (and I know some of them) don't have it because of the cost. If you are in your first job, making $8/hour, a plan that costs $1000/month is technically affordable .... but not really. They don't worry about it because they are young and healthy. (And if they have a car, it's an older care used to get to work; if they have cable, it's the lowest-tier $20/month plan, which is $240/year, and health insurance isn't available at that price; restaurants are like McDonald's; and yes, they do have shoes.)

The Americans who lack insurance between jobs find that, if they get their insurance back, and are then diagnosed with an expensive but treatable condition like diabetes, asthma, or cancer, their medical bills are rejected as "pre-existing medical conditions".

People with pre-existing medical conditions are excluded from buying any health insurance whatsoever; a portion of the "wealthy, upper-class people" are in this group, and find that health insurance is not obtainable at any price.

People without health insurance do lack access to health care. Hospitals will treat acute conditions; but just try and get cancer care or daily insulin from the Emergency Room. Isn't done.

253 Million Give Up Health Care

“Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system.”

Required to have insurance but no enforcement mechanism? Really! Read next paragraph.

"At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."

Let just a little bit of truth slip in, the sheeple won’t notice.

“She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination,” but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.”

Show proof of insurance to your employer. Isn’t that special. Nothing punitive about that. However, she inadvertently allowed more truth to slip out. A majority receive medical insurance as part of their job. Hillary’s plan will allow businesses to dump providing health insurance. The same thing as happened when pension funds became “insured” by the government. That’s why you will have to show proof. The business no longer provides it for anyone.

Question for the 253 million with health insurance. Do you want to be dumped and forced into Hillary Care? Your busting your hump to support a family. Screw you though.

Another question, do you think anyone in Congress actually gives a dam* about health care? This is about buying votes and power, whether Democrat or Republican. Sad to say.

Republicans had better...
construct a common vision for getting the government out of health care and turning it over to private enterprise. If Repubs don't do this it is because they want the power over the people. If Repubs don't talk against socialized medicine we need to kick their sorry cans out of office.

Health insurance vs food insurance
Ah, that old canard: "Suppose everyone had insurance to buy their groceries. Would your diet change? My guess is that a lot more steak and lobster would be consumed, raising the demand (and thus the price) for food. Works the same way for everything, including health care."

In health care spending, 10% of Americans use 90% of health care resources. These are primarily people with chronic ailments (cancer -- think: Tony Snow; asthma; diabetes; Parkinson's disease -- think: Michael J. Fox). Food, on the other hand, is evenly divided. 10% of Americans consume roughly 10% of the food; 20% consume roughly 20%; etc. Further, in health care, if you are a diabetic, you need insulin; having WalMart offer high blood medicine for $4/month does nothing for someone who is diabetic. Food is exchangeable in a way that medical treatment is not.

What is really going on here is that 10% of Americans are living with chronic ailments. They used to just die; now they live, and it is expensive to keep them alive. Who knows, one day the chronic ailment individual could be you, or someone you love. Yes, there's a financial incentive for health insurance companies to dump the chronically ill. That's a big reason why we have 47 million uninsured.

253 Million Give Up Health Care
Right now there is "health insurance job lock". I knew a guy in the 1990s who wanted to start his own IT firm, but had to keep "working for the man" solely because of health insurance. (His wife was a 5 year breast cancer survivor; no private insurance firm would insure her; he ultimately decided that her access to health care trumped his desire to start his own business.)

Additionally, there is, right now in the era of downsizing, "right-sizing", RIF's, etc., that instead of being one of the 253 with health insurance you (and your family) become part of the 15-20% of Americans without insurance. And, since more and more companies are dropping health insurance as a benefit, finding another job with health insurance is like playing musical chairs with all the other unemployed.

GeorgiaGal: the same old lies Pt 1
... but what else would one expect from a Leftist?

"It is a problem that 47 million American citizens lack health insurance."

Possibly; but it is nowhere near as much of a problem as you make it out to be.

"The overwhelming majority of them are low-wage workers who are working for companies that do not offer health insurance."

A LIE. The group you mention by no means constitutes a majority of the purported 47 million, let alone an "overwhelming majority."

"The young who do not have health insurance (and I know some of them) don't have it because of the cost."

More precisely, it is because the cost outweighs the benefit to someone who is young, healthy, and does not see a great likelihood of getting chronically ill or catastrophically injured. All economic decisions are instances of weight costs vs. benefits, and choosing A over B as a result.

All of them.

"If you are in your first job, making $8/hour, a plan that costs $1000/month is technically affordable..."

... and another fiction made up of whole cloth. No one in their 20s, healthy and hot-blooded, is going to get charged for $1000/month insurance unless they choose the lowest-deductible, lowest-copay insurance they can find, with all the frills. Let alone someone in the 16-23 range getting their FIRST job.

"They don't worry about it because they are young and healthy."

As is their right. And it takes the catastrophic stupidity of a Leftist to imagine that something as definitively failure-prone as government control of an entire industry is the solution to the (potentially) bad decisions of a 20-something.


GeorgiaGal: the same old lies Pt 2
"People with pre-existing medical conditions are excluded from buying any health insurance whatsoever"

ANOTHER D**NED LIE. People with pre-existing conditions may find those conditions excluded, but they don't often find themselves barred from "buying any health insurance whatsoever." And if the overlap period between plans is sufficiently close (the usual three-month wait with a new job is usually no problem), then even that exclusion typically won't kick in.

I just love it when Leftists get lazy, and their lies become THIS obvious.

GeorgiaGal: More Leftist illogic
"Right now there is "health insurance job lock". I knew a guy in the 1990s who wanted to start his own IT firm, but had to keep "working for the man" solely because of health insurance."

Ahhhh, the old "I knew a guy" canard. Nevermind that, in economic discussions, anecdotal evidence is purely rubbish; what matters is the aggregate.

Moreover, anyone who has ever started their own business knows, if your "guy in the 1990s" didn't have the money to purchase private insurance to cover himself during his start-up phase, his would-be IT firm was under-capitalized and would likely have failed ANYWAY. Especially in the 90s, when anyone with a halfway decent IT idea (and quite a few with ideas not even halfway decent) were able to find funding and investment from every yahoo with a few extra bucks and dreams of dot-com-billionaire-hood.

Your pal was likely better off not quitting his day job.

free free FREE FREE !!!!
Keep voting for the Dems (or is it dims) and soon everything will be free.

Free health care,
Free education,
free housing, etc.

Every thing will be free,

The only catch is that you wouldn't be free any more.

i-Toy Generation
Honestly, my sympathies go out to the chronically ill and those who truly cannot afford insurance.

But we make choices every day folks, and I suspect that a huge chunk of the 47 million uninsured are those that just have to rush out and buy the latest $599 i-Toy, XBOX game, or PowerBall tickets.

Americans have the right to pursue happiness. They DO NOT have the right to steal my money via Socialism to pay for their stupidity.

Starbucks
"(However, my youngest who is working at Starbucks has a very good health care plan for $30.00 per month). "

Are they hiring? I know young men without health insurance who are working at low-cost restaurants and for construction firms without health insurance who would jump at an opportunity to have a job with $30/month health insurance. Will they cover pre-existing medical conditions? One of the young men in particular has something medical going on, and needs a thorough physical to determine what it is.


I love Lib logic
The government can do it bettttttterrrrr!

Yep libs, they've done a GREAT job in the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, securing the borders, FEMA, social security fraud, welfare fraud, that wonderful public school system, the IRS, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Yep libs, it'll jusr RAIN money to pay for the ever expanding costs of Hitlary care just like social security taxes have gone from 2% to what, 13%?

Remember Libs, your party bosses will be getting treated by the BEST doctors our tax dollars can pay for at Bethesda, you'll get Dr Nick from the Simpsons.

Enjoy it.

Cold Hard Truth
What the liberals also NEVER POINT out is that EVERY AMERICAN is covered by ER usage. That is, if you can get past the illegal aliens first.

If we deported and KEPT OUT the illegals, the cost of caring for them would plumet from a few BILLION to nothing. ER's and free clinics would open up for ALL Americans.

Mandatory = liberals craving absolute power.

Slipping into to socialized medicine
Of note this week is that Hillary has backed off her government in charge of everything health care system. Now some in the media are announcing she learned her lesson so her "new" system will offer more personal choice, except the big choice, you will be required to have health insurance to get a job, that is of course unless you are an illegal alien then it will be free. Don't anyone believe for a second that Hillary's system is not the first step to total government control and rationing of health care.

Of course one might suggest that the number one group that contributes to Democrats might have convinced Hillary to change her system. Who will trial lawyers sue if the government is totally in charge? Won't the government be ultimately responsible for the quality and quanity of care?

Remember that the truly rich, such as most Senators and Congresspersons after a term in Washington will either have the Congressional health care system or will be able to still buy the best health care anytime they want it. It is truly the middle class that will suffer with government run health care.

to FergusMacLennan
FergusMacLennan writes: "Your pal was likely better off not quitting his day job." Probably so, especially once George W. Bush and the Repubilcans decided to offshore the IT industry to India. (but that's another issue)

"People with pre-existing conditions may find those conditions excluded, but they don't often find themselves barred from "buying any health insurance whatsoever."
Except ... if you have cancer, finding out that a health plan will cover costs not associated with cancer isn't much of a help, is it?

"No one in their 20s, healthy and hot-blooded, is going to get charged for $1000/month insurance unless they choose the lowest-deductible, lowest-copay insurance they can find, with all the frills. "
"The frills" like: prescription drug coverage and annual physicals. Additionally, lower-cost plans cap their annual payout. The one at WalMart has an annual payout on the plan of $20,000/year and a $1000/deductible .... which is a drop in the bucket if something serious happens, or if you have a chronic ailment.

Health Security
Whether we conservatives like it or not, a large majority of Americans desire health security of some sort. On top of that, although American health care is the best in the world, it is the most expensive. True, part of it is caused by the shennanigans of the legal profession, but it is also caused by the politically powerful insurance and pharmaceutical companies, the small co-pays which encourage millions of whiney Americans to go to the doctor more often than needed, defensive doctoring, and expensive machines that help extend life.

In my own case, I know that my family and I would be beter off under a socialized plan although, from what I have read, France's is better than that of Britain's. I have a wife and six children, one who has had three heart surgeries(although he will probably not have another until he is an adult). Pre-existing conditions and the size of my family has trapped me in my profession, one I despise heartily, because health care is so expensive and is so hard to get when a family member has pre-existing conditions. To use Milton Friedman's term in a contrary way, I am not free to choose what I want to do with my life now unless I wish to risk the lives of my family.

I would hope some sort of grand compromise could be cobbled together in the future. The Republicans would have to surrender the insurance companies and the Democrats would have to surrender the trial lawyers. The government would insure all; however, doctors and hospitals would be independent businessmen. This sort of scheme would not be pure free enterprise, of course, but it may be conservative. If something like it passed, I would be free to choose what I wanted to do with the rest of my work life.

Misleading the misled. Typical Stossel
First he implies that the wait lists for health-care in arrest so bad that they were forced to ""made the pathetic promise to reduce wait times for hospital care to four months". What he fails to point out was that this was not the shortest anyone would now have to wait, but is actually a legal mandate declaring that *no patient* will have to wait any /longer/ than four months. This applies to *any* treatment for ANYTHING. Compare that to how Americans have no such protection under the law, and in fact people who can't pay the exorbitant fees asked by private health insurers and hospitals must wait for years... unless they die first of course. This is not only considered highly unethical by civilized doctors the world over, but is in fact highly illegal in both England and Canada.

He then proceeds to take two stories from from the UK equivalent of the National Enquirer and take stories of bizarre behavior and paint them as though they are regular events, when in fact the whole reason they were in print was precisely because they are unusual. If it was common behavior over there, then it wouldn't be newsworthy now would it? Stossel neglects to tell his naive reader/victims that the woman refused to see 3 (three) NHS doctors in her town because they are "foreigners". IOW it was her own choice due racism. He also fails to mention her own words proudly declaring how her husband OTOH got all his teeth pulled out with full denture replacements made for him... all for the princely sum of around "a fiver", or about 10 dollars American.

Last Point
Neal Boortz makes a great observation on gov't health care.

"Expand health care savings accounts. Politicians hate these medical savings accounts because they teach self reliance. Remember folks, the more self reliance we have in our society, the less we need government. The less we need government, the less we need politicians. They don't like this equation."

As a former Civil Servant (GS) I can tell you PERSONALLY that ANYTHING government run works about as well as Rosie O'Donnell's diet.

Hey Cold Hard Truth...
Mega dittoes...

I am a pharmacist who works in the inner city of Niagara Falls, NY. The people are "dirt-poor."

New York Medicaid requires a nominal copayment for Rxs ($0.50 to $3.00) - except for pediatrics, psychiatric and a few others.

We recently got a gambling casino - supposed to be the economic savior of the Falls (but that's a whole other discussion). People are losing their money, restaurants are closing all over the place, etc.

People come in with gold chains, gold teeth, the latest fashions, perfect manicures, i-pods, cell phones, Coach handbags, Gucci handbags, etc.

Then we ask for their copays. They say, "I ain't got it today." They are "required" by Medicaid to pay, but by law we cannot deny them their medicine due to "inability" or "unwillingness" to pay. So we have to absorb the loss.

Let me tell you, Medicaid is sucking the life out of our economy. Our taxes are high in NY. We are paying for the irresponsible and unhealthy choices people are making. We are, in effect, subsidizing irresponsibilty.

GunnyG
Come on,admit it;your'e really Neal Boortz,aren't you?!(BTW,he's my hero)

Congressional health care system
"the Congressional health care system "
Part of Hillary's plan is to allow every American citizen to buy into the federal employee's health plan. That would be the one that Senators and Congressional Representatives use. This was also a part of Kerry/Edwards health plan in 2004.

Hey sentido...
Emphasis on prevention - how about -

1 - not having sex like rabbits

2- not doing drugs

3 - not sitting on one's duff playing X-Box all day

4 - not going to McDonald's for breakfast, lunch, and dinner

5 - not buying beer and lottery tickets instead of nutritious food and medicine


GeorgiaGirl...and Michael Moore
Georgia Girl, thanks for your wise comments. On the other hand, Michael Moore is dishonest in the way he presents his spiel and hardly worth the effort in refuting. His ideological blinders make him useless in sorting out a reform in health care.

The old Nye Bevan health plans can not be the future. The failure of the Bevan scheme is seen in the ramshackle British health system. Higher co-pays and tort reform must be part of the future. And so should health security which may be best provided by a government or semi-government(think Federal Reserve Board or Fannie Mae) institution. Of course, always remember that government does most things poorly.

GeorgiaGal
I don't NEED or WANT the government health plan, I have my own through the company I work for.

Why should my tax dollars pay for the lazy and stupid?

They need health care, go to the county hospitals or the ER's, if you can get past the illegals that is. Also, there are these things called FREE CLINICS for those who can't pay.

HEALTH CARE PLANNING
All health care planning starts out with a “zero based budget”; ergo, each segment of the health care pie is added to the image to formulate a scope of available care. Situational analysis would start with an age level or a diagnosis; consider, thirty five year old male type four diabetes. A DRG formula would designate procedural planned medical, nursing, pharmaceutical, hospital, and chronic long-term conditioning required for treatment of this type designated patient. The difficulty is that there is nothing static about the image. The patient may form psychological and/or physical allergies to the care and program which could throw a spanner into the whole mix of alternatives so pre-planning turns out to be no planning at all. I like to point out the case of 3 hots and a cot health care services. Most American health delivery systems allow for adaptation so patients are assured being fed while under care; but, if the scenario turns to a zero-based budget planning mix under governmental control the linear distribution to feed patients can be severely constrained to lower the costs feeding what is technically a captured population. Those people who hanker for a “single-payer” government run health care system seem to think that the model does not exist today (VA not in this analysis). Medical, dental pharmaceutical, therapeutic rehabilitation, chronic long term nursing are all available right now by breaking the law and going to prison. Got a chronic tooth ache then punch a cop in the nose and the tooth will be pulled within twenty-four hours.

ALL I hear
is arguments for running off government and letting corporations rule.
Even though Mussolini stated that the "perfect fascist state is one where government and corporate-industrial elites have become indistinguishable". This isn't my words, but those of the man upon whom fascism is modeled. And that's what you say you want.

It never ceases to amaze me how ill-informed, how poorly equipped conservatives are at using critical thinking skills to analyze the myriad reasons and ways they are being misled by supposedly "grassroots" organizations and authors. Just keep going the way you are and another Hitler is surely what you'll get. Bush is only halfway here, but your screams for even more right-wing forms of rule are going to spell the death of America as a nation.

GunnyG
"I don't NEED or WANT the government health plan, I have my own through the company I work for."

Which works for you as long as you have your job. Do you really feel that secure that your job will be yours for as long as you want it? Think of the people at ENRON, or workers at the airline companies, or the mid-level guys at the mortgage broker companies.

Your health insurance is one layoff away from becoming non-existant.

AMERICA THE "DUMB"
Why are "US" so sickly is the only question,that leads to a viable answer,when it comes to "HEALTH".There are too many people with illnesses in America.WHY?Wellness is and should be "US" goal.Congress,after many a year,has finally come to the conclusion, that "Prevention is the best CURE".Estimates state; that 78 Billion dollars, will be realized as a saving,through the next two years,due to WELLNESS programs.America's lifestyles are "KILLING" "US" and we are so DUMB that we debate our system of care.As wealthy as we are, as a nation, one would expect a better mental showing.How sad we are,when we allow others to define our focus!!We were not born "DUMB".Made in AMERICA has a whole new meaning...HOW SADDDD!!

AMERICA THE "DUMB"
Why are "US" so sickly is the only question,that leads to a viable answer,when it comes to "HEALTH".There are too many people with illnesses in America.WHY?Wellness is and should be "US" goal.Congress,after many a year,has finally come to the conclusion, that "Prevention is the best CURE".Estimates state; that 78 Billion dollars, will be realized as a saving,through the next two years,due to WELLNESS programs.America's lifestyles are "KILLING" "US" and we are so DUMB that we debate our system of care.As wealthy as we are, as a nation, one would expect a better mental showing.How sad we are,when we allow others to define our focus!!We were not born "DUMB".Made in AMERICA has a whole new meaning...HOW SADDDD!!

AMERICA THE "DUMB"
Why are "US" so sickly is the only question,that leads to a viable answer,when it comes to "HEALTH".There are too many people with illnesses in America.WHY?Wellness is and should be "US" goal.Congress,after many a year,has finally come to the conclusion, that "Prevention is the best CURE".Estimates state; that 78 Billion dollars, will be realized as a saving,through the next two years,due to WELLNESS programs.America's lifestyles are "KILLING" "US" and we are so DUMB that we debate our system of care.As wealthy as we are, as a nation, one would expect a better mental showing.How sad we are,when we allow others to define our focus!!We were not born "DUMB".Made in AMERICA has a whole new meaning...HOW SADDDD!!

AMERICA THE "DUMB"
Why are "US" so sickly is the only question,that leads to a viable answer,when it comes to "HEALTH".There are too many people with illnesses in America.WHY?Wellness is and should be "US" goal.Congress,after many a year,has finally come to the conclusion, that "Prevention is the best CURE".Estimates state; that 78 Billion dollars, will be realized as a saving,through the next two years,due to WELLNESS programs.America's lifestyles are "KILLING" "US" and we are so DUMB that we debate our system of care.As wealthy as we are, as a nation, one would expect a better mental showing.How sad we are,when we allow others to define our focus!!We were not born "DUMB".Made in AMERICA has a whole new meaning...HOW SADDDD!!

Free Clinics
Free Clinics have income limitations. Here in Georgia it is $14,600. The young men at the local low-cost restaurant make $16,000 - $18,000 per year .... too much to use the free clinics. One clinic would see "J" for a reduced rate; however, his income of $17,000 per year excluded him from coverage of payment for any tests they might run (blood, urine, x-rays), and the costs of those tests exceed $1000. (And they needed the test money up-front.) Hospital ERs are good at acute cases, like a heart attack, but are bad at diagnosing and treating chronic ailments like "bleeding ulcers" (which I suspect "J" has) or cancer or diabetes. Free clinics are better than nothing; but the health care system as a whole needs major reform.

Apparently "Kramer" was on to something
I remember a Seinfeld episode where Kramer went to a vet instead of a medical doctor because he didn't trust the M.D.s -- "a bunch of lackeys and yes man, all spouting the company line". Apparently, at least as far as Canada is concerned, he was on to something.

On a serious note, we ALREADY have at least half-socialized medicine in the US. Only about 12% of medical expenses are out-of-pocket, and around 50% are already paid for by the government.

San Francisco
The city of San Francisco in California has socialized medicine.

Maybe they can prove that John Stossel is wrong...

re: Mycos
Hmmm...so desiring free markets and competition is comparable to Nazism--the German National Socialists? Wow, brilliant reasoning.

"Even though Mussolini stated that the "perfect fascist state is one where government and corporate-industrial elites have become indistinguishable". This isn't my words, but those of the man upon whom fascism is modeled. And that's what you say you want."

That doesn't even make sense. So, wanting individuals to have control over their health care choices is Mussolini-like? How the heck is this? Conservatives and libertarians don't want corporations to have control--WE the citizens want control. Look, those HMOs that you so obviously despise aren't exactly the result of the free market. Google the HMO Act of 1973. HMO collusion with the federal government helped us get to where we are now.

But it's much easier for your to retreat to the ad hominem attack, calling conservatives and free marketers fascists. It's just proof that you actually have no solid argument.

re: GeorgiaGal
"Your health insurance is one layoff away from becoming non-existant."

But we already know that the so-called guarantee of national health care is no guarantee. When rationing results (as happens in Britain, France, and Canada) because the government system can't keep up with costs, you can be put on any waiting list that the government says. Waiting for two months for necessary heart surgery is like not having health insurance at all.

I really do understand your perspective, and I respect your energy in presenting your side, but if I can't trust the government to secure borders, finance social security, or curb corruption of congressmen, why should I trust that they have the answers to health care questions? They've proven time and time again that they're not capable of efficient and effective government spending.

GeorgiaGal
"Think of the people at ENRON, or workers at the airline companies, or the mid-level guys at the mortgage broker companies."

1. It's called keeping up your job skills. Any buffoon who thinks that their HS diploma is gonna take from 18-65 without a hitch is an idiot. Get higher education and have a work ethic. I was hired by a private company while STILL on active-duty. I had a job waiting for me!
Why? Because I sought higher education. It's out there, get it.

2. People who refuse to join the service for whatever reason miss out on the GI Bill. 1200 bucks turned into 40,000 for college or vo/tech.

3. People make stupid choices and should have to live with them. Buy a house that you can't afford, on an ARM, and then whine when interest rates go up? Beg for govvie help with OPM (other people's money)? Always the liberal way.

4. And when it fails, like it always does, just do what Oblahma is saying he'd do, RAISE TAXES to cover the shortfall, again and again and again.

it's called Personal Accountability.

re: bibi
"At least they can line-up vs getting shuttled around for not having enough insurance."

Yep, they can just die while waiting in line.

If Canada is the El Dorado of health care, why do we see Canadians crossing the border here in Western NY to pay cash for various procedures? At least in Buffalo, it's happening on a weekly basis.

GeorgiaGal
Given that I work in the IT industry, and live right here in the US, your comment about Bush sourcing all the IT jobs overseas was typically ill-informed...

Your passion is evident, and your compassion is obvious. Indeed; compassion is about the only intellectual currency a Leftist carries or recognizes. But your mishandling of data ignores the basic facts that all economic transactions involve trade-offs, and the economic transaction at hand - changing to socialized medicine - carries with it costs and disadvantages which FAR outweigh any possible benefits. There are, simply speaking, NO extant examples of socialized medicine which contradict this.

Moreover, the cost of socialized medicine comes in the form of increased state control of our lives, and decreased liberty. This is simply inarguable, no matter how much you spin half-truths and outright lies to try to suggest the contrary.

Universal Healthcare
What we conveniently forget is that for those of us insured or covered by Medicare and Medicaid, we already have Universal health. We think that someone else is paying just as Mr. Stossel suggests is the problem with Universal health. So the condition he criticizes is the current reality. The Other People's Money syndrome wisely commented upon at http://www.healthcaresoundoff.com already exists for 75% of the population. Getting the uninsured into a program will only continue what exists and may lower hospital costs which are impacted by the overuse of emergency rooms by the uninsured. Mr. Stossel should suggest some solutions. The Healthcare Access Card proposed at http://www.healthcaresoundoff.com is a vehicle that should appeal to him if he seriously wants us to be more responsible for our first dollar expenses.

bah
first we need to get the goverment out of providing health care to anyone. and end most of these weired goverment requirements start a loser pays court system and install more free market into health care(which btw is why cosmentic surgy prices have gone down while all other surgies have gone up in price). just remmeber in the 40's NO ONE had health insurence and they seemd to be doing just fine. and also no health insurence does not mean no health care.

they tried someing like universal health care in tenn and if failed misribly

A Ten Year Plan to Fix Healthcare
I think this phased approach as quoted by voiceofreason is absolutely the correct way to get a handle on our self-induced health care 'problem'. Remember health care costs did not start to rise dramatically until the governmental intrusion of employer based health insurance (insurance in lieu of raises) and medicare/medicaid (why hold down costs if insurance will pay). The function of government should be that of information repository (who can perform the most efficacious cure at lowest cost) so that consumers can make intelligent decisions regarding the use of their money. Insurance plans should be available to cover catastrophic and/or chronic conditions not routine visits to the doctor, childbirth, elective surgeries etc. The problem is not access but rather cost which should stabilize or decrease once government and insurance bureacracies are out of the way.

Not My Problem

I'm sorry, but if you decided to have 6 kids and cannot pay for them why is that now my problem?

If you cannot afford medical insurance in the U.S. then emigrate to Canada. Or move to San Francisco. Or, if like the tropics, go to Cuba.

Because you didn't study in HS or go to college or whatever and only earn $17,000 per year; why is that my problem?

For those liberals whining, tell me how much you donated to charity last year? Have you helped to pay for anyone’s medical expenses in your family?

Compassionate does not mean using other people's money.

Liberals
won't be happy until everyone gets a number of importance for treatment based on their "abilities" to support the "collective."

Then they'll have something to whine about when they're the bottom of list when their usefulness is over.

The Law of
Unintended Consequences:

Hillary Plan: Cost $110 billion.

Infrastructure Improvement: Cost $500 billion.

(Our current infrastructure is already at the brink).

Additional Medical Personnel: Cost $250 billion.

(We have a critical shortage of medical personnel).

Additional Administrative: Cost $50 billion.

(Government loves inefficient bureaucracies).

The reality: 250 million Americans receive diminished health care for "free."

Old adage: "If it sounds too good to be true, it isn't true."

Common Sense: Ask VA participants whether the socialized health care is better than private health care. The poll results will be: 99% No!

RE: Karl and other morons
"The flaws Stossel points out in the Canadian system do not outweigh the 47 million Americans who have no reasonable access to health care in ours."

That is an oft-repeated lie by you kooky commies.

FACT: ***100%*** of all people in the United States -- whether they be rich or poor, a US citizen or an illegal alien -- have access to needed health care. It is AGAINST THE LAW in ALL 50 states to deny someone needed medical attention for ANY reason at all -- even the inability to pay for that treatment.

Those "47 million" aren't without access to health care. They are without health insurance.

Now let's talk about who makes up that 47 million:
- About 47% of them are simply without health insurance for a brief (under a month) period of time while they are between jobs.
- Another huge protion -- like 1/3rd -- can afford health insurance, but just elect not to get it.

Something line only about 10% of that 47 million are TRULY without health insurance because they can't afford it. (Just to put things in perspective, a smaller portion of people in the US are withough health insurance because they can't afford it than in the kooky commie utopia France).

GunnyG
As usual you are preaching to the choir. LardAzz Michael Moore and his LardAzz Wife are heart attacks waiting to happen. I'LL BET when said Heart Attack occurs, he WILL NOT hop a plane to Canada!

The Point is....
Some sort of universal national health program is inevitable. So how do we pass a universal national health program with conservative characteristics? And don't tell me about health accounts. Life is not run through a Heritage Foundation laboratory. The country will not go for it.

You Dont Get It Sparky!
Listen Stossel, cause I'm only going to say this once; them furriners might not be able to get it right but they dont have The Smartest Woman Ever Anywhere designing their systems, now do they? The Mighty Friend Of The Children is not hampered by silly 'economic laws'. No 'unintended consequences' will plague the plans of The One Who Cares. Good intentions will tame the greedy doctors, Big Pharma and those pesky for-profit insurance companies because The Genius Of Healthcare knows that It Takes A Village of Attorneys to make us all healthy, wealthy and wise. After all, The Face That Shines Down On Us All will be able to draw on the Wisdom Of The East, in the form of large cash contributions from our Socialist Asian Friends to help ensure that all of us, all her children live long, happy lives.

Duck
I am not sure what San Francisco's health care system covers.

At least we will get to know how universal health care will work in this country.

Why National Health Care?
We have state and local governments; they can provide health care if their electorates so desire.

Socialized Med a success
Yup, it has been a home run and has always done exactly what any socialized program is supposed to do, redistribute wealth to empower your political masters.

There is no such thing as nationalized health care. RxLady writes: Wednesday, September, 19, 2007 8:54 AM, stating her customers don't pay so they can buy gold chains etc. In short fed programs are merely redistribution programs. We can't try to steal RXlady’s money by claiming we want it for her customer's gold chains, gambling, Nike shoes, and new Lincoln, so we say it is for health care, food, housing, education and how can RXlady resist going bankrupt for somebody's health care. Then her customer merely uses the health care money they no longer need to spend and buy a new car instead. Thank you RXlady for my new car.

true captain america
beowolfe says
"Those "47 million" aren't without access to health care. They are without health insurance."


-how do you mean? are they rich enough to pay for care up front?


it is called the emergency room which are required by law to treat anyone for any reason weither they can pay or not. please read previous post before you say stuff that makes you sound really dumb


Karl
Everyone in the US has ACCESS to health care. Quit with the erroneous 47 million uninsured talking point.

Follow the money. What factors are jacking up the medical costs?

Hint: look at GOVERNMENT oversight, regulation, Red Tape and mandates

Look at the effect of Malpractice suits on costs and availability of services (when, for example, OB/GYN docs leave an area because of the liability imposed on their practice)

Look at extending care to Illegals & others who don't pay

Look at the effectiveness of Medicare, Medicaid and Prescription Drug Subsidies

Look at what drives the insurance industry premiums.

Look at our own "nationalized health care" as demonstrated in the military medical benefits offered to active duty, retired military and the "insurance" offered to dependants to understand how government here would provide for everyone.

I know it is a lot easier to swallow the drivel spouted by Michael Moore. He's an effective propagandist. But, if you'd do a little study you would understand the problem...and the problem is US (as in Government intervention coupled with a litigious mind-set)

Read Stossel's article again. He makes a difficult concept Simple to understand. The problem with common sense, is it isn't common.

There has never been a government program that provides anything in an effective, cost-effective, streamlined or responsive way. Why would you trust your health care to them?

Freedom or Security?
If you wanted to create a shortage of any commodity or service; destroy incentive to improve either quality or control cost; guarantee mismanagement and corruption and eliminate any possibility for accountability for the administrators of such a program, you could apply for citizenship in any of the few remaining communist countries, or, if you prefer, adopt HillaryCare II. The scarey part: thousands, perhaps millions, of our fellow Americans who would not dream of doing the former, will rush to the latter like lemmings off a cliff.

Even MORE problems
There are further "hidden" costs to the whole idea of socialized or mandated health care/insurance.

http://viewfromtheisland.townhall.com/g/4e5b16b6-a704-4ac4-8d65-c18bd7af8915

Freedom or Security?
If you wanted to create a shortage of any commodity or service; destroy incentive to improve either quality or control cost; guarantee mismanagement and corruption and insulate administrators from accountability, you could apply for citizenship to any of the few remaining communist countries, or if you prefer, adopt HillaryCare II.

CrossWise and true captain america
Both of them show why elements on both the left(true captain america) and the libertarian-oriented right are enemies of social conservatives. Both the left and the libertarian-oriented right are anti-children and usually against traditional norms.

I've found it funny that prominent libertarian-"conservatives" from Rand to Postrel to Friedman to Rothbard and many others did not have children. I assume it is because they were too selfish to have and raise children. A dead philosophy, it would seem.

Liberals
won't be happy until everyone gets a number of importance for treatment based on their "abilities" to support the "collective."

Then they'll have something to whine about when they're the bottom of list when their usefulness is over.

OVER AND OUT!
HC has recently announced a health care insurance plan based on the Massachusetts model that has some positive points. This is a diversion away from the real issue HUE - HUE - HUE. Norman Hue is crazy glue on the soles of her running shoes - or running Hues. She is stuck in sticky stuff sitting on a powder keg looking for words beyond the English lexicon because she really has nothing more to say. OVER AND OUT! 10-Four.

Karl writes
Not a question of a perfect system
The question is not whether socialized medicine is a perfect system (no one claims this), but whether it is a better system. The flaws Stossel points out in the Canadian system do not outweigh the 47 million Americans who have no reasonable access to health care in ours.

Hey Karl as in Marx is waiting six months for an MRI access? How about pulling your own teeth? If the wet ankles who are here illegally were thrown out of the system ours would be far better. Taking Karl's logic to the next step I would guess cutting off access to all Americans is better than just for the 47 million he claims don't have it. At least it would be fair and that is what you libs are all about universal suffering.

Just a thought
BTW: Did you know that active duty military folks are not allowed to press a law-suit if they would like to against the medical care given them?

All of you folks out there that think a UHC run by the government makes sense, just realize that besides giving up a lot of your choices for care, you also will be giving up your right to redress of grievances.

You'll put people like John Edwards out of a job.

Oh wait...that actually sounds like a good reason to go for UHC.....NOT.

TCA
Must all the graft and corruption taxes NJ adds on for their illegal population. Bottom line, you got screwed.

Also, some nimrod hit me from behind on 95 and I went to the ER. Xrays, exam, pain meds, etc, on came to 500 and change. Again, that 5000.00 tab for a swollen throat smells like Rosie O'Donnell sweating in the hot sun.

BTW, didn't you say on another thread a few weeks back that you live in Appalachia?

health care
Ms Paddy has some good points.
Malpractice suits on costs are outrageous. If Drs had to for the liability insurance, (hospitals and clinics cover it ) they would be living at less than minimum wave levels. Ambulance chasing lawyers run up the cost of our health care tremendously. TORT reform is badly needed. But Insurance and lawyer lobbies have big pockets to buy politician votes.

OB/GYN docs leave an area because of the liability imposed on their practice) A malformed baby is born, the OB/GYN is hit with malpractice. nevermind the baby had a genetic abmormality.

Look at extending care to Illegals & others who don't pay. These are covered by low income clinics paid for by state and fed governments. They run up your taxes not your health care costs. That is unless they go to the emergency rooms for care which a lot of them do. then you pay.

Look at the effectiveness of Medicare, Medicaid and Prescription Drug Subsidies. Political suicide if any politician wants to cut those programs conservatives included.

That leaves us with 47 million in the US that have no medical coverage, They forgo medical care until it is a crisis stage and head for the emergency room which is THE most expensive form of health care.
By the way, try to get a doctors appointment with no insurance. They won't take you.

Suggestions are open how to fix it. Let them die in the streets seems to be the most popular suggestion I've seen here. It would solve the overpopulation problem.


TCA
As per your question at 1130.

What happens if I flatten my arms and fly to the moon?

That is about as much sense as your question makes.

There are county hospitals that treat people who cannot pay. If they weren't so full up with ILLEGALS, AMERICANS could GET treatment. Get rid of the illegals that the Dhimmicrats want in so badly and that will free up, oh, about 12 million seats in free clinics, ER's and Co. Hospitals across the land.


True Captain America
There are lots of answers to your question, but you wouldn't like any of them.

1) You could seek treatment and pay for it yourself (most places would work with you to figure out a payment plan)
2) You could take out a loan/put your house up as collateral/seek help from your relatives & friends/hold a spaghetti supper/put out a donation can at the local supermarket/seek a charity that might help you/ask for assistance with costs from the current government safety nets already in place
3) You could give up, go home and die from not treating the illness
4) You could emigrate to England and get onboard with their NHS
5) You could submit your case to a TV producer for a reality-type show that follows your care and negotiate payment for your medical bills as your reimbursement for exposing yourself to a camera

Lots of choices. I'm sure I haven't touched on them all.

true america
I guess I should feel insulted by your comments but, since the comments come from someone who doesn't understand common grammar skills, I think I'll bear them no mind. I know the left hates every tradition but hatred of correct capitalization is novel.

WE ALREADY HAVE
... socialized health care. That's why it's so expensive.

Being good Americans, we pile social regulation and government-mandated expenses on the point of purchase, just as we do with everything else, from milk to gasoline to motorcycles and home purchases.

Then we ask the consumer to pay that cost. When you add that cost to what it ACTUALLY costs hospitals and medical professionals to provide the near-instantaneous care that most of us get, voila -- there's your expensive health care.

If we want health care to cost less, we will have to DE-regulate it. Regulating it, as we already do, only makes it more expensive.

And for Karl: come to California sometime if you want to see how an uninsured person who's not an American citizen and doesn't even speak English "has no access to health care." Watch as he is treated promptly and courteously in an emergency room, furnished with an interpreter, and his entire family is accommodated in the waiting room while other people who DO have insurance, ARE citizens, DO speak English, and ARE, in fact, paying for his care, wait in line behind him.

chicaree
Not to be mean but where exactly in the Constitution does it say EVERY AMERICAN RATES FREE HEALTH CARE?

I've worked for two companies since retiring and BOTH of them offered care under I plan. I payed some and they paid some. I was able to choose PPO or HMO on some stuff.

The bottom line was that health care WAS offered and I declined as I have Tricare Prime. Not the best but adequate.

Also, ask yourself WHY millioniares like Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, etc, get FREE HEALTH CARE at Bethesda?

Funny, we never anything about THAT from moveon.org.

chicaree
Still have that gift for hyperbole! "Let them die in the streets"???

Why do you think rejecting a government-mandated UHC inevitably leads to people "dying in the streets?"

Why do you think the men/women in government are smarter than the average citizen?

When has ANY government program ever done ANYTHING better, more efficiently, responsively, or at a lower cost than you could do it yourself?

TCA
THAT is something we agree on. NJ sucks. Been there, seen it, wouldn't miss it if it sunk into the Atlantic. Full of corrupt liberals.

true captain america
If you really want a government mandated and controlled life, especially in regard to health care, why don't you emigrate to England? They speak your language and other than their pitiful NHS it's a pretty nice place to live.

I'd just as soon roll-back the government here to get back to a real market-driven health care system like we had before HMO and Government regulations got involved.

Regarding the spaghetti dinner....You could go for a fish-fry if you'd prefer. It's not that unusual. I don't recall saying it was my personal favorite...just gave you options to your dilemma.

Note: (Mrs P and chicaree)
If Americans were going to "die in the streets" from not having "universal health care," they would already be doing it. Given the number of years our republic has NOT had government-managed, single-payer health care, we should have expected a holocaust by now -- by the logic of the alarmists.

Of course, lilly will come along with some story about someone dying precisely and only because there wasn't "universal health care." But her tales have that Law & Order tinge of unreality about them -- more Brothers Grimm than accurate reporting. Like leftist screenwriters getting to write conservative people and beliefs just the way THEY want to, as if they're adolescents writing morality plays in which the nasty other kids get their comeuppance. You end up waiting for the troll to come out from behind the chest of drawers and rattle off a poetic incantation.

dyerje
LOL....Thanks for the smile. I love the storyline for the 'morality play' as you described it.

Do you think that the folks that want UHC have a clue? I really don't understand their point of view. Of course, I'm old enough to remember living without health insurance and government interference...

The advocates for UHC don't blink an eye over the costs of a new pair of tennis shoes or an HDTV because they have a choice there. I don't know why giving up their choice for something personal like Health Care is acceptable to them. I guess they still want their 'mommy' to take care of them. Unfortunately, UHC is a far cry from the personal care provided by most moms.

true captain america
i've seen video from earlier this year of a woman dying in the waiting room of a hospital. she was there for hours and another patient even called 911 from the hospital. disgusting capitalist health care system leads to death for the masses

oh yeah i remmeber that story but what you dont know is that hospital king hospital either in las angles or chicago was a goverment run hospital not a for profit hospital. please get your facts straight before criticizing

true captain america
and if you are found in an emergancy room with treatable cancer, why should I have to pay for YOUR medical bills??? what gives you the right to my money or any stranger who gets sick the right to your money?

capitalism isnt the problem it is goverment interfence either way a hosptial still needs money to run i prefer a system that encourages effenceny and inovation neither of which is prevalent in goverment.

I've said it before
And I'll say it again. Especially since the health care issue seems so relevent to this quote.

"Most men do not desire freedom, they wish only for a just master." - Sallust

Progressives do not desire freedom. They do not want to take care of themselves. They wish only for their master (guvmint) to take care of all their needs and wants. Hell! Most of these progressive types strike me as persons who would starve to death in a grocery store if they didn't have a can opener.

"A government that can give you everything can also TAKE everything."

I am excited about
the tamper proof health insurance cards required to get a job or renew a driver's license or a car registration. Can I get one with the Quick VISA process in Saudi Arabia? The wait here may be six months or more.

Can we use the card for a VIP line at airport? I just knew Hillary had an airport security solution.

true captain america
you can always find a way to afford insuance you may just have to give up some of the so called extras like big screen tvs, cell phones, sattilite or cable servies, a bang new this year model car, or a large house on an ARM.

you can always find a second part time job, ask for over time do more than the 40 hour work week?

true captain america
Hey! We actually agree on the growth of big government. Why do you assume that I am happy with things like No Child Left Behind and Prescription Drug Coverage etc., just because Republicans share the blame for these government programs? I don't identify myself as a Republican...I call myself a Conservative.

Unfortunately, the Republican platform (if they'd get a clue and follow it) is more in line with what I believe regarding limited government and fiscal (LOL) responsibility.

I don't think Government is the solution to our ills. WE are. Individuals like you and me can and should, make a difference for ourselves and our communities....not the bureaucrats in Washington.

Move to Iraq?: I'm not looking for a Muslim Theocracy, thanks. I love the USA, so why would I want to move to a war-zone in the middle of a desert? Get real.

I'm not even looking for a Christian theocracy, as much as folks such as yourself seem to fear that.

Corporate America is what fuels our economy. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternative as you could see if you looked around.

true captain america
mayo? not really sure what you mean by that. if you are refering to the story about a woman dying in an american hospital what i am saying is that woman's death was the result of an incompatent staff at a hopsital owned and operated by the goverment infamous for low quality care, a worthless victicrat staff, and no incentive or desire to treat paticents

true captain america
no but i dont have a bloody spell check on this browser darn i miss firefox.

true captain america
a problem with working hard to earn what you want and need rather than haveing someone just give it to you no of course i don't. heck i do it now so i can put myself through school.

oh btw under the system you want you would still have to have multible jobs to pay all the new taxes that would be created.

the question i have is why do you seen a problem with finding a way to pay for medical care on your own?

true captain america
i would love to play with you some more but i have to go to class we have an awsome guest speaker today and i got like 5 clubs this evening so i wont be back for the rest of the day have fun but dont start cussing people out.

15 % to 12 %
Asking as a lifetime conservative, what would conservatives say to a national health care system that lowered overall spending on health care from 15 percent to 12 percent?

TCA
So, your solution is Hitlary care? For someone who is always mewling about the Feds in our business, I'm surprised that you'd dig Hitlary's care.

Check my blog for the full story but one part is that she is going to REQUIRE PROOF of INSURANCE before you can even interview for a JOB!

SHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTT!

Why work? Hitlary will take care of me.

Communist Health Care. Get ready for it
I can certainly vouch for most of Stossel's article's accuracy in that I am a Canadian living in Nova Scotia, we just moved here from Manitoba. It is absolutely true that some people can't find a family doctor. My family is four of them. My wife just called all the doctors in the area (Truro) as well as check with the local bureaucracy and they inform us that none of the doctors here are accepting any new patients, they are all full. We'd have to go to Halifax (more than an hour's drive away) to try to find one that's available. Since the government dictates what doctors go where,as well as how many the system will support, it proves without a doubt that the socialist system is indeed engaging in rationing. We're allowed to have only that which the government LETS us have. The epitomy of soft tyranny and I'd even call it a form of slavery.

God bless America, the very last bastion of freedom in the world. I feel sorry for you though, with so many people voting Democrat these days, and the Democrrat parety becoming as stupid and corrupt as the looniest of your leftist freak down there, it seems your country's about had the biscuit too, unless there's a serious wake-up call. As more and more people are dumbed down by the mainstream media, apathy and government schools, your society, as ours did forty years ago, is dwindling down to the intelligence of the lowert common denominator, which, sadly, is pretty pathetic. Just have a look at the people who seem to represent America today... the Hollywood Elite, the rappers and the truly stupid, as glorified by the media, and you get a pretty damning view of what's happening.

Good luck, anyway. I'll pray for you.

Get Goverment Out of Our Lives
Everything Government does creates a bureaucratic nightmare, inefficiencies and no accountability. There are at least three major things that are driving up the cost of health care: 1) Frivolous lawsuits, 2) Government red tape and 3) health insurance plans . Lawyers represent people who sue doctors for not being able to prefectly diagnose and treat every single health issue. They sue over a doctor's inability to repair physical injury with no traces or side effects. These lawsuits drive up malpractice insurance to the point that doctors are leaving certain states where the rate exceed their ability to earn enough money to pay them. The only peoiple getting rich off of this are the lawyers. Government red tape and record keeping require entire staffs to do nothing but file forms and monitor processing progress. This drives up the cost of a doctor doing business. How would you like to pay $30,000 PER MONTH for medical staff? People pay health insurance premiums then don't monitor what they are being charged for treatment or medication because it is being "taken care of" by insurance. There is no law of supply and demand to control the cost because people won't refuse to pay the exhorbitant cost of treatment and go elsewhere.
Government mandated coverage and control of so many aspects of health care drive the price up as do refusal to do anything about how litigous our nation has become. If any of the Democrats are elected next fall, then be prepared to go the way of Canada and have free healthcare that is only worth what you paid for it!

Re: Derek Leaberry's comment above
If the system of health care that you're talking about is free-market based, then it's likely to work, as the American government already interferes with health care too much as it is, and that's what drives up spending/costs. However, if you advocate that the Government can do that by being even MORE involved, or should, you'd be falling into the trap that Canada fell into more than forty years ago, and we've ben paying dearly for it ever since. See my comment above.

Socialized medicine doesn't work. It's a proven fact. But then, liberals don't ever seem to care about facts, do they? They just measure everything against a utopian ideal, none of which is achievable.

TCA
"Sicko"

What a conglomeration of SH*T!

Mikey Mooreon is a bloated moron beating a socialist drumm while getting rich off of mooks who watch his crockumentaries.

Try hitting THIS site:

http://therealcuba.com/

The Cuba that Mooreon, Ollie Stone, and the other liberal bobbleheads never talk about.

Rob
Great post.

Check out the cartoon here:

http://theinterface.townhall.com/g/16c50b37-1b82-4921-ae93-9e53a24e995d

Pretty well sums up how the lefties think.

gimme-gimme-gimmmmeeee since it's O.P.M. (other people's money!)

Tip: The Interface

Mrs Paddy
On your question whether UHC advocates have a clue, I think they have a different perspective, summed up perfectly in workin4wages' Sallust quote:

"Most men do not desire freedom, they wish only for a just master."

UHC proponents want someone to take care of them. The issue, of course, is that that "someone" is you and I. Contrary to the emotional and childish claims of the UHC proponents, it is neither greedy nor selfish nor unfeeling for people to NOT want their pockets picked, and their own options eliminated, so that others can search for an elusive feeling of security against all life's ills.

RE: true captain america
tca wrote:
-how do you mean? are they rich enough to pay for care up front?

If they are unable to pay for needed care, the tax payers already pay for them. As I already stated, it is against the law to deny someone of needed treatment for any reason whatsoever.

I'm SURE you've heard of how when a Mexican in Mexico doesn't have insurance and can't pay for care, the Mexican hospital tosses them in an ambulance and sends them to the US, right? This is because it is REQUIRED by law to let that ambulance through to the nearest hosptical where that Mexican will get free treatment.

This is the exact same thing among Americans. If you're in need of medical care, and neither have insurance nor have the money to pay for that care, you, RIGHT NOW, with NO new laws, get the care for free.

Definition of Free
I still don't quite understand this "Sicko" Moore definition of "free" medical care.

What does it mean? Does that mean God or some other entity waves a wand and makes it available? Or could it mean that doctors, nurses, medical supply companies, and pharmaceutical companies donate their resources for free because they don't care about making money?

Surely we're not talking about an involuntary transfer of wealth from one class of taxpayer to another, are we?

You SocialistCrats please feel free to define "free"..........

RE: true captain america
tca was dumb enough to write:
i've seen video from earlier this year of a woman dying in the waiting room of a hospital. she was there for hours and another patient even called 911 from the hospital.
disgusting capitalist health care system leads to death for the masses.

....

That isn't a problem with capitalism. That was a triage problem.

A few years back, your beloved Frace sat back and watched THOUSANDS of people die from heat exhaustion. Those that called hospitals looking for an ambulance were told to walk.

THOUSANDS of people died due to the lack of resources you want imposed upon the US, and the best you can come up with is one tragic mistake?

RE: true captain america
tca wrote:
so what if you go to the emergency room and they tell you that you have treatable cancer but no insurance?

...

What if you get in a car accident, but don't have auto insurance or the money to get it repaired?

TCA
"mrs paddy
"If you really want a government mandated and controlled life, especially in regard to health care, why don't you emigrate to England?"

-why don't you move to iran so you can live in a religious state?"

Please explain how this is not a complete non-sequitur. How, exactly, is a "religious state" - or religion in ANY way - the antithesis of government-provided health care?

You would do your arguments better service if you could manage a modicum of logic and rationality.

RE: true captain america

dyerje
You and I are absolutely on the same page.

How do we un-ring the bell? I like the proposal on this thread of phasing out entitlements and placing medical care/decisions/financing back on individuals to provide for themselves.

Are there any polititians out there that would tackle that? Where is the Conservative Voice in the style of Michael Moore that can present an alternative view?

I am really frustrated by the prevailing mind-set that has us floating along to socialized medicine as the only option; and the skepticism of the average person to any proposals that include personal responsibility and taking government out of the equation.

Givens
1. Government runs nothing well and most things very badly.
2. Whether conservatives like it or not, a large majority of Americans want some sort of security in health care insurance.
3. Americans spend 15 % of GNP on healthcare, the largest slice of the eco-pie in the world.
4. Lawyers have their mitts in too deeply in the medical world.
5. Millions of Americans have pre-existing conditions that prohibit them buying insurance on their own or prohibits them from taking another job.
6. Insurance companies are among the most unloved companies in the capitalist world.
7. The current insurance system is draining on doctors and hosptitals.
8. A system of personal accounts as Heritage Foundation and others advocate will not be passed anytime in most of our lifetimes.
9. Socialized systems, especially ones that are most similar to that of Britain's, end up rationing to a great degree.
10. So that people get the feel of what true health costs are, co-payments should be raised. with small co-pays, many Americans do not internalize the cost of health care.
11. Many Americans, especially the elderly, are already on a semi-socialistic health care program.
12. Due to new, expensive innovations, health care will get more costly.
13. As people live longer, they will cost more to care for.
14. Nationalizing the health care system is the next logical domestic program for Democrats.
15. Even if Hillary Clinton is defeated in 2008, a Democrat will inevitably win the presidency.
16. A national plan fleshed out under conservative/Republican guidance is preferable to anything Mrs. Clinton, John Edwards, Barrack Obama or Ted Kennedy would cobble together.

And BTW, tca
The incident with the LA woman who died at King-Harbor hospital in June is most illustrative of government-provided health care -- because that's what King is (or was, depending on how you categorize it since King lost its federal funding in August).

King has never been a private hospital earning its operating budget from paying patients, for even one day. It's always been a government-funded hospital, chartered in the '60s to serve the Watts area of LA after the riots.

Instituting universal health care will not make King-Harbor like the Mayo Clinic -- it will make the Mayo Clinic like King-Harbor.

SFASU7392
Well Said.

Other than the air we breathe the only thing that is FREE is that which is Stolen.

TCA
I don't care about beowulfe's car insurance analogy. Answer the question please; what is the relevance of state religion to the question of whether we get nationalized health care or not?

Hey Libcommies
If socialized medicine is SO GREAT, then WHY is the Canadian MP coming to the USA for CANCER treatment?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070914/belinda_Stronach_070914/20070914?hub=Health

Must not be too good huh?

Speaking of which, didn't Castro have a Spanish doctor fly in to treat HIM when he was sick?

Gunny
"didn't Castro have a Spanish doctor fly in to treat HIM when he was sick?"

Please don't make "Spanish fly" jokes in reference to Castro... my stomach can't handle it...

BEOWULFE
Ya beat me too it!

Derek
Let's go over your "givens." I'll give you a B for effort, though.

1. There are some things we do expect government to do, and they do well at times. One of these is Law Enforcement when they actually want to.

2. This point is true, and conservatives do not dispute this. What we dispute is the manner of which health care is provided.

3. So what? This is probably due to massive advertising campaigns for medicines and medical procedures, as well as the mindset that so long as a third payer is paying for health care, you don't need to foot the bill directly for any ailment, no matter how minor.

4. True. And unless there's some deregulation and tort reform, this probably won't change, even with universal health care.

5. True. This is why deregulation is needed. But let me ask you a question: Why is this my civic responsibility to provide them with coverage?

6. Irrelevant. Government is often worse.

7. Not really. It's a burden, but once again deregulation is needed.

8. Only if you give up.

9. Is this an argument for socialized medicine?

10. Most Americans simply do not pay for health care, today. A third party payer does, and they might pay a small co-pay as is. Once the market is deregulated to the point that practicioners can widely compete for services, the need for insurance will dwindle.

11. And this is not right, nor moral, nor fair.

12. Only if you let government regulate it so much.

13. Only if you let government regulate it so much.

14. It's only about control for Democrats.

15. Not likely. Hillary is the de facto nominee. If she loses the general election, a Republican is likely to be president.

16. True.

RE: true captain america
tca wrote:
beo- what are you talking about car insurance for?

...

No wonder you can't afford health insurance. Not smart enough to get any job that pays more than the minimum wage.

Health insurance is like any other product. If you can afford higher quality insurance, you go ahead and buy it. Otherwise you're stuck with what you can afford.

Being provided with $500,000 cancer treatments for free is no more of a right than being provided with a new $500,000 car for free.

If you were silly enough not to have insurance, then discover you've got a brain tumor that'll cost $500,000 to remove, guess who the idiot is?

Problem with idiots like you is that you think that since EVERYONE can't afford the absolute best, then NO ONE should be allowed to have the absolute best.

FergusMacLennan
Long time no see.

Yeah, isn't funny when the liberal party bosses enjoy excesses that the rank and file can only dream about but the RIGHT is all screwed up! haha

My bro-in-law came from a poor background, is a staunch rigth-winger, has a great work ethic, works about 17 hours a day as the CEO of his own company!

No gov't handouts, just hard work and a little luck.

47 million
There are no 47 million "without access to health care." Everyone in this country can get health care at the nearest emergency room, illegal aliens included. Federal law requires this: the emergency rooms may turn no one away, illegals included, irrespective of ability to pay.
Of the alleged 47 million without insurance, most in this category are temporarily without by choice, having elected to go uncovered between jobs by not electing cobra payments. Many are young, single, and healthy and elect for more take home pay to afford playtoys rather than have wage deductions for employee subsidized insurance. Not a bad gamble actually. Still others are simply too ignorant to know that they qualify for medicaid
So please,no more whining about the alleged 47 million. '

Gunny
Oh I've been around... new job has consumed a lot more of my time, so I don't post as much as I used to.

The thing that irks me is the Leftist revulsion for freedom of choice, at least in anything not having to do with sex.

Hillary Clinton and Michael Moore
are to George Soros as Frau Farbissina and F@t B@$+@rd are to Dr. Evil.

They are both set up in business by this "Fearless Leader" to their Boris and Natasha.

Their tag-team approach to foist socialized medicine isn't fooling anyone. We all knew what the Pilsbury Doughboy's evil twin was up to last spring when he came out with that stupid movie.

Does anyone seriously believe that Michael Moore is interested in health?

Mrs Paddy
Yes, we need to phase out entitlements -- and we also need to (a) allow individuals to buy insurance across state lines, and (b) let that option force the worst states to repeal the requirements they put on insurance coverage, requirements that drive up the cost of insurance for all rate-payers.

I would be happy, for example, to phase out Medicare by eliminating most of the administration; deciding that senior beneficiaries under a certain age will receive annual cash allowances rather than payment to service providers, from Medicare, for services; and deciding that under a certain pre-retirement age, people will not receive future benefits at all. Then genuinely sunset the program and stop taxing us for it.

I would also prefer to be able to carry insurance only for catastrophic illness, and pay for office visits, exams, and drugs out of pocket. If we let doctors decide what to charge for services, instead of being regulated in that regard through state mandates for insurance operation, their fees for routine visits will be quite reasonable -- and for most of us, will amount to considerably less than we spend on insurance premiums and co-pays together.

States and counties could still pay for hospitals for the indigent – nothing has ever stopped them from doing that, and in fact, they all do.

There are too many government-mandated middlemen in our health care organization now. That's why it all costs so much. It's the government mandates we pay for, but don't benefit from, that we need to get rid of.

What Happens
when liberals are in charge.

Dateline: Chicago, the city run by libs for the last 70 years or so.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=5664018

Guess where their taxes are going in the Land of Oblahma?

Guess what'll happen when we get Hitlary-care?

Speaking As Someone...
...who has lived under both systems I can say that I'm very pleased I live in the UK with it's NHS. That is not to say it is perfect, it isn't, and I predict we here in Blighty will see it undergo some radical changes in the coming years. But it has served me and my family very well. I am also lucky enough to have health insurance (a la the US system) through work which has enabled me to have non urgent treatment quickly when necessary.

vespanat
Were you aware that the U.S., with its awful system, has some of the highest cancer survival rates in the world (this is for all types of cancer), whereas the UK, with its NHS, has some of the lowest cancer survival rates in Europe, much less the world?

Wayfinder
Thanks for your thoughtful replies.

Health savings accounts will likely never be passed in the near or far future. With current demographics working against Republicans, I expect that the Democrats will dominate politics in the next score or more of years. Democrats favor few free market initiatives.

Medicare will likely rupture the budget before being privatized. And I do predict some sort of budgetary implosion sometime in the 2030s due to the strain of the baby-boomers taking up so much of the budget(I am a baby-boomer so am part of the future problem).

And a question- In your opinion, will a government-run health program allow the current tort smogesbord to continue? Governments hate to be sued.

vespanat
I wonder how your fellow Brits feel about the future "rationing" plan which includes things like reusing sheets after one patient for another patient by turning them over, etc.

I wonder how long it'll take "Blighty" to start issuing numbers for priority of health care based on one's "importance" to society.

Health care necessities vs niceties
I recently started a new job in a pharmacy, which happens to be located near a college campus. Day after day, young college coeds come to the counter with a large box of condoms & some 'personal lubricant', and request a refill on their prescription for contraceptives, and frequently add, "Oh, and could I get a Plan B?" Then they hand me their Medicaid coupon, which covers 100% the cost of everything they've just purchased.
I'm a compassionate person, and I can see helping defray the cost through Medicaid for minor children with health issues. But really - can someone on the left please explain why taxpayers should pay for these college girls to have "safe" casual sex? Maybe we need to buy them some beer or drugs to enhance their 'good time' - I mean, after all, we're talking about a 'quality of life issue', and isn't that what health care is about?
Give me a break!

Part 1
First of all, this debate is over health insurance not health care. The U.S. has the best health CARE in the world hands down. That is not even a debatable point.

Secondly, the problem is a lack of understanding in the citizens of this country as to what insurance actually is. Insurance is not supposed to cover every little sniffle and band-aid you or your family needs. Your car insurance doesn't cover oil changes, tune-ups, tire rotations, or replacement batteries......it is there to protect you from LARGE unexpected expenses....such as a tree falling on your car. Likewise, health insurance is supposed to be there to protect you from catastrophic expenses due to unexpected illness or injury.....NOT to pay for every checkup, physical, lab test, or prescription. The reason health insurance rates have been climbing the way they have is because there are way to many spoiled, whining, cry-baby, idiots in this country that think it's just unfair that they can't go to the movies this weekend, or buy that new DVD player cause they had to pay for medicine to get over their cold. Everybody on both sides of this debate wants to blame insurance companies, but the truth of the matter is, that the insurance companies have just been giving their customer EXACTLY what they asked for!

Part 2
Everybody kept complaining about wanting lower copays, better prescription drug coverage, and on and on.....guess what? The insurance companies gave it to you and now all you want to do is sit back and cry about how it's too expensive. The thing I find amusing is that now you libs want the government to take over the system so health insurance will be "affordable", however you still fail to see that instead of paying for the high premiums, you are just shifting the cost to your tax bill. The big difference is that you can change insurance companies or adjust your coverage if you feel it's too expensive.....try telling the government you want to adjust your taxes because they're just a bit too expensive.

I'm Already Queazy
You better get your medical care now, or else you won't get any if Hillary get elected.

Do you think she'll nominate Michael Moore as the Surgeon General? He seems to know so much about medicine.

We already have a good example of
government health care: the VA system.

I don't know a single vet who subjects themselves to it willingly if the have ANY other option.


Gunny
Your post implies that Obama is a part of Chicago government. This is false. Obama is an Illinois State Senator but has never been a party of city government. It is misleading to bring up problems with Chicago city government and then say "this is the land of Obama". A little bit like showing pictures of 9-11 in the background and saying "We must fight in Iraq to remain free". You put two unrelated ideas together so that people will assume an association.

Look, all you uncompassionate
right-wing fascists. Health care is a fundamental right, and I demand the gubmint and my employer provide mine for free.

Also, food, clothing and shelter are fundamental rights, so pony up. Oh, yeah, and a car. Make it a 4x4 pickup. I'll take mine in metallic blue.

Free Market Good - Government Bad
Having health insurance isn’t just about limiting one’s portion of out-of-pocket medical costs versus what the insurance company pays; it is also about what the medical provider can charge for a given service.

For example, I have Blue Cross/Blue Shield through my employer. Because we are a small operation, our deductibles and co-pays are relatively high. But because Blue Cross has negotiated an upper limit on what the providers may charge for a given procedure, my out of pocket is still considerably lower than that of the poor stiff who has no coverage. He gets presented with a bill that amounts to double retail, which is often referred to as “cost shifting,” e.g. $10 aspirin and $50 bandages. I think this is a key factor in the desire to impose Universal Health Care on us.

The solutions to this situation have already been spelled out: First, end regulation of the insurance providers so that each of us can customize our policy to our individual needs. My wife and I are too old for childbearing, so we shouldn’t be paying for an anticipated baby. We don’t smoke and we exercise, so we present lower risks for cardio/pulmonary problems. Etc. Second, implement loser pays tort reform so that malpractice insurance rates are no longer prohibitive (my wife’s a nurse and she carries her own because she is not confident that her employer wouldn’t throw her under the bus under the right circumstances). Third, make all medical insurance and expenditures deductible (until we implement the FairTax and we don’t need deductions).


Hueguenot
lol Very nice. You are a credit to your namesake.

Makes me wonder: when, exactly, did "compassion" become the primary (if not the sole) political virtue, and when did government become the only allowable means for expressing that virtue?

GOP Opportunity
Everyone has their panties in a bunch (thank you Mr. Boortz) over the idea of Hillary implementing UHC upon becoming president. However, I believe such measures must be initiated and passed by congress. Therefore, Hillary’s proposal actually provides an opportunity for the republicans if they handle it correctly. In the same vein as 1994, when the GOP ran on the Contract with America, the next round of GOP candidates could all sign onto a package that includes the above mentioned free market remedies to health care and ending other entitlements. It wouldn’t hurt if the GOP nominee pledges to pass such a package either. I wonder if they have the spine. Whatever happened to the GOP leadership? Was Newt Gingrich the only visionary in the party that could actually get things done? Where is the next Newt?

Good vs Bad
I am left with some questions. 1) If government-run universal health insurance is so bad, why do so many countries stay with it? 2) If our system is so good, why is it also so bad? It is since insurance companies began running medicine that we can't sleep soundly in the hospital the night before surgery but must get up at 4 or 5 AM to go in the day of surgery. Then as often as not we have to travel home again the same day when we are barely reacted to the anesthesia. We all know horror stories of people sent home when they still need medical and nursing care. In the hospital, bedside care barely exists any more---in all the hospitals I have been inside of lately, the bed bath has been replaced by a large moist-wipe with which the patient is supposed to wash himself off. As for long waits, last year I waited 4 months to see a specialist, and I live in a major metropolitan center where I have optimum medical facilities and private insurance.

IF we booted the illegal workers out
employers would be forced to offer us health care if they wanted to attract workers.

It's actually that simple.

If government provided health insurance is so great, why do they have to legislate forced participation?

Good question Lilly
Most people throughout the world prefer security to freedom, at least in absolute terms. That is why most modern, industrialized countries have enacted large welfare states which includes some sort of national health insurance.

Dear TCA
TCA wrote: "ejimbo thanks for your prayers. will you hope for me as well? btw i smell a little bs in your post."

No, TCA, I can vouch for what he says. I'm a Canadian, been living in NC (Durham) for about 10 yrs. I got divorced 2 yrs ago, and my ex-wife and kids had to move back to Canada (toronto area). Even after 2 years there, they still cannot find a doctor that is taking on new patients; they use a local doc-in-a-box (public clinic)...almost never the same doctor, no continuity of care...meanwhile if I have an 8:00am apt to see my dr, I see him by 8:15am, and it's been the same one for the last 3 yrs.

Thank God I escaped from Canada.

Georgia Girl
***** 10% of Americans use 90% of health care resources. These are primarily people with chronic ailments ****

Yes, and people use 90% of their lifetime health expenditures in their final year of life.

I certainly don't want to government deciding to allocate resources, because they;ll undoutedly have no problems cutting corners by pulling the plug on the old people.

"Gee, Mrs Smith...if we had diagnosed this cancer before your 66th birthday you would have been eligible for treatment. What a shame! You only missed by two weeks. Oh well, some younger, healthier income producing serf will be more valuable to our system anyway."

I'd much rather see limited resources divided up according to income. At least I have a chance of making more money, but I don't stand any chance of getting younger or more curable.

If it was truly such a great idea, people would have the freedom to opt out.



Lilly
Obama is an Illinois Democrat.

Everything else is splitting hairs.


Lilly
"I am left with some questions. 1) If government-run universal health insurance is so bad, why do so many countries stay with it?"

Because those countries have electorates which have become addicted to the taste of having the public t*t in their mouth, and refuse to give it up.

It is far more instructive to look at performance stats for countries with and without government-run health care. Such as the info Stossel gave us in the article, or the information many have helpfully provided in the comments.

It is also instructive to look at the economic health of countries which have government-run health care; many of those western European countries, for example, face a nightmare far beyond the worst of our Social Security troubles: aging native populations, supported by taxes paid by large (and growing) immigrant populations, stagnant or negative job growth with high unemployment (in France, unemployment is in the double digits, with unemployment in the under-30 demographic approaching 20%).

Socialism is ruining Europe, and the whole mess is going to collapse sooner than later.

"2) If our system is so good, why is it also so bad?"

Our system has some of the highest cancer survival rates in the world; England, with its government-run health care, has some of the lowest survival rates in Europe, let alone the world. Norway has one of the higher European rates, and though they have socialized medicine, it is paid for in large part by vast North Sea oil wealth spread over a relatively small population.

So in that regard, our system is so bad HOW, exactly?

Reply: to beowolfe
beowolfe says
"Those "47 million" aren't without access to health care. They are without health insurance."

-how do you mean? are they rich enough to pay for care up front?

it is called the emergency room which are required by law to treat anyone for any reason weither they can pay or not. please read previous post before you say stuff that makes you sound really dumb"

Serendipitiously, my local newspaper carried the story, the point of which is that the local hospital's ER will henceforth only treat "emergency" cases. For cases that triage determines is "non-emergent", referral to primary care clinics will be given; for those who remain, a co-pay or deposit is expected before treatment. (No money, no treatment for the non-emergency cases.) The hospital says: "We are hoping to reduce the number of non-emergent patients it treats." So, yeah, those without health insurance really are without health care access.

Generally speaking, hospitals are required to give care if and only if refusing care would likely result in the death of an individual within 24 hours. Unfortunately, for thousands that is too late to preserve life. (I thought that Republicans were pro-life? Apparently not.)

Pro-Life Ethics
"chr3354 writes:
and if you are found in an emergancy room with treatable cancer, why should I have to pay for YOUR medical bills??? what gives you the right to my money or any stranger who gets sick the right to your money? "

Like I said, Republicans are NOT pro-life. Don't have tens of thousands saved? Too bad, so sad, Republicans will pray at your funeral.



Oh, Georgia Gal...
You are so overmatched here, I almost feel bad for you, that is until you veer into insult. But your masochistic insistence on subjecting yourself to intllectual beat-down is like the proverbial train wreck; I can't turn away.

Typical liberal. You think that your desire to confiscate the fruits of other people's hard work and willingness to take risks, and give them to whomever you deem "deserving" makes you altuistic. It does not. Altruism is personal and involves self sacrifice. There is no self-sacrifice involved in the taking of Other People's Money, only sanctimony.

You also think that the producer's desire for the freedom to use the fruits of his labor in the way he sees fit makes him uncompassionate. In reality, he likely outgives you by a wide margin as an outgrowth of his conviction that if the government isn't the rightful dispenser of charity then he must be, but you'll never know because he won't publicize it.

And what does either thing have to do with conservatives' aversion to the wholesale slaughter of the unborn?

Why do liberals think that altruism is produced at the point of the sword or the tip of a legislator's pen?

I think...
that one could classify people as one of three types.

The first live under the conviction that each must govern himself. They do so, and teach their children to do likewise.

The second type, for whatever reason, cannot or will not govern themselves.

The first believes that one of the few legitimate roles of government is to restrain the predations of the second against the first.

The third type may or may not govern themselves but can always be identified by their feverish desire to govern others. Unfortunately, they act out this desire with a baffling indifference to restraining the second type and a perverse interest in controlling the lives of the first.

The first type can handle the second, but God save them from the third.

I don't know why
I continue to respond to tca. Like arguing with a pig, you can't change his mind and only end up soiled.

To wit, tca writes "the hardest workers in america make minimum wage."

That generalization is your opinion, and you can't substantiate it.

"people with big money usually inherit it."

Could you be more cliched? It's absolute bull, and even if you define 'big money,' you can't substantiate it, either.

"john edwards is an exception- he started poor and made it rich."

Puh-leeze. He's the best you can do for a rags-to-riches story? A shameless shyster trial lawyer who made his money exploiting grief, driving up health care costs (germane to today's conversation, yes?) and helping drive OB-GYNs out of practice?

By the way, your cliches do nothing to refute my assertion to GG that liberals labor under a hopelessly distorted view of altruism (and that liberal policies depend on the gullible buying into it).

Done for today. I'm going to go shower now.




False CPT America
That was great! You: "-the hardest workers in america make minimum wage. people with big money usually inherit it."

Exactly WHAT do you base THAT Marxist/Leninist assertion on?

If you're talking drunKenneddy, you're probably right. However, since you Lefties have now defined "big money" as almost anyone earning more than minimum wage, that was a hugely entertaining statement.

Further, I know of very few "idle rich". Most are VERY busy either earning more, working to protect what they've accumulated, or using it to enahnce the lives of others, either through wages paid or philanthropic/charitable programs.


You: "john edwards is an exception- he started poor and made it rich."

Yep. By destroying the OB-GYN medical base in North Carolina, "channeling" the "voices" of dead babies to stupid jurors, ambulance-chasing, and other pretty disgusting practices.

What a heroic guy that is! Great example!

tca writes:
"nearly every job i have ever had has been as a laborer"

Don't worry, after seeing your uh, handiwork all over Townhall, I definitely didn't mistake you for a rocket scientist.

Georigagal
chr3354 writes:
and if you are found in an emergancy room with treatable cancer, why should I have to pay for YOUR medical bills??? what gives you the right to my money or any stranger who gets sick the right to your money? "

Like I said, Republicans are NOT pro-life. Don't have tens of thousands saved? Too bad, so sad, Republicans will pray at your funeral.


umm who the bloody h311 said i was pro-life or Republican i am libertain so frankly unless your a memmber of my family or a friend i dont really care if you live or die

true captain america
you do realize that only a small percent of the so called rich really inherit money only about 1% or at most 10% most of the so called rich earn their money by working for it and making smart finacial choices.

minmum wage workers are not the hardest workers if they were then they would still be minimum wage they would have given a raise, promoted, or wised up and gotten a job where their skills were apprecated. most minimum wage earners do one or two major tasks and have someone else tell them what to do. that is not my defintion of a hard worker. now if that same worker has three jobs and is a full time student we got something there (thats me folks still dont know how i do it either)

TCA: To answer your question
I invested well while I was working and am now retired.

So solly, GI, I won't be fitting into your liberal shackles of eternal bondage.

I also make no apologies for doing well, and taking care of myself and my family. My primary responsibility, and everyone else be damned.






HilleryCare
Heck, I don't even trust gubmint to fill potholes anymore.

Hey TCA do your Research
unTrue Captain America said:
"the hardest workers in america make minimum wage. people with big money usually inherit it."

Typical Leftist class warefare!

Here are the REAL facts, from 2006:

"According to the IRS, there are 9 million households with a net worth of $1 million or more, and according to Forbes, there are now more than 300 billionaires in the United States."

"Mr. or Ms. Millionaire’s average age is 44, while the average billionaire is only 46. And this doesn’t even include inherited wealth, which accounts for a surprisingly low 3 percent of the wealthy."

Hey TCA, take your BS somewhere else!

http://www.advisortoday.com/200606/millionaires.html

2 Words for Supporters of Socialized Med
GROW UP

Wayfinder - - on Law Enforcement
Wayfinder writes:

"1. There are some things we do expect government to do, and they do well at times. One of these is Law Enforcement when they actually want to."

Actually, government doesn't even really do this well. In Los Angeles, you can call 911 and expect the police to show up in maybe an hour. Thus, there is big money being made in private security services. These companies are stepping in to fill the gaps left by government policing, and are essentially private police forces in everything but the authority to incarcerate. And I think, maybe, some companies can temporarily lock people up as well.

The reason why we want government doing law enforcement and national defense is NOT because they're good at it, but rather because we have decided as a society that only government should have the legal authority to use lethal force.

And indeed, it's probably a good thing they are inefficient at it. I'd hate to think what sort of Police State we'd turn into if the government were actually good at policing!

LIberalism is not a religion, because?
I love that Moore decides on which points he may be challenged, and on which he may not.

"Oh, let's not discuss Cuba, let's only discuss Canada and Great Britain."

Typical Leftist. When his point collapses like a house of cards, he moves the goalposts of the argument again.

Why doesn't the Left just admit that they require faith, to accept their worldview, as much as anything called a religion does?

Hillary delenda est.

Some things being overlooked...
One is that so many people have 'low paying jobs' because of the insurance premium employers pay for, whether you opt in or not. In fact, in many cases employers don't 'provide' insurance, the employees pay for it in the form of lower wages.

Secondly, the reason places like Canada and Sweden can even afford the second rate healthcare they get is because they don't pay for defense like we do. If it weren't for the US carrying the vast majority of the cost of terror prevention and containment, those other countries wouldn't be able to offer 'free' anything. They can afford what they have because it is we who are primarily footing the bill for their defense.

And seriously, do we really want healthcare administered by the same people who run Social Security, the IRS and the INS?

The Truth about Healthcare

The problem is the intellectual dishonesty of lawmakers from both parties on this issue. The real truth is we do have a dysfunctional form of socialized medicine between programs like Peach Care and free healthcare via county hospitals like Grady. And the system will become bankrupt and/or people who do pay via taxes and health insurance will keep seeing the cost go up and quality go down.

You cannot fix a problem with talking points from both sides and not being honest about the issue.

That is why I support mandatory pay health insurance for people who can afford it. We cannot have a system of using tax payers and people who do buy health insurance as an emergency back up plan for people who do not.

We must open up the system to let employers and individual have a choice to buy the same plan lawmakers, vets, and federal workers receive. This would pit private against public insurance—lets see who wins.

We must also eliminate all exclusions, which would encourage preventive medicine which is less expensive and better for consumers. At the same time people must pay extra for life-choice behavior to give an incentive to change bad health choices and promote fitness.

This is just a start.

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/the-truth-about-healthcare


GeorgiaGal check your facts
It is much easier to argue when you're not challenged by facts. But there are no 47 million uininsured. So get off it.

Those who re-enter the job market and qualify again for group health insurance benefits are not sujected to pre-existing condition exclusions. It is the law of the land, a law passed by Republicans!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.