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, July 01, 2009
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
"Better" Health Care?
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


President Obama says government will make health care cheaper and better. But there's no free lunch.

In England, health care is "free" -- as long as you don't mind waiting. People wait so long for dentist appointments that some pull their own teeth. At any one time, half a million people are waiting to get into a British hospital. A British paper reports that one hospital tried to save money by not changing bedsheets. Instead of washing sheets, the staff was encouraged to just turn them over.

Obama insists he is not "trying to bring about government-run healthcare".

"But government management does the same thing," says Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute. "To reduce costs they'll have to ration -- deny -- care."

"People line up for care, some of them die. That's what happens," says Canadian doctor David Gratzer, author of "The Cure". He liked Canada's government health care until he started treating patients.

"The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting for radiation therapy, waiting for the knee replacement so they could finally walk up to the second floor of their house." "You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! Just wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air! Just wait six months."

Polls show most Canadians like their free health care, but most people aren't sick when the poll-taker calls. Canadian doctors told us the system is cracking. One complained that he can't get heart-attack victims into the ICU.

In America, people wait in emergency rooms, too, but it's much worse in Canada. If you're sick enough to be admitted, the average wait is 23 hours.

"We can't send these patients to other hospitals. Dr. Eric Letovsky told us. "Every other emergency department in the country is just as packed as we are."

More than a million and a half Canadians say they can't find a family doctor. Some towns hold lotteries to determine who gets a doctor. In Norwood, Ontario, "20/20" videotaped a town clerk pulling the names of the lucky winners out of a lottery box. The losers must wait to see a doctor.

Shirley Healy, like many sick Canadians, came to America for surgery. Her doctor in British Columbia told her she had only a few weeks to live because a blocked artery kept her from digesting food. Yet Canadian officials called her surgery "elective."

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

It's true that America's partly profit-driven, partly bureaucratic system is expensive, and sometimes wasteful, but the pursuit of profit reduces waste and costs and gives the world the improvements in medicine that ease pain and save lives.

"[America] is the country of medical innovation. This is where people come when they need treatment," Dr. Gratzer says.

"Literally we're surrounded by medical miracles. Death by cardiovascular disease has dropped by two-thirds in the last 50 years. You've got to pay a price for that type of advancement."

Canada and England don't pay the price because they freeload off American innovation. If America adopted their systems, we could worry less about paying for health care, but we'd get 2009-level care -- forever. Government monopolies don't innovate. Profit seekers do.

We saw this in Canada, where we did find one area of medicine that offers easy access to cutting-edge technology -- CT scan, endoscopy, thoracoscopy, laparoscopy, etc. It was open 24/7. Patients didn't have to wait.

But you have to bark or meow to get that kind of treatment. Animal care is the one area of medicine that hasn't been taken over by the government. Dogs can get a CT scan in one day. For people, the waiting list is 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
The more
government intrudes upon something the worse that thing gets. You are right John. We will not see medical innovations immediately dry up but over a 10 year period the amount of innovation will certainly decrease. By that time we will be a lot worse off.

Health Care
You can certainly have cheaper Health Care and have it tomorrow, however it will be a rationed health system run by Politicians and Civil Servants. Personally I would rather have one run by Doctors and Health Care Professionals, but then maybe I am strange.


No Exemptions for Congress
How to kill the bill?

FORCE CONGRESS TO BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME SYSTEM THEY VOTE FOR THE REST OF US.

NO EXEMPTIONS!!

Socialized Medicine
It's already here, folks. You just don't have a single-payer system or rationing. In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the state board of medicine is up into the nooks and crannies of every aspect of care in our local hospital. Five years ago we had about seven reportable metrics, now there are over eighty. Tracking and compliance with these issues takes a lot of staff time and money. Add to that Medicare and their insane rules about paying for performance; they already pay pennies on the dollar, make ridiculous rules about care and then do chart reviews, looking to deduct payments when those onerous rules are not obeyed. They will take back the entire payment for a joint transplant if it becomes infected. Even if the person injures their knee in a wholly separate event. These decisioins can be appealed but less than 4% of the money is returned. Insanity! Hospitals are now more concerned about customer satisfaction and jumping through hoops than actual surgical outcomes. Give me a break!

No Frank,
you're not strange. Could you imagine a guy like Barney Frank deciding your health care and what type of care you're entitled to. Sorry, I want my doctor or specialist to help me make that choice. The future scares the heck out of me. God save the King. (King Obama)

Here's what America is getting!
For the real story on America's health care, read this blogger. This is FUNNY stuff! http://theblacksphere.net/site/obamacare-america-gets-new- proctologist/

Free health cars
As a frequent visitor to Canada, Ontario in particular as my wife was born there, I am familiar with the Canadian health care system. If one's condition is life threatening, the care is very good. But like the person from B.C that came to the USA for treatment because her condition was not "life threatening" even though in reality it was, all that treatment is wait listed. I recently have had pancreatic surgery for a pre-malignant cyst. In the US, it took little time to get the ultrasound that identified the cyst, another day for a CT scan, a week for a referral to a cancer center specialist and ultimately surgery for the pre-cancerous situation. The entire process including the actual surgery took less three months. In Canda, I would still be waiting for a referral to the specialist, which could be several months. In that time, the pre-cancerous would possibly take a turn for the worse and I would be looking at radiation/chemo and possibly worse. I, personally, take pre-malignant as life threatening, whereas in Canada, that might be different.

we have rationing now!!!
We have rationing now with our disaster of a private system!!! John Stossel, if you are going to bring up horror stories from Canada or elsewhere, you need to use horror stories from the US too, in the interest of fair reporting. We have FAR more horror stories than any other country, especially about the lives of people who have been driven into financial ruin because of medical bills. THAT never happens to Canadians or any other developed country, only the US. THAT is the tragedy of our system.

As far as innovation goes, check out how many of our pharma cos. are actually European based. It's quite a few of them. And by the way, our GOVERNMENT already pays for most research; they just license it to the cos. to clean up in profit. Would you rather have the private cos. pay for all the R+D, which they do NOT do now? They pay far more in marketing and advertising.

Health care not perfect...but
Look health care isn't perfect in the United States, but if you look at it logically not many things are. Yeah our health care costs, but I had open heart surgery 5 years ago and I was home in 4 days. Try that in Canada. Obama said out of his own mouth "maybe that old person doesn't need surgery, maybe just a pain pill, and then people will die when they are supposed to!" When am I supposed to die? And what surgeries will I may not need. I'd rather be broke and be able to get medical treatment than have a million dollars and not be able to get treatment.

rationing now ?
foxy, you assert we have rationing now, but move on to 'horror stories' before backing up your assertion. Can you elaborate on the rationing you see in our system, and in particular describe how it is worse than what has been described for Canada ?
With respect to 'horror stories', yes, there are a very small number of people in the US who get into deep financial problems due to medical costs. They get a lot of attention. But think beyond the surface for a moment. The reason that does not happen in one of these single payer utopia's is that they cannot even get access to the procedures that cause some people financial distress here. You're not allowed to go the medical extremes in other countries that most people can go to in the US.
I certainly believe our system can be improved, but it will be by opening up the insurance options available to citizens. In particular, the helpless need to have options available to them. Unfortunately we have many Americans who are willing to shell out $30K plus for a sweet ride, but think that other citizens should pay for whatever medical care they're inclined to want. Sorry, but that's messed up.

RJBjr
Hits the nail on the head.

No Exemptions for Congress

FORCE CONGRESS TO BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME SYSTEM THEY VOTE FOR THE REST OF US.

NO EXEMPTIONS

I think the constitution says something about "equal protection". State legislatures should dicate congress is subject to the health plan they infict on us, subject themselves to retirment only through FICA and make sure there are no IRS loopholes just for them. What else?

Government is bad?
All of you who have been trained to believe that the government is always bad, seem to be ignoring what it's like when a for-profit health insurance company runs the show.

It's not like we don't have to wait in line here in the US.

If you have a pre-existing condition you're going to pay through the nose, even if the do choose to cover you, which they frequently don't.

And even if you have coverage, when you get sick, the for-profit company pays employees to find someway of weaseling out of paying for your care under the guise of a "pre-existing condition".

The bottom line is that, according to the World Health Organization the US ranks 37th in terms of quality and we are, by far, number one in cost per capita, even though we don;t cover 1/6th of our population.

How can you people be so gullible as to believe the people who supporting health insurance companies? Only a fool could believe that they have your best interests in mind. Make no mistake, they are in the business of collecting as much as they possibly can in premiums and offering as little service as possible in exchange. That sounds like a good model to you idiots?

Every other industrialized nation has a public option, and in every case they run their health care more efficiently than we do. They get better overall outcomes at much less cost.

Sometimes the government is better than the private sector.

Phylo out.

mavt,
Of course. we have rationing now because of all the people who CANNOT get health care because of the cost. They are being RATIONED out of the system. How much plainer do I have to spell it out for you???

People DO get access to advanced medical care in other countries, contrary to what you might think. So many people like you are very ignorant of what other countries are really like, and have swallowed the mantra hook line and sinker that America is the best at everything. Not so.

The number of people in financial difficulty because of medical bills is not "very small" as you state. It is a VERY LARGE number and is growing. Get your head out of the sand.

You are also overlooking the fact that we are 37th down the list of outcomes. That is deplorable for the richest country in the world. Other countries' populations are just as old or older and subject to all the diseases and conditions that we are, and they still manage to provide their people with a decent basic level of care and NOT DRIVE THEM INTO BANKRUPTCY.

Phylo Out of His Mind:
Other than the military, exactly what has the US Government ever run efficiently, effectively, and exactly the way it was supposed to?

75%!
75% of people who were pushed into bankruptcy due to a health crisis ALREADY HAD INSURANCE!

That's what for-profit health insurance is all about folks. It's a total freakin scam! They take your premiums and then deny you the services you need. That's better than a government run system? Health insurance companies are crooks!

Read this story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/business/01meddebt.html?_ r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Phylo out.

SFA1973
Medicare runs at a 2% administrative overhead. The average private health insurance company runs at 12%. That's according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Put that in you pipe and smoke it, buddy.

You've been brainwashed to believe that the crooks running our health care system are better than the government. It simply isn't true. It's a lie. Don't be a useful idiot for these greedy bastards.

Phylo Out of His Mind:
Having a choice between the VA and my personal physician covered by my health insurance, I'll take my personal physician any day. Obviously, you have never been inside a VA Hospital, the prime example of what government run healthcare is, and will be if National Healthcare passes.

PHYLO! STOP EMBARISING YOURSELF...
First off I must say that I'm impressed that you are willing to put your ignorance on display for everyone else to see. Second, and I'm laughing as I write this, you use a NY Times article for your support piece- The most liberal, un factual, media outlet in America... I love it when liberal puppets run to the government for a hand out while crying that the big bad corporations are taking advantage of them, God get a life, and stop whinning like a three year old who was just told no to a candy bar. Phylo its time to grow a pair and straighten out that back bone- Take responsibility for yourself, and for the love of God stop hoping for the government to solve your problems, cause its not going to happen...

Phylo Out of His Mind writes:
SFA1973
Medicare runs at a 2% administrative overhead. The average private health insurance company runs at 12%. That's according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

That hardly answers the question. Medicare has been plagued with cost overruns since it was started, inefficiency, and outright theft and abuse. It is estimated that the NonStimulus Bill's Medicare/Medicaid's $50 billion will be reduced 10%+ by waste, fraud, and abuse.

See: http://books.google.com/books?id=tWLnQxWWk8kC&pg=PA68&lpg= PA68&dq=Medicare+cost+overruns&source=bl&ots=YYWJ5tmcOh&sig =ljA0zbOf-7YcJFb7pvg7b5Kuo9w&hl=en&ei=E2VLSqr2OcSGtgfvtt2bD Q&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=

http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0309-17.pdf

"Medicare...2% administrative overhead"
Phylo- I have one question: Who, if anybody, is covering the cost of your substance abuse treatments?

There is NO governmental agency- from the local dogcatcher to the SSA- that operates with anything remotely resembling that level of efficiency. Two kids would be hard pressed to run a lemonade stand that cleanly. I guarantee that number is so over-cooked by bureaucrats and politicians as to be utterly meaningless- assuming it wasn't just entirely fabricated out of thin air. I'd be shocked if a full, honest accounting didn't show it to be over 25%.

Medicare pi$$es away more than 2% of its budget on office supplies (ooh, but that wouldn't count under 'administrative' expense)...

Obama has lied from the beginning
Either Obama is a totally inept president or it has been his intention all along to destroy this country. The latter is not hard to believe when you consider that he spent 20 years hearing his country being condemned by a America hating, bigoted, racist, anti-Semite, who he admitted was his "spiritual mentor." That's what he called him in his memoir, "Dreams from my father." That was before he ran for president. Once he started running for president, that "spiritual mentor" became his "crazy old uncle." Obama is making up for all the perceived perceptions of Rev. Wright that this is an evil country. Obama said he was going to "change" things. We now know what he meant, dont' we? Rev. Wright, must be so proud of his protege.

Obama has lied from the beginning
Either Obama is a totally inept president or it has been his intention all along to destroy this country. The latter is not hard to believe when you consider that he spent 20 years hearing his country being condemned by a America hating, bigoted, racist, anti-Semite, who he admitted was his "spiritual mentor." That's what he called him in his memoir, "Dreams from my father." That was before he ran for president. Once he started running for president, that "spiritual mentor" became his "crazy old uncle." Obama is making up for all the perceived perceptions of Rev. Wright that this is an evil country. Obama said he was going to "change" things. We now know what he meant, dont' we? Rev. Wright, must be so proud of his protege.

Phylo and Foxy are Right
We already do have rationing and our system is already broken. This is the result of Federal Government intrusion into a free market. The HMO Act of 1973 and Medicare/Medicaid all took away the power of the individual to determine fair prices and handed that power over to the government and government sponsored companies. The inherent price fixing in these programs is largely responsible for the high cost of health care in this country. We need to unwind all Federal Government involvement in health care and leave it to the free market of individuals and doctors to determine fair prices. Some people like Phylo and Foxy either think individuals are too stupid to handle this, or they want to give up all of their individual rights to the Federal Government. Either way, you frighten me.

A mixed bag ...
http://andthepointis.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/a-mixed-bag/

Too Little Too Late
I have read these facts countless times in a dozen columns just like Stossel's here. Nothing new. But this would have been nice for John to read his column during the Obama Infomercial instead. Or at the steps of the Capitol or at a Tea Party. Sigh.

Phylo
Ever been to Canada, England, Scotland? If not you should take a trip over there and stay awhile and you will see what Government run healthcare is all about. On another note, I am not interested in giving the government 43% of the top of my income for 2nd grade healthcare and that's what they do in the UK or at least in Scotland. There is where I have been.

Insurance...
should rightfully be used as a risk management tool. The risks it should cover are relatively rare and relatively expensive or catastrophic. Premiums are collected from a pool of risk averse people to cover the expenses of the few that are actually afflicted. Actuaries estimate the premiums required to cover the risks of the insured pool. It really doesn't matter, then who pays or who provides the medical care. Of course, insurance underwriters want to minimize their costs and maximize their profits. Of course people buying insurance want premiums as low as possible and coverage as comprehensive as possible. In a rational free market, insurance underwriters compete for people to insure and will offer the lowest possible rates and menu of services and coverages. Consumer advocates rate the costs and satisfaction with various insurers. It is in everybody's interest. A single payer has no incentive to cut costs and improve services, because they feel no competitive pressure. Politicians and bureaucrats running healthcare insurance will pit taxpayers footing the costs against the afflicted who are using the costs. Now think about it. There are a lot more taxpayers who vote than there are afflicted who vote. Of course, as more and more people are taken off the tax rolls in favor of "soaking the rich", this could change. But the history in other countries is one of reduced care and little if any investment in new treatments and facilities.

Phylo
Government-run health care will be one big health insurance company. You know - the ones you hate so much.

Only worse. Since government doesn't know how to make a profit, it can only reduce costs.

Here comes the rationing. And when it starts, it will make your relationship with insurance companies a fond memory.

routine healthcare...
like other routine living expenses can pe baid on demand or prepaid. There are pros and cons to either approach, but prepaid healthcare is easier to budget. That is why it works best for routine care. I know I am going to get an annual physical and certain inoculations. Historically, the members of my family get sick x number of times requiring a doctor visit and some prescription drugs. I can estimate my rotuine healthcare expenses and negotiate a prepayment plan. If I am sicker than I guessed, the doctor loses out or my agreement may require that I pay an additional sum. If I don't get sick as often as I expected, the doctor makes some money. The doctor may elect to offer this kind of plan or not. I may choose a doctor because he offers such a plan or not. The best an insurance provider can do in this scenario is act as a broker. But you can bet that virtually all of the prepaid healthcare will be consumed. That is why insurance is inappropriate. It is like buying a maintenance plan for your car that offers periodic oil changes, car washes, tune-ups and inspections. You can either pay on demand when you obtain those services, or you can try and negotiate a better rate by prepaying the provider. When routine care is folded into insurance plans and when the choices are limited by either your employer or insurance provider, you only have a choice of what is provided. You cannot shop around and providers feel little need to offer and market alternatives.

You can argue that routine healthcare...
will reduce the chances of catastrophic illness, and that is correct. So will exercise and the correct diet. So will avoiding smoking. So insurance companies look at those things and adjust premiums higher for people who's liofestyles create higher risks. That is only fair. Anybody can get coverage, even for pre-existing conditions. It is expensive for some high risk people just like auto insurance is expensive for somebody with a history of accidents, moving violations, alcohol abuse.

As an individual, you can decide on the amount of routine healthcare you want, whether prepaid or on demand based on many factors, including family history, personal history, personal lifestyle, and risk aversion as well as your income and wealth and budget for healthcare. If you get a discount on your insurance for getting prepaid routine helathcare, that is like getting a discount on your auto insurance for taking defensive driving classes.

Bottom line...
Get the government out of the healthcare and open it up to the rigors of competiton in the free market. That is the way to reduce costs, improve services, increase options and also increase innovation.

Phylo, Foxy....
and many others continually repeat many unsubstantiated falsehoods on this board as if repeating lies will ultimately make them truths.

For example, Phylo trots out the comparison of overhead expenses between Medicare (2%) vs. the avg. commercial insurer (12%). His intention is to make readers believe 1) that Medicare is actually providing care for 2% overhead (as pointed out by another poster it can't/doesn't), 2) 12% overhead for an insurer is equal to its "profit" (it isn't) and 3) people who have insurance were bankrupted by huge expenses (most weren't...many simply didn't have the $1k-$3k combined deductible and coinsurance expense required by their policies).

In exchange for a premium, an insurer provides a contractual promises to pay for certain health care charges made by medical providers. Included in its overhead are premium taxes paid to the state(s), salaries for compliance officers, lawyers, claims examiners, customer service workers, acutaries and, of course, the dreaded marketers and sales people. In other words, lots of tax payers who are dedicated and neither greedy nor rich. The typical underwriting "profit" margin for an avg. health insurer (if they actually make an underwriting profit) is probably closer to 1-3% per year. If they make more profit, it is via investments (more in another post).

Private System?
There's a couple posters out here who keep talking about how bad our "private system" is. Where exactly is that "private system" located -- I want to get over there!

We haven't had a "private system" here since about the 1960's.

A private system would not consist of 124 bushel-baskets of federal regulations.

A private system would not be dictated to about how they can't turn anyone away that needs 'emergency' treatment. "Emergency" of course being defined as most anything from A-Z -- in the 124 bushel-baskets of regulations.

A private system would not have rows of anvils hanging over its head just waiting to fall -- in the name of: lawsuits.

A private system would be able to hire the doctors, nurses and other staff of their choosing. Rather than being dictated to about what licenses are required and the proper color-coding of their employees -- as outlined in the 124 bushel-baskets of regulations.

We used to have a "private system" in this country. The government then meddled, meddled and meddled some more in something that they know absolutely nothing about. And because of the government's continual and persistent meddling and interference, we now have a system of medical care riddled with problems.

And so what is the solution? Well quite naturally many believe that the "government" needs to run the health care system. Go figure!

But if any of you can point me in the direction of that "private system" that you keep talking about -- I would much appreciate it!

Health Insurers be damned
Amazing how many health insurance industry shills and trolls are on this site. Stossel - you're the worst scaremonger of the lot - how big is your check from the health insurers and the mega-pharmaceutical companies? What the insurers are really afraid of is competition - which is what Obama's plan proposes - a competitor, a new player in the game. Whatsamatter all you rRepublican and Libertarian fanatics - don't you like competition? That's the essence of free-market capitalism. that's what the insurers are afraid of - competition that would force them to lower costs, offer more services and quit trying to cheat policyholders out of coverage.

Phylo, Foxy II
Foxy's favorite attack mechanism is the pre-existing condition clause. I have one question for anyone who uses this argument....can you go w/o home owners insurance (not likely if you have a mortgage) then call a property & casualty insurer the moment your house catches on fire or after it's destroyed by a tornado?? Of course you can't....anymore than you can call an acquire insurance after you've wrecked your car.

NOW, if you could, can you imagine what the cost would be?? Sure you can...in fact, in Foxy's home state of TX, if your covered by a group plan with from 2-50 lives, all insurers must provide coverage for pre-existing conditions (guaranteed issue). The only protection they have is that they can charge the group premiums that are 67% higher than the insurer's best (most preferred) underwritten group rate. Virtually every state in America has similar rate regulations. And since upwards of 70% of workers are covered by small group health plans, this kind of reduces the pre-ex argument. I might add the same small group regs usually dictate the level of premium increase that an insurer can apply at renewal due to a group's "experience" (that is, resource usage) thereby reducing the "rate increase" argument as well.

I'm not saying the industry can't do better by addressing those with individual coverage and pre-ex conditions (or renewal rating problems), but do we have to overhaul the entire system to correct the problems of a much smaller universe?

Read it again


It seems that everyone would be happy if we could solve the Health care problem one way or another.

The easiest way would be to eliminate it, and we could go back to when no one had medical insurance, and we did just fine. We also didn’t spend those hundreds of billions of dollars on each doctor’s office needing a couple of people just to work on insurance records, and untold billions on insurance company employees, equipment, and buildings.

So many people want what they call a “single-payer” system, where everything is taken care by some Government financial Agency. They are not aware of the problems in other countries where the government tries to run and pay for health care.

That would still require billions of dollars of people filling out, and checking paperwork, and keeping track of all that is going on, and deciding who can and who can’t have this pill or that knife.

Well, if everyone would be as happy as they seen to think they will be, my plan will save billions.

Open a government checking account, and give every qualified, certified doctor, every medical institution in the country a checkbook. At the end of each day, they each would write a check for what they did that day, and that’s it. No records, no bookkeeping, no problem.

You don’t believe that in this perfect system, someone would steal from the Government bank account, do you? Well what are they doing today?

Well we could hire a million accountants to keep an eye on it, and randomly check what is going on, that would still be cheaper than what is done today, or proposed for tomorrow.

Devil's Advocate
I agree. I make these points when I debate health care with folks. Especially that government systems around the world freeload on innovations made in the U.S. system.

But, critics will point to life expectancy and infant mortality stats as proof that socialized medicine is better. That's the argument that needs to be dislodged and there are several approaches.

1. Show the problems with stats. These include differences in how stats are compiled in each country and the problem that too many other factors influences these stats other than health care such age demographics, lifestyles choices, ethnic diversity, crime and driving behaviors.

2. It seems that a comparison of specific health care outcomes could be convincing, but those are hard to come by. For example, what's the ratio of those who receive treatment to those who don't or the incidence of infections picked up while under medical care, or the efficacy of the treatments, i.e. are there any differences in the success rates of certain treatments.

Terry
The private system is located in South Korea. They have multiple levels of care to cater to the medical needs of all socio-economic levels. Almost all function on a pay as you go basis. Very few Koreans have health insurance. They have hospitals there that I would never want to go to, but they also have other hospitals that are every bit as technologically advanced as the hospitals here (since much or the equipment is made there). Health care there is much less expensive than it is here. Go figure.

True story
I have a friend who is a single mother so when she was laid off she and her son went on Medicaid. Ok....I get it; her son has asthma and needs to be in a doctor’s care. I "kinda" understand why she was accepted, if she were to get sick there is no family to take care of her son. You will all be happy to know that she is feeling fine and recovering nicely from her recent breast reduction...yes the tax payers paid for her reduction! When she first told me they approved it, OMG are you kidding me...that was all I could think. So buckle up everyone its gonna be a bumpy ride!

Current Health Care
We currently have a government health care system for one segment of American citizens - it is called Veterans Administration!

The VA requires the individual to provide proof of "service connected" just to qualify. Then, getting an appointment takes a minimum of 6 months to see a doctor.

The doctor seldom looks at the patient. He/she sits at a computer asking questions and typing. Then, he/she prescribes some medicine. You can either go to the pharmacy, submit your VA patient card, and wait a few hrs to get your medicine; OR, you can have the Rx mailed to you and get it in 5-7 days.

What about an emergency? If it's life-threatening you can dial 9-11 and be taken to a local hospital; OR, you can wait all day and maybe get seen before they shut down.

Well, if you "declare" chest pains, they will see you immediately for blood pressure test. If that is "off the chart" (too high or too low) you can receive treatment immediately.

THAT, my friends, is "government health care".

Fact-checking?
From Stossel's link to the story of a man who pulled out his teeth because he couldn't find an NHS dentist in Britain:

A spokesman for NHS East Riding of Yorkshire said Mr Boynton's case gave an 'inaccurate scare-mongering picture of dental service provision in East Yorkshire based solely on the claims of one man'

The spokesman said: 'As well as 34 dental practices, we have seven dental access centres across East Riding of Yorkshire, including Beverley, where Mr Boynton could access a full range of NHS dentist services.

'So there is absolutely no reason why anyone should have to resort to pulling out their own teeth. NHS East Riding of Yorkshire has invested around £1 million in helping dentists target new patients. At many of our dental practices appointments are being offered to new patients within two weeks.

The Playing Field Won't Be Level
No Wolfgang, insurers aren't afraid of competition, they know the playing field won't be level. The evidence is right there with the Medicare program where dear old Uncle pays providers approximately 83% of their "cost" dollar (not their charge dollar...their cost dollar). There's no negotiation for their services, it's "if you want any federal dollars, take it or leave it."

Hospitals, for example, are compensated by DRGs (diagnostic related groups). If the fee covers the cost of a Medicare patient, congrats...if it's more, you make money....if it's less, tough, maybe you'll win on the next one. More often than not, hospitals have been losing and shifting the costs to commercial insurers. Your beloved Gubmint is one of the biggest contributors to health care cost inflation over the past 3 decades than any other factor. And now, just like the financial crisis, so much of America wants to put the cause in charge of the solution. I just don't get it.

But Our Healthcare Will Be Free!!
John, Don't you get it, everything will be free, just like in Cuba. Just because Cuba doesn't have any medicine shouldn't detract from the fact that healthcare there is free. Free is better than not free. Where's the probelm?

purplestater
Have you ever had a toothache? 2 weeks? That is an eternity to person with a bad tooth.

My dentist will see me the same day if needed.

2 WEEKS!!!!

South Korean health care
Terry is part right about South Korea's health care. It is mostly privately run, pay-as-you-go and that works as a market-oriented way that actually keeps the costs down.

But Terry is wrong that "very few Koreans have health insurance." In fact, almost all South Koreans have mandated health insurance, which is offered on a sliding scale, depending on reported income (from income tax statements).

Canada has a better system than Stossel depicts, with the government having worked effectively to reduce waits. Britain itself has improved as well. And yes, we do have waits in the US, and other ways to keep people out, especially means-testing, and health-related bankruptcy is a looming threat to many in the US, but not in most Western European countries or advanced East Asian economies like Japan, Korea, or Taiwan.

People should look at what is done in Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and Canada to see what works and what doesn't. There are some good models out there that provide a government-coordinated system that still has private groups (both profit and non-profit) doing the work and making the decisions.


Government intervention has made medical
care more expensive. So many doctors refuse to take medicaid patients or limit the number that they do take because they are not compensated enough for the services they provide to meet their expenses. As a result the expenses that are not covered by medicaid are passed on to the privately paying customers. If government healthcare becomes the standard, look for a lot of docs going out of business. Who wants to be told how you can treat a patient?

And...
But competition and free markets will not solve anything. In fact, free-market competition among insurance providers can fracture the insurance pool and make things more expensive for consumers in the long run, as insurers race to skim off the younger, healthier insurees and leave the older or sicker ones hanging.

Sound like a good system? Does it sound fair since the younger are less likely to get sick? Why shouldn't the older ones pay more? That would be fine if we could incentivize people not to get older. It's not like smoking or dangerous driving where lower premiums can incentivize people toward healthier people: We all get old. We all get less healthy.

Insurance works that way: a system that combines all population segments into the same insurance pool betters serves everyone, especially since everyone will move from younger to older, which would move them out of affordable insurance in a fractured system (which is what a free-market insurance system would do).

red herring
rtwgmomma wrote:
""Have you ever had a toothache? 2 weeks? That is an eternity to person with a bad tooth.

My dentist will see me the same day if needed.""

The article said they could start seeing NEW PATIENTS within two weeks. It didn't refer to waiting times for EXISTING PATIENTS.

The NHS works in such a way that you should get yourself in with a local doctor and dentist, as you would in most advanced countries.

The article was about a guy who claimed he has "tried to get in at 30 dentists over the last eight years but have never been able to find one to take on NHS patients." The NHS statements at the end, about the 41 NHS-accepting practices in his area, contradicted that, and they are either affirmable or refutable.

In other words, Stossel is trying to make a case with examples that are not only extreme, but perhaps inaccurate.

Cuba's "free health care"
Dave wrote:
< < John, Don't you get it, everything will be free, just like in Cuba. Just because Cuba doesn't have any medicine shouldn't detract from the fact that healthcare there is free. Free is better than not free. Where's the probelm? > >

Despite "not having any medicine," Cuba has lower infant mortality than does the US

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook /rankorder/2091rank.html?countryName=Cuba&countryCode=CU&re gionCode=ca#CU

Life expectancy is similar to the US, and HIV/AIDS has been kept seriously in check.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook /geos/CU.html

Obama is who he is
Hey all you people who voted for this man, he told you who he was, you saw who he was, and you saw who he associated with. He will never be subjected to the life he is dooming us to and there is no end to the emperor's fools who follow him. Some of you racists, some wanting to be taken care of who don't need to be, some power seekers, some greed hungry leeches and some just plain stupid or ignorant. The people who will suffer are the hard working middle class and the people who truly need our care. Everywhere I go I see obama, can't get away from his smirking face. Now I know how the Iraqi's felt seeing Sadam everywhere.

What does it take


What does it take to get a comment, good bad or indifferent?

jim Location: CA
Reply # 37
Date: Jul 1, 2009 - 11:56 AM EST
Read it again

HMO
Although HMOs are profit oriented and not government run, the way an HMO operates is a good example of what can be expected under government health care.

Birth - birthing mothers and babies were one kept for 5-7 days for necessary care. Under HMO, that was reduced to 1-3 days.

Surgery - depending on the type of surgery, patients were hospitalized for 2 weeks to 2 months. Under HMO, it was reduced to a max of 1 week - and some surgeries became out-patient (in & out same day).

Non-Standard treatment - patients needing treatment other than that provided by the Gen Practitioner had to have their "case" presented to the HMO and hoped for approval.

Emergency - Under HMO, when someone enters the emergency room, the 1st question asked is "What is wrong?" and the 2nd question is "Do you have insurance?" No insurance, you are often told to go to "the" hospital that will take you. That was changed and hospitals were required to treat anyone "regardless of the ability to pay". Ever been to an emergency room lately?

Multiply these mal-treatments by 10, and you are getting close to government health care.

Foxyloxy is a thief
If you have a need you can't provide for yourself, then someone else is forced to provide it or pay for it. That is stealing.

Why do you think you have a right to steal? If you did it to your neighbor you would be arrested. Why do you think you have the right to hire a government strongman to strongarm your neighbor for you?

You are acting like your country is immoral because they haven't provided for your need. You are the one who is immoral. You are a thief. Keep your hands off of my wallet. Go earn what you need for yourself and pay for your own need.

People like you are pathetic and should be required to live with your own consequences.

Tar & Feathers .....
I would like to see most of Congress (Democrats & Republicans) along with Obama tarred and feathered, then run out of town on a rail! I have not made up my mind if I want to replace them. We can run this Republic pretty well ourselves via referendums and the like. In fact, the less government the better this country will run!

That 23 hour thing
< < In America, people wait in emergency rooms, too, but it's much worse in Canada. If you're sick enough to be admitted, the average wait is 23 hours. > >

I just looked at the link more carefully, and it looks like this is a distortion of what's actually in the report.

If you thought that Stossel meant you have to wait 23 hours in an emergency room to see a doctor, then you've been misled.

First, from appearance in the ER to being RELEASED is average of 8.9 hours. This does not mean you have to wait nine hours to see the doctor, just to have all your treatment finished and you can go home. Not the most ideal situation, but not the dire situation depicted either.

The 23 hours is for cases where someone must be hospitalized, and it refers to the time from appearing at ER to being put into an in-patient bed (ER beds are not in-patient beds). Not the most ideal situation and far longer than Canadian targets, but it is NOT a situation where one is waiting around for 23 hours before they see a doctor.

PrupleStar
"Terry" didn't say anything about South Korea's system.

A Classic Demonstration
As any student learns in the first minute of business school, you can't minimize cost and schedule while maximizing quality. One of the three (at least) has to give - in Canada's case, it looks like cost is minimized, with quality and timeliness (schedule) suffering as a result. Pick your poison, America.

stamps and DMV
People use scare-mongering about government services, but except for the INS, I've had pretty good service from the government in California lately.

Yesterday I had to find out some information about car registration and got a polite and informed answer in five minutes. My mother went and replaced a stolen registration tag in ten minutes.

Now to see government at work, go to Mangilao, Guam, and take two letters to be sent to Bangor, Maine. Send one through the US Postal Service and the other through any private delivery service — take you pick. The next day, try sending a book or some other package.

If you can't make it to Guam, try it from Honolulu. Or Anchorage, AK. See how long it takes to process, how long it takes to travel, and compare costs.



Ann - Obama Is Who He Is
You nailed it! Some people could not have cared because they "always vote Democratic". Pure stupidity!

What is satisfying is all those people who voted for him expecting to share the good stuff but have lost jobs! I feel NO sympathy for them 'cause they got what they asked for.

Now, many of those who voted for BHO are starting to feel uneasy, but they try to find something to support they did the right thing. In fact, they come up with some truly outrageous claims to "prove" they were "smart" to vote for him.

Again, pure stupidity!

Sorry, Terry.
I meant Gayle.

Damned cataracts make it hard to read, but I can't afford the surgery.

Purplestater delusional
Gee, any chance Cuba's self-reporting on it's health care just might be self-serving? No, totalitarian dictators never lie. To be fair, we should also assume that Cubans get all this care for free, with no hidden costs, in other words, that they are just as free and prosperous as U.S. citizens, which explains why boatloads of desperate Americans are always trying to sneak into the Worker's Paradise.

All Libs know Castro invented MRI's, CAT scans, etc., which were stolen by greedy U.S. capitalists, which is why Cuba doesn't have them.

Sure.

Why Keep Arguing About the Same Thing?
Why are we arguing about who has what system and how well it does or doesn't work?

This health care move that Democrats have been trying to push for at least the last 20 years, has absolutely nothing to do with the quality or availability of health care.

Do some of you folks honestly think that politicians in Washington are worrying themselves sick; tossing and turning in bed at night -- fretting over whether you have "health care" or not?

The so-called "Health Care System" is simply the mechanism that Democrats want control over so as to dictate every aspect of American life. Period. When they get control of it, they will dictate what you can eat, drink, smoke, how much exercise you're required, what activities you can participate in, which safety requirements are mandatory - anywhere and everywhere - what your children have to have; can't do...and essentially everything about American life from A-Z.

And each time they dictate a new policy, it will be said that they are doing it to reduce the costs of health care to the American taxpayer!

Those folks are not concerned about your "Health Care." Not concerned about your children's "Health Care", nor your great-grandmother's "Health Care."

Were these folks concerned about the problems with health care -- they would have solved them many, many years ago!

terry: Exactly right!

"The so-called "Health Care System" is simply the mechanism that Democrats want control over so as to dictate every aspect of American life. Period."

And the rest is covered by Cap & Trade!


Not delusional
Tacticus X, I'm not saying Cuba's health care is better. I was only refuting what Dave said, which was "Cuba doesn't have any medicine."

Give Me Back My Money
I am tired of paying for the pet projects of both Parties.

Let my money go to my State ONLY.

Long live the 10th Amendment, repeal the 16th and 17th.

Screw the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the Executive Branch, the Judiciary Branch, and the Congress.

I would use more filthy language, but I would be accused of using dirty lang. by Summers et al.

Do not call me a Republican.
Do not call me a Conservative.
Do not call me a holier-than-thou.
Do not call me Ma'am when I am a Ms.
Do not call me a Democrat.
Do not call me a Liberal or Progressive.
Do not call me a FemiNazi.
Do not call me a Socialist.
Do not call me a Martian.
You may call me a fiscally-conservative CONSTITUTIONALIST without "party" affiliation.

I pay for the healthcare for my family, even dental. None are cost-prohibitive.

You can call me a young mother, who is afraid for the future of my children (who attend private schools) and the USA.

Keep the 22nd Amendment and support term limits.

Thank you very much.

Chinese healthcare
I wonder if Yao Ming is going back to China to have his foot cared for? Or perhaps Cuba.

Phylo
Its hard to figure out where to begin with the ignorance you put on display. Medicare only spends 2% overhaed because they are rationing it. Private insurers spend the 12% on overhead because they use more doctors and and experienced medical profressionals to review claims and customize the care for each individual. This is a good investment in keeping customers healthy and satisfied which increases their profits. Your worship of rationing overhead illustrates why we we should never trust anyone with your level of ignorance to influence our health care system. What is easier to beleive?

A. You are just profoundly ignorant.
B. Millions of Amricans spend twice as much on health care to get less value and inferior results. At the same time, we are too stupid to fix this without a governement option or intervention.


Anne
Yep, "Cap and Trade" as well.

I first heard the saying when I was much younger: "There's more than one way to skin a cat."

Call them Communists, Socialists or what have you, they're all the same: Collectivists. And the Collectivists learned in the first half of the 20th century that they could not confront the American people with their Collectivist ideas.

So they decided to use the back door and hide their intentions in supposed well-meaning ideas. They've simply been proposing one idea after another, that has a sympathetic appeal to them that will pull at the heart-strings of the American people.

Collectivists want control. And if they can flim-flam the American people into sympathetically believing that they're just trying to help the needy; the sick; and the downtrotten with their supposed compassionate concerns for "Health Care" -- they'll get the control they want through the back door.

And unfortunately, we have millions and millions of gullible Americans that continue to fall for ruse after ruse.

thumper_ID: Excellent point!

There is no question that our health care system needs "some" fixing, but why some people think that govt. take-over is the only solution boggles the rational and reasonable mind.

And you're right, phylo-dough (as well as the other liberals) don't get the "rationing" part, which they ALREADY DO in the VA.

Heaven help you if you need a certain procedure or specific type of care with the VA and they've already met their quota for the year... you get to wait until the beginning of the next fiscal year!


Anne and Terry, don't forget...
Date: Jul 1, 2009 - 1:36 PM EST
terry: Exactly right!

"'The so-called "Health Care System" is simply the mechanism that Democrats want control over so as to dictate every aspect of American life. Period.'

And the rest is covered by Cap & Trade!"

Any money may be left over after we pay for those two programs will be controlled by the government banking system.

St. Denis
Ditto. My ideal tax system would be to have all Federal revenue generated by taxing state governments (besides voluntary usage fees). Absolutely no direct Federally taxation on individuals or businesses. Any tax treaties or cooporation among state governments would have to be approved by Congress.

terry: I don't believe that there's
actually anyone who doesn't agree that our health care system needs "help," even those with the best health insurance you can get.

I just don't understand how so many people can and do buy into this Socialized health care!

But what they don't see is the "Collectivism" and control.

Not only did they "decided to use the back door and hide their intentions in supposed well-meaning they ideas" they started by RUSHING through the stimulus bill, which is exactly what they're trying to do with the health care and Cap & Trade.



(I'm considering running for POTUS on one word... "REPEAL!") :-)


Mr. Stossel
You are a shadow of your former self.

Let's start by acknowledging the dire condition of our current health care system. The percentage of GDP devoted to health care costs has doubled every year for the last 3 years. It is now %16 of GDP. That is alot!

We rank #1 in healthcare costs but our overall healthrating as a people is #31, just ahead of Costa Rica. We are paying for a new BMW but are driving off the lot in a 1982 Subaru.

So Mr. Stossell (I used to like you, BTW), what can you suggest? Oh, I forgot, you are now a second rate demagogue and can only use scare tactics.

A single payer healthcare system like Canada's is probably not the answer for America. So what is the solution? How are we going to bring these healthcare costs down and still provide acceptable service levels? Can offer anything accept fear and derision?

BTW, if you haven't noticed, America is flat broke!

Privacy
There is one silver lining with regards to the premise our socialist friends use to authorize government intervention in health care. This is a de facto repudiation of the zone of privacy the courts have wrapped around a right to abortion unencumbered by government regulation. If the government should have such wide latitude to decide which medical procedures for which to grant privacy, then the privacy is really not a right after all. When the justification for legalized abortion is built on a right to privacy, then our liberal friend’s visions of a government run health care system has to be considered unconstitutional.

Robert of CA
"Let's start by acknowledging the dire condition of our current health care system. The percentage of GDP devoted to health care costs has doubled every year for the last 3 years. It is now %16 of GDP. That is alot!" Actually, our health system is not in dire condition. We have the highest consumer approval rate on health care in the world. Our cancer survival rates and other indicators of serious care are excellent. We have a lower life expectancy than some countries SOLELY because we have more homicides, mostly gang related. We have a lower child expectancy rate because we count all births, not just children who survive for a week, as many countries do.

As to the % of GNP doubling every year for the last three years, not true. Since it is now sixteen per cent, three years ago, it would have had to be 4%, which it wasn't (4x2=8 8x2+16)

Furthermore, when I lived in a northern border state, a major cash cow for the local doctors, labs, and hospitals was Canadians coming across the border for care. If our health care system is lousy, why would they do that?

Check my next post for conditions in British hospitals. We need that free care.

'Better' Health Care???
What is the meaning of 'better' health care to you? To me it means that there is less chance of the doctor making a mistake and a shorter and less painful time being cured, whether at home or in the hospital.

To others, it means they don't have to pay for their care and treatment.

To yet others, it means that they don't have to do anything except go, at their timing, to get treatment. (i.e., no waiting in line.)

I would much prefer the existing system that continues to provide good care to having my medical care rationed or curtailed.

Free Care In Merry Old England
"Street-Porter published extracts last week of the diary of Patricia Balsom, her dying sister. They were horrifying. Among the miseries she endured was lying neglected in a mixed ward, where she was woken more than once to see a naked male patient masturbating opposite her bed. Her shocking stories prompted a flood of others.

The late Eileen Fahey, for instance, dying of cancer, was put onto a mixed geriatric ward where confused people wandered about without supervision. One man with dementia regularly masturbated at the nurses’ station and tried to get into women patients’ beds; he was a threat to them all but staff took no notice, according to her daughter Maureen. Other patients have to give answers to intimate questions in the hearing of other patients. One deaf old man was repeatedly asked when he last had an er*ction, until tears ran down his cheeks.

A former midwife described eloquently on Radio 4 the indignities of being in a 24-bed mixed-sex ward, stripped of all dignity and intimidated. Bedlam was the word she used, and it applies even more accurately to the secure psychiatric mixed ward in London endured by Susan Craig last year, after a breakdown. She suffered regular sexual harassment, with mentally ill men groping her and exposing themselves. The nurses disbelieved her and told her husband she was “flaunting herself”.

Robert
"A single payer healthcare system like Canada's is probably not the answer for America. So what is the solution? How are we going to bring these healthcare costs down and still provide acceptable service levels? Can offer anything accept fear and derision?"

The solution is to take charge and responsibility for your own health care. Instead you put it all off on your employer, or the government, etc. As to GDP and health care, have you ever asked why it is part of the GDP to begin with? Why are we measuring health care costs as part of the GDP? when you can answer that then you will know why it is so ridiculously expensive, and it has nothing to do with the free market.

ONE THING TO THINK ABOUT
Obama and others have all admitted that it will 'probably' be necessary to limit health care to patients. Obama stated that before they could allow certain types of health care, that they would need to know the usefullness of the patient for the country. An elderly retired person, for instance, wouldn't be as important as a young person just entering the job market.

But has anyone considered? Who are the most useless people in our society right now? At least most of us would immediately think of those Welfare people who never held a job in their lives and have no intention of getting one. Criminals also come to mind.

So should those people be cut off of all medical care first?

Just this afternoon I heard

obama say that he does not want the federal government to run healthcare.

In the next sentence, he said he wants the new system to decide what treatment is best for the person.

I fail to see the difference. Perhaps one of the enlightened and elitist leftists who frequent this site could explain the difference?

phylo

says we rank 37th among all countries. I wonder which of the 36 other countries he prefers to go to for his health care.

As for me, whatever the ills of our present system, and there are ills, I prefer to receive my medical care here in the good old U.S.A.

Apparently, many citizens of foreign countries aso prefer to receive their health care in the good old U.S.A. That explains why we hear so many stories about people being brought to the U.S. to receive medical treatment.

If Congress passed just three laws,

the problems of cost and coverage would be taken solved.

First, prohibit health insurance companies from charging people different prices for the same coverage. This will help control costs because the private insurers would no longer be able to cherry pick their customers.

Second, limit health insurance plans to single, couple or family plans. Make group plans illegal. This will help control costs by making health insurers provide the same services to all of their customers and making them competer for customers..

Third, give people tax credits and tax deductions basedon income for the cost of their health insurance. This will allow the currently uninsured to become insured.

None of these three changes would require the government to spend one red cent more than it is currently spending.

Almost every obama policy appears designed to reduce everyone but a few select favorites to a sub-standard level of living.

The America that used to reward hard work, innovation and success is rapidly disappearing in the rear view mirror.

45Calliber TX
In the current health care system, those with insurance are treated by medical professionals according to the coverage provisions of their respective plans and the relationships they've devloped. Those without insurance are at the luck of the draw as to what they can get pro bono. Most do receive urgent care when needed.

Under the Obamination, government gets to determine who gets what care. So someone who doesn't even know me (except perhaps what records they have as to my political persuasion, eh nod nod wink wink) gets to make a judgment as to what care I get, and whether I even get any care. After paying for my own coverage all these years, taking care of my children, spouse, and our parents, now I am to be put at the mercy of some ACORNer with a GED? You've got to be kidding.

If someone has to be denied care, let's let the market decide and let people who have taken the responsiblity to earn money and buy insurance get what they've paid for, and let the people who haven't provided any value to society or anyone for that matter, and therefore, don't have any resources, be the one's who get the short end of the stick.

How can this even be a matter for discussion.
Obama, keep you stinking filthy hands off of my privacy, my life, and my family's welfare. Who in the heck do you think you are. You are only a president, not a ruler. And despite what all of your fawning, adoring supporters say and think, you are not a God. In fact, I don't think you're very much at all.

Robert...
It has been noted that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Your statistics are interesting, but don't explain the situation or provide for an apples to apples comparison of countries.

It has been posted before, but bears repeating...
Americans enjoy a truly self-indulgent lifestyle as compared to the rest of the world. Americans are more likely to overeat, use illegal drugs, take on risks like sky diving, bungee jumping, extreme skiing, etc, travel to areas of the world where diseases unseen in the US run rampant, exhibit risky sexual behaviors, own cars and guns and other implements and machines, that if misused can lead to injury and death and face a whole host of other environmental factors that put us at risk. The fact that live as well as we do is a testament to the capability of the healthcare community. With lesser medical care, our mortality rates would likely be much higher and our life expectancies much lower. Furthermore, our healthcare is so good that it creates additional statistics. For example, we can save premature babies born earlier and earlier. You can argue whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, but it does result in higher numbers of infant deaths and infant problems compared with other countries where those babies would never have been born. I will admit that good healthcare presents a bit of a moral hazard. If you know you can go to the doctor and get some pills to make things better, you don't have to take as good care of yourself. In countries where you may not live long enough to see the doctor or receive the cure, people might just be motivated to adopt a lifestyle that is healthier.

.45 caliber...
Are you sure the measure of value to Obama isn't directly related to the likelihood you would vote for him?

More Harm Than Good, Not Free Either
I looked up the Hippocratic Oath said to be taken by doctors as a commitment to their practice of the art and science of medicine and as a guide for their lives as physicians. I expected to find “do no harm” in the Oath. I did in the purported original but not in the modern English translation.
Perhaps that is a reason for doctors and other medical caregivers not being unanimous in opposition to ObamaCare. Based on objective study of all available evidence including countries and U.S. states or other entities where government-managed health care has been or is in practice there are no advantages of government-managed health care over other means and forms of health care.
Indeed doing harm by neglect, rationing, bureaucracy and other poor practices at great expense, often leading to bankruptcy of the government entities and persons in these systems taxed at horrendous rates for less care of inferior quality is the standard. The great majority of those who have suffered or are suffering in these systems warn us against them.
Rational, sane, thinking people not subject to the misleading, misinforming lies, half truths and propaganda of failed and failing media, many like Michael Moore with questionable agendas, have seen enough one would think to know better than to fall for this scam.
A couple of examples are the myth of anthropogenic global warming since morphed by its advocates to climate change, and Obama’s several cries of “crisis” so far. Obama’s responses to the “crises” have not worked at best and are doing way more harm, again based on all the available evidence, than good. (cont.)

More Harm Than Good, Not Free Either - 2
All of this is about big government power, control and onerous taxation of we the people. Just think how quickly any and all of the global warming conferences turned from “science” to money including reparations from those who have bothered to develop for those who have not bothered to develop or have done so badly.
Remember Nancy Pelosi said in a San Francisco Chronicle interview “we view this [climate change – cap and trade on CO2 emissions, an essential for all life on the planet] as a revenue source.” She also said from Communist China hiding out from questions about her lies on CIA briefings that “every aspect of your lives [not hers or the privileged elites] must be inventoried.” Yes inventoried, taxed and charged to you in higher prices with no known ceiling.
One must be Godless, believe they are gods to accept such nonsense. Government-provided health care is so similar as to be the same. It is past time to stop the panic and to get government working for us again rather than us working for big, nanny-state government.

eddie too...
Your heart is in the right place, man, but your plan has problems as well. If a 25 year old male with no family history of medical problems and in good health and no unhealthy habits has to pay the same premiums as an old fart who has smoked and drunk and been exposed to all manner of toxins as a result of lifestyle choices, why should the young buck even buy insurance. His risk is low. The cost is too high. He would have to be extremely risk averse to accept that deal. So if a lot of these young healthy people opt out of insurance, you are back to concentrating high risk persons again and the premium cost is going to be just as high as if there were risk adjusted rates. Groups make it possible for high risks to be considered equally with low risk patients. That is good for the high risk insureds and not so good for the low risk insureds. Groups aren't generally created to "cherry pick", but are based on some non-health-rlated association like a common employer, common hobby, etc. It may not hurt to eliminate group coverages, but I'm not sure it helps either.

And while income tax credits or deductions would be beneficial in today's environment, ultimately we ought to be getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with the Fair Tax plan or something like a head tax or the previously mentioned tax on the states. But that is a whole 'nuther kettle of fish.

FeedFwd
You are quite right about the additional risk factors Americans have, except for gun ownership. There's no correlation between gun ownership and crime. For example, Maine and Vermont both have high gun ownership rates and low crime-- DC and Detroit, exactly the opposite. The rest of the factors you name, absolutely. And the ONE factor that raises our mortality rate enough to put is down the list is indeed our homicide rate. What is important is that it is not our medical system that produces the mortality, but the presence of gangs like M-13 and the other drug gangs.

The problem we face is how to take the waste out of our medical and insurance system without reducing the excellent level of care the great majority have. Remember, we have the highest level of satisfaction with medical care, even including the uninsured.

Filth
According to the latest edition of "Applied Economics" by Thomas Sowell, he cites a case in the UK when 90 patients died from infections acquired in the hospital, due to poor sanitation.

I would rather be bankrupt than dead.

Don't get me wrong...
I'm a gun owner and I would never do anything to limit the 2nd amendment. Gun ownership does allow us to protect ourselves. But there are gangs out there and other criminal elements with guns legal and illegal that are maiming and killing people right and left. We have a mixed system as you pointed out with places like DC, Detroit, and my beloved New Orleans where guns are a risk factor, especially for those who can't or won't choose to protect themselves. I'm wishing we would go to open carry here in Texas like you have in AZ, although since concealed carry was enacted, we have seen improvements in violent crime.

Hospitals...
have similar problems everywhere. You don't want to be in a hospital unless you absolutely have to be in one. Drug resistant and aggressive infections love hospitals as a place to develop ever increasing virulence.

The System fallacy
Systems theory is outdated. When politicians try to systematize with one size fits all solutions they leave a lot out, especially the flexibility that capitalism provides. Then they outlaw everything else. We don't want a system that is set in stone for the next 50 years as Medicare has been.
One thing I learned by visiting Canada is that we don't want the same people running and regulating things becasue politicians are always moving on in serach of new issues to get reelected. So, they neglect yesterday's big issue and canibalize it to pay for new initiatives. i saw this in health care and also cheap hydro which the province had literally run into the ground.

FeedFwd
The Luby's massacre was a big wake-up call for Texas. Open carry hasn't produced any shootouts at the OK Corral here-- at least not since the original shootout at the OK Corral.

ABC Blackout
JOhn's program about the health care system was knocked off by ABC in favor of Michael Jackson. Can they make it any plainer? They are so biased.

thumper

The Liberals & Progressives believe in the Tooth Fairy to pay bills and believe in that the Federal Government is the Fairy Godmother.

Having said that, almost every politician believes in the same.

And yet...
With all of the things Cons can quote, reference, or just plan make up, the US still lags in health care. Guess if we lined up all of the pros and cons, and compared them (it's called national statistics, Cons) you wold see that the US has an expensive, pitiful system.

To paraphrase the mustache: In the US, health care is "expensive" -- and you'd better not mind waiting because YOU DO. People wait so long for dentist appointments that some pull their own teeth (because they cannot afford the bills. At any one time, MORE THAN half a million people are waiting to get into a US hospital but wait until they are so bad they have to be rushed to the emergency room or die.

Amazing. And it costs us twice as much.

I really don;t care that somebody knows somebody who waited for a knee replacement. I can return volley with Canadians who have NEVER waited and some of my own family member who HAVE waited, but that gets us nowhere. We need to be looking at the overall statistics, in which the US fares poorly.

I know a Con who hates US med ins
He recently found out he has MS. He was self-insured (yes, he wasn't a freeloading Con like some) and his rates skyrocketed to the point where he could no longer afford the insurance. He was essentially dropped (as planned by the insurance company, of course) and was about to go bankrupt when his former employer hired him and placed him on their system.

This happened last year. He, the Con, voted for Obama because there is at lest a chance for single-payer or something better than the horrible system we now have where all of the decisions are in the hands of CEOs who are beholden to the board and the investors.

It is interesting to see my brother-in-law during the holidays now. Not so opinionated about how self-sufficient all Cons are now that reality smacked him in the face.

Innovation Blossoms Only In Free Markets
John Stossel wrote, "Canada and England don't pay the price because they freeload off American innovation. If America adopted their systems, we could worry less about paying for health care, but we'd get 2009-level care -- forever. Government monopolies don't innovate. Profit seekers do."

Absolutely!

The USSR went a step further. They put up an "iron curtain" and proceeded to centrally plan everything by the bureaucratic elites. Fourty years later when the curtain came down, we discovered a country that had not changed a day beyond their founding --- plus, poor and and nearly destitute!

This what Obama will do to America, if we let him. The man is an incompetent moron with a talent to babble on.

Innovation Dies With Single Care
Inthemajority offers, "With all of the things Cons can quote, reference, or just plan make up, the US still lags in health care."

Not true, of course. So, what are you making up?

It is no accident that nearly all pharmaceutical companies in the world have factories in the USA. Without a free market, innovation dies. America, with its free market, encourages innovation by popular demand which drives tomorrow's solutions.

In Socialized healthcare countries, innovations are molded by State demand. Stossel has it right, all of your countries look to America for innovation. It is the only thing that keeps them current.

Without our competitive free market, popular innovation ends.

CEO's or Politicians -- What's The Diff?
inthemajority offers, "system we now have where all of the decisions are in the hands of CEOs who are beholden to the board and the investors."

Okay, so, your answer is to put all of the decisions in the hands of your favorite politican / bureaucrat, instead? Good grief!

Why are you so eager to change one master for another? Do you really think that someone else knows better than you what is best for you? Obama loves you!

How about this, change the laws to allow any citizen to buy or sell insurance as they see fits them best? Today, an individual can buy car insurance as cheap as any corporation, plus the rates continue to drop or stabilize. Why not do the same with healthcare?

Why not let the Government take the proper role of defining the language of insurance offerings or menues, so that we each can shop for our best fit? Then, instead of healthcare conforming to a pool of elitists' demands, healthcare conforms to individual Consumer demands.

How ?
I won't even bother to argue the same points over and over as I have done on several other boards, with respects to costs, inefficiencies and rationing that occurs in our current system. I won't argue for single payer or public option either as those arguments fall on deaf ears. Rather, I would like to point to a rational conservative idea for the health care situation, which is on the opposite end of the spectrum from single payer/public option: moving to a direct patient to provider payment system, with some subsidy for the poor, and insurance existing for catastrophic illnesses and conditions. Let's assume this would drasticly reduce costs by removing the middle man (insurance companies) from routine transactions, and would force competition for service and pricing. OK. What is the conservative solution for implementing this? Do you see the selfless insurance companies voluntarily getting out the way and giving up their current very lucrative stranglehold as non-value adding participants in our health system? If they won't willingly give this up and move to a catastrophic only role, how do you propose moving to this type of system? Government regulation? Would that not be further intrusion in the free market, and violate a sacrosanct conservative principle whereby you would have government purposely putting a private company out of business or drastically changing its business model? I'm interested in hearing the conservative solution for implementing this idea.

Correction & MacMoore
The Liberals & Progressives believe in the Tooth Fairy to pay bills and believes that the Federal Government is the Fairy Godmother.

Having said that, almost every politician believes in the same.

MacMoore:

If Bernie Madoff receives a sentence of 150 years for his Ponzi Scheme, then politicians should be tarred and feathered before drawn and quartered.

Test subjects
Maybe instead of forcing this health care on everybody, we should have all Goverment employees signed up, and try it for 3-4 years and see how it works. Then we can decide if we can afford it, if it works before we commit everyone to face the concequenses.

Or Maybe every government employee that is Wealthy (over what $200K per year) they could adopt a family that is in need of health care and supply it directly. For every $200k, they could support 1 family. See how that works!!!

I'm really tired of these experimental government programs, that nobody knows the consequnces....

ROO

Read My Plump Lips

"Read my lips! There will be more taxes on energy and medical insurance (but for a household with 2 union spouses)."

George H.W. Obama

The government took care of Terry Shiavo
Now they want to take care of you.

What Should Happen

If Bernie Madoff received a sentence of 150 years for his Ponzi Scheme, then politicians should be tarred and feathered before being drawn and quartered.

inthemajority
"With all of the things Cons can quote, reference, or just plan make up,..."

Your entire post has no references or quotes. Can we assume it's made up?

"...the US still lags in health care."

Behind whom?

Obama's Townhall on Healthcare.

Once again Obama points out that Healthcare Cost are rising out of control.

Once again Obama left out the Government caused the problem in the first place.

Dogs get better healthcare in Canada
Dogs get better healthcare than people in Canada. Quite understandable. Dogs were too smart to vote for socialized medicine.

to foxyloxy, phylo, wolfgang & inthemajo
It never ceases to amaze me that so many people quote bogus information/statistics on a subject about which they know so little.

1) Health insurance and health care are not the same thing. One does not equal the other. In all regions of the United States hospitals are REQUIRED to provide service to anyone presenting at an emergency room. In addition, government operated clinics provide services in most areas of the country (for example: health departments), where the presenting individual is only required to pay according to their income level. No insurance is required.

2) The WHO uses the same measurements for all of the industrialized nations. The problem with comparison arises because the DEFINITIONS vary from country to country. For example: what is considered a "live" birth? some countries require that a newborn live for a specified time, a specific number of hours. In the US, a newborn does not have to take a breath to be considered a "live" birth.

3) Pre-existing condition arguments are a red herring. The law requires that all group coverage have limitations on pre-ex conditions and many fully insured carriers have eliminated them altogether due to the cumbersome administration. Individual plans may carry pre-existing exclusions, but a majority fo the States have "risk" pool coverage for individuals who have been denied health insurance. The premiums are affordable and the coverage is quite comparable to what is available on the open insurance market.

4) The only rationing currently is attached to government programs and HMOs.

Part 2

5) Medicare and medicaid operate on a decreased administrative margin by contracting with insurance companies such as Humana, United Healthcare, and Aetna to perform the administrative functions, such a paying claims. Then they pay providers 45 - 60% of their normal charges. That is often why providers limit the number of patients they will accept with Medicare/'caid. Most healthcare providers can't afford to run their businesses if 100% of their patient base is entitlement reimbursement.

6) Don't use the term "self-insured" unless you know what you are talking about. An individual with an individual policy is not "self-insured."

Geez! You people need to read up before you speak!


Health Care
Folks, don't drink the kool-aid that the Obamanation is peddling. I have friends and EMPLOYEES in Canada and know first hand the kind of "care" they get. The few that can afford it come to the USA to get good attention. The "treatment" provided for Cancer or Heart Attack is horrible. How would YOU like to be told "Yes, you've had a heart attack. We can see you for treatment in 3 months!" I'm sure you've already guessed the outcome in this. We do NOT want socialized medicine, health care, government management, or anything like it! Just look at the "wonderful" job your government is doing in OTHER areas! We COULD use a little help in stopping the frivolous lawsuits that cause malpractice insurance from going sky high. We all pay for it one way or another. But Congress is FILLED with Lawyers - do you think they'll do anything about it? If so, have another glass of kool-aid!

The real question is
How can an individual be willing to sacrifice people's lives to push his agenda?

More Health Care
It'll be sadly ironic to see the looks on all the pro-socialists who want big daddy to take of them when they realize that someone has to pay for it. When those of us who are footing the bill have had enough, we'll just quit work and let "Uncle Sam" take care of us. But wait - there's more - Uncle won't have anybody to tax so the house of card falls.....

And all those that think England and Canada have great health plans should either (1) move there or (2) really check it out and get the truth. Those of us that know better aren't going to be blinded by made up statistics or missing data. Really folks, is there any intelligent person that believes Al Gore? Well, he is one of many pitchmen in the "New World Order". And if you don't know what that means, just go back to sleep and dream about how it used to be..., because soon it won't matter.

A Few More Things NOT To Call Me
To St. Denis In Obama's Red America,

Loved your list of what NOT to call you! Here's what I'd add:
Do not call me a right wing terrorist.
Do not call me a bible-thumper.
Do not call me racist.
Do not call me brain-washed.
Do not call me a B itch.
Do not call me a diva.
Do not call me narcissistic.
Do not call me stupid, or an idiot.

I am an American woman who believes in the U.S. Constitution and wants the freedoms Thomas Jefferson hoped for each and every one of us... life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now THAT's the kind of change I can support!

Health Care - Epilogue
Those of you pushing for government run health care (or any of the other cute names we hear), ask yourself: "What will I do when the government tells me that I don't need heart surgery, I'm over 55 and that's just a waste of time." The "youngsters" won't think much about that. But trust me, you'll be there soon enough. And if we don't put a stop to this madness, you'll get to enjoy the results of inaction. Don't believe it? Check out England yourself - don't rely on some "spin" version coming from the pro-socialists.

smarti...
"I'm interested in hearing the conservative solution for implementing this idea."

The current system evolved because employers got a tax break and individuals didn't for buying pre-paid healthcare under the psuedonym of medical insurance. Employers were able to provide a benefit of value to an employee that cost less than providing the employee with additional pay to purchase the same benefit. At least on average... Some employees got more coverage and others less than they would have gotten privately. But employers had to manage these benefits and contracted with insurance companies to manage the benefit. And as happens anytime something is "free" and as will happen under national healthcare, employers were faced with increasing costs as employees with blanket coverages and no incentive to conserve or minimize healthcare expenses "consumed" more healthcare than was predicted. So employer costs went up and this led to addition or increase in co-pays reductions in coverage (rationing), negotiating specific agreements with specific doctor groups or HMOs, and other elements to cut costs.

The only way to get employers and by extension insurance companies out of the business of pre-paid healthcare and routine healthcare is to eliminate the incentives and requirements. Discourage rather than require employers from providing health care benefits other than catastrophic insurance. Provide incentives for people to take responsibility for their own healthcare. Allow them to create medical savings accounts (MSA) that get favorable tax treatment and put no strings on those accounts in terms of how they spend it as long as it is for medical care. You could even expand the definition of healthcare to include lifestyle management like smoking cessation treatment, diet counseling, gym memberships, etc. But now you are increasing government involvement again. So I would not go that direction. I only mention it as a possibility.

not "progressive"
Any way you look at it government intrusion into health care is a terrible idea. It is boggles the mind that anyone would think otherwise. Yet millions of so-called progressives believe that government intrusion into health care is attractive. I cannot think of one progressive element of this idea. The word progressive is defined as: “characterized by achieving progress”.

What kind of progress is achieved by reducing the supply and quality of, and innovations in, what is supplied by our current system of health care? Every objective measure of any of these shows that a decline happens when the government gets involved. We have a giant body of evidence from Canada and England that proves the decline. What kind of progress is achieved by ignoring these irrefutable facts? Now some progressive individuals will trot out the statistic that, on average, Canadians live longer than Americans. They will attempt to convince others to believe this is an objective statistic that proves their system is better than ours. To the contrary, what kind of progress is achieved by ignoring the obvious fact that this statistic is so subjective in nature as to render the mere mention of it laughable?

The only objective statistic of longevity, as it relates to the quality of health care, is measuring the success of treating a potentially terminal illness. Anyone interested in progress should start paying attention right here to this statistic and should focus their intelligent minds on seeing why this is true and what we can do to improve this already robust success. The inevitable conclusion is to keep the government out of the equation. Don’t mess with success.

RE Turning Over Sheets
At a private hospital that costs around $1000 a day unless you're on Intensive Care, in which case it costs much more, sheets are also "turned over". Unless it is stained, the top sheet is folded in half to make the draw sheet that is put over the bottom sheet for the middle half of the bed when the bed is made with new top and bottom sheets. How do I know this? My husband was the patient in the bed being made. Having a for-profit system which functions totally to enrich private insurance companies doesn't guarantee anything---except that insurance companies will be enriched.

To Phylo
No, insurance isn't a scam. The reason that insured people went bankrupt from medical expenses was that they were inadequately insured. If your treatment goes beyond the level of coverage, you are liable for the rest. People need to read the fine print and understand their policies. Most people don't, any more than they read those mortgage agreements that got them into trouble.

To Mac Moore
Actually, most American pharmaceutical manufacturies are now offshore. Guess why.

To dave
Yes, we have all heard that VA care isn't always the best. So you'd think that when Obama recently suggested a way for veterans to access any health care of their choice, they would have jumped at the chance. Didn't happen. All the vets' lobbying groups screamed so loudly that Obama dropped the suggestion. Now the same people who passed up a chance to go to the Mayo Clinic instead of the VA are telling us how lousy the VA care is as an argument against government insurance. Interesting, isn't it?

to h20skier
You think that federal authority and medical innovation don't go hand-in-hand? I wonder where you think medical research takes place, and under what circumstances, and how it is funded and administered? Try googling "National Institutes of Health". This is a huge FEDERAL complex in Bethesda MD (a suburb of Washington DC) that is the mother lode of cutting-edge medical research in the United States, and it is widely respected throughout the world---young scientists from abroad just about kill to get a place at the NIH.

When you google, you can read a list (a very long list) of projects the NIH is involved in, projects that reach into every state. The "innovation" you think will decrease if it becomes federalized, is already federalized. Next time you're in DC, drive up to Bethesda and take a look at the NIH and the National Library of Medicine (also federal).

Much research that takes place at sites other than the Bethesda campus is funded and administered through grants from the NIH. Advances in the treatment of cancer, leukemia, Alzheimer's and other neurological disease, mental illness, eye disease, metabolic and endocrine disease, heart disease, kidney disease, all kinds of disease, and all kinds of surgery, come out of NIH through research that benefits YOU. Who do you think does the "medical innovation" that you are worried about? Business does nothing unless it is going to turn a profit from doing it. It won't even make vaccines because they don't generate enough income. The NIH is not profit-driven---it investigates fields that need to be better understood so that suffering can be relieved. It is federal, and it is the gold standard of US medical research.

You are shockingly uninformed about the topic of your post.

To Ronald
I assure you that physicians are not unanimous in opposing Obamacare---the ones who are unanimous are those primarily interested in maintaining a high level of income. Most of these are in private practice and they are represented by the AMA. Physicians who work in institutional medicine, academic medicine, community medicine, etc widely support Obama.

Let me give you a real-life example of how different doctors manage their business. When I moved to a new city I was referred to a specialist who was in private practice. I required a certain procedure which I had had many times before in the doctor's office, where it is generally done. This one insisted it could be done only in a hospital operating room (BTW he was a principal in the private hospital to which he referred me). So I was admitted to the hospital and the procedure, which took five minutes, was done in the operating room. His fee was $650 and related hospital expenses came to $2000. When I protested the high numbers, he asked me why I cared since my insurance was going to pay the bills anyway. BTW this doctor had run for public office as a Republican and had pictures of Reagan all over his office, and his medical philosophy was clearly profit-motivated.

I soon transferred my care to a doctor at a university teaching hospital where doctors are on salary and divide their time among seeing patients, doing research, teaching medical students, and training young doctors. In terms of credentials in the same specialty, he outranked the first guy. When I needed the same procedure, he did it in his office. It took five minutes. I was billed for $125.

Some doctors are really into making money. The ones who are, oppose Obama because they fear their income will be diminished.

How to cut cost - pay your own bills
Am I the only person in America who can see that the third party-payer system is the cause of high health care cost?

When people paid their own medical bills, health care cost a lot less. After employer paid insurance, Medicare and Medicaid became popular, health care cost sky-rocketed.

If you are going to get something at another person's expense, what incentive do you or the seller has, not to get the most expensive thing?

Why should not health care be run like an insurance? Why should it not charge a premium based on risk factor? In our 30 years' marriage, my husband and I have never been sick. You can say we are lucky. But, more importantly, we live a healthy life style. I cannot imagine paying $12k a year for our health insurance while we don't even spend $200 a year on medical bills (copay for physical exams, accidents like poison ivy, etc.) But that is the average cost of health insurance of a family of four.

My employer provides health care insurance which costs me $200 a month. It is said that my employer's plan is worth of $10k a year. I would like to get that $10k added to my paycheck, tax free, and shop around for a high-deductible insurance. There should be a plan for those healthy or young.

The 10-90 rule applies to health care. That is, 10% of people use 90% of resourced. To be fair, we should pay our own health care insurance, like our own auto and home insurances. Better still, if we pay our own bills, that soon will drive the cost down.

Lowering Health Care Cost
The two primary ways to lower health care costs are to increase supply and to reduce law suit settlements for malpractice and product liability. Overtime premium and malpractice/product liability insurance are the two highest non-delivery costs related to health care. Paying 150% premium for people to work double shifts is only done because there aren't enough health care professinals to work the complete schedule. Working 16 hours days causes more mistakes. Allowing trial lawyers to collect exorbitant fees for suing doctors, hospitals and drug companies adds nothing to the delivery of health care.

If we were to establish tax deductible private sector medical scholarship funds allowing people to donate up to 10% of their federal tax burden as a direct tax credit we could double the number of health care professionals in the next 8 to 10 years. Tort Reform to limit malpractice/product liability law suit awards to the actual value of the damage caused would stop the flood of outrageous law suits.

These two measures alone would reduce health care cost without any government intervention. Neither are being proposed by the Dems. Guess why.

Great Job!
Typical John Stossel Style, clear writing and well-documented.
Try sharing such info with a progressive or a liberal, and you will be amazed at how they deflect! Check this out: http://www.thepersistentconservative.com/?p=101

Style Over Substance
Hurray! It's time for another episode of America's favorite show... let's judge a health care system serving tens of millions of people based on anecdotal testimony from like... 5 of them!!!

I mean who needs comprehensive scientific surveys of patient satisfaction, systematic studies of comparative health outcomes and massive databases of economic data... all of which we have available and which show conclusively that the Canadian system is superior. You can't trust hard data! I heard some guy had a bad experience once in Canada! We must all flee! Flee!

You must be so proud of yourself John. How about for your next segment you take a camera to somewhere like this:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/francis/archive/20 09/07/22/canada-s-superior-health-care-advantage.aspx

Then tell all of America about how the United States has a health care system that provides treatment to it's citizens in animal pens and pretend like you've just demonstrated that the US has the medical resources of a third world nation?

See how that works both ways? Now we can keep doing this, or we could grow the heck up and be adults. What do you say?

Style Over Substance
Hurray! It's time for another episode of America's favorite show... let's judge a health care system serving tens of millions of people based on anecdotal testimony from like... 5 of them!!!

I mean who needs comprehensive scientific surveys of patient satisfaction, systematic studies of comparative health outcomes and massive databases of economic data... all of which we have available and which show conclusively that the Canadian system is superior. You can't trust hard data! I heard some guy had a bad experience once in Canada! We must all flee! Flee!

You must be so proud of yourself John. How about for your next segment you take a camera to somewhere like this:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/francis/archive/20 09/07/22/canada-s-superior-health-care-advantage.aspx

Then tell all of America about how the United States has a health care system that provides treatment to it's citizens in animal pens and pretend like you've just demonstrated that the US has the medical resources of a third world nation?

See how that works both ways? Now we can keep doing this, or we could grow the heck up and be adults. What do you say?
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.